Try both and see which you like better. Each is more Mac-like in a different way. For example, Aquamacs brags that command-O is Mac-like (Open). However, thi

Try both and see which you like better. Each is more Mac-like in a different way. For example, Aquamacs brags that command-O is Mac-like (Open). However, this means that they use option = meta, which means other keystrokes like option-U (umlaut) are not really Mac-like. (Also, Aquamacs doesn't appear to support non-ASCII keyboard layouts at all, though it can open non-ASCII files, while in Carbon Emacs I can type Hiragana and even use the native Kanji selector.) Tradeoffs. For another, in Emacs the idea of "buffers" and "frames" (Mac windows) are completely independent concepts, while in Mac apps they're basically the same thing. Aquamacs tries to use the Mac system (only one buffer per window frame), but this appears to have some strange consequences, probably because Emacs really wasn't designed for that. (Choose Preferences, and then close that window; the preferences buffer goes away, but the window remains.) Tradeoffs. Mac OS X and Emacs have very different interfaces, so you can't be perfectly Emacs-like and Mac-like. Each implementation picks a different set of Mac features to obey. I suspect you'll gravitate towards one or the other depending on whether you've used Emacs or Mac OS X longer.