OS X Is No Longer On My Main System, But I Already Have Regrets

[Ruse]

I got no idea how you got that - the installer by default configures the network card to use dhcp via ifup (on desktops) or networkmanager (on laptops) - I just today installed 7 OpenSUSE machines at work, all work flawlessly....

It added an eth0, and that stupid named device. (which was my real lan chip.)
Only yast saw that "eth0", it did not really exist anywhere else.

So I had to use dhcpcd on the stupid name device (aka. the real card.)
Why does it detect two? Dunno.

It is a known bug since the beta versions, no one gives a flying damn. Neither will I, then.

[GreatEmerald]

Actually OS X does not have good dpi scaling when it comes to hidpi and the desktop. All they did was double the number of pixels of the Macbook screen (retina) in both x and y, and then scale the desktop and non-retina apps so that each pixel is scaled to 4 pixels. That's why you couldn't select an actual "retina resolution" desktop in OS X but instead have a default of 1280x800 (for 13" retina). If you choose a higher resolution in the Mac settings, OS X will do the same scaling but composite the windows into a larger buffer (say 3300x2100 for 1680x1050), but then scale the buffer back down to the actual screen resolution, so that everything looks smaller, but there is a performance hit and fonts and straight lines may appear blurred (because the scale factor is no longer integer).

How the Retina Macbook Pro handles scaling

(Obviously retina-enabled apps can render to the actual resolution of the display)

I do wonder if a similar scaling approach could be used to hidpi enable old Linux desktops and applications that are unlikely to ever see official hidpi support anytime soon.

I think that's about how Wayland allows handling it.

This is 2014, not 2000. People today expect to buy any hardware they desire and have what they want working on it.

Haaa. Tell that to every cellphone purchaser ever.

[d2kx]

Unity in Ubuntu 14.04 LTS has HiDPI support.

[Andrecorreia]

switch form unity to xfce?

really? why you simply not use unity? is better than xfce, better than gnome, or simply use cinnamon or kde

[genstorm]

So, basically you blame everyone else for making the wrong hardware choice in the first place, then in an even more silly move, of all the choices you had, expect a rather old piece of software to support high-end screen resolutions? You couldn't get more ridiculous.

[wizard69]

I'm not the least bit surprised!

Though honestly I didn't think HiDPI would be as significant an issue as it seems to be for you. For a daily user, where the user isn't primarily focused on code development, Mac OS really does beat all others in performance, usability and general glitch free operation.

For a daily user I switched to a MBP in 2008 and have never looked back! I can run all the Linux instances I need in a VM without problem. Further Linux runs fine on my other machines. When I want to sit down and create something though the Mac can't be beat.

I would not be surprised at all to see Michael buying a new Mac Book of some sort in a few months. Especially considering he can't afford the productivity lost.

[4r7lukm]

I don't know about OSX, but Windows 8.1 are actually quite good. After 5 years of using ArchLinux only, with various DEs, i grew tired of Linux on my main desktop and put Windows 8.1 on it. And i am really happy, they are much more stable, FASTER, with an advanced graphics stack, perfect software compatibility etc...

Why were you using Linux at all in the first place if switching to windows 8.1 of all things is something you find acceptable now. One of the main reasons people switch to linux, especially 5 years ago when linux was more bare bones, is to have complete control over their operating system. Windows 8 is a massive departure from windows 7 in that regard alone, and is worlds away from linux. Privacy and security is another big reason -- windows cannot compare in this respect either.

And before all these kids and neckbeards

Humor fail.

Linux on the Desktop sucks, it always sucked and it will always suck. I have put up with many problems over the years just because i wanted it to work, but overall, it was more trouble that it was worth...

Linux on the desktop is fantastic. Perhaps if you're not good at rigging custom solutions and figuring things out on your own, Arch linux wasn't the right distro for you in the first place.

Linux is still good for server or embedded applications, but on the Desktop it will never catch on. It is too chaotic and too amateurish to present a decent experience for the average user.

Ubuntu provides a very non-chaotic, simplified user interface. Unity has been getting continually better, and although I prefer KDE, I'd recommend unity to any novice user. It's getting to the point that Unity could easily be shipped on computers and sold at best buy, and provide a satisfying experience for most home users. Chrome OS takes it even farther towards simplification, which should be great for users with basic needs. Chrome OS isn't GNU/Linux, but it is Linux, and I expect to see greater android/chrome/gnulinux convergence as time goes on.

Michael faced a problem with high dpi on XFCE, and most suggested to try Gnome 3 or KDE... And what would that accomplish? Gnome and KDE both suck atm. For different reasons. So, maybe the dpi problem would be solved, but he would have to face other problems instead...

A lot of people like Gnome, and although I don't use it, I'd hardly say it "sucks", especially when one is comparing it to the windows or mac DEs. OSX is certainly more polished, but wayland/mir will make linux every bit as smooth as apple's Quartz. I'm not sure how one could outright say KDE "sucks", considering KDE can be configured to look/function/behave however you like, and it's objectively fast and stable.

There is no single DE that is both usable/stable and powerful/feature-complete enough.

KDE, Gnome, and Unity all are, if properly configured.

And appearence-wise, ALL suck.[/quote]

Looks are subjective. With OSX you have exactly 1 look to choose from, and 2 dock positions, and that's pretty much it. Windows is a bit better for customization, but the default look is pretty lame. In any case, linux DEs like KDE and Gnome can be customized to look like anything. There are themes to make Linux look exactly like windows 8, if for some unknown reason you find that look appealing.

Linux as a main desktop is inadequate. It is only for experimenting, hacking, hobby puproses.

Is that why it's used in hollywood and in industry/aerospace on the desktop? Is that why google uses it as their main corporate/development OS? Your statement is completely ridiculous with respect to "regular" users, too, because for the majority of people who just use the web browser and maybe email on their pc, linux offers a more stable, secure, responsive experience out of the box, when using something consumer friendly like ubuntu.

[wizard69]

I am AMAZED about the amount of ignorance on this forum on all OSes and desktop environments. Linux doesn't suck at desktop usage - the problem is people don't step out of their comfort zones, and they don't realize there isn't any 1-size-fits-all. I use LXDE on an ARM platform, XFCE on my laptop, KDE on my desktop, and if I had a tablet I'd happily put GNOME 3 on it. You will find that my arrangements have had a lot of thought and tweaking put into them to maximize their usage while being the most efficient environment for the hardware platform I put them on.

I spent many years trying to run Linux as a primary desktop system and can say without qualification that the above is pure baloney. It might be passable for a simpleton but if you demand a lot from your systems Linux simply sucks.

I'm not here to be bragging about myself, my point in this is to say that anyone who THINKS that linux is bad at being a desktop OS, anyone who THINKS that 1 DE is (in a user perspective) worse than another, is detrimentally arrogant.

Not at all, my position comes from plenty of experience with Linux, Mac OS and even Windows. Given a choice for a primary desktop/laptop machine I'd choose a Mac every time. That has nothing to do with arrogance but mostly focuses on the trouble free nature of the Mac.

If you really want a comfortable user interface, go use Windows - nobody is stopping you. But just because YOU can't spend a few minutes tweaking an interface to behave the way you want it to, it doesn't give you the right to claim the whole thing is bad. If you're unable to tweak it to your desires, you're using it for the wrong reasons!!!

I spent years trying to get a rational Linux desktop environment, it wasn't happening. I still run Linux but it will be a very long time before I switch over to Linux as a primary desktop system. Mac OS was light years ahead of the rest of the field in 2008 and has gotten dramatically better in the last couple of years. It is a great place to get work done.

Anyway, Michael, you can always install Mac on your new laptop, if you're willing to spend the time to do so. I've got retail versions of Mac (with only a modified kernel) to install on AMD systems, I'd imagine an intel-based laptop would be much easier.

Here in lies the problem, who in the hell would mess around with his money making system like that? It is great that Michael does all these low level hardware reviews but if he where to go the route you suggest I would think he has lost his mind. Michael and most professionals simply can't afford to mess around with the money maker like that!

[reCAPTCHA]

That's an universal truth, no OS does everything very well. However, for the average person with consumerish use cases, like watching netflix or playing the newest Battlefield, Windows is the obvious choice. To a software developer, Linux could be the obvious choice because of the good availability of tools. At this point the only OS that has good dpi scaling is OSX.

I am not watching Netflix, but I think it is possible to do that on Linux with Pipelight. Regarding Battlefield and games, this is probably different between generations. None of my friends, or people I know play games. Some were doing it before, but with years one gets responsibilities, familliy, and has a hard time for real hoby. Games are out of the question (except 5 minutes for 'The most wanted, or Shark evolution : )), on android'). As a matter of fact, I know a lot of students, and most of them do not play games also. So a lot of them would be perfectly fine with linux, but they got windows preinstalled, and they simply don't care. Some have switched, and are still happy.

[GreatEmerald]

Here in lies the problem, who in the hell would mess around with his money making system like that? It is great that Michael does all these low level hardware reviews but if he where to go the route you suggest I would think he has lost his mind. Michael and most professionals simply can't afford to mess around with the money maker like that!

I'd argue that professionals hire IT professionals whose job is to mess around with the money maker for them.