> With OS X compatibility you tend to come across with the > fact that many "OS X compatible" things are actually X11 > things. X11 certainly looks different from Aqua (the native > interface).
But imho, Gnome _does_ "look and feel" quite Mac-ish in the sense that its ergonomics has certain things in common with the Mac, even more with the old MacOS classic than with the pretty "gadget-ish" Aqua interface. For example, with its hierarchical multi-column listview, Nautilus "looks" and "feels" perfectly like the old MacOS classic Finder, something that lots of long-time Mac users miss a lot on MacOS X. Another example is MDI (or "windows inside windows"), which is a no-no on the Mac (and afaik not supported by GTK), or multi-pains (sic!). As a long-time Mac user (since system 6.0.x), I did like a lot the GUI of WingIDE (which uses GTK) because it allows me to switch from a multi-pain layout to a multi-window layout. > GTK is an example of this. There is an Aqua version of > GTK, but it seems to be rather outdated. There's a new effort for a "aqua-native" implementation: http://micke.hallendal.net/archives/2005/10/gtk-macosx.html > The newer versions > run on X11 but installing them may be just laborious or > then plain pain depending on your luck. And you still need > the X11 installed. One advantage of an X11 application is, obviously, the possibility to use it from a different computer without the requirement to install it there. "Hey, my Mac can do that for free, while your Windows needs an expensive "Server" license.!" >;-> Shhh, don't tell them about Cygwin... > So, if you are looking for something that looks like Mac > and works like Mac, do not touch anything with X11. As a long-time Mac user, I somewhat disagree, see above. :-) To me, a GTK application with a really well-thought ergonomic user interface is a lot more Mac-ish than a pile of "aqua-native" visual gadgetry. Sincerely, Wolfgang Keller -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
