Alternatives to Autodesk Alias Design for Windows, Mac, Linux, Web, Android and more. Filter by license to discover only free or Open Source alternatives. This list contains a total of 17 apps similar to Autodesk Alias Design. Autodesk Alias Design 2016 SP1 for Mac. Alias Design Autodesk. Alias industrial design software powers your creative process with a range of sketching, modeling, surfacing, and visualization tools. Create compelling surface designs with Digital Prototyping tools tailored for industrial design, automotive design, and product design.

1. Autodesk Alias Design 2013 For Mac Pro
2. Autodesk Alias Design 2013 For Mac Free
3. Autodesk Alias Design 2013 For Mac Free

I worked at Autodesk from 2007 - 2011 and on Alias / Alias-related things for a good chunk of that. I was part of the team that ported Alias to MacOS. Alias development started back in the late 80s and was written for (I think) SGI machines. Back then, the company was Alias (merged with Wavefront and ultimately acquired by Autodesk in 2006) and the software was called Studio. OpenGL formalized in the early 90s and Alias (the company) ported Studio to support this nascent API. That meant that Alias could run on any OS that supported OpenGL.

This was a fantastic strategic decision because it allowed Studio to port to various flavours of Irix, HP Unix, Windows, Mac OS, and even Linux. The Linux build was/is internal. It was a little janky to use as a modeller 8 hours a day, but good enough for a development workflow. Porting to Mac OS occurred in 2008 (I think) and was a reasonably sized project. Alias renders all of its own UI in OpenGL, so in theory, it was as simple as 'Get a GLContext, and render to that'.

Of course, there were other things to deal with: - Cocoa specifics like windows / events - Various filesystem differences - IPC (Alias launches a subprocess to open new files to insulate a bad.wire file from crashing the main process) - Performance issues caused by various aged code (e.g., still a few places using display lists). I don't have any specifics for why Autodesk invested in porting Studio to MacOS back then. Apple was on the upward trend in terms of design and market share. I can speculate Apple was demanding a Mac OS version of Alias for its own use since, as others pointed out, Apple is a pretty big Autodesk customer. I agree with the other points made here that the decision was likely made that the ROI of maintaining the Apple port wasn't worth it. Sure was fun to write though.:). It's amazing for how long Maya's architecture has lasted.

I still remember the transition period over from PowerAnimator (9.5 I think) and TDI Explore to Maya. I've used first beta and still remember how similar, yet different it seemed.

OptiFX was still better in PA, at the time (and I can't believe that was a paid add-on, same with artisan - a daylight robbery of a price). I always had a sweet spot for programs made on/for SGI. Something different and magical about them. As if they were from the future. They 'learned' / 'understand' / 'realise' that they went into a thermal corner 'FOUR' years after the product was first released. Then they made announcement they are going to do a redesign, 4 years after it first released, and the redesign won't be coming out til 2019, 2 years after they made the redesign announcement.

A total of 6 years. That is the amount of care they have for 'pro' users. They then went to release an iMac Pro which many call it an interim solution. An iMac Pro capable of having two 250W chip cooled, Something the community has been calling for years for the iMac ( For so long everyone abandoned the hope already ) and some said was not possible due to cooling requirement. Turns out it wasn't a technical barrier, simply Apple won't make it. And as rumours goes, it wasn't until a very large studio decide to abandoned the Mac platform due to Mac Pro, and someone who had connection with Apple SVPs and told hem about it, before they realise how much care they have given to the pro users. Apple forgot that while it was Steve jobs bumping put new strategies and initiative that changed Apple in the long run.

It was these pro users whom bleed six colours that kept Apple alive in the first place. People have been calling for an iMac Pro type hardware “for years”? I doubt very seriously that anyone even wanted something like the iMac Pro before it was released. And as rumours goes, it wasn't until a very large studio decide to abandoned the Mac platform due to Mac Pro, and someone who had connection with Apple SVPs and told hem about it, before they realise how much care they have given to the pro users.

I doubt very seriously that one studio abandoning a product line that makes less than 10% of thier revenue made Apple panic. Apple forgot that while it was Steve jobs bumping put new strategies and initiative that changed Apple in the long run. It was these pro users whom bleed six colours that kept Apple alive in the first place. Things change. The Mac is no longer at the center of Apple’s universe. As far as what Steve thought that Apple’s direction of the Mac should be.

“If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it’s worth – and get busy on the next great thing. The PC wars are over.

Microsoft won a long time ago” If you think Jobs was tied to the Mac on his return, you weren’t paying attention. I doubt very seriously that anyone even wanted something like the iMac Pro before it was released. Not Xeon or EEC Memory, but 150W+ CPU + 150W+ GPU combination on an iMac. IMac could have been powerful, but it never was. Not because we have invested new cooling solution to cool the CPU and GPU, because the iMac were never positioned as such.

Steve Jobs wanted the Desktop to be completely silent. And it is still shipping with a HDD as default. I doubt very seriously that one studio abandoning a product line that makes less than 10% of thier revenue made Apple panic. Not a product line, but the whole Mac Ecosystem. Try Disney telling you they are throwing Mac Pro away from their production system. And it is not even 10%, likely 1% of their revenue. If you think Jobs was tied to the Mac on his return, you weren’t paying attention.

And the quote was from. How about a more recent quote. 'Truck' PCs weren't going to go away, Jobs predicted, but 'car' tablets would find a place among a larger number of users.

'This transformation is going to make some people uneasy,' Jobs said. 'People from the PC world, like you and me. It's going to make us uneasy.' If you think Jobs wasn't tied to the Mac on his return, you weren’t paying attention. Not Xeon or EEC Memory, but 150W+ CPU + 150W+ GPU combination on an iMac.

IMac could have been powerful, but it never was. Not because we have invested new cooling solution to cool the CPU and GPU, because the iMac were never positioned as such.

Steve Jobs wanted the Desktop to be completely silent. And it is still shipping with a HDD as default.

Before the iMac Pro, the Mac Pro was the computer for professionals. They made a major mistake with the 2013 Mac Pro. Apple never shipped good GPUs in Macs compared to Windows PCs. Not a product line, but the whole Mac Ecosystem.

Try Disney telling you they are throwing Mac Pro away from their production system. And it is not even 10%, likely 1% of their revenue.

If Apple’s missteps were hurting Mac revenue you would see it in their quarterly revenue where they break down the amount of revenue they make on Macs. Looking at the numbers, it hasn’t hurt Mac revenue. I would love to see a more compelling Mac Mini for instance, but I can’t honestly say that not having updated it in 4 years has hurt Apple. And the quote was from. How about a more recent quote. Jobs told people what he would do with Apple and he mostly did just that.

He milked the Mac and used it as a cash cow - He gave up competing with Microsoft and made a deal with them. He introduced iTunes, iPod, iPhone, and the iPad. He even took “Computer” out of the name of the company. He delayed the OS release that was suppose to come out in 2007 and moved engineers to the iPhone. The only slightly industry changing thing he did with the Mac after 2001 was the MacBook Air and that was overpriced and underpowered for the first two years. As far as being “tied” to the Mac, he didn’t even use a Mac until 2001 when OS X was introduced. His primary computer was a Dell running Next.

It just feels like 15 years from now we're going to be reading articles in the WSJ and NYT headlined 'How Tim Cook Pleased The Shareholders While He Destroyed Apple.' With all the political influence, brand awareness, and metric assloads of cash Apple has, it should be the best company in the world. But every day brings more headlines that make it seem like Apple's best days are behind it. It keeps stumbling - publicly and unnecessarily. I'm not going to jump on the 'Apple was better under/because of Steve Jobs' bandwagon. But this race is Apple's to lose.

And the number of small cracks appearing everywhere is becoming disturbing. I find it inexplicable how people (you are just one example of a trope) say investors are only interested in the returns on their investments. Everybody has different interests, but every person who invests is a human being living in society with many interests - nobody is a pure abstraction whose only interest is profit, and almost nobody even limits their investments to just one stock. For instance, if I own $1000 of stock in an industrial company, is it in my interest for them to dump toxic waste into the river I live next to in order to make a few extra dollars? Is it in my interest for them to commit crimes against a competitor, especially if I also own stock in that competitor? The idea that companies exist only to make profits by any means possible is the most anti-capitalist, nihilistic concept I can imagine, and I have never been clear on whether anyone sincerely believes it or if it is just a straw man. And yet and still companies pollute the environment all of the time just not in thier backyard.

Of course they care about what happens in thier neighborhood. I’m not anti capitalist by any means. I am just realistic enough not to believe the platitudes of any company - including the one that I work for. The company is just a means to provide me a paycheck. They are not my “family”, management are not my “friends”, a company will pay me as little as they think they can get away with, and they aren’t trying to change the world - even the ones that donate some tiny sliver of thier profit to charity.

There was even a freakonomics episode citing a study that companies that do “virtue signaling” can get people to work harder for less money. The annual releases are mostly cosmetic and typically only change higher-level details. They haven't made much in the way of substantive changes to the base system since 10.6. At the lower level, it's looking like abandonware.

Apple is notoriously secretive. The 'public announcement' of the new Mac Pro was a whole lot of nothing. Not one substantive detail. Am I supposed to wait until its 2019 release before making any commitment to support it? It might be terrible, and there's no information about its specifications.

'Waiting in hope' is no good for business and product planning. The hype train might work for phones, but for computer hardware it's a bit pathetic, and leaves me doubting they have a serious plan for it (as if the existing Mac Pro left us in any doubt at all). The merging of frameworks isn't of the slightest interest if you only develop for MacOS.

And the new chipsets aren't particularly noteworthy either; they are just details. As a cross-platform software developer, I really couldn't care less. But I do care about their support for industry-standard APIs. The annual releases are mostly cosmetic and typically only change higher-level details. They haven't made much in the way of substantive changes to the base system since 10.6.

At the lower level, it's looking like abandonware. How much has Windows and Linux changed during that time?

I’m not going to read off the change log of everything that Apple has changed since 10.6 Apple is notoriously secretive. The 'public announcement' of the new Mac Pro was a whole lot of nothing.

Not one substantive detail. Am I supposed to wait until its 2019 release before making any commitment to support it?

So exactly what do you have to do to support the Mac Pro specifically? Of course they didn’t have any details. They hadn’t started on it st the time.

But it still contradicts the narrative that where Apple is headed with the Mac is “unclear”. It might be terrible, and there's no information about its specifications.

'Waiting in hope' is no good for business and product planning. I can give you hint. It’s going to be a multi core Intel chip. What are you thinking you need to do to support the Mac Pro specifically. The hype train might work for phones, but for computer hardware it's a bit pathetic, and leaves me doubting they have a serious plan for it (as if the existing Mac Pro left us in any doubt at all).

Seeing they admitted they made a huge mistake with the current Mac Pro. The merging of frameworks isn't of the slightest interest if you only develop for MacOS. So the direction of the Mac APIs is of no interest to a Mac developer as is the fact that they are moving away from AppKit? Whether the fact they are merging the frameworks of IOS and MacOS are of interest to one random person on HN doesn’t mean their direction “isn’t clear”. The direction they are moving MacOS - the APIs is clear. That they are And the new chipsets aren't particularly noteworthy either; they are just details. So first it’s not clear and now “just the details” don’t matter.

As a cross-platform software developer, I really couldn't care less. But I do care about their support for industry-standard APIs. So you’re a “cross platform developer” and you’re overly concerned about the Mac Pro - a tiny sliver of a tiny sliver of the market. But you just said that you didn’t care about the merging of iOS and MacOS as a “Mac only developer”. A “cross platform developer” has much bigger issues than the graphic APIs unless you plan to do something like Electron and anyone should avoid those apps anyway.

How much have Windows and Linux changed since 10.6. But the MacOS X UNIX userland has not. It's over a decade out of date at this point. I've been increasingly running into portability problems, from missing or non-functional commands and associated command-line options, to long-fixed bugs which they haven't bothered to update. Stuff which has worked on Linux or BSD for the last 9+ years, is failing hard on MacOS. Because it's long out of date.

The OpenGL deprecation is just another nail in the coffin. What do I need to do to support the Mac Pro specifically? Well, it's a wider question than that.

It's more like: will I drop MacOS support entirely, or will this have sufficiently decent specification that it's worth re-evaluating dropping it entirely. For that, I would need to know about its GPU and VRAM, max RAM, storage options, connectivity, etc. The CPU itself isn't too exciting. And on top of that, what the software support for the GPU would be like. Such as how well supported it would be by MoltenVk, and the existing deprecated OpenGL drivers. Since I will not be using Metal, I need to know if the workarounds are acceptable, or if the result will be awful. I'm a cross-platform developer in the typical meaning of the word: cross-platform for desktops/workstations of all common operating systems.

Serious visualisation software isn't for phones. If 'cross-platform' means MacOS and iOS, then lord help us. IOS devices are toys in this realm. Poor GPUs, not enough memory, storage, or power.

Most of Apple's Macs are also woefully underpowered, and that's the big reason for abandoning the platform, because they don't actually make a system worth having for high end usage. While they admitted they made a mistake with the Mac Pro, there's zero information about whether their replacement will be adequate for high end needs, or yet another hot mess. Will they be able to return to function over form? I'm doubtful. But without some concrete and sensible information from Apple, it's looking like complete abandonment from over here.

How much have Windows and Linux changed since 10.6. But the MacOS X UNIX userland has not. Still quite vague. I've been increasingly running into portability problems, from missing or non-functional commands and associated command-line options, to long-fixed bugs which they haven't bothered to update. So you’re writing software that depends on the shell commands. Well, it's a wider question than that. It's more like: will I drop MacOS support entirely, or will this have sufficiently decent specification that it's worth re-evaluating dropping it entirely.

For that, I would need to know about its GPU and VRAM, max RAM, storage options, connectivity, etc. You’re basing your software road map on what may appear on the hardware landscape 2 years from now? I hope you didn’t base your development on Intels road map for the last few years. Since I will not be using Metal, I need to know if the workarounds are acceptable, or if the result will be awful. If you’re basing your roadmap on a deprecated API, that doesn’t say much about your product planning. I'm a cross-platform developer in the typical meaning of the word: cross-platform for desktops/workstations of all common operating systems. So you’re a “cross platform” developer complaining about Unix support on the Mac?

How is that Unix support working out on Windows? This is one public announcement, but it's inevitable that there are many more products which will cease support for MacOS.

OpenGL is an established industry-standard graphics API. Supported on every platform of note. Drop it, and you're going to lose developers who rely on it. A vendor-specific proprietary API isn't an improvement, it's regressive. There are many products which won't be able to justify a Metal port, including one of my own. Despite its ugliness, OpenGL worked everywhere and modern OpenGL is actually pretty decent.

If Apple want to retain developers, they need to have a long, hard think about their strategy here. I'll consider supporting MacOS again, if they can cut back on proprietary stuff and support the industry-standard stuff. OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan would be a good start. An established industry-standard graphics API. Supported on every platform of note. Sorry, but this mostly wishful thinking.

It is only an 'industry standard' on Linux-based systems and Android. Also Nintendo Switch has support for OpenGL, but it is not the primary graphics API. On Windows, the OpenGL driver quality story is not very rosy. A good example is WebGL. On Windows, Chrome and Firefox implement WebGL using a compatibility library (ANGLE) that maps calls to the Direct3D API. Also for QT applications it is recommended to use ANGLE on Windows. Playstation 4 has its own proprietary graphics API, Xbox uses DirectX.

It doesn't matter a whit whether or not it's the 'primary' graphics API, but rather that it's supported on a platform or not. Right now, if I use OpenGL, I can target Windows, MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD, mobile devices and others all with a single codebase. It is portable, and does work everywhere in practice. On Windows, if you're using a GPU from e.g. AMD or nVidia, be it the gaming end or the workstation end, you will also be getting a decent OpenGL implementation. If you're using software like Alias, you're not going to skimp on the GPU. Angle only exists for poor GPUs which don't have decent OpenGL Windows drivers; for software at this level, they are an irrelevance.

WebGL is a red herring. This isn't anything to do with web browsers, and everything to do with killing support for decades of software development investment by third-party ISVs. WebGL is not competing with that, and won't anytime soon. Apple here is basically saying: we don't care about the serious, high-end side of things, and screw any developers who want to develop that type of software for Mac systems. If they did, they would reimplement the OpenGL API on top of Metal; it's not like they don't have the cash to pay for it. As for proprietary gaming consoles, these are also irrelevant to the concerns here.

This isn't really about games, or gaming engines. (Though when Apple finally drops OpenGL, most of the back catalogue of games will cease to function) It's about the thousands of serious software packages out there which will no longer function on a Mac. The high-end CAD and design market.

Scientific and medical imaging. That's Apple's choice. And it's my choice to drop Mac support in consequence. They are making it clear that the Mac is no longer the platform for professional software development through their woeful hardware and their poor MacOS maintenance strategy. The market will respond to that. Can you give an example of a serious software package software that uses OpenGL and targets multiple platforms? I don't doubt you that such exist, I just don't know what to search for.

A quick look at for example high-end CAD that you mentioned, Solidworks uses OpenGL, but has as far as I can seen always been Windows only. Its also only lists FirePro and Quadro as recommended graphics cards which support my impression that only workstation-class GPUs have stable OpenGL support on Windows. Autocad uses DirectX 11 on Windows, OpenGL for the Mac version, so they already use platform specific APIs. Software with several decades old code bases, that started out with OpenGL, and perhaps even still uses some of it intermediate mode APIs or display lists, obviously have to continue to rely on it. But if you design a new piece of software today, wouldn't you want it to be able to use the graphics hardware to its full potential and use Vulcan/Metal/DirectX 12?

My specialism is scientific imaging, so here's a few examples off the top of my head: VTK would be one. It's at the core of dozens of scientific and medical imaging applications, and is being used for new specialised applications all the time. This does sophisticated volume rendering of 3D images. Used by both open source applications and proprietary. Or OpenSceneGraph, again the core of many applications, also 100% OpenGL. Or Volocity, a commercial OpenGL volume renderer which originated on the Mac, later ported to Windows, which is all OpenGL under the hood. There are hundreds of bespoke scientific and medical applications out there doing analysis and rendering of images.

OpenGL is the fundamental underpinning of most of them. Scientists have been using OpenGL for decades. (The availability of OpenGL on the Mac was why many were able to switch.) Some vendors might use DirectX when Windows only, but these are a rarity outside commercial acquisition software due to the ubiquity of Linux and Macs in this domain.

This is just the domain I know most about; there are undoubtedly many more in different domains. The workstation class GPUs have some features the gaming ones don't, but it's often equivalent hardware with different drivers, or has some extended capabilities.

Double-precision floats, etc. If you don't use these extra features, there's not much practical difference.

The actual OpenGL implementations are generally stable for all cases in my experience. The main problem is vendor implementation differences in my experience, e.g. NVidia being laxer than AMD/ATI and allowing broken code to work which others would reject. For new code, I'd like to say Vulkan, but the support isn't fully there yet.

For example, Qt 5.12 has Vulkan support but it's not yet universally available, and it's disabled by default unless you compile a custom build from source. I'm currently just starting to get to grips with it for a new project, but it will be hard to deploy for the next year or so. The drivers are there for Windows and Linux, and with the MoltenVk on MacOS X it might well work well enough (I'm yet to progress far enough test this).

Unless you are wanting to write multiple rendering backends, Metal and DirectX don't look too great for portable code. I'm hoping Vulkan will be the OpenGL replacement it's touted to be, but we'll see!

Autodesk Alias Design 2013 For Mac Pro

It’s too bad, Metal has gotten very good. Blizzard ported the Mac versions of their games over to Metal a couple years ago and has been riding up against the edge of what’s possible with Metal. As of the latest WoW update, Metal performance is ridiculously good — barely distinguishable from DX12 under Windows on the same hardware. It’s amazing, I’ve never seen any game run this well under macOS.

This may have been achievable with OpenGL, but I have doubts. Should Apple have waited for Vulkan to be finished up before making their choice of modern graphics API in iOS + macOS? Maybe, but if they had, their Vulkan implementation wouldn’t have been as mature as Metal is now and the existence of MoltenVK renders the whole thing moot anyway. Which makes me wonder, why not consider porting Alias to Vulkan? I’m not sure that OpenGL has much of a future on any platform, now that most everything will be written for DX12, Vulkan, or Metal. At best, frozen-in-time support for it will remain in Windows and Linux for a few more years, but I don’t see it being developed any further.

Didn’t Apple just jump ahead to OpenGL’s inevitable conclusion? OpenGL AZDO is conceptually very near to Vulkan and DX12.

Few years ago, I had an impression that Nvidia wanted to go this route, instead of Vulkan, if for nothing else then just to make advantage of their investment into OpenGL. However, AZDO is unusable on macOS; the OpenGL on macOS is too limited to support it. Khronos with OpenGL 4.6 made another step towards Vulkan: SPIR-V shaders. If Apple implemented 4.6, they could go all they way and implement Vulkan too. Apple, while they released the Metal 1 first, it was quite limited and there were reasons why the release was iOS only. When they came with Metal 2, which could compete with Vulkan, Vulkan was out for a year already.

Autodesk Alias Design 2013 For Mac Free

So basically they rushed to come with API, that would be exclusive to their platform and lock their developers in. There's no other use for Metal today. I've been building and running OpenGL toy applications0 on Mojave public betas without issue just to check on that.

You just get lots of deprecation warnings at compile time that you can quench by defining GLSILENCEDEPRECATION. Excerpt:./nsopenglexample.h:5:5: warning: 'NSOpenGLContext' is deprecated: first deprecated in macOS 10.14 - Please use Metal or MetalKit.Wdeprecated-declarations NSOpenGLContext. openGLContext; ^ /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX10.14.sdk/System/Library/Frameworks/AppKit.framework/Headers/NSOpenGL.h:202:12: note: 'NSOpenGLContext' has been explicitly marked deprecated here @interface NSOpenGLContext: NSObject ^ nsopenglexample.m:97:9: warning: 'glVertex3f' is deprecated: first deprecated in macOS 10.14 - OpenGL API deprecated. (Define GLSILENCEDEPRECATION to silence these warnings) -Wdeprecated-declarations glVertex3f( 0.0, 0.6, 0.0); ^ Nothing is gone yet. I suspect they'll proceed in a similar way as with OpenSSL, first deprecate, then remove headers, and keep the libs around for quite some time for legacy applications. In Mojave public beta /usr/lib still contains libssl.0.9.7.dylib and libssl.0.9.8.dylib, and it's been quite some time (El Capitan 1) since you haven't been able to build against them.

The trickier part with OpenGL though is the graphic drivers. I suppose at some point in the future drivers for fresh new GPUs won't include OpenGL support. Maybe they'll include a GL-to-Metal akin to MoltenGL in that case, maybe not, or a third-party will create just that to run legacy applications. Anyway I bet it's a long road ahead and won't happen overnight. This seems more damaging to Apple than to Autodesk. I think that's very difficult for us to judge. Apple has access to far more data than we do.

Autodesk Alias Design 2013 For Mac Free

They may have decided that Autodesk's entire market is not worth their time. Apple is a very strange company. Even though they're among the largest companies in the entire world in terms of value, they don't operate like a large company. They shift their product teams around all the time which seems to cause some products to get neglected for a really long time.

With recent releases, Apple has been breaking things every year. They remove support for Obj-C GC, 32bit apps, Open GL, they limit Apple Script, they make it hard to run unsigned code, make it harder to run certain kinds of apps, etc. Each deprecation on its own is understandable, and probably makes sense when the goal is a modern, safer OS. But when macOS is not your main target market, at some point it doesn't pay off anymore to try to keep up with the annual technology changes.

If you have a big code base, those yearly modernisations are a lot of effort. And Apple doesn't make the impression that they care about things they break. I've filed a lot of bug reports with Apple for regressions, but if it's not a mainstream issue they just won't fix it.

If you're lucky, you'll get a reply saying that they don't support your use case anymore. So they just break some stuff, and app developers need to find workarounds. I really understand if at some point the developer says, this isn't worth it, we'll just focus on the more profitable platform. At the price range of Autodesk, buying a new PC to run the software isn't really a big issue. I suppose they somewhat directly contradict Microsoft's model where they try to keep supporting certain API and ABI compatibilities for over 20 years. As 'easy' as that is for the third party developer, it might not be the best way to handle an operating system. New insights are constantly gained, and older systems still have faults; the Microsoft model leaves you with a broken system that cannot be fixed until a major redesign, the Apple model leaves you with broken third party software that can be fixed by the developer but nobody else.

Well I guess if you did a good job as the IT support person then users may like it because you spent time taking the garbage out (no candy crush, cortana, forced reboots, etc) via Group Policies and ponying up for a license that actually allows to disable all that shit. This doesn’t mean it should be considered normal - in fact putting up with this shit sets a precedent that this kind of behaviour from OS developers is deemed acceptable. This also doesn’t mention the other relatively minor issues (which macOS nevertheless gets right) like 3 different visual styles for context menus (on the taskbar, window title bar and an item on your desktop), the mess with two different way to configure the machine (Settings app and Control Panel), etc.