osx 10.10

Apple hardware/software and related topics.
Forum rules
Any posts concerning pirated software or offering to buy/sell/trade commercial software are subject to removal.
User avatar
josehill
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3305
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: New England, USA
Contact:

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby josehill » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:54 am

ianj wrote:There is no such thing as a "reference release" of Mac OS X. You all are crazy.

Actually, there is such a thing, and it is defined in Apple's OS documentation, i.e. "a stand-alone system software package that can be installed regardless of the version of OS X currently installed (assuming the Mac is compatible with the reference release)".

That said, I originally wrote that I considered 10.6.8 to be a "reference release" (in quotes, not in caps, since I was using a phrase in a colloquial way, not in an Official Way®). I was using it to mean "the standard by which I judge other versions". In practice, I think that 10.6.8 was a truly mature release that had nearly all core functions working well, and, for the first time in OS X (IMHO), subsequent revisions of OS X did not have a compelling balance of new, useful functions/features vs removed, broken, or arbitrary functions/features. I've been upgrading and testing new Mac OS (and other OS) releases as soon as they came out since I first got interested in computers in 1984. In almost every case, I've immediately moved my personal production machines to the new OS in order to get the new functions.

Now, after being an early adopter for more than twenty-five years (and continuing to be an early adopter in other areas of tech/process), I decide that Lion and beyond haven't met my cost/benefit criteria (and I used a term informally to describe my opinion about a Mac OS version), so I'm either crazy or a luddite? Sorry - that's just wrong. :?

User avatar
ianj
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:43 am
Location: 費府

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby ianj » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:29 pm

commodorejohn wrote:Yeah, and that's great, if you like Unix.


If you don't like Unix, what are you doing here? :lol:

(couldn't resist)

As for OS X 10.6 vs. newer versions... I've been through the 10.6 -> 10.7 -> 10.8 upgrade cycle, and I have no idea what people who think something went bad after 10.6 are talking about. Unless you're like the OP and think the smaller window controls look "cheap" (huh?), or you really, really care about having colored sidebar icons, that is. But really, if you're going to obsess over the details of your UI to that level and insist that they never change, you should be using a different platform. As far as I can tell, the actual user experience is the same across all three versions.
Last edited by ianj on Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
:Fuel: :Octane: :Octane2: :Indigo2IMP:

User avatar
commodorejohn
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:22 pm
Contact:

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby commodorejohn » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:35 pm

Well you find me a better VMS forum! ;P
Computers: Amiga 1200, DEC VAXStation 4000/60, DEC MicroPDP-11/73
Synthesizers: Roland JX-10/SH-09/HS-80/MT-32/D-50, Yamaha DX7-II/V50/TX7/TG33/FB-01, Korg MS-20 Mini/ARP Odyssey/DW-8000/M1, Ensoniq SQ-80, E-mu Emax HD/Proteus-2, Casio CZ-5000, Moog Satellite, Sequential Circuits Prophet-600

GIJoe
Posts: 874
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:44 am
Location: Germany -> UK -> Germany...

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby GIJoe » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:36 pm

a computer should just do the job it is expect to, really. developers fumbling around with the latest trends in UI design and functionality for the f*ck of it just gets into my way of using it. especially if i have no choice but to run exactly this OS on that hardware. which seems to be very much the case in apple land. at least in windows-land i usually have the choice to install something that i can approve of, even if it's not the latest and greatest...
for osx, i simply don't ever upgrade the OS on the same machine, full stop. lesson learned. :) phase out machine, phase out OS version.

and the choice is very much between windows and osx for the majority who have to use certain commercial software. going linux or whatever is sadly a pipedream at this point for reasons of compatibility and practicality.

User avatar
ianj
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:43 am
Location: 費府

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby ianj » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:40 pm

6.0.8 was the best version of the System Software. Damn those developers fumbling around with the latest trends like colors and beveled buttons. User-selectable desktop pictures? Nonsense! A computer should just do the job it is expected to do. It is a tool and nobody is allowed to have fun with it or think it's pretty.

I think the only reason anyone needs Windows or Mac OS specifically anymore is that are gamers or they work with Microsoft Office documents for a living, and generally if you do, you do it on a machine provided by your employer, not your personal box. Same goes for any other commercial software one might use on the job.
:Fuel: :Octane: :Octane2: :Indigo2IMP:

User avatar
foetz
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6543
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 4:34 am
Contact:

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby foetz » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:21 pm

GIJoe wrote:using a filemanager separate from the default OS provided one is not so optimal in my experience.

the total opposite in my experience :D

ianj wrote:Unless you're like the OP and think the smaller window controls look "cheap" (huh?)

hehe for sure. when i first gave the 10.7 developer preview a shot i didn't even consider that these gui parts were meant to be in the final release. a complete amateur job; especially in comparison to what they had before.
to be clear, unlike the mentioned 10.7/8/9 gui elements the 10.10 gui is proper work but simply a joke that lacks any sort of creativity and skills.

User avatar
Cory5412
Posts: 567
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:08 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby Cory5412 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:35 pm

Windows XP was balky and terrible when it was new, too. The only difference now is that if somebody discovers a way to wipe everything on your C:\ disk just using some code on a web page, Microsoft is not going to fix it for you, or even attempt damage control by not releasing details about the error until after the release of the Service Pack, as they did back when SP1 came out back in the day. (Also, in re XP "balkiness" -- computer performance has since far outpaced Windows XP's needs, which means that among "commercial" operating systems, it sort of stands alone as appearing far lighter on hardware requirements. The fact that it's doing this while also making inefficient use of system resources, notwithstanding.)

Ultimately, if you don't want to deal with a commercial desktop operating system (Windows or Mac OS X) then you need to deal with, well, something else. If you don't want to deal with that, then you're left with Windows or Mac OS X again, so I suppose the question is whether you want the ability to choose your window manager and desktop environment, and configure it as such, or you want "support" and some of the other comforts of commercial software.

In regards to the Reference Release -- do you mean the initial release of any given "version" of Mac OS X? I'm actually not sure how to parse this article, but I imagine that what it means is that 10.5.0, 10.6.0, 10.7.0, 10.8.0 and 10.9.0 are the "reference releases" of Mac OS X. Not that Mac OS X 10.6.8 is the reference point for the entire Mac OS X family. A whole lot has changed since 2009 when Mac OS X 10.6.0 was released, and Apple's simply not willing to run their platform that way, whether or not it would cater to your particular whims.

If your whims are a commercially supported desktop operating system that rarely changes, you really should be looking at a commercial UNIX or VMS, and if you think that Apple's "fumbling around with the latest trends in UI design and functionality for the f*ck of it" gets in the way of your productivity, then I suspect you'd find it worth your time, money, and effort to move to another platform. (Also, if you're keeping your Macs for any length of time, keeping the same OS version on them for their entire lifetime is a reasonably bad idea, especially now that new major versions of Mac OS X are free for Mac owners, and Apple has not increased the system requirements for 10.9 or 10.10.) If you have "critical" applications on a Mac, and you're bad at backups, then it is good to hold off for a while, but it's a bad idea to never upgrade. It's not like Windows where Apple's committing to support any given major version for a decade.

To use a terrible car analogy -- it sounds to me as though we've reached the point where users who have been around for a while believe that the system shouldn't be changed because they know it and they like the particular options it gives you. (See: commodorejohn) Even if those options are terrible and dangerous, not only to yourself and your own data, but to the interconnected networks at large.

Back in 1984, you could have a Mac with any desktop picture you wanted, as long as that picture was a 50% gray gradient, and we've long since reached the point where that's just not what computers are anymore. As much as it's a productivity tool, it's a vehicle for personal expression, and because we've long reached the point where computers are also home appliances, you can expect them to be just as subject to design trends as anything else.

And, let's be honest, even large equipment and professionally focused equipment is subject to "design." Nikon is selling this professional level camera that has had a "retro" visual style applied, even though you could argue that this is the true pinnacle of professional camera design.
I [heart] the Performer Town Demo

User avatar
commodorejohn
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:22 pm
Contact:

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby commodorejohn » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:46 pm

Cory5412 wrote:To use a terrible car analogy -- it sounds to me as though we've reached the point where users who have been around for a while believe that the system shouldn't be changed because they know it and they like the particular options it gives you. (See: commodorejohn) Even if those options are terrible and dangerous, not only to yourself and your own data, but to the interconnected networks at large.

Explain to me how maintaining the legacy UI option is terrible or dangerous, and then I'll start taking you seriously when you say this.
Computers: Amiga 1200, DEC VAXStation 4000/60, DEC MicroPDP-11/73
Synthesizers: Roland JX-10/SH-09/HS-80/MT-32/D-50, Yamaha DX7-II/V50/TX7/TG33/FB-01, Korg MS-20 Mini/ARP Odyssey/DW-8000/M1, Ensoniq SQ-80, E-mu Emax HD/Proteus-2, Casio CZ-5000, Moog Satellite, Sequential Circuits Prophet-600

User avatar
Cory5412
Posts: 567
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:08 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby Cory5412 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:03 pm

If you want to run a "legacy" interface, or a still-updated and forked release of something else, such as GNOME 2.0 (MATE) -- then you should run an operating system designed with this in mind.

When Microsoft builds Windows with a mind toward graphical applications, they're building the whole thing as a single product. It hasn't really been since Windows 95 succeeded Windows 3.1 that the file manager and program manager were divorced A: from one-another B: from the functionality of the whole system.

If you want something else, use another operating system. Something designed with the separation of the console and underlying architecture and the graphical applications in mind may honestly be a way better operating system for you, and Windows hasn't been that in over fifteen years. And just because something isn't suitable to you isn't a reason to treat it the way you do. Have you actually had an opportunity to try Windows 8 or 8.1 yet, or are you still simply repeating what Chris Pirillo said of his poor grandfather, who had to use it on a Mac in a virtual machine, back in late 2012?

There is a version of Windows Server (starting with 2008) that has had most of the graphical interface removed altogether, but to my knowledge there is no way to subsequently layer a different GUI on top of it. (It actually has a "GUI" -- what has happened is that it's got no desktop and uses a few more text management tools, but you can also launch the management console for, say, Active Directory Users & Computers on it.)
I [heart] the Performer Town Demo

User avatar
commodorejohn
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:22 pm
Contact:

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby commodorejohn » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:28 pm

You didn't answer my question. How is it "terrible or dangerous," as opposed to just "not what Microsoft wants?"

And yes, I've tried 8.1. I haven't had a choice, as my department switched over to it a few months ago. The interface is, as any intelligent person could have predicted, total crap. And it's still pretty crappy even with third-party hacks to make it less crap.
Computers: Amiga 1200, DEC VAXStation 4000/60, DEC MicroPDP-11/73
Synthesizers: Roland JX-10/SH-09/HS-80/MT-32/D-50, Yamaha DX7-II/V50/TX7/TG33/FB-01, Korg MS-20 Mini/ARP Odyssey/DW-8000/M1, Ensoniq SQ-80, E-mu Emax HD/Proteus-2, Casio CZ-5000, Moog Satellite, Sequential Circuits Prophet-600

User avatar
josehill
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3305
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: New England, USA
Contact:

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby josehill » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:52 pm

Cory5412 wrote:In regards to the Reference Release -- do you mean the initial release of any given "version" of Mac OS X? I'm actually not sure how to parse this article, but I imagine that what it means is that 10.5.0, 10.6.0, 10.7.0, 10.8.0 and 10.9.0 are the "reference releases" of Mac OS X. Not that Mac OS X 10.6.8 is the reference point for the entire Mac OS X family.

By Apple's definition, 10.6.3 is the last reference release of 10.6, since that is the last standalone, bare-metal, generic 10.6 installer that Apple shipped. I think I was clear in my later post that I was using a looser definition of reference release than the official Apple definition. Fine, I regret using the colloquialism.

A whole lot has changed since 2009 when Mac OS X 10.6.0 was released, and Apple's simply not willing to run their platform that way, whether or not it would cater to your particular whims.

Please, spare the condescension. I doubt anyone here expects Apple to cater to their particular whims. Why can't people who are happy with the changes that Apple has made accept that others may have legitimate reasons to be disappointed about the direction that Apple (or any other company one may care about) is taking, and they are not necessarily lazy/stupid/crazy/geriatric/overly conservative/etc if they voice those disappointments on a forum with supposedly sophisticated, experience computer users?

If your whims are a commercially supported desktop operating system that rarely changes, you really should be looking at a commercial UNIX or VMS, and if you think that Apple's "fumbling around with the latest trends in UI design and functionality for the f*ck of it" gets in the way of your productivity, then I suspect you'd find it worth your time, money, and effort to move to another platform.

Except that doesn't seem to work well as a solution for the general workforce. Companies generally don't buy operating systems to run operating systems. They buy operating systems to run applications and to support workflows. A frequently updated OS that breaks applications and workflows, for seemingly arbitrary reasons, especially after being quite serviceable across many years of previous upgrades, is a step backward for most business customers. Apple (and other vendors) are perfectly free to change their OS as they see fit. That doesn't mean that we should stand and applaud when those changes disrupt our businesses, increase our training costs, etc. There is a reason that businesses have been slow to adopt Windows 8. (Actually, Windows 8 is the reason I haven't moved my own business from mostly Mac OS to Win7. Win7 is solid, generally stable, and it has a clear support lifecycle. I guess now I can be called crazy because I don't love Win8.)

calvin
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:44 am
Location: /dev/wd0b
Contact:

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby calvin » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:59 pm

XP was crap back in the day. I remember the massive malware problems, got hit hard by them, and the awful performance degradable, which are unexplainably bad. Vista on a newer machine was a massive improvement. Hell, on the same machine, I'm typing this post on Windows 8 - it's still zippy!

Also, VMS is a communist plot to destroy the POSIX standard. Why would you love the KGB computing platform?

edit: And don't expect Windows 7 to be here forever. It's a fine OS (it runs great on my P3, where XP was kinda eh) but it's a matter of time before this XP support ending charade repeats itself with this.
No SGIs here.

User avatar
guardian452
Donor
Donor
Posts: 3429
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby guardian452 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:15 pm

ianj wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:Yeah, and that's great, if you like Unix.


If you don't like Unix, what are you doing here? :lol:

(couldn't resist)

As for OS X 10.6 vs. newer versions... I've been through the 10.6 -> 10.7 -> 10.8 upgrade cycle, and I have no idea what people who think something went bad after 10.6 are talking about. Unless you're like the OP and think the smaller window controls look "cheap" (huh?), or you really, really care about having colored sidebar icons, that is. But really, if you're going to obsess over the details of your UI to that level and insist that they never change, you should be using a different platform. As far as I can tell, the actual user experience is the same across all three versions.


This depends on hardware. 10.6 is the zippiest OS for my MBA (2010). 10.7 and 10.8 are rather bloated and slow. 10.7 I had a lot of issues with since I foolishly installed it a day or two after it came out. 10.9 suffers from hiccups a bit, but in general runs almost as well as 10.6 (I think compressed memory has a lot to do with it since there is only 2GB) More bothersome is my MP which needs tiamo's 32bit boot.efi to run. But it runs and can even update fine, from 10.9.2 to 10.9.3, with fingers crossed :lol: . I hope it will be able to do the same with 10.10. And, 10.6 isn't going anywhere. 10.4 isn't going anywhere. If that's what you like, nobody is forcing you to upgrade. If you're like me and like to use 10.6 and 10.9 (even on the same machine), it is soooo not difficult at all to change the startup disk preferences.


There certainly seems to be a cultural shift going on. I got into mac during the 10.5 era and that is kind of the "definitive mac edition" for me. The biggest thing that won me over (from linux and irix) was their science marketing page. Which doesn't even exist anymore. Previously for "Markets" they catered to: Creative Pro, Education, Science, Small Business. Now it is just Creative Pro and Mac in Business. They certainly haven't given up on technical computing, but it seems like they don't care for it anymore. I found the facebook/twitter integration with lion (or ML?) annoying, since I use neither and found it a bit insulting at first. I think that was the tipping point for me to become a greybeard geezer even though I don't consider myself that old or having been around all that long. https://web.archive.org/web/20110207204 ... m/science/

User avatar
ianj
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:43 am
Location: 費府

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby ianj » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:35 pm

commodorejohn wrote:You didn't answer my question. How is it "terrible or dangerous," as opposed to just "not what Microsoft wants?"


It would take developer time to maintain the special, just-for-commodorejohn legacy UI, continue porting it to future versions of Windows, and ensure that future applications are compatible with it, which means Microsoft would either need to pull developers from other projects just to work on it, or hire people for the task. How much are you willing to pay them for the privilege?

guardian452 wrote:found the facebook/twitter integration with lion (or ML?) annoying, since I use neither and found it a bit insulting at first. I think that was the tipping point for me to become a greybeard geezer even though I don't consider myself that old or having been around all that long. https://web.archive.org/web/20110207204 ... m/science/


You have a fair point in that Apple is narrowing the markets it wants to focus on, but I find this particular bit absurd. I don't care for Facebook either, and I have never noticed the Facebook integration in the latest Apple operating systems because I have not gone looking for it. If there is some unavoidable change to the UI that gets in your way, by all means, talk about that, but feeling insulted by an optional feature that you will never see without deliberately deciding to use it is crossing a line into ideological craziness. That's like saying Mac OS 9 is insulting because the Setup Assistant asks you once, on first boot, whether or not you'd like the enable Simple Finder (for those who don't remember, the default is "no").
:Fuel: :Octane: :Octane2: :Indigo2IMP:

User avatar
commodorejohn
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:22 pm
Contact:

Re: osx 10.10

Unread postby commodorejohn » Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:48 pm

ianj wrote:It would take developer time to maintain the special, just-for-commodorejohn legacy UI, continue porting it to future versions of Windows, and ensure that future applications are compatible with it, which means Microsoft would either need to pull developers from other projects just to work on it, or hire people for the task. How much are you willing to pay them for the privilege?

Well, first off, it wouldn't be just for me, as the fact that XP still has something like 25% market share nearly thirteen years after its inception and seven years after it was no longer the flagship and now after it's been officially and very publically EOL-ed attests. But let's say that's true, and there literally is nobody else but myself who wants this: all I'm doing is kvetching on a forum, for chrissakes. I'm not staging a commando raid on Redmond and taking Satya Nadella hostage until I get what I want. Ineffectual? Sure, if we discount the catharsis factor. But "terrible or dangerous" is just typical Cory5412-brand ludicrous hyperbole.
Computers: Amiga 1200, DEC VAXStation 4000/60, DEC MicroPDP-11/73
Synthesizers: Roland JX-10/SH-09/HS-80/MT-32/D-50, Yamaha DX7-II/V50/TX7/TG33/FB-01, Korg MS-20 Mini/ARP Odyssey/DW-8000/M1, Ensoniq SQ-80, E-mu Emax HD/Proteus-2, Casio CZ-5000, Moog Satellite, Sequential Circuits Prophet-600


Return to “Apple”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests