3 ms·

It is just people being used to efficiency and interface improved over years to be ergonomic for users. OS-X is surprising because there is a lot of marketing

It is just people being used to efficiency and interface improved over years to be ergonomic for users. OS-X is surprising because there is a lot of marketing pretending that it is the most ergonomic when it is in fact the worst, and mostly it does not really improve other time.

sbuk 2y ago
"when it is in fact the worst" That's very subjective. As a near 40-year user of Mac's, the consistency is quite remarkable. Mac OS 9 -> X was the biggest change, and even that was pretty consistent given just how different it actually was. After using Linux on and off for the last 20 or so years, I still prefer macOS when it comes to the crunch. It's not perfect, but to me at least, the best of a bad bunch. Here's the thing; GNOME and KDE copied some bits from Mac OS, some bits from CDE/Motif, and a whole lot from Windows. The reason is obvious - familiarity and that IBM AT was largely the hardware people were installing these desktops on to. The "grandma test" (i.e. I taught my Gradma/Mum to use ${desktop}) is pointless. Instead, observe young children who have never seen a desktop computer interact with them. None of them fair well. IOS and to a very slight lesser degree, Adroid fair much better. All anecdotal, but do try it out - opens you're eye to just how bad the desktop is. Real men prefer IRIX...