Hacker News .hnnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tomovo's commentslogin

Stop bragging, mine fits into a csv file.

There are exercises and supplements you can take that improve things slightly

You mean removing sense of humour? No thanks. But I can see they work.

To be fair, CSV files can be huge nowadays.

Don’t ask how I know…


The justification by Apple is that it keeps the concentricity between window corner and the red/green/yellow window controls. Which, as you may notice, it does.

It's wrong though, because the window is the higher element in the hierarchy (container) and should not be affected by what is inside. It creates a larger inconsistency than the "consistency" it supposedly brings.


Here's a Finder window screenshot from Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah: https://512pixels.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/10-0-Cheeta...

Notice two things:

1) The window chrome with traffic lights and title is entirely separate from the toolbar, not unified with the toolbar.

2) The top of the window is rounded, but the bottom of the window is not!

I think the old design was superior for several reasons, one of which is that it made the windows much easier to drag around the screen. In any case, though, even if there's an argument about concentricity and window controls, it makes no sense that the bottom of the window has the same corner radius as the top when the toolbar is only at the top.


IIRC, you could even "roll up" the window into the top window chrome, with that transparent pill button on the right.

It’s a great desktop environment. I wish I could install it. I’m trying to install the CDE on a parallel’s FreeBSD VM but it doesn’t relaunch after rebooting it.

my other comment on this post: https://hackernews.hn/item?id=47321852

Traffic light buttons were already equidistant to the edge of the window. Now they are trying to center circles in squircles[1], breaking window edges and draggability, etc.

> It creates a larger inconsistency than the "consistency" it supposedly brings.

That's why I am baffled (as many commenters here) - how did this went out all the way to release, instead of ending as an experiment at design floor.

[1] parent comment: https://hackernews.hn/item?id=47321065


Agreed.

A better solution would be to adjust the sizing/placement of the window controls (and allow the hit area to include the original placement maybe?).


Owning stock?


Sunk cost fallacy. It didn't work out, the decision was made, they move on. I like that.


Now at least parts of it are paged out...


I loved Coffee Run and the BCON24 Identity. Brilliant stuff. When it comes to Blender itself the only regret I have is that they ended support for Intel Macs but I understand it's a burden to support older platforms.


For anyone who happens to have an Intel Mac and is discouraged, Blender 4.5 is the LTS version and is still supported until at least 2027, and Blender is accepting patches that improve support.

https://devtalk.blender.org/t/deprecation-and-removal-of-mac...


Regarding the "searchability" point: I tried using the Google search field on the left to search for "openbao", which is listed right below as one of the topics. Got 0 results. Second time I tried, I got a reCaptcha from Google itself: a first in years. That's not very reassuring.


It's a pity Apple didn't choose to acquire Affinity when there was a chance. Pixelmator Pro looks like a toy app compared to Logic or Final Cut. I don't see how it could ever catch up to Photoshop. Even at such small scale it's always been very buggy in my experience and development seems to have stalled (apart from some obligatory AI features).

I am glad the standalone purchases are still available and I assume they will stay updated in sync with the subscription-based ones. I would hate my copy of Logic getting slowly obsolete..


Affinity never made mac-assed Mac apps. Pixelmator is more a Mac app than Messages or Music. That's why they bought them instead of Affinity.


Maybe. Form over function, not a surprise.


A truly well-designed Mac app is not just form, it is function as well. If you think a good Mac citizen is only what it looks like you're not looking at all.


Sadly mac-assedness doesn't automatically mean feature richness or overall robustness. Those are actually quite hard to achieve when you spend half of each year updating the UI widgets to the latest SDK and fixing new performance problems you didn't cause. That should be clear when you compare Affinity Photo and Pixelmator Pro.


Your experience couldn't be more different than mine. I love Pixelmator Pro. One of my favorite apps on my computer. Super quick and snappy. Does what I need it to. Which doesn't mean it does what everyone needs it to. I get that it isn't a Photoshop replacement. But not everyone needs a Photoshop replacement.


Your experience is starkly different than mine. Are you sure you aren’t thinking of Pixelmator, Pixelmator Pro’s much more toy-like predecessor from ~10 years ago?

My experience is that while there’s a feature and community gap for both Pixelmator Pro and Affinity, Affinity just tried to copy Photoshop, positioning it as a worse but cheaper Photoshop, while Pixelmator Pro feels like an attempt to make a better photo editor, losing some familiarity points but also being tangibly better than Photoshop at most use cases it can handle, which is many. It’s also an excellent macOS citizen. Between those two factors, it seems much more up Apple’s alley.


I guess it depends a lot on the use cases. I've used both the original Pixelmator app and the "Pro" may have been a rewrite internally but it didn't feel like a significant step up for me at the time, more like a rebrand and a way to charge for it again. And so many bugs. The development team did respond to a few of my bug reports, which was nice.


Yeah, in my experience, Pixelmator looks the part but isn't a very good software, especially for vectors. Affinity stuff doesn't look as good but gets much closer to Adobe quality tools.


I think Ladybird is becoming more than that. It's actually helping set the web standard specifications straight in many cases and a from-scratch implementation will have its own advantages once it catches up. Which it will. There's no permanent winner as long as the standards are open.


Ladybird is playing catch-up with features already done years ago. They can either break compatability, or follow. Theyre following, which makes them yet another dead end.

and, again, riddled with vulnerabilities.


I don't see any connection between catching up and being a dead end.


I'm guessing the DisplayPort is there to support the original Valve Index directly.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: