[jwr]

Hmm. I tried it and I'm trying to find reasons why this is better than Apple's default Terminal.app?

It's obviously better than iterm2, but Apple's built-in terminal is actually rather fast.

[jhrmnn]

I was a happy user of Terminal.app until I got a 4K display, which I run at scaled 2.5K, so effectively rendering 7.5K. With my Macbook Air 2018, this results for example in a FPS of ~13 when scrolling full-screen in Vim with Terminal.app rendering on a CPU, which is super annoying. Kitty brings this to ~35.

[pfranz]

I've been using Terminal.app for years (I used iTerm2 before Terminal.app had some major improvements). I switched to Kitty so I could bind a shortcut key to opening a new terminal window--a habit I picked up from tiling window managers. I can't remember if I had other criteria, but Kitty has been surprisingly a quiet workhorse since I switched (I occasionally had TERM issues when ssh-ing).

[dh-g]

Depends on your usage but terminal.app is quite a bit slower then iterm2's metal renderer or Alacritty (probably kitty as well but I haven't used it).

[lloeki]

"Slower" is not a metric. Latency is, though, and Terminal.app is a top contender (and rips iterm2 to shreds, even in throughput, not that throughput matters in practice).

Please stop spreading cargo cult information dating from 10.4 days. Terminal.app has been great ever since 10.6.

https://danluu.com/term-latency/

[pfranz]

I don't think I've seen issues in practice, but I thought last time I saw benchmarks Terminal.app blew away the others. I believe it used some non-standard method to render to screen.