Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

petvas

macrumors 603
Jul 20, 2006
5,479
1,808
Munich, Germany
Clicking on the calendar on the bottom right corner will not open Outlook. This applet always displays events from the native calendar app in Windows, which is not as good as Outlook. I always hated it to have to sync my Exchange account additionally to Outlook, just to have calendar events integration in Windows. We are talking about two Microsoft apps, that do not work together, most possibly because two different teams made them. This is one of the small things in Windows which shows that attention to detail is just absent. This attention to detail is what I love on macOS..
 

SDColorado

macrumors 601
Nov 6, 2011
4,360
4,324
Highlands Ranch, CO
I am in front of the computer. I clicked on the date/time on the bottom right once. A calendar shows up. Since I have not entered anything nor synced the calendar with anything, there is no event. Now, I try to enter a new event by clicking on the plus sign. A new windows shows up on the screen mentioning about adding account to sync multiple devices. Now I know I missed the small line about adding events. Thanks. In case I want to sync with the calendar on my iPhone, should I choose iCloud?

I have both my iCloud acccount and Gmail account added to my Calandar, so I see events from both of those as well as my Outlook Calandar.

That said, I personally prefer One Calendar.
 

kazmac

macrumors G4
Mar 24, 2010
10,103
8,658
Any place but here or there....
I love some of the PC hardware, but Windows itself requires too big a learning curve for me right now and my lack of knowledge results in screwing up Windows machines almost on contact. :p That and my being unable to use trackpads...

Given Apple’s sloppy record of hardware and security in macOS (and iOS) as of late, I am hesitant to buy a new Mac even though I need one.:confused: To say nothing of the prices. I probably will capitulate though, but not sure when.
 

blackcypher

macrumors member
May 3, 2017
42
22
My 2014 15" MacBook Pro served me well, but it had the CPU voltage issue which caused it to crash all the time, I finally rectified it with a $10 app. Now I somehow cracked my screen. I decided to save some money and decided to try a Windows laptop - a surface Pro 6. The hardware wasn't that bad, Microsoft is getting closer and closer to the level set by Apple - but they are not there yet. Windows is still clunky and buggy. So I returned it and bought a base 2018 15" MacBook Pro. OS X is fluid and responsive. You don't have to pay for Office. And yes, everything just works. The keyboard is fine - I don't mind it (I did get a 4 year warranty - just in case). I still question the decision to remove the USB A port and the SD port - still, there are dongles :) OS X is the perfect OS with no competition. My old MacBook Pro did not need one system reinstall nor did it slow down with time. Once you go OS X you never...

I'm happy that you found a singular OS that you enjoy using, I actually envy that. There are a lot of things that I do like about OS X, and some things I can't stand (because it's not a pure Unix or Linux kernel). As you can tell I'm an avid Linux/Unix user and I do have work computers that have them loaded natively and not via VM.

Computers are tools, the OS is a big part of that. For me to sit behind my MBP and claim it's the best out there is silly. There are clear advantages and disadvantages to going all out into Windows, same for Linux. Each platform has its pro's and con's, and to deny that is intellectually dishonest.
 
Last edited:

MBAir2010

macrumors 604
May 30, 2018
6,975
6,354
there
i purchased a cheap canon printer in 2016 so i can print art work and scan.
after down loading drivers, settings and other tweaks, i printed a color page within 29 minutes after plugging everything in using el capitain.
today i just plugged in a usb into the dell xps which asked if i wanted to print something.
28 seconds later a printed page flew from the printer. Osx was like that just plug and play, not anymore.
 

MBAir2010

macrumors 604
May 30, 2018
6,975
6,354
there
the windows 10 experience is incredible, more responsive than Mojave and start up to visuals in seconds just with a tap of the finger, i'm extremely surprised and happy!
 

Altis

macrumors 68040
Sep 10, 2013
3,167
4,898
This is totally subjective and I hate to say it but I feel somewhat similar to the OP. There's something intangible about macOS's usability that even though I can do most of the same things in W10, it just doesn't feel as good or as polished an experience. The trackpad on the SL2 is great but it's still a far cry from Apple's in terms of both hardware and gestures. I've had to install a bunch of apps in W10 to try to replicate what's build into macOS and it still feels off and clunky. So much so that I just cannot see a switch in my future.

I feel the same way about macOS. I mean, having to install a paid application to get proper window snapping... The window management in macOS is terrible. No MS Paint type program by default. Having applications run with no windows existing. Very slow with input-blocking "animations". Closing menus because you accidentally clicked on one of the dividers. Having every annual update risk breaking tons of software, so that lots of it won't work if it hasn't been updated (or a newer version purchased).

At least they now allow folders-first in Finder, but even that took absolutely forever to get. I think the Windows Taskbar (with grouping disabled and "Use small buttons" enabled) is far more convenient for hopping around applications (similar to Xfce DE in Linux). Having iMessage in-built is also very convenient if you use it.

Not that Windows is perfect. Pretty much every default setting is the opposite from what I want (especially the telemetry stuff). At the end of the day, they're both just platforms to host your applications, and for that I find Windows to be much faster and more convenient at this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queen6 and sracer

petvas

macrumors 603
Jul 20, 2006
5,479
1,808
Munich, Germany
the windows 10 experience is incredible, more responsive than Mojave and start up to visuals in seconds just with a tap of the finger, i'm extremely surprised and happy!
Just give it some time and you will find out that nothing is perfect. Every system has its advantages and disadvantages. Windows 10 can work well, but has its own fair share of issues.
 

derekamoss

macrumors 65816
Jul 18, 2002
1,491
1,143
Houston, TX
Just give it some time and you will find out that nothing is perfect. Every system has its advantages and disadvantages. Windows 10 can work well, but has its own fair share of issues.
The same can be said about MacOS. I am one of the people who excruciatingly remember how Windows over time used to bog down, slow down, crash etc. I think I was the only tech literate person growing up in my family and man did my parents love to whore me out to any family member or friend of theirs that had any problem with their PC. I was smug with my Mac running OS X and it not running down over time but that's no longer the windows world. For me both Windows 8 and 10 have been really stable and I don't feel any of the old sluggishness from using it over time and upgrading it multiple times. As long as you don't go messing with the registry and don't go to super shady websites and use common computer sense and Wmost people will find Windows just as stable, if not more than MacOS now. It's also very light weight now. They have optimized it so it can work on systems running low end processors and 2gbs of ram just fine. My mom has a windows tablet she bought for like 200 dollars with an atom processor and 2gbs of ram and it runs smooth, she doesn't push it harder than facebook, office, hulu and solitare but still it's impressive how well it runs
 

blackcypher

macrumors member
May 3, 2017
42
22
I’ve been using Unix since before Linux existed and I have no idea what you mean by this. MacOS is just as much of a Unix as Linux is.

I too have been using Unix long before MacOS. A pure Unix kernel is not a hybrid product like Mach (for older implementations) and XNU. Similar does not equate to being identical. For example access control and sandboxing is quite different.
 
Last edited:

MBAir2010

macrumors 604
May 30, 2018
6,975
6,354
there
I am sticking with windows and getting on with my computing/entertainment life.
My last straw was trying to sync my nano with mini using mojave which will not read the ipod anymore.
Seems to me these devices and computers are not really ours when there is a bitten fruit on the machine.
since last august i have alot of annoying problems trying to get these things to work properly, and configure them the way I wanted to, since they are mine!
probably my last post here, good luck peeps!
 

Nugget

Contributor
Nov 24, 2002
2,163
1,457
Tejas Hill Country
I too have been using Unix long before MacOS. A pure Unix kernel is not a hybrid product like Mach (for older implementations) and XNU. Similar does not equate to being identical. For example access control and sandboxing is quite different.

Different than what? It sounds like perhaps you just don’t have much practical experience with Unix beyond Linux. Nobody with Unix background would ever use the phrase “pure Unix" or think that I was talking about systems being “identical” (a word I never used or even implied).

I remember back in the mid-80s a co-worker of mine had a little sticker on his monitor that read “Remember: Unix on some systems is nUxi”. We were doing a lot of integration work based on Altos Xenix back then (for MAS-90 accounting systems) and it was one of the weirdest Unixes I’ve ever had to work with.

macOS is UNIX®. Linux is not (heck, it’s even in the acronym GNU, right?). But I’m happy to admit that UNIX® certification is more of a marketing gesture than a practical difference.

On the scale of weirdness, though, macOS doesn’t even come close to the top of the list when held up against other Unix outliers like AIX or HPUX. Every Unix vendor lays their own bizarre ideas on top of the core POSIX experience, but by and large the “Unix” experience on all these various systems is unremarkably familiar. (I mean, once you learn that killall in Solaris does exactly what it says it will do).

By and large, macOS is a fairly vanilla Unix experience. Tying back to the thread, it’s why I dread leaving the platform. macOS is (in my view) the best Unix desktop experience you can get these days. That’s what I need to do my job and what I prefer for my personal use. Unix on my desktop with the fewest compromises. Linux has made great strides in the past few years, more rapidly than I can ever remember. It feels like the dynamic may be shifting finally (how long has Slashdot been promising us the year of the Linux desktop? They may have been a decade off, but I’m allowing myself to be optimistic now at least.

If I ever do finally get driven off the platform by Apple’s bad decisions it’ll be Linux where I land. But at least today that choice comes with a lot of sacrifices I’d prefer to avoid.

Microsoft’s Linux subsystem for Windows is a noble gesture, but it’s a long way from what it needs to be for my use case.

Edit to add: Here's a shot across the bow from Microsoft. Apple needs to get its act together, and fast.
 
Last edited:

blackcypher

macrumors member
May 3, 2017
42
22
Different than what? It sounds like perhaps you just don’t have much practical experience with Unix beyond Linux. Nobody with Unix background would ever use the phrase “pure Unix" or think that I was talking about systems being “identical” (a word I never used or even implied).

Linux itself is a variation of Unix, the short, crude answer is, it's a different kernel. There's no sense in developing and implementing a new kernel unless it offers something different, for example in hopes to improve or add features existing kernels lack.

Nugget said:
macOS is UNIX®. Linux is not (heck, it’s even in the acronym GNU, right?). But I’m happy to admit that UNIX® certification is more of a marketing gesture than a practical difference.

If MacOS = Unix, that would suggest there is no difference between them and that's untrue. MacOS is a derivative of Unix, a hybrid kernel joining Apple proprietary code along with BSD. I'm not saying that's inherently a bad thing. Apple obviously didn't intend on having the bulk of their customer base using their machines as you would a traditional Unix system. That's a good thing for the vast majority of retail customers. Just because you can use the same terminal commands for both does not mean the kernels themselves are the same.

However what I'm saying is, from a pure Unix perspective, most of the GUI elements can be seen as unnecessary bloatware. From a security analysis perspective, how the kernel code handles certain elements (I mentioned sandboxing earlier) differentiates one from another, memory access handling is another can determine which implementation is better at certain things than others.

Nugget said:
On the scale of weirdness, though, macOS doesn’t even come close to the top of the list when held up against other Unix outliers like AIX or HPUX. Every Unix vendor lays their own bizarre ideas on top of the core POSIX experience, but by and large the “Unix” experience on all these various systems is unremarkably familiar. (I mean, once you learn that killall in Solaris does exactly what it says it will do).

That's a fair comment. Again, computers and its respective technologies aren't the endpoints of the goal and are simply a means to an end. Computers, code and such are tools and it's not unusual to find vendors configure tools to achieve their respective goals
 

Nugget

Contributor
Nov 24, 2002
2,163
1,457
Tejas Hill Country
Linux itself is a variation of Unix, the short, crude answer is, it's a different kernel. There's no sense in developing and implementing a new kernel unless it offers something different, for example in hopes to improve or add features existing kernels lack.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Every single different flavor of Unix has its own, distinct kernel. In this regard, every Unix is different from every other Unix, and none is "more Unix" than another.

If MacOS = Unix, that would suggest there is no difference between them and that's untrue.

No, I meant precisely what I said. macOS IS UNIX® in the sense that it is certified by the Open Group as a UNIX® operating system. Linux, on the other hand, is not UNIX®. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my post.

If you're being precise, macOS is UNIX® and Linux is not.

However, obviously, the UNIX® trademark is weak and we refer to a wide variety of operating system as "Unix systems" even if they don't have certification from the Open Group. Linux comfortably falls into this bucket along with a lot of platform like the various BSDs (free, open, net, etc) and plenty of others. In that sense, Linux is "a Unix." It's a little bit less Unix than macOS, but it still counts if we're speaking broadly.

MacOS is a derivative of Unix, a hybrid kernel joining Apple proprietary code along with BSD. I'm not saying that's inherently a bad thing. Apple obviously didn't intend on having the bulk of their customer base using their machines as you would a traditional Unix system. That's a good thing for the vast majority of retail customers. Just because you can use the same terminal commands for both does not mean the kernels themselves are the same.

However what I'm saying is, from a pure Unix perspective, most of the GUI elements can be seen as unnecessary bloatware. From a security analysis perspective, how the kernel code handles certain elements (I mentioned sandboxing earlier) differentiates one from another, memory access handling is another can determine which implementation is better at certain things than others.

What are you referring to when you say "Pure Unix"? The original Bell Labs code?
 

convergent

macrumors 68040
May 6, 2008
3,034
3,083
My 2014 15" MacBook Pro served me well, but it had the CPU voltage issue which caused it to crash all the time, I finally rectified it with a $10 app. Now I somehow cracked my screen. I decided to save some money and decided to try a Windows laptop - a surface Pro 6. The hardware wasn't that bad, Microsoft is getting closer and closer to the level set by Apple - but they are not there yet. Windows is still clunky and buggy. So I returned it and bought a base 2018 15" MacBook Pro. OS X is fluid and responsive. You don't have to pay for Office. And yes, everything just works. The keyboard is fine - I don't mind it (I did get a 4 year warranty - just in case). I still question the decision to remove the USB A port and the SD port - still, there are dongles :) OS X is the perfect OS with no competition. My old MacBook Pro did not need one system reinstall nor did it slow down with time. Once you go OS X you never...

I've used both extensively and did leave OSX to go back to Windows and don't see this huge difference you are talking about. I have used a Surface Pro for a couple of years and never did a reinstall, and it hasn't slowed down. Both OSX and Windows are mature OS platforms that have pros and cons (like all things). Use what you like and be happy we have good choices. I really hope that Apple doesn't throw the towel in on OSX, because it sure seems like that would be their preference. We need at least two widely used OS platforms.
 

blackcypher

macrumors member
May 3, 2017
42
22
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Every single different flavor of Unix has its own, distinct kernel. In this regard, every Unix is different from every other Unix, and none is "more Unix" than another.

No, I meant precisely what I said. macOS IS UNIX® in the sense that it is certified by the Open Group as a UNIX® operating system. Linux, on the other hand, is not UNIX®. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my post.

I believe you and I are talking about different things. If I understand you right, your assertion of MacOS = Unix is from a marketing perspective.

I'll attempt to provide an analogy. THX is a certification for a level of audio performance for "surround sound" systems. It is not a certification stating that you have to have the internal hardware configurations identically the same. Sony for example can engineer a product differently than Onkyo, however tested against the parameters of the minimum requirements needed to be THX- certified, that's all the certification actually means is that both companies met (or exceed) those baseline requirements. That doesn't mean Sony = Onkyo. Inside both products, you can find different integrated circuits. Some forms of manufacturing can be superior/inferior, better or worse in terms of tolerances that may/may not affect long-term reliability and/or capability to continue to stay within the THX certification requirements for the life of the product.

Unix certifications follow the same premise, you need to meet the baseline requirements in order to acquire that certification. That doesn't mean OpenBSD and MacOS are identical just because of that certification. I hope that clears things up a little.

Kernel level exploits that may affect one flavor of Unix may not necessarily work the same way on another flavor of Unix that uses a different kernel without some changes to the exploit(s) themselves.
 

Nugget

Contributor
Nov 24, 2002
2,163
1,457
Tejas Hill Country
I believe you and I are talking about different things. If I understand you right, your assertion of MacOS = Unix is from a marketing perspective.

You have misunderstood my post. I discussed both the trademark and common usage of the term "Unix." Did you just stop reading after the first paragraph?

Unix certifications follow the same premise, you need to meet the baseline requirements in order to acquire that certification. That doesn't mean OpenBSD and MacOS are identical just because of that certification. I hope that clears things up a little.

This does not clear up anything at all, mostly because I have no idea why you think I believe that OpenBSD and MacOS are identical. Nobody has said that.

Kernel level exploits that may affect one flavor of Unix may not necessarily work the same way on another flavor of Unix that uses a different kernel without some changes to the exploit(s) themselves.

I can't imagine that anyone misunderstands this point, but let's not get distracted or off-topic. Really I'm just hoping to understand what it is that you mean when you use the phrase "pure Unix." That phrase is meaningless to me. What on earth are you talking about? Maybe a good way to approach this would be for you to give an example of an operating system that you think is "a pure Unix kernel" (to use your words). Since you don't believe that macOS qualifies, what does?

My position remains -- simply -- that macOS is a Unix just as much as any other Unix you can think of. It's just as much a Unix as Linux is. It's just as much a Unix as OpenBSD is. You seem to disagree with this and I'd love to understand why you hold that view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: millerj123

Nugget

Contributor
Nov 24, 2002
2,163
1,457
Tejas Hill Country
How is this "Linux is not Unix is not Posix is not macOS" semantic debate on-topic to this thread?

It's definitely a factor when evaluating other platforms as potentially suitable alternatives to macOS. If you're going to leave OS X then the similarities and differences you will encounter in your new operating system are quite important and relevant.
 

sracer

macrumors G4
Apr 9, 2010
10,403
13,285
where hip is spoken
It's definitely a factor when evaluating other platforms as potentially suitable alternatives to macOS. If you're going to leave OS X then the similarities and differences you will encounter in your new operating system are quite important and relevant.
No it isn't. For the OP's purposes, those are distinctions with a difference. But if people wanted to major in the minors it would be helpful to spin that topic off to a separate thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDColorado

Nugget

Contributor
Nov 24, 2002
2,163
1,457
Tejas Hill Country
No it isn't. For the OP's purposes, those are distinctions with a difference. But if people wanted to major in the minors it would be helpful to spin that topic off to a separate thread.

I'd say it's at least as relevant as a discussion of what specific steps are good for removing unwanted bloat from Windows. I think the thread topic is broad and covers a lot of ground, since each one of us has differing reasons for having chosen macOS as a platform and different constraints that influence our desire and ability to jump to an alternative.
 

kazmac

macrumors G4
Mar 24, 2010
10,103
8,658
Any place but here or there....
I am ready to try Windows again. The critical video conversion software I need no longer works with macOS after Sierra, and I just cannot justify spending upwards of $3.5k for a decent spec’d iMac. I cancelled three iMac orders this week as I keep coming to this decision. I just have to move past my unease and try a little harder with Windows.

While I love drawing on the iPad there’s too much frustration with hardware problems and software glitches.

I think I’ll either go Wacom or traditional too.

Yes, trackpads, mice borks, and not knowing Windows - oh my! :p

I’ll see what Asus and HP are available at Microsoft & Best Buy tomorrow. I’ll make sure I’ll tell the folks at both stores what I need. If the Asus Mini Pro Art started at $2.5k I would jump, but I need to have a long talk with the OEMs and Microsoft reps and see what they suggest.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.