PDA

View Full Version : Mission Control - Still A Failure




Pages : [1] 2

wikus
Mar 18, 2012, 09:14 PM
I'm still running OS X 10.6.8 only because of Expose as it was done right the first time. I've tried Lion and Mountain Lion and both fail miserably due to the fact that multiple windows within a single application show up grouped and Apple has YET to provide users the option in System Preferences to 'ungroup' them. The problems with Mission Control are as follows;

Forced Grouping of Window Applications:
- Needlessly grouped. If many windows are stacked, it is difficult to multitask or find a specific document.

- Fanning out the grouped windows only works with a trackpad and only reveals a few extra pixels of the windows behind the top-most window.

- Specifically showing only single application windows requires an extra click but does not make dragging and dropping objects from other documents or applications possible.

The Dashboard and Spaces Thumbnails:
- No reason to show any thumbnails if only one desktop is present and dashboard is not used as it takes up space.

- Needs an option to disable extra desktops as many people dont use ‘spaces’

The Grey Border:
- No reason to squeeze the desktop background into a smaller image while adding a grey tiled pattern. This constrains all thumbnails of open windows into a smaller area thereby making the thumbnails smaller.

- The grey border is redundant and only adds more need for processing power to animate the entire process of Mission Control activation. Wallpaper should be fullscreen, just as it was in Snow Leopard’s Expose with a vignette.

Click on the image to see which area I'm pointing out;

http://ungraphic.com/stuff/mission_control_failure_tm.jpg (http://ungraphic.com/stuff/mission_control_failure.jpg)


--------------------------------------------------------

Is Apple ever going to acknowledge this problem? It's been 3 revisions since Lion, a release of Mountain Lion and there is absolutely no sign of support for this from the OS X developers.

This whole debacle could be *easily* solved if Apple pulled its head out of its a$$ and eased up on not giving users options. By this I mean, it'd be a simple checkmark field in System Preferences to let the user customize Mission Control to their liking, or AT LEAST give the option to turn off grouping.



xxBURT0Nxx
Mar 18, 2012, 09:24 PM
I felt the same way at first. I had to get my MBP replaced by apple and the new one came with Lion. At first I absolutely hated mission control, but it's actually not that bad.

I keep mail, cal, itunes open in full screen so i can easily access them with a 3 finger swipe and they don't take up room in mission control (other than their "spaces" at the top)

Only problem I really had at that point was that window groupings would hide the windows i needed, but once I figured out how to expand the group it's honestly not really that bad. Nice to have all of my windows organized, and now that I can expand the group, I haven't had a problem determining which window in the group is the one I want to use.

I would admit that without multi-touch gestures though, Mission Control would suck, so if you use a standard mouse stay on Snow Leopard. Hopefully apple will find a way to fix this, but I doubt it as they are adding more gestures like Notifications in Mountain Lion.

An option to at least NOT group windows by application though would be really awesome. Wonder if there are any tweaks out there that do that.

WSR
Mar 18, 2012, 10:34 PM
I have an iMac with a touchpad and BetterTouchTools in SL, and I still find Spaces/Expose better than Mission Control. With SL, I can select any window in any space with at most 3 gestures, Spaces-Expose-select window.

In Lion, it would take possibly 5 gestures, MC-select space-MC-ungroup app's windows-select window.

Lion:5 Gestures
SL:3 Gestures

To me with or without a touchpad, SL's Spaces/Expose works better than Lion's or ML's Mission Control.

seetheforest
Mar 18, 2012, 11:09 PM
Is Apple ever going to acknowledge this problem? It's been 3 revisions since Lion, a release of Mountain Lion and there is absolutely no sign of support for this from the OS X developers.

Probably because Apple doesn't think it's a problem. If you are operating under the assumption that it is a problem and a universally agreed upon belief, then all I can say is that you are mistaken.

I like Mission Control and have found it extremely useful. I won't spend too much time outlining my thoughts, but here are some vignettes.

The grey boarder serves an obvious purpose of separating the spaces control from the desktop/app switching control.
If you think of Mission Control as a Spaces organizer and an App Switcher it becomes a novel tool that is not directly comparable to Expose as much as Alt+Tab. Application Expose still exists and in my workflow I just activate three fingers up, blindly choose the application I want and then immediately invoke app expose to choose the windows. It's slicker and faster than you would imagine from just reading.
If you have 6+ windows open, the Mission Control/App Expose combo is way more efficient then hunting through all of the windows at the same time.

Lastly, I hope you realize that I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong in what you say. Your argument has merit and makes sense. I'm simply pointing out that it's arguable that Mission Control is not bad and that there is no reason to be so dogmatically polarized by it.

baryon
Mar 19, 2012, 08:43 AM
I hate Mission Control too, and all I can say is that Exposé and Spaces will be missed, and there is nothing we can do at the moment. I think Apple's strategy is to remove useful features and introduce eye-candy features that make sense to the "typical computer user" which is generally old people and people who don't care about how they use their computer. While they don't allow anything useful to be done, they allow less techy people to do things they wouldn't want to do in the first place.

xxBURT0Nxx
Mar 19, 2012, 09:00 AM
No their goal is to help ease the way from iPad/iPhone to mac.

Perhaps you didn't realize that apple sells way more iDevices than Macs. A lot of those customers are new to computers/unfamiliar with how they work.

Apple made the iPad very simple to use and understand. This is why everyone from per-schoolers to Grandparents are suddenly hopping on the bandwagon.

By making the transition from iOS to OSX simpler and more similar, apple is allowing customers who have no idea how to use a computer to purchase a mac and be some what familiar with it.

Some of us may not like the changes as "power" users, but it kind of needs to be done.

Can't tell you how many people couldn't even install an app on their computer. How many people don't know how to "close" an app (no it's not the red button on the top left). How many people don't understand file directories, how many people couldn't format a hard drive, burn a disc, know what RAM is, etc.

Yeah, a lot of people are going to be upset that computers and OS's are getting "dumber" but you have to realize, the tech savvy are in the minority. There are a lot more people unfamiliar with computers than those of us who need these "power" features.

baryon
Mar 19, 2012, 09:56 AM
No their goal is to help ease the way from iPad/iPhone to mac.

Perhaps you didn't realize that apple sells way more iDevices than Macs. A lot of those customers are new to computers/unfamiliar with how they work.

Apple made the iPad very simple to use and understand. This is why everyone from per-schoolers to Grandparents are suddenly hopping on the bandwagon.

By making the transition from iOS to OSX simpler and more similar, apple is allowing customers who have no idea how to use a computer to purchase a mac and be some what familiar with it.

Some of us may not like the changes as "power" users, but it kind of needs to be done.

Can't tell you how many people couldn't even install an app on their computer. How many people don't know how to "close" an app (no it's not the red button on the top left). How many people don't understand file directories, how many people couldn't format a hard drive, burn a disc, know what RAM is, etc.

Yeah, a lot of people are going to be upset that computers and OS's are getting "dumber" but you have to realize, the tech savvy are in the minority. There are a lot more people unfamiliar with computers than those of us who need these "power" features.

Yes sadly that's probably the case. However, I'm 100% sure that Apple could make things a lot better by changing a few minor things:

In Mission Control, go ahead and stack those damn windows by app, but at least let us get a proper App Exposé when we 2-finger swipe up on a stack.

Maybe allow us to see the current desktop in CONTEXT, with the other desktops situated to the right or to the left of the current desktop, instead of being at the top with no spacial relationship to the current one.

When clicking on a dock icon that refers to an app that is more than 1 desktop away, in the animation, show us all the desktops in between. I hate seeing a desktop fly in from the left, and then swiping back to the right only to find that I'm not where I was, because I'm actually 5 desktops from where I was, but the animation didn't feel like I travelled 5 desktops to the left. It's just stupid!

Something like this would be pretty cool:

331056

This would allow you to feel where the hell you are relative to other desktops.

Jagardn
Mar 19, 2012, 08:47 PM
I hate Mission Control too, and all I can say is that Exposé and Spaces will be missed, and there is nothing we can do at the moment. I think Apple's strategy is to remove useful features and introduce eye-candy features that make sense to the "typical computer user" which is generally old people and people who don't care about how they use their computer. While they don't allow anything useful to be done, they allow less techy people to do things they wouldn't want to do in the first place.

Man, at 37, I didn't realize this techie was knocking at deaths door. Just because you don't like something, its for old people? Adding functionality for the "typical computer user" probably means the majority of people. Maybe they would make better products if they left in all the features that 3% of their users think are useful. :rolleyes:

KnightWRX
Mar 20, 2012, 06:32 AM
Lion:5 Gestures
SL:3 Gestures


Lion: 5 seconds
SL: 10 seconds.

Wait what ? SL requires a ton more visual scanning to actually find something. The more windows, the longer it takes. With Lion, you'll use a few more gestures, but in the end you'll save on time it takes to visually scan the screen as the Expose'd windows will be much more limited.

Mission Control/CMD-Tab/Dock clicks to select your application, then App Expose to select your window. More keystrokes/gestures, less time spent staring at a screen looking for a particular window.

Your you can simply App Expose and then use the dock to switch applications in rapid succession if you're not sure which App has the window you want. Again, much faster than "Look ma', 100 windows...".

The common error and bad mindset is thinking the actual Mission Control window with "grouped windows" is Expose. It's not. It's not intended to be. Expose is still there, it's a different gesture. Mission Control is Spaces/CMD-Tab. It's an application switcher. You're not supposed to go straight to your window from there, even though you can.

daniel-b
Mar 20, 2012, 09:40 AM
The common error and bad mindset is thinking the actual Mission Control window with "grouped windows" is Expose. It's not. It's not intended to be. Expose is still there, it's a different gesture. Mission Control is Spaces/CMD-Tab. It's an application switcher. You're not supposed to go straight to your window from there, even though you can.

I never actually used the Snow Leopard version, but as far as I am concerned, Mission Control would be great if there was a way to switch apps with the keyboard once you've called it up. It appears that there is not.

What you can do is use CMD-tab to switch apps, and while holding down CMD and tab, press the up or down arrows. This will get you into the expose of the selected app, which I find very convenient.

klaxamazoo
Mar 20, 2012, 10:06 AM
Lion: 5 seconds
SL: 10 seconds.

Wait what ? SL requires a ton more visual scanning to actually find something. The more windows, the longer it takes. With Lion, you'll use a few more gestures, but in the end you'll save on time it takes to visually scan the screen as the Expose'd windows will be much more limited.

Mission Control/CMD-Tab/Dock clicks to select your application, then App Expose to select your window. More keystrokes/gestures, less time spent staring at a screen looking for a particular window.

Your you can simply App Expose and then use the dock to switch applications in rapid succession if you're not sure which App has the window you want. Again, much faster than "Look ma', 100 windows...".

The common error and bad mindset is thinking the actual Mission Control window with "grouped windows" is Expose. It's not. It's not intended to be. Expose is still there, it's a different gesture. Mission Control is Spaces/CMD-Tab. It's an application switcher. You're not supposed to go straight to your window from there, even though you can.


It takes you 10 seconds to find a window in 10.5/10.6 Expose? You must not be a visual person. I can scan through 40 - 60 windows in less than a second using a 10.5 style Expose/Spaces. Most of the time the animation takes longer than the scanning.

Mission Control is great for non-visual people. It sucks ass for those of us that have good visual pattern recognition. Based upon the downgrade poll:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1202064 and the fact that one of the major complaints in that thread was Mission Control, I would say that a lot of people (~1/3) prefer to scan for content then have it play hide-n-seek.

Also, Expose is not still there. App Expose is, but that takes you out of Mission Control and now you can no longer drag you windows around and have to invoke Mission Control a second time. That is 6 animations just to move a Window. Heaven help you if you have to move a lot of windows.

****** design is ****** design even if some people find it acceptable.

Simplicated
Mar 20, 2012, 10:37 AM
Don't even get me started on Mission Control. Here's my contribution to this post:

http://i.imgur.com/VO4ip.jpg

CodeBreaker
Mar 20, 2012, 11:12 AM
It's a really sad thing that it is never going to change, even if we protest in front of Apple Stores. And the thing is, many Mac newbies (Windows converts via iOS) actually like it. So it is good for Apple. All we can hope that some brilliant developer "fixes" it for us.

KnightWRX
Mar 20, 2012, 11:18 AM
It takes you 10 seconds to find a window in 10.5/10.6 Expose? You must not be a visual person. I can scan through 40 - 60 windows in less than a second using a 10.5 style Expose/Spaces. Most of the time the animation takes longer than the scanning.

So you're part of the crowd that doesn't like Snow Leopard's Expose ? Remember those guys and the endless threads about how Snow Leopard broke Expose ? ;) :D

Also, Expose is not still there. App Expose is, but that takes you out of Mission Control and now you can no longer drag you windows around and have to invoke Mission Control a second time. That is 6 animations just to move a Window. Heaven help you if you have to move a lot of windows.

I don't have to drag around windows because they open in the proper spot to begin with. I've configured them to do so.

----------

Don't even get me started on Mission Control. Here's my contribution to this post:

You do know that your "Spaces are automatically reordered" point is a configuration option you can enable/disable ? Just disable it if it annoys it. It sure annoyed me and as soon as I found out it could be disabled, I disabled it.

klaxamazoo
Mar 20, 2012, 12:19 PM
So you're part of the crowd that doesn't like Snow Leopard's Expose ? Remember those guys and the endless threads about how Snow Leopard broke Expose ? ;) :D



I don't have to drag around windows because they open in the proper spot to begin with. I've configured them to do so.

----------



You do know that your "Spaces are automatically reordered" point is a configuration option you can enable/disable ? Just disable it if it annoys it. It sure annoyed me and as soon as I found out it could be disabled, I disabled it.

Yes, 10.6 did break Expose but luckily there was a hack to bring it back.

My workflow is not simple and there is no reasonable way to have Windows "open in the proper spot to begin with" and where they should be changes based upon what I'm doing from moment to moment. Images go from collection/sorting to Photoshop for measurement where the data is transferred to an excel sheet and then a custom program for analysis, next graphs are made and combined with said images in Adobe Indesign to form Figures that are then incorporated into papers. This process is often done in parallel with writing papers as I identify weak points in my discussion/conclusions.

Not everything people do can be wrapped up in a nice little bow and stacked neatly in the corner. Mission Control works for you because your work flow is suitable for it (which is great because now you have something you like). I moved to OSX in Panther because Expose was perfect for my workflow. Mission Control is in no way, shape or form suitable for my workflow and negatively impacts my work as now I have to break my concentration to hunt-and-peck for things instead of just swiping to a corner, scanning for half a second and moving on my way.

Hopefully ReSpaceApp will be fully functional soon.

Simplicated
Mar 20, 2012, 12:34 PM
You do know that your "Spaces are automatically reordered" point is a configuration option you can enable/disable ? Just disable it if it annoys it. It sure annoyed me and as soon as I found out it could be disabled, I disabled it.

I disabled it but there is still a minor annoyance - When you enter full screen, spaces are created on the far right.

baryon
Mar 20, 2012, 02:26 PM
Man, at 37, I didn't realize this techie was knocking at deaths door. Just because you don't like something, its for old people? Adding functionality for the "typical computer user" probably means the majority of people. Maybe they would make better products if they left in all the features that 3% of their users think are useful. :rolleyes:

I never said that only old people appreciate Mission Control. What I said was that old people and less techy people are the typical computer users. If you look around, most people don't know how to use a computer. This is my theory of why Apple is making their OSs more friendly to those people. I don't consider myself one of those people, which is why I find it annoying since customizable, flexible functionality is removed. The worst part is that I feel that most people just don't care about how their computer works, which is why those who care will be in the minority and thus they will be ignored by Apple.

The reason I say Mission Control is less flexible than Spaces + Exposé is because you can't do these:

Drag windows from a non-current space to another space
See all open windows at once, on all spaces
See all open windows at once on the current space


And of course, much more. Of course, most people would just say "Why would you want to do that? Just switch to another space, and drag the window from there." Yes, of course, you could. You could also use Windows, which doesn't offer useable window management (despite its name). After all, the vast majority of people are fine with it!

wikus
Mar 20, 2012, 02:42 PM
The reason I say Mission Control is less flexible than Spaces + Exposé is because you can't do these:

See all open windows at once, on all spaces
See all open windows at once on the current space



This, is so damn annoying.

I work in photoshop, illustrator, lightroom and sometimes Indesign all at once where all interact with eachother. The inability to work between multiple documents per application and not being able to drag/drop objects with hitting a hot corner is *the main reason* why I won't bother with Lion or Mountain Lion.

jameslmoser
Mar 20, 2012, 05:37 PM
No their goal is to help ease the way from iPad/iPhone to mac.

Perhaps you didn't realize that apple sells way more iDevices than Macs. A lot of those customers are new to computers/unfamiliar with how they work.

Apple made the iPad very simple to use and understand. This is why everyone from per-schoolers to Grandparents are suddenly hopping on the bandwagon.

By making the transition from iOS to OSX simpler and more similar, apple is allowing customers who have no idea how to use a computer to purchase a mac and be some what familiar with it.

Some of us may not like the changes as "power" users, but it kind of needs to be done.

Can't tell you how many people couldn't even install an app on their computer. How many people don't know how to "close" an app (no it's not the red button on the top left). How many people don't understand file directories, how many people couldn't format a hard drive, burn a disc, know what RAM is, etc.

Yeah, a lot of people are going to be upset that computers and OS's are getting "dumber" but you have to realize, the tech savvy are in the minority. There are a lot more people unfamiliar with computers than those of us who need these "power" features.

For the most part their existing base is usually more tech savy, and people who are not tech savy are going to take the "path of least resistance", and quite frankly, that path is still Windows in our society. Their alienating their base and they aren't going to achieve their goals. If people wanted a mac, they would buy one in the first place. If they wanted an iPad, they will buy and USE the iPad. The iPad does pretty much everything non-technical people need. Its not going to work like the "iPod halo affect", no one could check their email and browse the web with their ipod.

For example, my mom had an imac and a windows notebook. Now she has an ipad and ... a windows notebook. She gave the mac to my sister... and her boyfriend... a gamer, wants to sell it for a windows machine. I think I convinced him to keep it by telling him he could run windows on it. He didn't know that... and honestly I think he is still skeptical (I don't live near them to show him how to do it).

KnightWRX
Mar 20, 2012, 06:20 PM
What you can do is use CMD-tab to switch apps, and while holding down CMD and tab, press the up or down arrows. This will get you into the expose of the selected app, which I find very convenient.

You can also enter Expose, the CMD-Tab or use the dock and without leaving Expose, it will switch the windows being shown from App to App.

----------

My workflow[...]

An often misused word. Workflow is about daisy chaining tasks together, not about the keyboard/mouse/trackpad short cuts to do so.

In programming, a typical workflow would be :

- checkout source from the repository
- open a file in an editor and add/modify code to it.
- run it through its build environnement to rebuild a binary for debugging
- run it through the debugger to make sure it's behaving as it should
- repeat 1 to 3 as many times as it takes to solve Bug Report or Change Request
- commit source modifications back to the repository, tagging the new release along the way
- run it through its build environnement to produce a release build
- distribute the build to Q&A

That's a workflow. That workflow can be accomplished on any number of platforms, for any number of applications for any projects. Listening to some people here, a workflow sounds like it's :

- cmd-tab to application
- open file
- All Windows Expose to find the duck picture
- All Windows Expose to find the flower picture
- Hit spaces to move some windows around your desktops

Where do you guys actually get any Work done in these Workflows ?

I can get my work done on OS X, Windows, Linux, no matter what GUI/Editor/shortcuts/input devices I have. That's because my workflow is not something that is tied to UI candy for switching applications and moving windows around. My workflow is a flow of tasks. These tasks might differ in how they are accomplished, but the tasks themselves remain the same. I just adjust to the platform instead of trying to adjust the platform to myself.

thundersteele
Mar 20, 2012, 06:38 PM
Don't even get me started on Mission Control. Here's my contribution to this post:

http://i.imgur.com/VO4ip.jpg

Spaces reordering can be disabled (I didn't like it either)

The behavior of mission control when coming from a fullscreen app is a bit confusing. I never noticed that before.

I've been using Ctrl+Arrows for navigating spaces on SL, now I'm swiping, which I actually prefer. Expose was a bit simpler in the sense that now I have to think whether swiping up or down will bring me the view I want to see, while before there was only the option to show all open windows.


I find it amusing when people describe MC as failure, problem, or with other strong words. It's different, and one can not like it, but that doesn't make it a problem/failure. More choices would be great, but if I have learned something then it is not to look for choice in Apple products.

xxBURT0Nxx
Mar 21, 2012, 12:18 AM
For the most part their existing base is usually more tech savy, and people who are not tech savy are going to take the "path of least resistance", and quite frankly, that path is still Windows in our society. Their alienating their base and they aren't going to achieve their goals. If people wanted a mac, they would buy one in the first place. If they wanted an iPad, they will buy and USE the iPad. The iPad does pretty much everything non-technical people need. Its not going to work like the "iPod halo affect", no one could check their email and browse the web with their ipod.

For example, my mom had an imac and a windows notebook. Now she has an ipad and ... a windows notebook. She gave the mac to my sister... and her boyfriend... a gamer, wants to sell it for a windows machine. I think I convinced him to keep it by telling him he could run windows on it. He didn't know that... and honestly I think he is still skeptical (I don't live near them to show him how to do it).
apple's user base is not "tech savvy" Seriously, almost every person who bought a mac bought it because they are "cool"

I can't tell you how many people don't understand how to install programs on a mac. I see people with macs who have 20dmg's mounted on their desktop and none of the apps are actually installed on their machine.

Can't tell you how many people think the red button closes apps because that's what you do in windows.

I'm sorry, but all of the grandparents using iPads... NOT tech savvy.

All of the preschoolers and young children getting iPads... not tech savvy.

You can't honestly think that of the 100+ million iDevices sold that the majority of those people are "tech savvy"

And idk how you can claim they aren't meeting their goals... their goals are to sell iDevices and in return get more customers to buy mac products. Seems to be working pretty well to me.

jameslmoser
Mar 21, 2012, 01:21 AM
apple's user base is not "tech savvy" Seriously, almost every person who bought a mac bought it because they are "cool"

I can't tell you how many people don't understand how to install programs on a mac. I see people with macs who have 20dmg's mounted on their desktop and none of the apps are actually installed on their machine.

Can't tell you how many people think the red button closes apps because that's what you do in windows.

I'm sorry, but all of the grandparents using iPads... NOT tech savvy.

All of the preschoolers and young children getting iPads... not tech savvy.

You can't honestly think that of the 100+ million iDevices sold that the majority of those people are "tech savvy"

And idk how you can claim they aren't meeting their goals... their goals are to sell iDevices and in return get more customers to buy mac products. Seems to be working pretty well to me.

I didn't say people who were buying their idevices were tech savy, or that anyone who bought macs recently even were tech savy.

The majority of the people using Mac OS have been with apple for years, before the ipod, before apple was "cool". Apple's market share (being still under 10% or about that) hasn't gained that significantly since that time.

The people who have been with apple all that time, who are probably on average more tech savy (not saying their computer scientists or geniuses) those are the people who are being alienated. The people who bought apple because they are creative professionals, and thats what you use(d). Most companies even had Macs for those departments because that was the case.

I agree that people are buying macs now because they are "cool". Which brings up a post I made in another forum. Apple won't always be "cool", and then they are going to wish they didn't alienate the pros who supported them all that time...

KnightWRX
Mar 21, 2012, 04:18 AM
apple's user base is not "tech savvy"

Heck, most of MacRumors user base isn't tech savvy. Most of them are Image editors/Video editors/Photographers who have no clue how a computer actually works, what a OS actually is (they think the GUI layer is the OS, they have no idea of everything else that sits between those pixels and the underlying hardware) or even what a Profession is (thinking Image editors/Video editors/Photographers are the only professionals out there).

klaxamazoo
Mar 21, 2012, 09:06 AM
You can also enter Expose, the CMD-Tab or use the dock and without leaving Expose, it will switch the windows being shown from App to App.

----------



An often misused word. Workflow is about daisy chaining tasks together, not about the keyboard/mouse/trackpad short cuts to do so.

In programming, a typical workflow would be :

- checkout source from the repository
- open a file in an editor and add/modify code to it.
- run it through its build environnement to rebuild a binary for debugging
- run it through the debugger to make sure it's behaving as it should
- repeat 1 to 3 as many times as it takes to solve Bug Report or Change Request
- commit source modifications back to the repository, tagging the new release along the way
- run it through its build environnement to produce a release build
- distribute the build to Q&A

That's a workflow. That workflow can be accomplished on any number of platforms, for any number of applications for any projects. Listening to some people here, a workflow sounds like it's :

- cmd-tab to application
- open file
- All Windows Expose to find the duck picture
- All Windows Expose to find the flower picture
- Hit spaces to move some windows around your desktops

Where do you guys actually get any Work done in these Workflows ?

I can get my work done on OS X, Windows, Linux, no matter what GUI/Editor/shortcuts/input devices I have. That's because my workflow is not something that is tied to UI candy for switching applications and moving windows around. My workflow is a flow of tasks. These tasks might differ in how they are accomplished, but the tasks themselves remain the same. I just adjust to the platform instead of trying to adjust the platform to myself.


Workflow includes how the work gets done. If you had to go into Terminal and type in a 15 pin identifier that was randomized and unique every time you wanted to send an e-mail it would interrupt the flow of you work whenever you had to send an e-mail. Would e-mails get sent? Sure, but it would be a poor design and worthy of criticism.

Mission Control adds additional steps and complexity to what was a seamless experience. Mission Control has severe deficiencies but you never address those deficiencies in your defense of Mission Control, you just say that it doesn't matter because the end result is the same. That is like saying eating at McDonalds is the same as eating at Farm Burger because you aren't hungry after you've eaten.

Process Matters, Quality Matters, Experience Matters, Details Matter. Read the Steve Jobs book, you will see a person whose entire existence was consumed by those principles.

Windows != OSX != Linux != MS-DOS just because you managed to get your work done.

----------

Heck, most of MacRumors user base isn't tech savvy. Most of them are Image editors/Video editors/Photographers who have no clue how a computer actually works, what a OS actually is (they think the GUI layer is the OS, they have no idea of everything else that sits between those pixels and the underlying hardware) or even what a Profession is (thinking Image editors/Video editors/Photographers are the only professionals out there).

The purpose of a personal computer is to react to the user. Apple's Developer Documentation clearly shows that the main focus of OSX is to respond to user events. While there is a butt-load of amazing programs running behind the scenes, the ultimate purpose of a personal computer is to give the user the experience the user needs. Whether that is making an spreadsheet, running a server, protecting the file system, etc., the ultimate requirement is that the User's needs are fulfilled. One of those needs to have the experience of using the computer be seamless and without needless hassles.

Another need is that the sophisticated workflows of Image Editors, Photographers, etc. be enabled without knowing the details of the underlying OS. It should "just work"

Paradoxally
Mar 21, 2012, 10:00 AM
Process Matters, Quality Matters, Experience Matters, Details Matter. Read the Steve Jobs book, you will see a person whose entire existence was consumed by those principles.

Windows != OSX != Linux != MS-DOS just because you managed to get your work done.


Extremely so. Workflow isn't just about when you do, where you do, or what you do, it's about how you do the tasks you need to do.

There are tasks I do on Mac that aren't the same experience on Windows, and consequently are different on any Linux distro as well.

Everything is involved in some way. Everything you do, or use, has influence on the final result. If I can get a task done in half an hour using Snow Leopard, why should I learn how to adapt to a quirky workflow on Lion that doesn't even work as well as it should?

e.g.:
Does it show all apps in all spaces in a birds-eye view? NO.

And this is critical for me. I mean, we're all different, and no one can really state that everyone has to love Exposé/Spaces or Mission Control. The problem is that no one is giving a choice, and when faced with that option, I prefer to stick with what just works.

KnightWRX
Mar 21, 2012, 10:11 AM
Workflow

*sigh*. Look up Process vs Procedure.

A workflow is a process. What you describe is a procedure. Find a different word, you're not talking about workflows.

xxBURT0Nxx
Mar 21, 2012, 10:47 AM
Workflow is a term used to describe the tasks, procedural steps, organizations or people involved, required input and output information, and tools needed for each step in a business process.

workflow is just as much the procedure you use as the process you are doing.

They are not mutually exclusive.

workflow
English
Noun

workflow (plural workflows)

1. The rate at which a flow of work takes place
2. (business) The rate at which a flow of work takes place; A process and/or procedure in which tasks are completed. It may be defined with a flowchart to define actors, actions, results, decisions, and action paths

klaxamazoo
Mar 21, 2012, 10:56 AM
*sigh*. Look up Process vs Procedure.

A workflow is a process. What you describe is a procedure. Find a different word, you're not talking about workflows.

Fine. Mission Control's procedure sucks and negatively impacts my throughput as work passes through its sequence of processes from initialization to completion.

Mission Control is an inefficient Window Manager with a number of glaring issues that have been listed many times across many threads. If you want to defend Mission Control, I suggest addressing the issues instead focusing on parlance.

Jagardn
Mar 21, 2012, 11:09 AM
Fine. Mission Control's procedure sucks and negatively impacts my throughput as work passes through its sequence of processes from initialization to completion.

Mission Control is an inefficient Window Manager with a number of glaring issues that have been listed many times across many threads. If you want to defend Mission Control, I suggest addressing the issues instead focusing on parlance.

What issues? ;)
If he is defending it, then he may feel there are no issues to focus on. :D

klaxamazoo
Mar 21, 2012, 11:50 AM
What issues? ;)
If he is defending it, then he may feel there are no issues to focus on. :D

The issues have been clearly listed throughout this thread and many more threads like it. I suggest you start by looking over the first page of the thread.

heisenberg123
Mar 21, 2012, 12:05 PM
OP not sure i understand you issue esspecially based on your example, everythings looks neat and organized and I could find anything in your example nothing is hidden or too small based on lack of space

the thumbnails overlap the wallpaper and the grey board they are not confined to the wallpaper only so why would the icons be bigger if the grey was not there?

the top row is not just for desktops its to show what apps are running in lion full screen, and who ways most people dont use other spaces or desktops?

sure you might be right if you have 5+ windows of the same app running it might be hard to distinguish them from each other in mission control vs exposse but now you suggesting most people running 5+ windows of the same app?

so you thing nobody uses more than 1 desktop but everybody runs 5+ windows of the same app? sounds like you want a custom OS

pmz
Mar 21, 2012, 12:09 PM
Fine. Mission Control's procedure sucks and negatively impacts my throughput as work passes through its sequence of processes from initialization to completion.

Mission Control is an inefficient Window Manager with a number of glaring issues that have been listed many times across many threads. If you want to defend Mission Control, I suggest addressing the issues instead focusing on parlance.

The reality is, its not as bad as you and others pretend it is.

Beyond that, while it may seem "bad" for you and a few others, the overwhelming majority see it as a huge improvement over 10.6 & Expose.

In my own opinion, I think Mission Control could be slightly tweaked, but for the most part work very very well....if you have a trackpad.

I work exclusively with the Magic Trackpad and built-in trackpad, which gives me every Apple gesture available.

On occasion, I use the Magic Mouse, which severely limits my access to mission control features due to the limit of 2 finger gestures. I don't know how anyone could use Lion and a Magic Mouse as their primary setup, and still navigate Mission Control with any success.

klaxamazoo
Mar 21, 2012, 12:22 PM
The reality is, its not as bad as you and others pretend it is.

Beyond that, while it may seem "bad" for you and a few others, the overwhelming majority see it as a huge improvement over 10.6 & Expose.

In my own opinion, I think Mission Control could be slightly tweaked, but for the most part work very very well....if you have a trackpad.

I work exclusively with the Magic Trackpad and built-in trackpad, which gives me every Apple gesture available.

On occasion, I use the Magic Mouse, which severely limits my access to mission control features due to the limit of 2 finger gestures. I don't know how anyone could use Lion and a Magic Mouse as their primary setup, and still navigate Mission Control with any success.

I wasn't aware I was pretending. Mission Control sucks.

1) Exactly how is not being able to see the content of only one Space at a time better?

2) Why are overlapping windows that still overlap and hide content when "spread" better exactly?

3) Why is having to play peek-a-boo using the Spacebar better?

4) Why is having to use App Expose, which takes you out of Mission Control and makes it so that you can't move your Window to another Space without Re-invoking Mission Control better?

5) Why is repeatedly swiping to move between you Spaces always better than being able to see everything?

6) Why are small views of Spaces better than having the ability to see everything at once?

7) Why should finding Windows be a game of hide-n-seek. Exactly how is this better?

Sure, gestures are nice and convenient, but Mission Control sucks at Window Management.

Luckily, ReSpaceApp will provide a 3rd party solution and, hopefully, make my MacBook Air just as productive as my MacBook Pro.

heisenberg123
Mar 21, 2012, 12:35 PM
I wasn't aware I was pretending. Mission Control sucks.

1) Exactly how is not being able to see the content of only one Space at a time better?

2) Why are overlapping windows that still overlap and hide content when "spread" better exactly?

3) Why is having to play peek-a-boo using the Spacebar better?

4) Why is having to use App Expose, which takes you out of Mission Control and makes it so that you can't move your Window to another Space without Re-invoking Mission Control better?

5) Why is repeatedly swiping to move between you Spaces always better than being able to see everything?

6) Why are small views of Spaces better than having the ability to see everything at once?

7) Why should finding Windows be a game of hide-n-seek. Exactly how is this better?

Sure, gestures are nice and convenient, but Mission Control sucks at Window Management.

Luckily, ReSpaceApp will provide a 3rd party solution and, hopefully, make my MacBook Air just as productive as my MacBook Pro.



did you just say the 1 thing you dislike 7 different ways?

klaxamazoo
Mar 21, 2012, 12:42 PM
did you just say the 1 thing you dislike 7 different ways?

No, each one is different. Some detail with problems specific to the implementation: can't see more than one Space at a time. Windows overlap, etc. While others detail problems with the workflow caused by MC's implementation, i.e. peek-a-boo, can't move Windows to different Spaces as easily.

heisenberg123
Mar 21, 2012, 12:44 PM
No, each one is different. Some detail with problems specific to the implementation: can't see more than one Space at a time. Windows overlap, etc. While others detail problems with the workflow caused by MC's implementation, i.e. peek-a-boo, can't move Windows to different Spaces as easily.

but ultimately its the overlaping of windows that make up all 7 of your issues

klaxamazoo
Mar 21, 2012, 01:35 PM
but ultimately its the overlaping of windows that make up all 7 of your issues

4/7 are problems associated with overlapping windows

if you take the time to read, the other 3/7 are problems associated with only being able to see one Space at a time.

Mission Control would be fine if you could fully spread out the Windows and if you could actually see what is going on across all you Spaces.

And yes, I do routinely have more than 5 windows from the same application open at a time. I also run 20+ Applications and 40 - 60 Windows at time across two displays with 4 Spaces per display. 10.5 Expose/Spaces handled this much content with ease. Mission Control fails and is only good for limited usage.

heisenberg123
Mar 21, 2012, 02:15 PM
4/7 are problems associated with overlapping windows

if you take the time to read, the other 3/7 are problems associated with only being able to see one Space at a time.

Mission Control would be fine if you could fully spread out the Windows and if you could actually see what is going on across all you Spaces.

And yes, I do routinely have more than 5 windows from the same application open at a time. I also run 20+ Applications and 40 - 60 Windows at time across two displays with 4 Spaces per display. 10.5 Expose/Spaces handled this much content with ease. Mission Control fails and is only good for limited usage.

so you have 2 issues with mission control not 7?

klaxamazoo
Mar 21, 2012, 02:19 PM
Yes. Two root issues that result in seven poor processes. I didn't say there were seven issues, I poised seven process issues that have yet to be addressed by anyone that likes Mission Control. Not that difficult of a concept to get a handle on.

Once again, nobody can explain why those seven poorly thought out processes provide a superior user experience in Lion.

heisenberg123
Mar 21, 2012, 02:23 PM
Yes. Two root issues that result in seven poor processes. Not that difficult of a concept to get a handle on.

Once again, nobody can explain why those seven poorly thought out processes provide a superior user experience in Lion.

well for someone like you that runs as many apps and windows I can see your point, mission control is tiddy and neat for people who only have 2-3 windows for 5-6 apps running.

with mission control you can have 18 windows diplayed neatly on 6 stacks which to me is nicer to look than 18 little tumbnails.

klaxamazoo
Mar 21, 2012, 03:28 PM
well for someone like you that runs as many apps and windows I can see your point, mission control is tiddy and neat for people who only have 2-3 windows for 5-6 apps running.

with mission control you can have 18 windows diplayed neatly on 6 stacks which to me is nicer to look than 18 little tumbnails.

I agree that there are some great advantages of stacking Windows of an App together. But the problem is the poor implementation of the Spreading of the Windows, they need to spread apart such that they don't overlap that way I could actually see things. Modifying that would go a long way towards making Mission Control a suitable (for people like me) replacement for Expose/Spaces.

All Apple needs to do is fix the spreading issue and come up with some way to show me what is going on all across my computer in a manner that was as simple and fast as Expose/Spaces, i.e. two mouse movements to see everything, not 4 - 8 swipes and flicking my head back and forth between my displays.

And before people say App Expose, no that doesn't work very well because:
1) it pulls you out of Mission Control so now you can't organize your windows
2) it removes the context of what Windows/Applications were around the content
3) Is yet another set of Animations that are distracting and take up valuable time

baryon
Mar 21, 2012, 03:55 PM
You guys need to understand that the fact that many of us hate Mission Control doesn't make it a gigantic problem. I can live with Mission Control, but the thing is we live in a world where we get to experience a lot of things, there's lots of choice and fast-paced evolution of software and hardware. Once you've experienced something, you really miss it once it's taken away from you.

In 2007, there were no smartphones. It was just 5 years ago, it's not that long. If someone would take away everyone's smartphones, I bet everyone would complain, a lot, and it would be a huge problem. Yet 5 years ago everyone was happy.

I don't need good window management to be happy and to get my stuff done. But once I've experienced it, it kind of sucks to have to taken away, for no reason. If Apple got this far and made an amazing window management system, what made them say "Hey, you know what? Let's get rid of this!"?

I use Windows all the time, and it always baffles me how there's almost no way to manage windows. They're just there and you have to pretty much Alt + Tab your way through them, just like 15 years ago. It's no big deal really, but it's funny and annoying how bad it is knowing how good it could be.

Paradoxally
Mar 21, 2012, 04:45 PM
I use Windows all the time, and it always baffles me how there's almost no way to manage windows. They're just there and you have to pretty much Alt + Tab your way through them, just like 15 years ago. It's no big deal really, but it's funny and annoying how bad it is knowing how good it could be.

Well, there's something called the Superbar, and it works A LOT better than the Dock on the Mac.

Who Alt-Tabs on Windows? Really. I'm a power user on Mac AND Windows and that's such a waste of time. When I want a window, I invoke Mission Control/go to the Dock on Mac or go to the Superbar on Windows 7. So much faster.

And now Windows 8 is coming and pretty much killing off that concept so...

wikus
Mar 21, 2012, 05:11 PM
The reality is, its not as bad as you and others pretend it is.

Beyond that, while it may seem "bad" for you and a few others, the overwhelming majority see it as a huge improvement over 10.6 & Expose.

In my own opinion, I think Mission Control could be slightly tweaked, but for the most part work very very well....if you have a trackpad.

I work exclusively with the Magic Trackpad and built-in trackpad, which gives me every Apple gesture available.

On occasion, I use the Magic Mouse, which severely limits my access to mission control features due to the limit of 2 finger gestures. I don't know how anyone could use Lion and a Magic Mouse as their primary setup, and still navigate Mission Control with any success.

So basically, everyone that doesnt use a trackpad should shut up and deal with Mission Control's shortcomings?

Do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds? Essentially your logic is; everyone should abandon the mouse because Apple introduced the magic trackpad.

Do you have any idea how many people prefer a mouse over an inaccurate trackpad?

----------

*sigh*. Look up Process vs Procedure.

A workflow is a process. What you describe is a procedure. Find a different word, you're not talking about workflows.

Dude, give it a rest, youre getting hung up on semantics. Just accept the fact that some will call it workflow, others will call it productivity. Youre battle with words doesnt matter.

The real problem is that *all app windows at once* was removed in Mission Control and its hindered many peoples ability to get work done EFFICIENTLY.

Paradoxally
Mar 21, 2012, 05:26 PM
So basically, everyone that doesnt use a trackpad should shut up and deal with Mission Control's shortcomings?

Do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds? Essentially your logic is; everyone should abandon the mouse because Apple introduced the magic trackpad.

Do you have any idea how many people prefer a mouse over an inaccurate trackpad?

It did seem a little arrogant to me too. It's like those people who said that the inverted scrolling was good. It IS, on a trackpad. But I'm on a mouse, with a wheel that I've been using for years. And then they just shove inverted scrolling on people as the default. What is this, a goddamn flight simulator?

I know that you can change the settings, but it's just so stupid that when you plug in a mouse, the scrolling is STILL inverted. It only makes sense if you're on a trackpad.

I prefer a mouse over a trackpad for a lot of reasons. One, gaming (on Windows, of course). You can't play without a mouse. Anything that requires precision (Photoshop, etc...).

The only things that trackpads are good for are surfing the web and browsing though picture albums and stuff. Light tasks, basically.

Since Mission Control favors a trackpad-based usage, it's noticeably flawed for people who use a mouse. And that's about 95% of the world who use computers.

wikus
Mar 21, 2012, 05:50 PM
It did seem a little arrogant to me too. It's like those people who said that the inverted scrolling was good. It IS, on a trackpad. But I'm on a mouse, with a wheel that I've been using for years. And then they just shove inverted scrolling on people as the default. What is this, a goddamn flight simulator?

I know that you can change the settings, but it's just so stupid that when you plug in a mouse, the scrolling is STILL inverted. It only makes sense if you're on a trackpad.

I prefer a mouse over a trackpad for a lot of reasons. One, gaming (on Windows, of course). You can't play without a mouse. Anything that requires precision (Photoshop, etc...).

The only things that trackpads are good for are surfing the web and browsing though picture albums and stuff. Light tasks, basically.

Since Mission Control favors a trackpad-based usage, it's noticeably flawed for people who use a mouse. And that's about 95% of the world who use computers.

For over 10 years I was a desktop user, had a PowerMac and Mac Pro for 9 years and switched to a laptop only last year. My first laptop, EVER.

This is my setup:

http://i41.tinypic.com/4kw0h.jpg

I refuse to use the laptops screen, keyboard or trackpad because ALL of them are inferior to a full keyboard, a 24" Dell U2410 IPS screen and a Logitech Mx518 1600dpi multi-button mouse with programmed buttons for various applications.

I won't ever use a trackpad so as long as I'm doing real work in Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, Lightroom, and web development in Coda/Espresso.

What a joke to try and force people, especially professionals such as myself to use a trackpad. The only time I use it is when I'm in bed with the laptop.

Paradoxally
Mar 21, 2012, 05:59 PM
For over 10 years I was a desktop user, had a PowerMac and Mac Pro for 9 years and switched to a laptop only last year. My first laptop, EVER.

(...)

What a joke to try and force people, especially professionals such as myself to use a trackpad. The only time I use it is when I'm in bed with the laptop.

That's a nice setup. I'm more than happy with my MB Pro 13's screen, it's actually pretty darn amazing (yes, the real estate could be better, but it's good quality). I understand that for professional workflow the best thing would be a secondary monitor.

As for the keyboard and mouse, it's unthinkable to force people to use multi-gesture trackpads and all those gimmicks. Those are nice to invite friends over and say 'oh look at my beautiful setup, see I don't need to use a mouse like you normal people'.

Any gamer I know would laugh off a trackpad faster than you can say 'FPS'. And I'm sure any professional editor/developer/programmer would do too. I always take my gaming mouse to college because when I'm coding, the trackpad isn't the best and I generally do everything via keyboard/mouse.

Like you said, the trackpad is very convenient for lying in bed and just browsing the web. Lazy moments where no real work gets done. But when I need to get serious work done, it's hard surface + keyboard + mouse. Stable and efficient.

Jagardn
Mar 21, 2012, 08:58 PM
The issues have been clearly listed throughout this thread and many more threads like it. I suggest you start by looking over the first page of the thread.

I am on this forum enough to know the "issues" with MC and the people who are obsessed with complaining about them. I was saying he(KnightWRX) doesn't see the same issues as you do, nor do I.

klaxamazoo
Mar 21, 2012, 10:28 PM
I am on this forum enough to know the "issues" with MC and the people who are obsessed with complaining about them. I was saying he(KnightWRX) doesn't see the same issues as you do, nor do I.

Knight doesn't have a problem because he has limited Window Management needs and measures things by whether or not he gets his work done, so he finds any operating system workable (at least according to his comments).


Since, in your opinion, Mission Control is better than Expose/Spaces and has no issues, please explain:


1) Exactly how is not being able to see the content of only one Space at a time better?

2) Why are overlapping windows that still overlap and hide content when "spread" better exactly?

3) Why is having to play peek-a-boo using the Spacebar better?

4) Why is having to use App Expose, which takes you out of Mission Control and makes it so that you can't move your Window to another Space without Re-invoking Mission Control better?

5) Why is repeatedly swiping to move between you Spaces always better than being able to see everything?

6) Why are small views of Spaces better than having the ability to see everything at once?

7) Why should finding Windows be a game of hide-n-seek. Exactly how is this better?


Also, 2/3rd of the people in Macrumors (that have responded) don't like Mission Control. In terms on non-macrumors users, my girlfriend, father, sister, and three friends all find Mission Control inefficient and annoying.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1346288

jameslmoser
Mar 22, 2012, 12:32 AM
it seems some people think tech savy and computer savy are the same thing based on some responses to my posts... they are not. Also, you do not need to know what a kernel, a process, or any number of other components of the operating system is in order to be computer savy...

Jagardn
Mar 22, 2012, 04:29 PM
Knight doesn't have a problem because he has limited Window Management needs and measures things by whether or not he gets his work done, so he finds any operating system workable (at least according to his comments).


Since, in your opinion, Mission Control is better than Expose/Spaces and has no issues, please explain:


1) Exactly how is not being able to see the content of only one Space at a time better?

2) Why are overlapping windows that still overlap and hide content when "spread" better exactly?

3) Why is having to play peek-a-boo using the Spacebar better?

4) Why is having to use App Expose, which takes you out of Mission Control and makes it so that you can't move your Window to another Space without Re-invoking Mission Control better?

5) Why is repeatedly swiping to move between you Spaces always better than being able to see everything?

6) Why are small views of Spaces better than having the ability to see everything at once?

7) Why should finding Windows be a game of hide-n-seek. Exactly how is this better?


Also, 2/3rd of the people in Macrumors (that have responded) don't like Mission Control. In terms on non-macrumors users, my girlfriend, father, sister, and three friends all find Mission Control inefficient and annoying.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1346288

1. I don't need to see any more than what windows are associated with the app that I am currently trying to use.

2. App Expose + CMD Tab

3. See #2

4. Dragging a little tiny window you can barely see to another tiny little window sucks. Just my opinon, obviously you enjoy it.

5. 10lbs of ****** on a 5lb screen.

6. See #5

7. Showing every window you have open causes the same problem. See #5.

All of the people who have posted in that poll are the same ones who complain all the time. The people who are happy with MC probably don't give a **** about voting. 2/3 of 34, not really a great sample size.

roadbloc
Mar 22, 2012, 05:39 PM
Meh, Mission Control sucks. It's complicated, ugly and messy. Expose was clean, simple and did the job without confusing anyone or making you inspect your screen trying to find that damn window.

klaxamazoo
Mar 22, 2012, 05:47 PM
1. I don't need to see any more than what windows are associated with the app that I am currently trying to use.

2. App Expose + CMD Tab

3. See #2

4. Dragging a little tiny window you can barely see to another tiny little window sucks. Just my opinon, obviously you enjoy it.

5. 10lbs of ****** on a 5lb screen.

6. See #5

7. Showing every window you have open causes the same problem. See #5.

All of the people who have posted in that poll are the same ones who complain all the time. The people who are happy with MC probably don't give a **** about voting. 2/3 of 34, not really a great sample size.

1) Your not having a need does not explain why it is better. Just like me not eating steak not mean everybody should do without steak knives. Some of us do need to see what is going on, the majority in fact (see the poll).

2) Exactly, there is already a perfectly good app switcher, no need to ruin Expose/Spaces. Once again, CMD-Tab does not say WHY a small spread is better than actually showing them all. Providing a poor replacement does not explain why windows should not spread out

3) See #2. Why is peak-a-boo better? All you do is point to a poor alternative that already existed before Mission Control. Clearly Mission Control is not an improvement.

4) Windows are tinier in Mission Control. I never had a problem handling 60+ windows even on a 15" screen. See CMD-Tab, App-Expose if you need to narrow it down. Once again, App Switcher already exists. Also, why is being dragged out of Mission Control to find a window where you are not able to move it to a new Space better? You seem to have problems addressing the question.

5) Finally, a legitimate reason. The ability to see larger, individual Spaces can be beneficial. Personally, I never had a problem seeing 60+ windows spread across 4 - 6 Spaces and would rather have access to everything.

6) See #1, 5

7) But you don't address why hide-n-seek is better. Why must widows hide each other and the spread function fail to reveal windows? Why SHOULD windows be hidden within Mission Control without any way to properly spread out the Windows of an App without leaving Mission Control?


2/3rds is still greater than 1/3 no matter what the sample size. If Mission Control was successful then it wouldn't be failing so hard.

Mission Control is a failure and the only question you actually answered was #5. Try again and maybe you can get a gold star sticker.

heisenberg123
Mar 22, 2012, 05:47 PM
i know people would rather complain that use an alternative but have anyone tried hyper dock?

331951

tkermit
Mar 22, 2012, 06:28 PM
i know people would rather complain that use an alternative but have anyone tried hyper dock?

Hyperdock is an alternative solution for the App Exposé function, not the All Windows Exposé one.

klaxamazoo
Mar 22, 2012, 06:41 PM
i know people would rather complain that use an alternative but have anyone tried hyper dock?

331951

That is an interesting suggestion. I'm still pinning my hopes on ReSpaceApp since it is specifically looking to act as a Expose/Spaces replacement.

Jagardn
Mar 23, 2012, 10:03 AM
Mission Control is a failure and the only question you actually answered was #5. Try again and maybe you can get a gold star sticker.

Who really gets the last laugh here. I like MC, you don't. I can enjoy it, you have to live with it. There's your gold star. :p

baryon
Mar 23, 2012, 10:33 AM
Well, there's something called the Superbar, and it works A LOT better than the Dock on the Mac.

Who Alt-Tabs on Windows? Really. I'm a power user on Mac AND Windows and that's such a waste of time. When I want a window, I invoke Mission Control/go to the Dock on Mac or go to the Superbar on Windows 7. So much faster.

And now Windows 8 is coming and pretty much killing off that concept so...

I just can't get my head around that Superbar. If you have 2 windows open for an application, and you click on its the icon in the Superbar, nothing happens, except you get a tiny thumbnail preview of both of the windows. Generally, they're too small to tell which one you want, so you have to mouse over either one to actually see the window itself. That's not enough, though, because once you see the window, it's not actually active, you still have to click on the thumbnail. It just really annoys the hell out of me.

In Windows XP, I think things were much better: each window had its own button in the taskbar, and given that you knew the name of the one you're looking for, you could just click on it to bring it to the front. Sure, you can still change the settings in Win 7 to do that, but that just means we're back to where we were 10 years ago in terms of window management, which is kind of stupid for a modern OS.

On OS X, to do the same thing, you just click on the dock icon. That's it. It brings all of the application's windows to the front, and you're done. If one's hiding the other, you can always do Mission Control or Exposé and see the ACTUAL window, not a tiny iconic representation of it that requires you to hover. But if there are 2 windows open from the same app, and you're only working with 1 of those windows and don't want to close the other, then you just keep that one window in the front and it stays in front of the other window, so clicking the dock icon is often enough. In Win 7 you ALWAYS have to choose which window you want to bring to the font, so having more than 1 window open per app slows down your work a lot and adds a lot of extra steps.

Although I find Mission Control to be quite bad, I still think it's much better than what we have in Windows 7, since in OS X you still always deal with the window itself, not a small thumbnail representation, except in the case of Mission Control's desktop thumbnails, which I do hate.

klaxamazoo
Mar 23, 2012, 06:24 PM
Who really gets the last laugh here. I like MC, you don't. I can enjoy it, you have to live with it. There's your gold star. :p

Actually, I don't have to live with it and don't plan on either. If you had been able to read and understand the comments in this thread, you would have seen that there is an Expose/Spaces replacement in the works that is making good progress, i.e. ReSpaceApp.


Also, once my thesis is done I can sell my Macbook Air that only supports Lion as I will no longer need a backup computer. My main computer runs Snow Leopard just fine and there is nothing compelling about Lion nor Mountain Lion that warrants a forced upgrade. Calendars, Contacts, and Mail are better synced through gmail, and SugarSync is better than iCloud, iCal on 10.6 is better than iCal on 10.7, Address Book on 10.6 is better than Address Book on 10.7. Versions is more work that helpful for what I do.

Overall, there is nothing compelling nor particularly worthwhile about Lion and Mountain Lion seems to follow a similar trend. I won't use Notifications because I don't like distractions, iCal is still worthless and ugly, Address Book is now even uglier, Game Central is a pathetic joke and looks like crap (I mean, who thinks of black jack tables when they think of video games?). I don't need or use Notes, I've shown that iMessage is really just a setup for Spam, I'm not 12 so Twitter integration is useless, my memory is excellent so Reminders and Notes is also worthless. All Apple did was add some Apps, some API's for Notification Center and added a slight garden wall with GateKeeper.

The only thing to miss is swipe backward for Firefox and even then, the majority of my internet consumption is on my iPad, so no big loss.

The big loss is that without Steve Jobs, Apple software is starting to look like Microsoft software. With its use of inefficient skeuomorphic idioms that look like crap and provide less power but add additional complexity. Mission Control is a perfect example of not fully thinking a problem through and applying a half-hearten solution instead of really caring enough to be brilliant.

KnightWRX
Mar 23, 2012, 06:34 PM
Knight doesn't have a problem because he has limited Window Management needs and measures things by whether or not he gets his work done, so he finds any operating system workable (at least according to his comments).

No, you have no idea what my window management needs are. The only reason I can get work done in any operating system is that I don't expect the system to change to fit my "only one way of doing things", I adapt to the system I'm using and learn its ins and outs and how to be productive in it.

And frankly, I don't know what you guys think is so great in Spaces, it's just a cheap implementation of virtual desktops compared to what I've seen elsewhere, in things like Englightenment, KDE and other much more versatile systems.

You guys are just "knocking it before you try it". Just learn to use darn Mission Control, the old way is not coming back.

klaxamazoo
Mar 23, 2012, 07:32 PM
No, you have no idea what my window management needs are. The only reason I can get work done in any operating system is that I don't expect the system to change to fit my "only one way of doing things", I adapt to the system I'm using and learn its ins and outs and how to be productive in it.

And frankly, I don't know what you guys think is so great in Spaces, it's just a cheap implementation of virtual desktops compared to what I've seen elsewhere, in things like Englightenment, KDE and other much more versatile systems.

You guys are just "knocking it before you try it". Just learn to use darn Mission Control, the old way is not coming back.

How many windows do you typically have open at once then? All of your posts point to relatively simple Window Management needs. Mine is usually 60+ if I'm on Snow Leopard and has to drop down to ~20 on Lion because Lion can't handle lots of Windows.

Also, Expose/Spaces is coming back, just through outside developers. See ReSpaceApp.


Also, since you here. You never did managed to provide any good reason why:

1) Exactly how is not being able to see the content of only one Space at a time better?

2) Why are overlapping windows that still overlap and hide content when "spread" better exactly?

3) Why is having to play peek-a-boo using the Spacebar better?

4) Why is having to use App Expose, which takes you out of Mission Control and makes it so that you can't move your Window to another Space without Re-invoking Mission Control better?

5) Why is repeatedly swiping to move between you Spaces always better than being able to see everything?

6) Why are small views of Spaces better than having the ability to see everything at once?

7) Why should finding Windows be a game of hide-n-seek. Exactly how is this better?

KnightWRX
Mar 23, 2012, 07:55 PM
How many windows do you typically have open at once then? All of your posts point to relatively simple Window Management needs. Mine is usually 60+ if I'm on Snow Leopard and has to drop down to ~20 on Lion because Lion can't handle lots of Windows.

Depends on what I'm actually doing. Unix server maintenance ? Can be high up in the 40s and 60s too, depending on how many servers/tasks to perform on each.

I use GNU screen a lot of simplify and shrink the count when possible too. Tabs help reduce the active number of windows too. So yes, while I don't have 40 to 60 Windows open, I have many tabs and those tabs are split up.

When coding, frankly, I keep it minimal. 1 tab/window per open file, I try to limit it to 2 or 3 classes at a time, otherwise debugging becomes a nightmare.

This doesn't count all the other stuff I have open like music player/browser/finder/mail. Each task is relegated to a desktop for cleanliness. I don't check my e-mail on the desktop I'm working in Terminal from and vice versa.

Also, Expose/Spaces is coming back, just through outside developers. See ReSpaceApp.

Good, why are you still here whining about Mission Control, pissing in everyone's cereal then ?


Also, since you here. You never did managed to provide any good reason why:

1) Exactly how is not being able to see the content of only one Space at a time better?

I can see the content of only one Space at a time. It's right there in front of me right now...

2) Why are overlapping windows that still overlap and hide content when "spread" better exactly?

What are you talking about ? Are you talking about Mission Control's application switcher ? Because if you are, you're not meant to actually use it to pick windows, only to pick applications... I've stated so earlier. Pick your application, then switch to App Expose to pick the window.

3) Why is having to play peek-a-boo using the Spacebar better?

I don't know what you're talking about, I've never done that.

4) Why is having to use App Expose, which takes you out of Mission Control and makes it so that you can't move your Window to another Space without Re-invoking Mission Control better?

Because it saves on a lot of visual scanning. More clicks does not mean more time spent. You're too focused on the number of keypresses/clicks/trackpad gestures, you're not seeing the big picture.

5) Why is repeatedly swiping to move between you Spaces always better than being able to see everything?

you don't have to swipe. CMD-#, Mission Control -> click desktop. Pick your poison.

6) Why are small views of Spaces better than having the ability to see everything at once?

Because full screen pager apps suck ? They force you to again, visually scan your entire huge screen, moving your eyes all over the place.

7) Why should finding Windows be a game of hide-n-seek. Exactly how is this better?

It's not, it's now much simpler. Snow Leopard actually makes it like trying to pick out Spartacus in a crowd of slaves. All those squares popping up, all equally shapped, requiring close inspection of each.

In Lion/Mountain Lion, switch to App, App Expose. More keystrokes, less scanning, more productivity for your average person that's not so hung up on scanning his entire monitor each time he wants to find a duck.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, I just think its time you moved on from it. Mission Control has won. Deal.

klaxamazoo
Mar 23, 2012, 08:41 PM
Depends on what I'm actually doing. Unix server maintenance ? Can be high up in the 40s and 60s too, depending on how many servers/tasks to perform on each.

I use GNU screen a lot of simplify and shrink the count when possible too. Tabs help reduce the active number of windows too. So yes, while I don't have 40 to 60 Windows open, I have many tabs and those tabs are split up.

When coding, frankly, I keep it minimal. 1 tab/window per open file, I try to limit it to 2 or 3 classes at a time, otherwise debugging becomes a nightmare.

This doesn't count all the other stuff I have open like music player/browser/finder/mail. Each task is relegated to a desktop for cleanliness. I don't check my e-mail on the desktop I'm working in Terminal from and vice versa.



Good, why are you still here whining about Mission Control, pissing in everyone's cereal then ?




I can see the content of only one Space at a time. It's right there in front of me right now...



What are you talking about ? Are you talking about Mission Control's application switcher ? Because if you are, you're not meant to actually use it to pick windows, only to pick applications... I've stated so earlier. Pick your application, then switch to App Expose to pick the window.



I don't know what you're talking about, I've never done that.



Because it saves on a lot of visual scanning. More clicks does not mean more time spent. You're too focused on the number of keypresses/clicks/trackpad gestures, you're not seeing the big picture.



you don't have to swipe. CMD-#, Mission Control -> click desktop. Pick your poison.



Because full screen pager apps suck ? They force you to again, visually scan your entire huge screen, moving your eyes all over the place.



It's not, it's now much simpler. Snow Leopard actually makes it like trying to pick out Spartacus in a crowd of slaves. All those squares popping up, all equally shapped, requiring close inspection of each.

In Lion/Mountain Lion, switch to App, App Expose. More keystrokes, less scanning, more productivity for your average person that's not so hung up on scanning his entire monitor each time he wants to find a duck.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, I just think its time you moved on from it. Mission Control has won. Deal.


This is a thread specifically about the problems with Mission Control. 66% of Macrumor members have found it lacking. We aren't pissing in you cereal bowl, we're complaining about the piss.

Tabs are not the same as Windows. Try 60+ windows with Mission Control. Too much work

1) You still didn't explain why only being able to see one Space at at time is better than having the ability to see everything across all Spaces if desired.

2) Being forced to use App Expose takes you out of Mission Control and now you can't move Rearange your windows. Windows are fluid things and should not be attached to specific desktops. We should have the ability to move them easily around with no thought or effort.
2b) Why do we need another App Switcher and why should we get that App Switcher at the cost of having a Window Switcher?
2c) You still haven't explained why the Spread function should only move the Windows ~25 px and not actually reveal overlapping Windows. Why is Apple's implementation of always overlapped Windows within Mission Control better than an implementation that properly spread the Windows out when directed?

3) The SpaceBar is one of people response to why the Spread windows feature should be crippled as it is

4) Once again, hows is being forced to rely on App Expose which does not let you easily move Windows between Spaces better? Why is making it more difficult to move Windows around better?

5) Once again, why is it better? How is NOT having the ability to see what is going on on more than one Space at a time better? In 10.5 I could see everything going on all at once. How ONLY have the ability to ONLY see on Space at a time better?

6) Visually scanning one large screen is faster than swiping through 4 of them. I can scan through 60 - 100 images in 10.5 Expose/Spaces in less time than it takes to swipe through 4 Spaces. Thus, 10.7 is inferior and a failure.

7) Yes, the 10.6 grid layout was a failure, that why the 10.5 Dock hack was implemented.

Overall, you can't explain why the choices made when Mission Control was implemented are better. All you can do is point to alternate workarounds as if what was missing from OSX was an App Switcher.


If you don't want to read about people's dislike and criticism of Mission Control, then don't come to these threads. The topic title makes the content of this thread is explicitly clear. You are choosing to come and read opinions that disagree with your own, you are choosing to enter discussions with people that have opinions different from your own, so don't ask us to shut up. If you want to be around people that bask in admiration of Mission Control, then start your own thread titled "I love Mission Control" or whatever else strikes your fancy. I guarantee I won't participate in it. However, this is a thread bashing a poorly implemented piece of Apple Software. Deal with it.

KnightWRX
Mar 23, 2012, 09:01 PM
This is a thread specifically about the problems with Mission Control. 66% of Macrumor members have found it lacking. We aren't pissing in you cereal bowl, we're complaining about the piss.

Tabs are not the same as Windows. Try 60+ windows with Mission Control. Too much work

Why ? Tabs were invented for a reason. Hint : Simplify window management. Why do you think tabbed browsers became the norm ? :rolleyes: Sure I can open all my tabs as seperate windows... but why ?

Heck, even Photoshop and Illustrator have moved on to using tabs to simplify window management. Maybe a hint you should take there or something ... ?

At this point, you're sounding like a broken record. I've answered your questions. You claim I did not. You're not getting anything else out of me. Frankly, Mission Control works and it works well for me, so I really couldn't care less about your attitude towards it.

Keep enjoying Snow Leopard and being mad at Apple for "ruining" OS X. I'll keep being happy. Guess which of us is enjoying life more now ? :D ;)

klaxamazoo
Mar 23, 2012, 09:30 PM
Why ? Tabs were invented for a reason. Hint : Simplify window management. Why do you think tabbed browsers became the norm ? :rolleyes: Sure I can open all my tabs as seperate windows... but why ?

Heck, even Photoshop and Illustrator have moved on to using tabs to simplify window management. Maybe a hint you should take there or something ... ?

At this point, you're sounding like a broken record. I've answered your questions. You claim I did not. You're not getting anything else out of me. Frankly, Mission Control works and it works well for me, so I really couldn't care less about your attitude towards it.

Keep enjoying Snow Leopard and being mad at Apple for "ruining" OS X. I'll keep being happy. Guess which of us is enjoying life more now ? :D ;)

Great, let me know when you've implemented Tabs in all my software. Even then Tabs are not good for seeing content, it is really just a self-contained box that overly relies on names. That fails the content has similar titles such as EBL - T48 - S3 - G4_R06_C05 that are too long to fit in most Tab and always get cut off, well. Tabs don't work but a nice big picture does.

You have simplistic Window Management needs that can be fulfilled by programs that implement Tabs. Not everyone has simplistic needs nor accepts it when Apple pisses in the cereal bowl.

And you still haven't once been able to detail why Mission Control isn't a failure. All you can't point to is App Expose and say deal. Mission Control is a failure and 2/3rds of Macrumors agrees.

And yes, Apple will fall apart without Steve Jobs just like last time because it will soon fill up with "B" players that accept whatever others give them instead of expecting perfect solutions. I know lots of people like you that accept what others give them, its great because you can get **** loads of work out of them while not having to worry about overworking them as they accept readily hierarchies as something they have to "deal" with. Heck, I used to be envious of people that could accept things how they are, but then I figured out how to take control and now I get to have people with no vision implement mine. People that accept things as they are are people that accept mediocracy. Enjoy.

heisenberg123
Mar 23, 2012, 09:41 PM
it must be a case of you don't know what its like unless you try it but like i mentioned I've only been a Mac user post lion I've seen youtube videos of expose and spaces and i don't get the difference except they separate from each other and mission control is 1 screen?

klaxamazoo
Mar 23, 2012, 10:10 PM
it must be a case of you don't know what its like unless you try it but like i mentioned I've only been a Mac user post lion I've seen youtube videos of expose and spaces and i don't get the difference except they separate from each other and mission control is 1 screen?

Overall they are very similar and designed to help the user find, organize, and manage content. The key difference is how they display content and the resulting abilities to find and organize the content.

In 10.5 Expose would move and proportionally resize your windows such that everything was visible, nothing hidden and nothing organized. That worked well for visual people but not organization based people.

10.6 changed the way content was laud out and removed the proportional scaling and minimal translation with a randomly oriented grid. Overall is was harder to use for both sets of people, although some people did prefer the tidiness.

10.7 brought back proportional scaling but kept things tidy by grouping content by app in a stack. I.e, all your Preview widows would be stacked together. Unfortunately, having things stacked means you can visually identify content without envoking either App Expose or using a hunt and peck method based around the Spacebar and mouse.

If you have limited Window management needs were few apps have more than one or two windows open, then Mission Control is great. Or, if you have little need to move Contenet around, Mission Control is fine. However, if you deal with lots of windows, the Mission Control is considered vastly inferior by many.

It is almost akin to if Apple or Mozilla removed Tabbed Internet browsing and replaced it solely with Top Sites. Sure, it will get the job done, but it would really suck.

heisenberg123
Mar 23, 2012, 10:38 PM
Overall they are very similar and designed to help the user find, organize, and manage content. The key difference is how they display content and the resulting abilities to find and organize the content.

In 10.5 Expose would move and proportionally resize your windows such that everything was visible, nothing hidden and nothing organized. That worked well for visual people but not organization based people.

10.6 changed the way content was laud out and removed the proportional scaling and minimal translation with a randomly oriented grid. Overall is was harder to use for both sets of people, although some people did prefer the tidiness.

10.7 brought back proportional scaling but kept things tidy by grouping content by app in a stack. I.e, all your Preview widows would be stacked together. Unfortunately, having things stacked means you can visually identify content without envoking either App Expose or using a hunt and peck method based around the Spacebar and mouse.

If you have limited Window management needs were few apps have more than one or two windows open, then Mission Control is great. Or, if you have little need to move Contenet around, Mission Control is fine. However, if you deal with lots of windows, the Mission Control is considered vastly inferior by many.

It is almost akin to if Apple or Mozilla removed Tabbed Internet browsing and replaced it solely with Top Sites. Sure, it will get the job done, but it would really suck.

i got you ya the examples i seen where just a few windows open so i couldn't see the difference

gumblecosby
Mar 24, 2012, 05:22 PM
I dont know why the new snow leopard expose gets championed so much. I would not still be using snow leopard if the original style expose could not be hacked into it. Arranging in a grid is awkward compared to relative window size layout (for me anyway). Mission Control at least re-added relative window sizes. For me its:
10.5 expose >Mission Control > 10.6 expose

Sdreed91
Mar 24, 2012, 07:19 PM
I really don't understand the people who say that they won't leave SL. It really baffles me. Isn't the technology industry one that you either adapt or get left behind?

gumblecosby
Mar 24, 2012, 08:09 PM
I really don't understand the people who say that they won't leave SL. It really baffles me. Isn't the technology industry one that you either adapt or get left behind?

For me, the main reasons for keeping a relatively old macbook on snow leopard are simple:

-on 10.6 I get 3 1/2 hours battery, on Lion its 2 1/2. I need that extra hour.
-old non multitouch trackpad => no new gestures (have a magic trackpad but bluetooth drains what little battery life I have (on either OS)
-UI stuggles with animation on 10.7 especially on battery mode. Tasks still run quickly though so this is really just an aesthetic issue


I've no problems with using Lion on newer MacBooks, so if I get a newer mac then my problems are not an issue. Lion is smooth, fast and has good battery life on new hardware. They also have mutitouch trackpads.

Snow Leopard runs well on said macbook and 10.6.8 is still targeted for new 3rd party programs and apple security updates so it will do fine for a while yet.

Also happy with the performance of 10.8 on that mac. Has improved over Lion.

Sdreed91
Mar 24, 2012, 09:11 PM
For me, the main reasons for keeping a relatively old macbook on snow leopard are simple:

-on 10.6 I get 3 1/2 hours battery, on Lion its 2 1/2. I need that extra hour.
-old non multitouch trackpad => no new gestures (have a magic trackpad but bluetooth drains what little battery life I have (on either OS)
-UI stuggles with animation on 10.7 especially on battery mode. Tasks still run quickly though so this is really just an aesthetic issue


I've no problems with using Lion on newer MacBooks, so if I get a newer mac then my problems are not an issue. Lion is smooth, fast and has good battery life on new hardware. They also have mutitouch trackpads.

Snow Leopard runs well on said macbook and 10.6.8 is still targeted for new 3rd party programs and apple security updates so it will do fine for a while yet.

Also happy with the performance of 10.8 on that mac. Has improved over Lion.

Well I definitely appreciate a civilized response and not a hostile one. I do have sluggish problems with animations on my 2011 MBP running lion. But after having moved it to ML wow what a difference everything has improved minus
a few graphical bugs.

klaxamazoo
Mar 25, 2012, 06:56 AM
I really don't understand the people who say that they won't leave SL. It really baffles me. Isn't the technology industry one that you either adapt or get left behind?

Why would you adapt to poorly implemented programs? There isn't anything to be left behind on that can't be found better implemented by outside developers. Apple makes a good OS but is starting to suck at their default programs (although Keynote still kicks ass)

SugarSync > iCloud
BetterTouchTool > Apple Gestures
Word > Pages
BusyCal > iCal
Bento > Address Book
iMedia Pro > iPhoto, Aperture
Steam > Game Center
etc.

Other than Mail, TextEdit and Preview, I can't think of any Apple Application I use anymore. They are all either really slow (iPhoto), have limited feature set (Pages), are crippled (Mission Control), or ugly as all get out (iCal, Address Book, Game Center).

Mission Control is just another Apple Application that doesn't do a good job of meeting my needs or the needs of others. Once outside developers finish writing replacements (i.e. ReSpaceApp), those of us that have high standards can update the core OS to take advantage of under-the-hood advances.

Adaption does not have to mean adoption. I'm not going to settle for poor implementation when I can just wait while participating with others in demonstrating to outside developers that there is a demand and market for alternative Window Management Applications.

colourfastt
Mar 25, 2012, 09:55 AM
I've watched 3 pages of this and have come to the conclusion that those touting MC are using iToys or laptops and not a desktop system with a mouse. And who the hell uses "full screen" on a 27" screen??

jncoanalog
Mar 26, 2012, 07:04 AM
I really don't understand the people who say that they won't leave SL. It really baffles me. Isn't the technology industry one that you either adapt or get left behind?

No, you can't classify technology as AN INDUSTRY per se... it should exist to help you perform tasks that sometimes are done by someone working in an industry.
You shouldn't need to adapt to technology, technology should adapt to you don't you think? Technology didn't create itself you know? It was WE, as humans, that created it (and constantly continue to create new technologies and improve old one's)! Sometimes (most of the times really) new one's don't have a purpose and old one's are ruined instead of being improved...

... witch takes me back to the topic, mission control sucks big time because, as someone already mentioned, it doesn't work for visually oriented persons (like me)! And Spaces+Expose probably sucked big time for language oriented people! So, would it be that difficult to have AN OPTION to choose between two modes of window management?

No, you have no idea what my window management needs are. The only reason I can get work done in any operating system is that I don't expect the system to change to fit my "only one way of doing things", I adapt to the system I'm using and learn its ins and outs and how to be productive in it.

Why in the hell should I have to "adapt to the system I'm using"? The goal of window management is to increase productivity... if I have to adapt to what Apple (or Microsoft, or Linux, or Google) think is more productive to me it will DEcrease my productivity big time, specially if they keep changing the way it works every two years!
I was more than happy with the "cheap implementation of virtual desktops" found in 10.5 (and even with the one in 10.6) precisely because I didn't have to adapt nor to learn anything... (And frankly that's why, for me, Apple products are normally better than it's competitors). I started using it and easily found out how I could take advantage of the features it provided. And I'm sure it's not because it was implemented MY one and only way of doing things, I'm pretty sure many other people use it differently than me and it works great for them too.
Now, if it didn't work for you, why couldn't Apple keep what was working for so many people and on top of that find a way to implement something that will work for you and the others who like the Mission Control way of doing things?

So don't tell me I have to adapt my workflow, my workflow is what it is because that's the way I manage to be more productive, because it fits my personality and my capacities perfectly, and naturally. If you like to (re)adapt your workflow every two years just to fit what the OS maker thinks is the best why didn't you adapt to Spaces+Expose? :rolleyes:

For now I'm staying with 10.6 and I love it... I certainly would like to try versions, auto-save and the "keep your desktop like it was before shutting down" thing, but I value Spaces+Expose more than those things so... ReSpaceApp for Mountain Lion PLEASEEEEEE!!! :D

NZPilgrim
Mar 26, 2012, 10:08 PM
I've watched 3 pages of this and have come to the conclusion that those touting MC are using iToys or laptops and not a desktop system with a mouse. And who the hell uses "full screen" on a 27" screen??

Quite a few people I would imagine. Full screen is a convenient way of getting apps that I have running all the time (like mail, parallels and iTunes) out of the way. I'm not running a multi monitor system so the limitations of full screen don't apply to me and it means I don't have to stuff around creating spaces for each application and assigning the app to that space.

For a lot of people mission control/app expose works, for a lot of others it doesn't. Hopefully this ReSpaceApp fixes the problems for those people so they can stop posting the same tired threads every week.

Mackilroy
Mar 27, 2012, 01:14 PM
Hopefully this ReSpaceApp fixes the problems for those people so they can stop posting the same tired threads every week.
They'll just find something else to complain about. But otherwise, agreed.

Sdreed91
Mar 27, 2012, 02:21 PM
This post has gotten old fast. MC works for some and it doesn't for others. But those of us who do enjoy MC are of course chalked off as iToy users and aren't qualified to make an argument for MC. The grouping of windows can be annoying but it gives a cleaner look at all of what the user has open and is using. While Apple is all about a clean computing experience MC makes sense however, as a trade off for a clean and organized UI some have lost the functionality that exposé and spaces offered. To each his own I guess.

dba415
Mar 27, 2012, 10:05 PM
Mission Control has, and has always, sucked.

wikus
Mar 28, 2012, 12:09 AM
They'll just find something else to complain about. But otherwise, agreed.

The only other thing to complain about in Lion is 'Versions' (a ridiculously STUPID method of saving files).

If only Apple knew what the word OPTIONS means, we'd have the OPTION to turn on or off anything we didn't like in System Preferences. There would be no complaining. Its fine if to give us new features, but Apple is obsessed about forcing consumers to do things their way and ONLY one way without giving us some choice.

What is so wrong with adding some options in System Preferences? Why are so many Apple fanboys so devoted to a brand that they object to even having choice? It doesnt take away their glorified and inefficient use of Mission Control.

KnightWRX
Mar 28, 2012, 06:28 AM
The only other thing to complain about in Lion is 'Versions' (a ridiculously STUPID method of saving files).


Block level snapshotting of documents is stupid now ? :rolleyes:

You must not be a profesional. All the Pros need block level snapshotting. It's built in to the big boy toys like NetApp's OpenFiler, Windows Server with Volume Shadow Copy, LVM2 in HP-UX/Linux, ZFS in Solaris/FreeBSD, etc..

But I understand why you would think that, Versions is very much a pro-feature. You need to be a pro to understand. ;)

klaxamazoo
Mar 28, 2012, 08:07 AM
Block level snapshotting of documents is stupid now ? :rolleyes:

You must not be a profesional. All the Pros need block level snapshotting. It's built in to the big boy toys like NetApp's OpenFiler, Windows Server with Volume Shadow Copy, LVM2 in HP-UX/Linux, ZFS in Solaris/FreeBSD, etc..

But I understand why you would think that, Versions is very much a pro-feature. You need to be a pro to understand. ;)

No. Apple's implementation of it is though.

1) Duplicate instead of Save As adds extra, unnecessary steps. Now I have to close the original window and move the new window to the correct location instead of just creating a new document in its place.
- Extra steps = Not well thought out = Poor design

2) The assumption that all document modifications are to be saved is a poor assumption.
- Preview used to be a great application to open a quick image, rotate it to look at it from a different angle and close without saving because the original orientation was fine. Now this workflow and other similar workflows used by others is no longer valid
- There is no good reason why it MUST work this way. Apple did not take the time to properly design Versions to be robust. A simple solution would be to treat locked documents like the traditional document, where changes could be made without extra alerts popping up, without duplicating, without re-closing windows.
- Extra steps = Not well thought out = Poor design


Versions could be great, but lately Apple is not taking the time to think things through. Although, I doubt you would understand because, surprise, surprise, someone working in IT blames the user first.

KnightWRX
Mar 28, 2012, 08:12 AM
- Extra steps = Not well thought out = Poor design

I'd rather a few extra steps on setup that save me a whole lot of extra steps on restore.

Again, pros understand. It's the click monkeys who count productivity as number of clicks that don't. ;)

Setting up Continuous Access between 2 LUNs in my XP arrays takes a few extra steps. Losing my primary datacenter site and still having my SAP instance up and running with no data loss though... that's priceless. Those first few initial steps that you call poor design just saved 15 hours of restoring files and bringing the system back up.

No, adding a few extra steps is not poor design if those steps make a lot of sense. Again, only something Pros understand. Keep using those iToys my friend, keep using them with their few steps and little versatility.

(2 can play at this "Pros" game you see...).

klaxamazoo
Mar 28, 2012, 08:16 AM
I'd rather a few extra steps on setup that save me a whole lot of extra steps on restore.

Again, pros understand. It's the click monkeys who count productivity as number of clicks that don't. ;)

Setting up Continuous Access between 2 LUNs in my XP arrays takes a few extra steps. Losing my primary datacenter site and still having my SAP instance up and running with no data loss though... that's priceless. Those first few initial steps that you call poor design just saved 15 hours of restoring files and bringing the system back up.

No, adding a few extra steps is not poor design if those steps make a lot of sense. Again, only something Pros understand. Keep using those iToys my friend, keep using them with their few steps and little versatility.

(2 can play at this "Pros" game you see...).


Poor design is when there are extra steps that don't need to be there. With a little more thought Versions could be more powerful, just as restore happy, take fewer steps, and easier to use.

You can try and avoid the issues all you want, but you can't argue as to WHY Apple's implementation is perfect.

Versions = Poor Design

beosound3200
Mar 28, 2012, 08:34 AM
Versions = Poor Design

is there anything good in lion and mountain lion according to you?

youre at 10.3, i recon?

i wish i could see all the posts from you about 10.5 and 10.6

klaxamazoo
Mar 28, 2012, 08:44 AM
is there anything good in lion and mountain lion according to you?

youre at 10.3, i recon?

i wish i could see all the posts from you about 10.5 and 10.6

No, I run 10.6 with the 10.5 Expose hack and 10.7 on my portable. The only negative critiques of 10.6 you will see is the grid spacing of Expose. Until Lion I was a big Apple fanboy.

Yes, there are good things about Lion. The new gestures are nice, I use Launch Pad a lot but it would be better if Apple fixed the bug that causes icons to move on their own. I like the new Mail but it would be improved if it showed the entire conversation the way gmail does, but it is still a big improvement over 10.6 mail. The new symbol browser is nice.

Other than that, Lion doesn't offer improvements but is rather annoying and I stopped recommending Apple Computers to people for the first time in 8 years since I got my Macbook Air late last year.

I find 10.7 to be filled with poorly thought out software. iCal sucks and is filled with bugs, Address Book is annoying, Mission Control is crippled, Versions is half-assed and messes up some great programs when it could have been amazing with a little more thought put into it.

In summary, the major changes in Lion were all negative and have well-earned their negative critiques.

kemo
Mar 28, 2012, 09:24 AM
is there anything good in lion and mountain lion according to you?

youre at 10.3, i recon?

i wish i could see all the posts from you about 10.5 and 10.6

After reading quoted text I wish the same dude!

----------

No, I run 10.6 with the 10.5 Expose hack and 10.7 on my portable. The only negative critiques of 10.6 you will see is the grid spacing of Expose. Until Lion I was a big Apple fanboy.

Yes, there are good things about Lion. The new gestures are nice, I use Launch Pad a lot but it would be better if Apple fixed the bug that causes icons to move on their own. I like the new Mail but it would be improved if it showed the entire conversation the way gmail does, but it is still a big improvement over 10.6 mail. The new symbol browser is nice.

Other than that, Lion doesn't offer improvements but is rather annoying and I stopped recommending Apple Computers to people for the first time in 8 years since I got my Macbook Air late last year.

I find 10.7 to be filled with poorly thought out software. iCal sucks and is filled with bugs, Address Book is annoying, Mission Control is crippled, Versions is half-assed and messes up some great programs when it could have been amazing with a little more thought put into it.

In summary, the major changes in Lion were all negative and have well-earned their negative critiques.

Come on, its not that bad until it comes to Mission control, that really sucks IMHO.

KnightWRX
Mar 28, 2012, 09:48 AM
Poor design is when there are extra steps that don't need to be there. With a little more thought Versions could be more powerful, just as restore happy, take fewer steps, and easier to use.

You can try and avoid the issues all you want, but you can't argue as to WHY Apple's implementation is perfect.

Versions = Poor Design

I haven't seen any extra steps that don't need to be there in Versions. How is it poor design ? Duplicate forces you to "save" the new duplicate copy ? Forces you to manually close the old, duplicated one ?

You assume that everyone that duplicates wants to close the old version. And saving the new duplicated copy makes tons of sense.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the "poor design" there... I see a lot of uffing and puffing about nothing. Things real Pros don't have time to do, because they're busy working with Pro tools, not iToys like some of you click-counting people do.

(I sure like throwing back those "Real Pros!" comments. I can see why some of you try to do it everytime you talk about features).

klaxamazoo
Mar 28, 2012, 10:06 AM
I haven't seen any extra steps that don't need to be there in Versions. How is it poor design ? Duplicate forces you to "save" the new duplicate copy ? Forces you to manually close the old, duplicated one ?

You assume that everyone that duplicates wants to close the old version. And saving the new duplicated copy makes tons of sense.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the "poor design" there... I see a lot of uffing and puffing about nothing. Things real Pros don't have time to do, because they're busy working with Pro tools, not iToys like some of you click-counting people do.

(I sure like throwing back those "Real Pros!" comments. I can see why some of you try to do it everytime you talk about features).

Really, how often do you need two Versions open at the same time as compared to just saving as in a new location or with a new file name to send to someone? Personally, I've never once needed to have two Versions open at the same time but I routinely save as to make it explicitly clear to people I'm collaborating with which version I'm sending out.

If Versions was perfect then there wouldn't be so many complaints. Just like if Mission Control was better than 2/3rds of people at Macrumors wouldn't prefer the old Expose/Spaces.

Maybe you prefer to be mediocre and are okay with mediocre software.

Brad9893
Mar 28, 2012, 10:28 AM
Really, how often do you need two Versions open at the same time as compared to just saving as in a new location or with a new file name to send to someone? Personally, I've never once needed to have two Versions open at the same time but I routinely save as to make it explicitly clear to people I'm collaborating with which version I'm sending out.

If Versions was perfect then there wouldn't be so many complaints. Just like if Mission Control was better than 2/3rds of people at Macrumors wouldn't prefer the old Expose/Spaces.

Maybe you prefer to be mediocre and are okay with mediocre software.

You need to learn that what works for you doesn't work for everyone else. Just because you think Mission Control is mediocre doesn't mean that everyone feels that way. Some people feel that it is superior. It's all about how you use your Mac. I personally feel that Expose/Spaces was mediocre when compared to Mission Control. Mission Control makes everything work smoother for me, yet I can accept why others would prefer Expose/Spaces. Why can't you do the same? Liking Lion's features does not make the mediocre.

I don't think that there are as many complaints as you think. People who are satisfied usually stay silent, whereas people who aren't happy are the ones to speak up/vote in the polls. When it comes to Lion's features, I've always felt that the people who complained were just a vocal minority. Most Mac users probably either like it or are indifferent to it.

klaxamazoo
Mar 28, 2012, 10:34 AM
You need to learn that what works for you doesn't work for everyone else. Just because you think Mission Control is mediocre doesn't mean that everyone feels that way. Some people feel that it is superior. It's all about how you use your Mac. I personally feel that Expose/Spaces was mediocre when compared to Mission Control. Mission Control makes everything work smoother for me, yet I can accept why others would prefer Expose/Spaces. Why can't you do the same? Liking Lion's features does not make the mediocre.

I don't think that there are as many complaints as you think. People who are satisfied usually stay silent, whereas people who aren't happy are the ones to speak up/vote in the polls. When it comes to Lion's features, I've always felt that the people who complained were just a vocal minority. Most Mac users probably either like it or are indifferent to it.

Here you go:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1346288

Now you can help make Mission Control popular. Currently 2/3rds of respondents find Mission Control lacking, you can add you voice to those that like Mission Control and not feel oppressed by those of us that hate it.

roadbloc
Mar 28, 2012, 10:47 AM
No, I run 10.6 with the 10.5 Expose hack and 10.7 on my portable. The only negative critiques of 10.6 you will see is the grid spacing of Expose. Until Lion I was a big Apple fanboy.

Yes, there are good things about Lion. The new gestures are nice, I use Launch Pad a lot but it would be better if Apple fixed the bug that causes icons to move on their own. I like the new Mail but it would be improved if it showed the entire conversation the way gmail does, but it is still a big improvement over 10.6 mail. The new symbol browser is nice.

Other than that, Lion doesn't offer improvements but is rather annoying and I stopped recommending Apple Computers to people for the first time in 8 years since I got my Macbook Air late last year.

I find 10.7 to be filled with poorly thought out software. iCal sucks and is filled with bugs, Address Book is annoying, Mission Control is crippled, Versions is half-assed and messes up some great programs when it could have been amazing with a little more thought put into it.

In summary, the major changes in Lion were all negative and have well-earned their negative critiques.

+1. This is exactly how I feel too. Mountain Lion is how Lion should have been really, but I still don't like it. The merger of iOS and OS X features brings an inconsistent feel, as though the software has not been very well thought out. The new features are either pointless, a reskinned/bloated version of a feature we already had, or intrusive and unintuitive.

beosound3200
Mar 28, 2012, 11:10 AM
Here you go:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1346288

Now you can help make Mission Control popular. Currently 2/3rds of respondents find Mission Control lacking, you can add you voice to those that like Mission Control and not feel oppressed by those of us that hate it.

for a survey you need a representative sample

imagine the results if i post a pool in bmw forum which car is the best.
here, on forum, you only meet people searching for solutions to their problems or posting complaints, and maybe 20-30 percent of people like me who just like reading, i.e. nothing near average, e.g. go on imac forum, you'll only see problems, faults etc., one could easily come to the conclusion that imacs are the worst computers ever.
its the same with those ODD removal pools, theres no representative sample here on forums...

if you took a representative sample from the whole mac community (both pros, prosumers, consumers) it would probably be around 5 percent against MC (thats how apple sees it)

bottom line, that pool you mention in your every 3rd post is completely irrelevant. mission control is probably the one of the more popular features among the vast majority of mac community. how many threads have been here about MC? except this one?

in the end, you have two options:
first stay with 10.6 (which doesnt make sense, but since you dont like (even hate) the new features, thats the only way to go

second, wait for third party, but their impact is limited if you dislike so many features in lion/mountain lion/what ever comes next

and most important of all, there is no reason for you to justify yourself and your opinion here on forums, someone will constantly attack you and you'll constantly defend your stance, nothing good can come out of it.
unless youre looking for people who think the same as you to give you some 'comfort' and approval of your opinion and stance because basically thats all you can get.

i hope you find a way to overcome your MC problem ;)

klaxamazoo
Mar 28, 2012, 12:00 PM
for a survey you need a representative sample

imagine the results if i post a pool in bmw forum which car is the best.
here, on forum, you only meet people searching for solutions to their problems or posting complaints, and maybe 20-30 percent of people like me who just like reading, i.e. nothing near average, e.g. go on imac forum, you'll only see problems, faults etc., one could easily come to the conclusion that imacs are the worst computers ever.
its the same with those ODD removal pools, theres no representative sample here on forums...

if you took a representative sample from the whole mac community (both pros, prosumers, consumers) it would probably be around 5 percent against MC (thats how apple sees it)

bottom line, that pool you mention in your every 3rd post is completely irrelevant. mission control is probably the one of the more popular features among the vast majority of mac community. how many threads have been here about MC? except this one?

in the end, you have two options:
first stay with 10.6 (which doesnt make sense, but since you dont like (even hate) the new features, thats the only way to go

second, wait for third party, but their impact is limited if you dislike so many features in lion/mountain lion/what ever comes next

and most important of all, there is no reason for you to justify yourself and your opinion here on forums, someone will constantly attack you and you'll constantly defend your stance, nothing good can come out of it.
unless youre looking for people who think the same as you to give you some 'comfort' and approval of your opinion and stance because basically thats all you can get.

i hope you find a way to overcome your MC problem ;)

While the poll I linked to is not representative of the entire Apple community, it is the only real set of data that is available. I could talk about my friends and family that dislike Mission Control, but that is, in my opinion, an even worse sample set. So I use what is available. You could look at the App Store rating and between 17% and 30% of users dislike Lion (All versions and current version respectively). Unfortunately, this does not break it down into what they disliked nor their views on Mission Control, but a 1 in 3 people disliking a version OS X seems pretty large.

You are more than welcome to provide a link to a survey backing up your claim that Mission Control is "probably the one of the more popular features among the vast majority of mac community."


Thanks, I'm aware that some people in this forum will constantly attack my position on the issue and am fine defending it as this is an issue that needs to be discussed. Silence gets you nothing and since I'm running the AFM right now I have small 45 second windows of downtime between scans that need to be filled and are, unfortunately, are horrible for reading journal articles or writing papers, so I might as well discuss an issue that is important to me.

I understand the some people like MC. That is great. There is also a large contingent of people that find MC and Lion lacking the level of polish we've come to expect from Apple products. Thus, it needs to be brought into the light, discussed, submitted as feedback, submitted to Tim Cook, etc. These discussions and criticism are often heard by Apple and can result in meaningful change.

Also, these discussions also serve to demonstrate support new software products by outside developers, if we stay silent then it looks like no one has a problem and that there is no market for an outside developer.

Personally, I use a lot of products by outside developers to enhance OS X, including TotalFinder, SugarSync, Typinator, etc. These products serve to enhance, augment, or replace OSX services and without a clear market, these products may not come to existence and my process flow would not be nearly as seamless as it is (on 10.6 at least). Thus, these forums serve a useful and necessary function regardless of if Apple changes anything.

KnightWRX
Mar 28, 2012, 12:01 PM
Really, how often do you need two Versions open at the same time

Just this morning. Yes. Really. Was a pain since Gimp doesn't have duplicate. Had to save as my first image to another file, then re-open the original to keep working on it and the new version.

Again, the extra clicks are there for a reason. Versions brings so much goodness to the table, the few extra clicks on Duplicate hardly matter in the big picture scheme. You just want to be a contrarian to everything in Lion.

klaxamazoo
Mar 28, 2012, 12:05 PM
Just this morning. Yes. Really. Was a pain since Gimp doesn't have duplicate. Had to save as my first image to another file, then re-open the original to keep working on it and the new version.

Just go to File -> Open Recent -> FileName

Or use Photoshop:
Image -> Duplicate

Gimp is Open Source so it should be pretty easy to copy that functionality from Photoshop.

KnightWRX
Mar 28, 2012, 12:22 PM
Or use Photoshop:
Image -> Duplicate


So we agree Duplicate is not poorly designed! Great! Good to see you being positive for a change.

I wouldn't use Photoshop though for what is essentially a hobby project. I'm off from work today, waiting on UPS.

klaxamazoo
Mar 28, 2012, 12:32 PM
So we agree Duplicate is not poorly designed! Great! Good to see you being positive for a change.

I wouldn't use Photoshop though for what is essentially a hobby project. I'm off from work today, waiting on UPS.

Actually, I disagree, Duplicate in 10.7 is poorly designed. Duplicate in Photoshop is a separate command from Save As because it is so rarely used. In fact, it is so rarely used that Gimp, the open source alternative, did not even bother implementing this minor feature. If Duplicate was widely used, then it would have been implemented by now.

wikus
Mar 28, 2012, 02:13 PM
Block level snapshotting of documents is stupid now ? :rolleyes:

You must not be a profesional. All the Pros need block level snapshotting. It's built in to the big boy toys like NetApp's OpenFiler, Windows Server with Volume Shadow Copy, LVM2 in HP-UX/Linux, ZFS in Solaris/FreeBSD, etc..

But I understand why you would think that, Versions is very much a pro-feature. You need to be a pro to understand. ;)

So youre against giving users options in system preferences to turn off versions, or ungroup windows in Mission Control.

Why?

ScottishCaptain
Mar 28, 2012, 05:45 PM
Block level snapshotting of documents is stupid now ? :rolleyes:

You must not be a profesional. All the Pros need block level snapshotting. It's built in to the big boy toys like NetApp's OpenFiler, Windows Server with Volume Shadow Copy, LVM2 in HP-UX/Linux, ZFS in Solaris/FreeBSD, etc..

But I understand why you would think that, Versions is very much a pro-feature. You need to be a pro to understand. ;)

Good god.

Are you for real?

The "big boy toys" implement this stuff in the filesystem, where it belongs. Versions is a clever hack that runs on top of HFS+, that is, HFS+ itself does not support versioning. If it did, you wouldn't need to recompile anything to use versioning. It would "just work".

Comparing Versions to the stuff already out there is almost an insult to the products that cost real money and actually work. Furthermore, the fact that you made that comparison has convinced me that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Also, "professionals" don't "need" features rammed down their throats. I have not met ONE single "professional" working in a corporate or freelance environment who has actively said "Yeah, I could use that". They all use SVN (usually through Cornerstone) or GIT (via Tower or something else), because those systems at least have the decency to **** off when you don't need them and do what they're told.

Professionals know what they need because they use it every day. We don't need Apple to intrude upon our workflows and say "We're holding your hand from now on, deal with it.". Of course if you were a "pro" yourself, you might know this. Your comment on "big boy toys" kinda demonstrates you're not, or if you are, you sure as **** have no idea what you're talking about.

You're a wonderful Apple zealot, I'll give you that.

-SC

KnightWRX
Mar 28, 2012, 06:33 PM
You're a wonderful Apple zealot, I'll give you that.

*Meanwhile back in MacRumors News Discussion*

"God KnightWRX, you're such an Apple hater, don't you have anything better to do than troll forums for products you don't own ?"

In case you missed it, the "Pro" comments were aimed at people who claim "Pros use Snow Leopard or XYZ feature, Apple taketh away Pro features!". ;)

Me, an Apple zealot... so laughable. I always get a kick out of the bi-polarity of this forum, where I'm both seen as a hater or a zealot by different people depending on my opinion about 1 facet of Apple's products or corporate conduct.

----------

So youre against giving users options in system preferences to turn off versions, or ungroup windows in Mission Control.

Why?

Versions is not something you can simply turn off in the System preferences. It's coded into the applications. Ask your software vendor to provide both the old "Save/Save As" mecanism and the new "Versions/Autosave" mecanism. Something that is entirely still possible.

Mission Control is again, not Expose. You trying to use it as Expose with "ungrouping Windows" only means you do not understand what Mission Control is. Stop using a spoon when you need a knife. It'll hurt more because it's dull, but it won't get the work done.

Paradoxally
Mar 28, 2012, 08:33 PM
For now I'm staying with 10.6 and I love it... I certainly would like to try versions, auto-save and the "keep your desktop like it was before shutting down" thing, but I value Spaces+Expose more than those things so... ReSpaceApp for Mountain Lion PLEASEEEEEE!!! :D

Resume is the worst thing ever.

On paper it looks good. But when you turn off your Mac and forget to uncheck the checkbox and have 20+ apps open at startup and take like 5 minutes to boot you'll see why it just doesn't work.

Auto-Save, yes. Versions, no, it gets way too confusing. I'm responsible enough to save it myself. If I've been saving documents for years with save as, I DON'T WANT Versions messing up my stuff. Imagine if Adobe implemented it in their software. You'd have practically all the Mac userbase switch to Windows or just use an old version.

Do I want programs to save a snapshot in case something happens and I haven't saved the file yet? YES, because if the program crashes, when it boots up most (or all) of my progress is there.

I just don't want it creating a version every time I save a document.

wikus
Mar 28, 2012, 08:43 PM
*Meanwhile back in MacRumors News Discussion*

"God KnightWRX, you're such an Apple hater, don't you have anything better to do than troll forums for products you don't own ?"

In case you missed it, the "Pro" comments were aimed at people who claim "Pros use Snow Leopard or XYZ feature, Apple taketh away Pro features!". ;)

Me, an Apple zealot... so laughable. I always get a kick out of the bi-polarity of this forum, where I'm both seen as a hater or a zealot by different people depending on my opinion about 1 facet of Apple's products or corporate conduct.

----------



Versions is not something you can simply turn off in the System preferences. It's coded into the applications. Ask your software vendor to provide both the old "Save/Save As" mecanism and the new "Versions/Autosave" mecanism. Something that is entirely still possible.

Mission Control is again, not Expose. You trying to use it as Expose with "ungrouping Windows" only means you do not understand what Mission Control is. Stop using a spoon when you need a knife. It'll hurt more because it's dull, but it won't get the work done.

You never answered my question, I'll ask again;

Why are you against giving users choice?

Sdreed91
Mar 28, 2012, 10:55 PM
I believe choice was provided before you decided to buy an Apple product or before you decided to hit the buy/upgrade button.

ScottishCaptain
Mar 28, 2012, 11:49 PM
Versions is not something you can simply turn off in the System preferences. It's coded into the applications. Ask your software vendor to provide both the old "Save/Save As" mecanism and the new "Versions/Autosave" mecanism. Something that is entirely still possible.

Fail feature is fail then.

If Sun came out and said "Hey, you guys need to recompile EVERYTHING to take advantage of the new snapshotting system in ZFS! You need to use this shiny new unproven API to save and open files, but we swear, it's better!"- they would have gotten lynched.

Instead we got ZFS, which- wait for it- supports filesystem snapshots and versioning without the host application having to be aware of anything past the usual APIs used to read and write to disk.

And now you're telling me that it's the developers fault for being binary and not giving us the option. Basically you're saying that- even though Apple refuses to give us options, third party developers should- because Apple's features aren't well thought out.

Huh.

-SC

KnightWRX
Mar 29, 2012, 07:41 AM
Why are you against giving users choice?

That question is non-sensical given my posting history. I have always been for giving user choices. However, this is not the topic of discussion. Apple is never going to give you choices. What they gave you is what they gave you. Learn to deal with it or move on.

Sticking to your guns 8 months later and still whining about it instead of having adapted... let's just leave it at that. Sometimes you just have to move on with your life you know ?

----------

Fail feature is fail then.

If Sun came out and said "Hey, you guys need to recompile EVERYTHING to take advantage of the new snapshotting system in ZFS! You need to use this shiny new unproven API to save and open files, but we swear, it's better!"- they would have gotten lynched.

Instead we got ZFS, which- wait for it- supports filesystem snapshots and versioning without the host application having to be aware of anything past the usual APIs used to read and write to disk.

And now you're telling me that it's the developers fault for being binary and not giving us the option. Basically you're saying that- even though Apple refuses to give us options, third party developers should- because Apple's features aren't well thought out.

Huh.

-SC

Huh... Versions/Autosave is well thought out. I have yet to see a compelling argument beyond "Duplicate requires 2 more clicks than Save As!" against it (and really, for the benefit it brings, who gives a crap about those 2 clicks except people who just want to flame YALF).

It is an API, developers need to get on it to support it. It's an application level snapshotting feature. There's nothing wrong with that. Developers decided to move to it because they saw the benefits for their users. It's also entirely optional for developers wether or not to implement it. Just like they don't have to use NSRegularExpression, or CoreData or any other Apple provided APIs if they don't want to. fopen/fwrite/fclose are still there.

Admit it, you just don't want to give Apple credit for something in Lion. Do you guys have to be negative Nancies about everything in Lion/Mountain Lion and pollute the forums ?

Move on folks... move on...

----------

I believe choice was provided before you decided to buy an Apple product or before you decided to hit the buy/upgrade button.

That is pretty much how it is with Apple unfortunately. Is it right ? Heck no, Apple should make their systems more flexible. Is it what it is ? You betcha. If you've just discovered this in 2012... well...

klaxamazoo
Mar 29, 2012, 08:22 AM
I believe choice was provided before you decided to buy an Apple product or before you decided to hit the buy/upgrade button.

That still doesn't clearly state why Mission Control isn't a failure. Mission Control sucks ass regardless of if anyone buys Lion.

xxBURT0Nxx
Mar 29, 2012, 09:14 AM
That still doesn't clearly state why Mission Control isn't a failure. Mission Control sucks ass regardless of if anyone buys Lion.
you wouldn't be using mission control if you didn't buy lion.. that's the point.

klaxamazoo
Mar 29, 2012, 09:41 AM
you wouldn't be using mission control if you didn't buy lion.. that's the point.

No Mission Control exists regardless of if I use it or not. As Mission Control is widely considered a failure by a large number of people, it is a failure regardless of if I use Lion.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1346288
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1202064&highlight=lion

You could look at the App Store rating and between 17% and 30% of users dislike Lion (All versions and current version respectively). Unfortunately, this does not break it down into what they disliked nor their views on Mission Control, but a 1 in 3 people disliking a version OS X seems pretty large.

You are more than welcome to provide statistical data showing that Lion does not have a 17 - 30% disapproval rate.

Lion is Apple's Vista; usable, but not worth upgrading to. If their ideas were implemented properly than Lion's disapproval rating would not be nearly this high.

Sdreed91
Mar 29, 2012, 10:37 AM
you wouldn't be using mission control if you didn't buy lion.. that's the point.

Exactly while I realize the clean simplistic nature of MC does not work for some it works very well for others. I appreciate the clean arrangement of MC I knew what I was getting into when I purchased lion. I knew what I was getting into when I purchased my MBP. That was when you had choice. Amd as Knightwrk put it no its not fair but that is the way it is.

----------

That still doesn't clearly state why Mission Control isn't a failure. Mission Control sucks ass regardless of if anyone buys Lion.

Mission control doesn't suck as much as you believe. Despite what your number show. It works for some but not for others. It provides a clean and simple view of what you are looking at. Clean and simple is what Apple is all about. MC despite all the complaints isn't going anywhere.

klaxamazoo
Mar 29, 2012, 10:46 AM
Exactly while I realize the clean simplistic nature of MC does not work for some it works very well for others. I appreciate the clean arrangement of MC I knew what I was getting into when I purchased lion. I knew what I was getting into when I purchased my MBP. That was when you had choice. Amd as Knightwrk put it no its not fair but that is the way it is.

----------



Mission control doesn't suck as much as you believe. Despite what your number show. It works for some but not for others. It provides a clean and simple view of what you are looking at. Clean and simple is what Apple is all about. MC despite all the complaints isn't going anywhere.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1346288
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...highlight=lion

All evidence points to Mission Control and Lion sucking. Try again, with data.

Sdreed91
Mar 29, 2012, 10:58 AM
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am going to get into some fight with you in which we both throw stats at each other trying to disprove what each is saying. I have no desire to do this. I am merely pointing out that it works for some and not others. It provides a clean and simple look at everything that is open. It works for some and not others. If you wanted to get into a childish arguement with someone over MC you choose the wrong person. I like these forums and information that can be found on them but some of the things we debate about are pointless because we wont change what Apple has in place. This thread has lost any real momentum due to pointless bickering.

tkermit
Mar 29, 2012, 11:08 AM
All evidence points to Mission Control and Lion sucking.

Mission Control is better for some use cases, and worse for others. The problem is that the detractors are only willing to take a look at specific cherry-picked cases where MC doesn't work very well, and aren't interested in workarounds (that may end up working just as well as the original solution) either. Same with the 'Save as' thing. Just because you can find a scenario where 'Save as' works better, doesn't mean that Autosave+Versions can't be a better solution overall.

For example, if you have very many windows in one application open, Exposé is not very good at all at allowing you to pick out one of the few windows that belong to other applications. And at the same time, you're probably better off using Application Exposé to pick one of the many windows of the one application with the huge amount of windows - which is still possible in Lion.

(exact same window configuration in both pictures)

Snow Leopard Exposé:
http://f.cl.ly/items/021m0N2L3P3n2N0C2O2R/expose.png

Lion Mission Control:
http://f.cl.ly/items/0Y3q2x3H3K370V0x283n/mc.png

klaxamazoo
Mar 29, 2012, 11:16 AM
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am going to get into some fight with you in which we both throw stats at each other trying to disprove what each is saying. I have no desire to do this. I am merely pointing out that it works for some and not others. It provides a clean and simple look at everything that is open. It works for some and not others. If you wanted to get into a childish arguement with someone over MC you choose the wrong person. I like these forums and information that can be found on them but some of the things we debate about are pointless because we wont change what Apple has in place. This thread has lost any real momentum due to pointless bickering.

If you are going to say that Mission Control doesn't suck as much as I, and others, think it does then you should be able to back up that statement.

Yes, Mission Control is fine, for only 1/3rd of the users. That is pretty abysmal. And these debates do make a difference as they can be linked to when giving feedback to Apple through the General Feedback section, Developer Feedback section, and direct e-mails to Tim Cook.

Progress has already been made with respect to removing some of the damage Lion did to iCal and Address Book with improvements in functionality restored in Mountain Lion. Issues with Versions are being addressed in Mountain Lion also. As such, these threads serve a purpose regardless of if you personally find them useful.

----------

Mission Control is better for some use cases, and worse for others. The problem is that the detractors are only willing to take a look at specific cherry-picked cases where MC doesn't work very well, and aren't interested in workarounds (that may end up working just as well as the original solution) either. Same with the 'Save as' thing. Just because you can find a scenario where 'Save as' works better, doesn't mean that Autosave+Versions can't be a better solution overall.

For example, if you have very many windows in one application open, Exposé is not very good at all at allowing you to pick out one of the few windows that belong to other applications. And at the same time, you're probably better off using Application Exposé to pick one of the many windows of the one application with the huge amount of windows - which is still possible in Lion:

(exact same window configuration in both pictures)

Image (http://f.cl.ly/items/021m0N2L3P3n2N0C2O2R/expose.png)

Image (http://f.cl.ly/items/0Y3q2x3H3K370V0x283n/mc.png)

Yet App Expose pulls you out of Mission Control and now you can no longer manage your Windows. How are you going to move around those 40+ empty e-mails if you are constantly being pulled out of App Expose to move Windows around?

Mission Control would be fine if the "Spread" function actually spread windows out so you could see them while in Mission control. Moving things 25px is useless and poor design.

If Mission Control actually "worked" then 2/3rds of people wouldn't prefer Expose/Spaces. Mission Control only works for some whereas a good program is flexible for work for most if not all.

Sdreed91
Mar 29, 2012, 11:19 AM
If you are going to say that Mission Control doesn't suck as much as I, and others, think it does then you should be able to back up that statement.

Yes, Mission Control is fine, for only 1/3rd of the users. That is pretty abysmal. And these debates do make a difference as they can be linked to when giving feedback to Apple through the General Feedback section, Developer Feedback section, and direct e-mails to Tim Cook.

Progress has already been made with respect to removing some of the damage Lion did to iCal and Address Book with improvements in functionality restored in Mountain Lion. Issues with Versions are being addressed in Mountain Lion also. As such, these threads serve a purpose regardless of if you personally find them useful.

----------



Yet App Expose pulls you out of Mission Control and now you can no longer manage your Windows. How are you going to move around those 40+ empty e-mails if you are constantly being pulled out of App Expose to move Windows around?

Mission Control would be fine if the "Spread" function actually spread windows out so you could see them while in Mission control. Moving things 25px is useless and poor design.

If Mission Control actually "worked" then 2/3rds of people wouldn't prefer Expose/Spaces. Mission Control only works for some whereas a good program is flexible for work for most if not all.

What is your solution?

tkermit
Mar 29, 2012, 11:20 AM
Mission Control would be fine if the "Spread" function actually spread windows out so you could see them while in Mission control.

As I've written before, I agree that that would be an improvement I'd like to see as well.

klaxamazoo
Mar 29, 2012, 11:45 AM
What is your solution?

Feedback to Apple requesting the "spread" function to fully spread out the Windows such that you can actually see them and not be pulled out of Mission Control just to see everything.

At its heart Mission Control is a good idea, group Windows by App to reduce clutter, but the lack of a good Spread functionality makes Mission Control a fancy App switcher that forces the user to use App Expose. This process flow has a number of efficiencies that have already been detailed repeatedly.

Sdreed91
Mar 29, 2012, 11:52 AM
Feedback to Apple requesting the "spread" function to fully spread out the Windows such that you can actually see them and not be pulled out of Mission Control just to see everything.

At its heart Mission Control is a good idea, group Windows by App to reduce clutter, but the lack of a good Spread functionality makes Mission Control a fancy App switcher that forces the user to use App Expose. This process flow has a number of efficiencies that have already been detailed repeatedly.

Well in pages there is a spread feature that allows you to view all previously opened documents if that was implemented into MC that might solve some issues that people are having.

beosound3200
Mar 29, 2012, 01:14 PM
If you are going to say that Mission Control doesn't suck as much as I, and others, think it does then you should be able to back up that statement.

Yes, Mission Control is fine, for only 1/3rd of the users. That is pretty abysmal. And these debates do make a difference as they can be linked to when giving feedback to Apple through the General Feedback section, Developer Feedback section, and direct e-mails to Tim Cook.

Progress has already been made with respect to removing some of the damage Lion did to iCal and Address Book with improvements in functionality restored in Mountain Lion. Issues with Versions are being addressed in Mountain Lion also. As such, these threads serve a purpose regardless of if you personally find them useful.

----------



Yet App Expose pulls you out of Mission Control and now you can no longer manage your Windows. How are you going to move around those 40+ empty e-mails if you are constantly being pulled out of App Expose to move Windows around?

Mission Control would be fine if the "Spread" function actually spread windows out so you could see them while in Mission control. Moving things 25px is useless and poor design.

If Mission Control actually "worked" then 2/3rds of people wouldn't prefer Expose/Spaces. Mission Control only works for some whereas a good program is flexible for work for most if not all.

stop using irrelevant surveys.

please post a link to one review, one thread on any forum, one blog etc. where people discuss mission control in a bad way

you really leave the impression that MC is disliked by majority, and thats completely wrong because it would be world known. just the opposite

so deal with it, apple wont change it, its better overall for the MOST people, according to logical assumptions (there is no data, that says it all), and stay on snow leopard

so in the end, a little logical task:

how many individuals in the whole mac community use more than 20 windows in their typical workflow. then that number you've got divide by 2 (30% dislike lion, 60% dislike MC, so lets call it 50%) and you have the number of people that dislike MC

i'll be brave enough to call that number irrelevant, so dont get your hopes up
theres no input to apple, even if they were willing to read user input on forums/reviews/blogs about the MC, where would they read it? except here...

xxBURT0Nxx
Mar 29, 2012, 01:18 PM
If Mission Control actually "worked" then 2/3rds of people wouldn't prefer Expose/Spaces. Mission Control only works for some whereas a good program is flexible for work for most if not all.

2/3rds of MacRumors forum members does NOT equate to nor represent 2/3rds of Mac users....

klaxamazoo
Mar 29, 2012, 01:32 PM
stop using irrelevant surveys.

please post a link to one review, one thread on any forum, one blog etc. where people discuss mission control in a bad way

you really leave the impression that MC is disliked by majority, and thats completely wrong because it would be world known. just the opposite

so deal with it, apple wont change it, its better overall for the MOST people, according to logical assumptions (there is no data, that says it all), and stay on snow leopard

so in the end, a little logical task:

how many individuals in the whole mac community use more than 20 windows in their typical workflow. then that number you've got divide by 2 (30% dislike lion, 60% dislike MC, so lets call it 50%) and you have the number of people that dislike MC

i'll be brave enough to call that number irrelevant, so dont get your hopes up
theres no input to apple, even if they were willing to read user input on forums/reviews/blogs about the MC, where would they read it? except here...

You can say these surveys don't represent the community as a whole all you want, but you still haven't pointed to a single survey that shows that Mission Control is liked.

Number of data sets you provide = 0
Number of data sets I provide = 3

You bring nothing yet think you have some ground to stand on. Mission Control sucks according to a large contingent of people I suggest finding some data if you want to prove otherwise.

If it didn't suck there would not be so many threads about the subject nor would it be referenced in the negative App Store reviews.

A 30% disapproval rating is huge for a version of OSX and points to Tim Cooks lack of leadership and inability to push software to be better.

Mackilroy
Mar 29, 2012, 01:49 PM
2/3rds of MacRumors forum members does NOT equate to nor represent 2/3rds of Mac users....
Don't bother using logic, he's afflicted by confirmation bias. Any anecdotal evidence or psuedo-surveys he can find, he'll use.

If it didn't suck there would not be so many threads about the subject nor would it be referenced in the negative App Store reviews.

A 30% disapproval rating is huge for a version of OSX and points to Tim Cooks lack of leadership and inability to push software to be better.
You seriously believe that? It doesn't matter how good something is -- there will ALWAYS be people who don't like it.

beosound3200
Mar 29, 2012, 01:57 PM
You can say these surveys don't represent the community as a whole all you want, but you still haven't pointed to a single survey that shows that Mission Control is liked.

Number of data sets you provide = 0
Number of data sets I provide = 3

You bring nothing yet think you have some ground to stand on. Mission Control sucks according to a large contingent of people I suggest finding some data if you want to prove otherwise.

If it didn't suck there would not be so many threads about the subject nor would it be referenced in the negative App Store reviews.

A 30% disapproval rating is huge for a version of OSX and points to Tim Cooks lack of leadership and inability to push software to be better.

the fact that there is NO data alone is enough. if something's good, people are silent. if something's bad, people complain. there are no complaints. so? logic?

show me 'so many threads' if you will

klaxamazoo
Mar 29, 2012, 01:58 PM
Don't bother using logic, he's afflicted by confirmation bias. Any anecdotal evidence or psuedo-surveys he can find, he'll use.


You seriously believe that? It doesn't matter how good something is -- there will ALWAYS be people who don't like it.

Then show non-psuedo-surveys that proof my "psuedo-surveys" wrong. You have nothing. If my claims against Mission Control were so flimsy than you would have been able to show something. But you can't find anything, which is rather pathetic really.

Yes, there will always be people that don't like it. But 30% is a huge number of dissatisfied users. That is almost 1 in 3 in case you can't do the math. Apple might as well be Microsoft with that type of disapproval rating.

xxBURT0Nxx
Mar 29, 2012, 04:23 PM
A 30% disapproval rating is huge for a version of OSX and points to Tim Cooks lack of leadership and inability to push software to be better.
yes because Steve Jobs knew nothing of OSX Lion.. :rolleyes:

or the iPhone 4S or the new iPad for that matter.:eek:

KnightWRX
Mar 29, 2012, 04:35 PM
If it didn't suck there would not be so many threads about the subject

There's so many threads about the subject because yourself, Krazy Bill, wikus and ScottishCaptain all have a problem letting go. All of you converge and start these threads to begin with.

The vocal minority. 8 months of whining. And it goes on and on and on.

Sdreed91
Mar 29, 2012, 05:05 PM
No Ive just learned to avoid pointless ranting and therefore have no reason to argue like a preschool student by claiming "my dad could beat yours up."

klaxamazoo
Mar 29, 2012, 05:12 PM
There's so many threads about the subject because yourself, Krazy Bill, wikus and ScottishCaptain all have a problem letting go. All of you converge and start these threads to begin with.

The vocal minority. 8 months of whining. And it goes on and on and on.

Yet 2/3rds of Macrumor Members prefer Expose/Spaces to Mission Control, so you are with the minority opinion. I also see you converging to these threads trying desperately to defend a poorly implemented Window Management Utility.

----------

No Ive just learned to avoid pointless ranting and therefore have no reason to argue like a preschool student by claiming "my dad could beat yours up."

Or you still have not even the slightest bit of data to back up your claim and are finally giving up. You don't even have a psuedo-survey to stand behind.

blow45
Mar 29, 2012, 05:46 PM
yes because Steve Jobs knew nothing of OSX Lion.. :rolleyes:


Rolling your eyes when you make such an inane comment makes you look even more foolish. Have you seen his last keynote? Or his last pictures? The man was giving the fight of his life for more than a a year and apparenttly could barely get a couple of hours of productive work some days, let alone the pain he was going through, and he was focusing on iphone as well and talking to his biographer, as well as taking care of the systemic and infrastructure legacy at apple, the spaceship building etc., and you expect him to be able to to go through ui details of lion and have the stamina to send the os x team back to the drawing board and tell them in his usual upfront way, this sucks, we don't want it, you should do it better?

The only solution for os x ml is if Cook had the guts to replace, or just fire Creg Federichi (sp?). The guy hasn't got common sense, let alone aeasthic sense. He has managed to mess up the most intuitive os on the globe, the most functional one with the simplest work flow and turning into an ios freak looking hybrid without all sorts of ui changes that the best thing one can say is that they are not that bad, or could be useful to some.

Monocrhomatic sidebar and os elements hard to tell apart, needless byte hogging versioning by default, one click save as of documents to the mess that is duplicate, removing in app expose on click and hold and instead showing recent documents, messing up the best feature of os x expose into the bastardised thing that is mission control, auto resume (again needlessly by default) when you just want to quit the app and everything within it, pointless ios launcher apps....

...jesus you 'd think if you d taken 100 ms devs and told them can you develop os x from snow leopard to lion and be as vindictive as you can to apple they probaly wouldn't have done a worse job...

blow45
Mar 29, 2012, 06:06 PM
Actually, I don't have to live with it and don't plan on either. If you had been able to read and understand the comments in this thread, you would have seen that there is an Expose/Spaces replacement in the works that is making good progress, i.e. ReSpaceApp.


Also, once my thesis is done I can sell my Macbook Air that only supports Lion as I will no longer need a backup computer. My main computer runs Snow Leopard just fine and there is nothing compelling about Lion nor Mountain Lion that warrants a forced upgrade. Calendars, Contacts, and Mail are better synced through gmail, and SugarSync is better than iCloud, iCal on 10.6 is better than iCal on 10.7, Address Book on 10.6 is better than Address Book on 10.7. Versions is more work that helpful for what I do.

Overall, there is nothing compelling nor particularly worthwhile about Lion and Mountain Lion seems to follow a similar trend. I won't use Notifications because I don't like distractions, iCal is still worthless and ugly, Address Book is now even uglier, Game Central is a pathetic joke and looks like crap (I mean, who thinks of black jack tables when they think of video games?). I don't need or use Notes, I've shown that iMessage is really just a setup for Spam, I'm not 12 so Twitter integration is useless, my memory is excellent so Reminders and Notes is also worthless. All Apple did was add some Apps, some API's for Notification Center and added a slight garden wall with GateKeeper.

The only thing to miss is swipe backward for Firefox and even then, the majority of my internet consumption is on my iPad, so no big loss.

The big loss is that without Steve Jobs, Apple software is starting to look like Microsoft software. With its use of inefficient skeuomorphic idioms that look like crap and provide less power but add additional complexity. Mission Control is a perfect example of not fully thinking a problem through and applying a half-hearten solution instead of really caring enough to be brilliant.

Cool, eloquent post, comes to show the level of some posters here that it got downgraded. I liked what you said about mission control being a half hearted solution, not well thought through, not pushing the envelope enough to really work, just trying to apply an idea that might work in principle, doing so poorly, and ending up with a worse mes. Very un-apple, at least what apple used to be.

I am afraid apple what with their yearly release cycles will quickly do everything to obsolete snow leopard, hidpi support is one way they will do it (icloud was the big pimp for lion) and we won't have a lot of options then... Unfortunately with the development leadership they now have on os x we are royally screwed in the long run.

//apologies for the double post, thought it would add it on top.

Block level snapshotting of documents is stupid now ? :rolleyes:

You must not be a profesional. All the Pros need block level snapshotting. It's built in to the big boy toys like NetApp's OpenFiler, Windows Server with Volume Shadow Copy, LVM2 in HP-UX/Linux, ZFS in Solaris/FreeBSD, etc..

But I understand why you would think that, Versions is very much a pro-feature. You need to be a pro to understand. ;)

The guy who "adapts" to whatever the os is...

You seem like a proper pro, for example a pro tennis player would get whatever **** racquet they give them and adapt, or a pro racing driver would get whatever **** car they throw at them and adapt or any pro for that matter would get any **** tool the company who makes his tool gives then and adapt. That's the definition of a pro right there.

I also like your analogy of the cutting edge filesystem that is zfs with some crap versioning tool that has you duplicate, wait for the file to appear twice next to the original then save, instead of save as... How sad for apple that their pandering to there "pro" users instead of doing what they 've been doing all along striving consistently to rethink and redesign their systems to make them as elegant, uncluttered and functional as possible (as well as internally robust, zfs was taken down from the snow leopard server add a long time ago by apple...) to attract the real pros. Because of course the real pros are thrilled with twitter integration, ios cosmetic rubbish and ui interface errors galore (all mandatory) that are messing up with their work flows...

ScottishCaptain
Mar 29, 2012, 06:11 PM
There's so many threads about the subject because yourself, Krazy Bill, wikus and ScottishCaptain all have a problem letting go. All of you converge and start these threads to begin with.

The vocal minority. 8 months of whining. And it goes on and on and on.

Right.

Because there's only 4 users unsatisfied with Lion.

-SC

KnightWRX
Mar 29, 2012, 06:44 PM
Right.

Because there's only 4 users unsatisfied with Lion.

-SC

Maybe not, but it seems to always be the same 4 that come back and make sure to tell us all about their opinion, spouting it as if it were fact.

Sdreed91
Mar 29, 2012, 06:58 PM
Yet 2/3rds of Macrumor Members prefer Expose/Spaces to Mission Control, so you are with the minority opinion. I also see you converging to these threads trying desperately to defend a poorly implemented Window Management Utility.

----------



Or you still have not even the slightest bit of data to back up your claim and are finally giving up. You don't even have a psuedo-survey to stand behind.

This will be my last post where as you will continually bash my opinion in hopes that Apple follows the complaints of people who obviously have nothing better to do than bash their products. You are right I am not going to put forth any data that isn't really valid and doesn't hold as much merit as you claim it does. Instead I have provided a link regarding the sales of the very terrible OS X Lion. It was never my intention to get into an arguement with someone on this forum. I really do enjoy these forums and there is not only plenty of help on them but also plenty of information to be had. But pointless arguing ruins the whole experience for us all.

http://gigaom.com/apple/1-million-copies-of-os-x-lion-already-sold/

----------

Maybe not, but it seems to always be the same 4 that come back and make sure to tell us all about their opinion, spouting it as if it were fact.

I totally agree with you. No one is allowed to make a valid opposing view without being attacked.

blow45
Mar 29, 2012, 07:26 PM
Maybe not, but it seems to always be the same 4 that come back and make sure to tell us all about their opinion, spouting it as if it were fact.

Maybe not only four users are dissatisfied with lion? :rolleyes:

A product pimped so heavily via iCloud, a major over the hood so to speak release priced so aggressively, an os given the majestic name of lion, and it has the worst adoption rates in recent os x releases, the most vocal dissatisfaction about the ui, the most buggy release history in recent memory, it been called os x vista, people for the first time in os x history are actually not only downgrading in older macs, but on brand new ones as well, to the extent that apple for the first time prerelease their next os to the press, that to arch ass kissers such as Grubber to preempt user dissatisfaction and negative commentary and set a positive tone for it (because they be a laughing stoke if they presented it in a keynote - oh look at our great feature we have reminders and notes, isn't this great?)...

Yeah, maybe not only four users are dissatisfied with lion...

Excuse me now while I go check if they ve issued a fix for mail.app memory leaking to 2gb and their new smb 1.0 actually connecting and searching smb shares... At least the ui improvents are great. Boy this mission control, I can do so many more things than I used with it....:rolleyes:

blow45
Mar 29, 2012, 07:38 PM
. But pointless arguing ruins the whole experience for us .
It's not pointless, apple have pulled some crazy ui **** with lion, some pointless bastardising with ios and marred a very good os x user experience, while at the same time not addressing important long standing request such as resolution independence, zfs for a file system, etc and issuing a buggy release. They haven't seem to have learned in mountain lion and their user base is getting annoyed more so than any other release of os x. Simple as that. Whoever says otherwise, I am sorry, I ll put it bluntly, and in all honesty with no intention of personally offending anyone, we all can have downright wrong opinions all the time, but in is case whoever says differently about lion doesn't know their ass from their elbow and have taken apples apologist role too seriously.

No one wants to bash your opinion, people are complaining agianst apples os x team, iit jut happens that your opinion is wrong, so don't insist too much on it. For all the reasons I mentioned above. Ost of apples user base agrees with that.

//damn it consecutive post again, sorry.

tkermit
Mar 29, 2012, 07:58 PM
whoever says differently about lion doesn't know their ass from their elbow [...] No one wants to bash your opinion [...] iit jut happens that your opinion is wrong

On that basis, it is indeed pointless to argue with people like you.

Sdreed91
Mar 29, 2012, 08:20 PM
On that basis, it is indeed pointless to argue with people like you.

This.
Some people can't handle an opinion that differs from there's so they go into nasty insults. But hey i don't know what I'm doing I don't know my a** from my elbow.

I dont even know how to have an objective argument now.

beosound3200
Mar 29, 2012, 09:06 PM
i guess its time for some people here to leave mac os x (or stay at snow leopard) because this (lion, mountain lion) is the future you're facing.

first, if you like all the things given to you, if you accept everything around you as is, if you dont have any constructive criticism, you're an idiot.

people here have valid arguments against lion, against MC, they have their opinion, their stance, and that is their basic human right. if it werent for that, there would be no progress.

but you need to go deeper. you need to know when you cant change things. you need to know when something is considered 'Sísuphos job' and leave it be. best you can do, and only you can do is adapt best as you can (herbert spencer: those who adapt are the ones who survive; sociology, not biology).

apples direction is clear by now. they are merging ios and os x. in other words, they are making it more consumer friendly, easier, plainer, custom-tailored for masses, consumers. as you probably know already, from a consumer standpoint, MC is an upgrade (app-centric window management). windows will be doing the same. and that was steve jobs dream. pc in every household, and as easier, plainer, intuitive as it gets (versions, resume, ios-like apps, launchpad, icloud).

apple certainly sees lion as a step forward to the right direction, mountain lion even more so. and you all know what that direction is. the direction you apparently dont like, and thats your right. but you cant do anything about it, you cant change it. its the future (at least according to apple). its not just MC, everything is changing, and the chances are, you wont like it.

so youre given two choices. adapt or convert. sooner you do it, better for you. so whats it gonna be?

you need to become conformists. you need to grab whats available to you and make the use of it, because in the end, thats all that matters. the sooner you do it, the better for you.

so theres no need for you to post, to search for people who think the same, or to find comfort in invalid and irrelevant surveys. what you need to do is adapt, or leave. maybe check out windows with its metro interface.

steve jobs himself once said (D8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrS7JQv-zgY)) 'transition to the post-pc world will make people from the pc world (even himself) uneasy, uncomfortable, its gonna be different'. he knew in 2010 how you're gonna feel right now. but thats it, its happening.

blow45
Mar 29, 2012, 09:43 PM
Let me ask both of you guys something. What are you trying to say here, that mission control is great, that it's pretty good? It might be to you, you might be conveincing yourself it is, or you might not be well versed in what good ui desing is, it might even have some side gain to you. The facts are that a large number of apple's user base dislike it, that independent developers are trying to come up with alternatives, and that lion on the whole has suffered from very poor adoption rates despite the HUGE icloud incentive, downgrades to sl, and even formats and install of sl on new macs. And that mission control is part of a series of ui complaints apple's user base has in terms of lion. Read my post above for more. So why do you keep hammering your precious opinions to the many of us who have spotted its glaring faults?

Now how long do you think people can humour you and discuss whatever rationalisation you might be presenting in good will? If we go out one sunny day and you tell us oh how lovely the moon looks, oh how bright the stars shine, ok, maybe I ll humour you for a while, but at some point, I ll go, I had just about enough of this rubbish. We reached to the point of silliness of hearing that "pros" adjust to whatever ui they have to, and whatever nonsense the ui offers, as a counter argument on why mission control, and lion sucks. Is that the level of discussion we are having. Apple then might as well stick a turd on the dock, and we are going to hear that as pros we should adjust to the ui. Great argument...

If all that is not ringing any bells for you and you want to keep on discussing go ahead, we reached the point of beosound's rant claiming that giving feedback, venting, and requiring a computer company to modify their ui because they 've messed it up, is a sisiphous job...

@beosound I am not even going into your rant, I don't know your age, but I hope you are under 25 cause if you are over that age... Let me give you a hint on the myth of sisiphous for your education
Camus introduces his philosophy of the absurd: man's futile search for meaning, unity, and clarity in the face of an unintelligible world devoid of God and eternal truths or values. Does the realization of the absurd require suicide? Camus answers: "No. It requires revolt." He then outlines several approaches to the absurd life. The final chapter compares the absurdity of man's life with the situation of Sisyphus, a figure of Greek mythology who was condemned to repeat forever the same meaningless task of pushing a boulder up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. The essay concludes, "The struggle itself...is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
See beosound, Camus is talking about revolt, the myth of sisyphus is that he could not quit.
And Steve's mention of the post pc world didn't mean crap ui in mission control and versions, very obviously... he meant a completely different thing. Crap os x ui not post or pre pc, it's just crap ui design and federichi would have been sacked had Steve had his wits and physical strength about him the last year. But during hte last year Steve had other priorities, his bio, apple's legacy and infrastructure, iphone, and well, just trying to hold on to life.

Sdreed91
Mar 29, 2012, 09:44 PM
i guess its time for some people here to leave mac os x (or stay at snow leopard) because this (lion, mountain lion) is the future you're facing.

first, if you like all the things given to you, if you accept everything around you as is, if you dont have any constructive criticism, you're an idiot.

people here have valid arguments against lion, against MC, they have their opinion, their stance, and that is their basic human right. if it werent for that, there would be no progress.

but you need to go deeper. you need to know when you cant change things. you need to know when something is considered 'Sísuphos job' and leave it be. best you can do, and only you can do is adapt best as you can (herbert spencer: those who adapt are the ones who survive; sociology, not biology).

apples direction is clear by now. they are merging ios and os x. in other words, they are making it more consumer friendly, easier, plainer, custom-tailored for masses, consumers. as you probably know already, from a consumer standpoint, MC is an upgrade (app-centric window management). windows will be doing the same. and that was steve jobs dream. pc in every household, and as easier, plainer, intuitive as it gets (versions, resume, ios-like apps, launchpad, icloud).

apple certainly sees lion as a step forward to the right direction, mountain lion even more so. and you all know what that direction is. the direction you apparently dont like, and thats your right. but you cant do anything about it, you cant change it. its the future (at least according to apple). its not just MC, everything is changing, and the chances are, you wont like it.

so youre given two choices. adapt or convert. sooner you do it, better for you. so whats it gonna be?

you need to become conformists. you need to grab whats available to you and make the use of it, because in the end, thats all that matters. the sooner you do it, the better for you.

so theres no need for you to post, to search for people who think the same, or to find comfort in invalid and irrelevant surveys. what you need to do is adapt, or leave. maybe check out windows with its metro interface.

steve jobs himself once said (D8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrS7JQv-zgY)) 'transition to the post-pc world will make people from the pc world (even himself) uneasy, uncomfortable, its gonna be different'. he knew in 2010 how you're gonna feel right now. but thats it, its happening.

This pretty much sums up what I was trying to say and have said in other posts. Thank you for putting in a way that is much clearer and easier to understand.

blow45
Mar 29, 2012, 09:56 PM
This pretty much sums up what I was trying to say and have said in other posts. Thank you for putting in a way that is much clearer and easier to understand.

Yeah what a clear rant it was... kinda summed up things from my side too, about the bs I 've been reading here from you guys...:cool:

Sdreed91
Mar 29, 2012, 11:16 PM
Yeah what a clear rant it was... kinda summed up things from my side too, about the bs I 've been reading here from you guys...:cool:

Well opinions are like *******s everyone has one and some stink. :cool:

wikus
Mar 29, 2012, 11:20 PM
Well opinions are like *******s everyone has one and some stink. :cool:

Bottom line is until Apple adds customization in System Preferences, Mission Control is crippled and inefficient.

NZPilgrim
Mar 30, 2012, 12:18 AM
first, if you like all the things given to you, if you accept everything around you as is, if you dont have any constructive criticism, you're an idiot.

people here have valid arguments against lion, against MC, they have their opinion, their stance, and that is their basic human right. if it werent for that, there would be no progress.

Yes, people have arguments against Lion. Yes, a lot of those arguments are rational, valid and worthwhile. Most people here probably wouldn't dispute that. Unfortunately the rational arguments are being drowned out by a vocal minority who prefer attacking those who don't support their point of view.

I'm one of the people for whom mission control works, but apparently I'm just too stupid to understand how much better off I would be with spaces/expose. Whatever, each to their own.

I'll reiterate a point I made in a previous thread though. Apple aren't the only ones who can create software for OSX. If you really care that much about it, learn how to program or find someone in the open source community who is willing to help. Create your own expose replacement (or wait and see if ReSpaceApp works for you). If you're not willing to do that then you obviously don't care that much about the issue.

beosound3200
Mar 30, 2012, 06:53 AM
Let me ask both of you guys something. What are you trying to say here, that mission control is great, that it's pretty good? It might be to you, you might be conveincing yourself it is, or you might not be well versed in what good ui desing is, it might even have some side gain to you. The facts are that a large number of apple's user base dislike it, that independent developers are trying to come up with alternatives, and that lion on the whole has suffered from very poor adoption rates despite the HUGE icloud incentive, downgrades to sl, and even formats and install of sl on new macs. And that mission control is part of a series of ui complaints apple's user base has in terms of lion. Read my post above for more. So why do you keep hammering your precious opinions to the many of us who have spotted its glaring faults?

Now how long do you think people can humour you and discuss whatever rationalisation you might be presenting in good will? If we go out one sunny day and you tell us oh how lovely the moon looks, oh how bright the stars shine, ok, maybe I ll humour you for a while, but at some point, I ll go, I had just about enough of this rubbish. We reached to the point of silliness of hearing that "pros" adjust to whatever ui they have to, and whatever nonsense the ui offers, as a counter argument on why mission control, and lion sucks. Is that the level of discussion we are having. Apple then might as well stick a turd on the dock, and we are going to hear that as pros we should adjust to the ui. Great argument...

If all that is not ringing any bells for you and you want to keep on discussing go ahead, we reached the point of beosound's rant claiming that giving feedback, venting, and requiring a computer company to modify their ui because they 've messed it up, is a sisiphous job...

@beosound I am not even going into your rant, I don't know your age, but I hope you are under 25 cause if you are over that age... Let me give you a hint on the myth of sisiphous for your education

See beosound, Camus is talking about revolt, the myth of sisyphus is that he could not quit.
And Steve's mention of the post pc world didn't mean crap ui in mission control and versions, very obviously... he meant a completely different thing. Crap os x ui not post or pre pc, it's just crap ui design and federichi would have been sacked had Steve had his wits and physical strength about him the last year. But during hte last year Steve had other priorities, his bio, apple's legacy and infrastructure, iphone, and well, just trying to hold on to life.

oo yeah, you're so smart, you've just open up my eyes.

it doesnt matter if i know anything about sisyphus, you should have, as a rational being, understood what i have been trying to say, but either you failed, which i doubt, either you're trying to hold onto every straw in this so called argument.

this is not an argument, we arent discussing anything. im just trying to explain that you're fighting an already won battle, its a futile (im sorry, sisyphus, didnt know you couldnt quit, that changes everything :rolleyes: ) job.

again, this is not the argument, nobody is wrong or right, only argument you could have is with apple. its just a matter of facing the reality, which you obviously cant, and find it more constructive to rant here in forum :rolleyes:

the transition will leave a lot of people behind, but thats the price apple is willing to pay, because they think it could bring in more costumers.

and yeah, steve jobs thought EXACTLY that. in 2010 lion was already deep in development.

those things aro so easy to understand. i really hope you're over 50, because than it would be clear why you cant understand.

crap ui? most think its awesome. what now? 2/3 of people (according to irrelevant surveys) think that way. what you're gonna do? try writing 1000 posts of you ranting, they'll change it back to 2009 spaces + expose for sure.

so, read the following statement 100 of times, let it be your mantra:

lion works for MOST people. apple wont go back, and the following changes are going to be worse. for you. leave.

cant believe these forums sometimes. you wanna say something in good will, people immediately throw you into the argument (which doesnt exist) and call your post a rant :rolleyes:

this is not an opinion, i never said anything about liking or disliking lion, its not important for this.

i dont think anyone will write here again, i certainly wont

xxBURT0Nxx
Mar 30, 2012, 08:03 AM
Rolling your eyes when you make such an inane comment makes you look even more foolish. Have you seen his last keynote? Or his last pictures? The man was giving the fight of his life for more than a a year and apparenttly could barely get a couple of hours of productive work some days, let alone the pain he was going through, and he was focusing on iphone as well and talking to his biographer, as well as taking care of the systemic and infrastructure legacy at apple, the spaceship building etc., and you expect him to be able to to go through ui details of lion and have the stamina to send the os x team back to the drawing board and tell them in his usual upfront way, this sucks, we don't want it, you should do it better?

The only solution for os x ml is if Cook had the guts to replace, or just fire Creg Federichi (sp?). The guy hasn't got common sense, let alone aeasthic sense. He has managed to mess up the most intuitive os on the globe, the most functional one with the simplest work flow and turning into an ios freak looking hybrid without all sorts of ui changes that the best thing one can say is that they are not that bad, or could be useful to some.

Monocrhomatic sidebar and os elements hard to tell apart, needless byte hogging versioning by default, one click save as of documents to the mess that is duplicate, removing in app expose on click and hold and instead showing recent documents, messing up the best feature of os x expose into the bastardised thing that is mission control, auto resume (again needlessly by default) when you just want to quit the app and everything within it, pointless ios launcher apps....

...jesus you 'd think if you d taken 100 ms devs and told them can you develop os x from snow leopard to lion and be as vindictive as you can to apple they probaly wouldn't have done a worse job...

you are the one who looks foolish.... you think apple made Lion in a few weeks and Steve didn't have a chance to see it or something??

If you think Steve didn't know exactly what was going on with Lion, Mountain Lion, and probably a lot of what the next version of OSX is going to include, you're mistaken.

blow45
Mar 30, 2012, 11:10 AM
Well opinions are like *******s everyone has one and some stink. :cool:

the problem is you guys think your opinions are more valid than the low adoption rate of lion, the unprecedented numbers of people downgrading from it, or installing sl clean on new lion macs, the unprecedented number of negative journalistic reports, or complain threads here and elsewhere from apple's user base. Yet it seems some of you have taken it upon you to convince us that we should like it. Without bothering to ask yourself, wait a second, if so many people do not like lion, if so many people are downgrading from it, is there a chance perhaps that they might be right and have valid reasons to complain and my opinion and arguing against their requests and requirements amount to s*** at the end of the day.

Apple should provide customization options for mission control as well as for a series of modifications and additions to lion that people simply do not want to use and consider hindering their workflows.

blow45
Mar 30, 2012, 11:23 AM
you are the one who looks foolish.... you think apple made Lion in a few weeks and Steve didn't have a chance to see it or something??

If you think Steve didn't know exactly what was going on with Lion, Mountain Lion, and probably a lot of what the next version of OSX is going to include, you're mistaken.

Steve's last couple of years were focused on fighting for his life, a long hard fight, getting liver transplants, recovering from operations, etc. etc. Of course he was aware of several planned changes in lion, but his focus was on much more things, the ipad and its launch, the iphone, ios, icloud, itunes, books for itunes, music and tv deals, his tv conception, forward looking patents and ideas, the product pipeline, the campus, his legacy, apple's legacy, etc. He didn't have the executive control of os x. Someone run by him mission control as a general idea and then they executed it poorly. Someone run versions by him and then they executed it poorly. Don't kid yourself that a person in the last couple of years of his life, under so much biological stress and with several priorites ahead of os x could have bothered to focus on the details of os x or exercise executive control and be his usual demanding and excelling managing self over a team that anyway would soon have to do without him. Mission control is apple without Steve and it's evidenced by how crap it is.

And mountain lion is apple a few months down the line without Steve. Who would have thought a few years ago when we were waiting for zfs say that a few years down the line the world's most advanced os would be promoted based on a reminders and notes app, twitter, and growl notifications...

Sdreed91
Mar 30, 2012, 11:59 AM
the problem is you guys think your opinions are more valid than the low adoption rate of lion, the unprecedented numbers of people downgrading from it, or installing sl clean on new lion macs, the unprecedented number of negative journalistic reports, or complain threads here and elsewhere from apple's user base. Yet it seems some of you have taken it upon you to convince us that we should like it. Without bothering to ask yourself, wait a second, if so many people do not like lion, if so many people are downgrading from it, is there a chance perhaps that they might be right and have valid reasons to complain and my opinion and arguing against their requests and requirements amount to s*** at the end of the day.

Apple should provide customization options for mission control as well as for a series of modifications and additions to lion that people simply do not want to use and consider hindering their workflows.

To see that you are so worked up over my opinion just shows me that I am talking to a brick wall. Never once did I say that you should love lion. Never once did I say that you should use mission control. Never once did I say Apple makes the greatest products in the world. I said multiple times however, that I did not wish to get into an argument over my preference of computing versus yours. So at the end of the day I don't give a **** about what you think of me or how I use the products that I choose to purchase without having someone hold a gun to my head. I'm sorry you got so worked up over this. I'm sorry that people don't like what Apple is pushing. It may not be good but ya know what I'm sure you can pick up a great Windows Machine at your local electronics store since Apples products are so crappy and draw some many complaints from the experts of the universes here on Macrumors. I'm also sorry that it is a crime for those of use that don't mind using mission control to have a different opinion.

I'm glad this whole thing was blown way out of proportion.

xxBURT0Nxx
Mar 30, 2012, 12:58 PM
Steve's last couple of years were focused on fighting for his life, a long hard fight, getting liver transplants, recovering from operations, etc. etc. Of course he was aware of several planned changes in lion, but his focus was on much more things, the ipad and its launch, the iphone, ios, icloud, itunes, books for itunes, music and tv deals, his tv conception, forward looking patents and ideas, the product pipeline, the campus, his legacy, apple's legacy, etc. He didn't have the executive control of os x. Someone run by him mission control as a general idea and then they executed it poorly. Someone run versions by him and then they executed it poorly. Don't kid yourself that a person in the last couple of years of his life, under so much biological stress and with several priorites ahead of os x could have bothered to focus on the details of os x or exercise executive control and be his usual demanding and excelling managing self over a team that anyway would soon have to do without him. Mission control is apple without Steve and it's evidenced by how crap it is.

And mountain lion is apple a few months down the line without Steve. Who would have thought a few years ago when we were waiting for zfs say that a few years down the line the world's most advanced os would be promoted based on a reminders and notes app, twitter, and growl notifications...

considering steve was well enough to present Lion at the "Back to Mac" event... yeah I'd say he had pretty considerable input about whether or not it could have released.

You really think he didn't try out MC before it launched? You think he couldn't have said, NOPE, go back to Expose? I mean come on man. He left apple with plans for 5 years after his death, I'm sure he had pretty considerable input on products released while he was still alive!

People just try to blame everything they hate that apple does as "Tim's fault, because Steve would never have done that" Get real.

the problem is you guys think your opinions are more valid than the low adoption rate of lion, the unprecedented numbers of people downgrading from it, or installing sl clean on new lion macs, the unprecedented number of negative journalistic reports, or complain threads here and elsewhere from apple's user base.

No, the problem is that you don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/04/sales_of_apples_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_hit_6m_80_more_than_snow_leopard.html

That article was written in October 2011, less than 4 months after the release of Lion.

6 million copies sold, 80% more than any previous version of OS X during the same time period. And 10% of mac customers had installed Lion within two weeks.

So maybe your "unprecedented complaints" are more due to the UNPRECEDENTED SALES. The more customers you have, the more complainers there are going to be.

You continue to think that everyone else feels the way you do about Lion and MC, when in fact, the vast majority DO NOT... the unprecedented sales of OS X Lion and new Macs with Lion installed prove that. If people hated Lion that much, they would probably not be buying new Apple computers in record numbers....

Sdreed91
Mar 30, 2012, 02:11 PM
considering steve was well enough to present Lion at the "Back to Mac" event... yeah I'd say he had pretty considerable input about whether or not it could have released.

You really think he didn't try out MC before it launched? You think he couldn't have said, NOPE, go back to Expose? I mean come on man. He left apple with plans for 5 years after his death, I'm sure he had pretty considerable input on products released while he was still alive!

People just try to blame everything they hate that apple does as "Tim's fault, because Steve would never have done that" Get real.



No, the problem is that you don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/04/sales_of_apples_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_hit_6m_80_more_than_snow_leopard.html

That article was written in October 2011, less than 4 months after the release of Lion.

6 million copies sold, 80% more than any previous version of OS X during the same time period. And 10% of mac customers had installed Lion within two weeks.

So maybe your "unprecedented complaints" are more due to the UNPRECEDENTED SALES. The more customers you have, the more complainers there are going to be.

You continue to think that everyone else feels the way you do about Lion and MC, when in fact, the vast majority DO NOT... the unprecedented sales of OS X Lion and new Macs with Lion installed prove that. If people hated Lion that much, they would probably not be buying new Apple computers in record numbers....

Thank you

blow45
Apr 1, 2012, 02:44 PM
Why don't you kids go play elsewhere? Plenty of apps to buy with dad's credit card. I' ve pretty much had it with you. If you don't get something, you don't. Things fly over you heads what can we do. No one's blaming your toys here, you can still enjoy them.

You are quoting the arch apple propagandist appleinsider from October huh? Ok how about an independent report from analytics company a month later. Lion despite the huge incentive of icloud where users are able to sync their ios devices that apple very dishonestly has withheld from sl in an unprecedented move that obsoletes the last os in terms of cloud services - even the same people who were paying them their hard earned cash for mobile me, despite the ease of download via the app store with no need to go to a physical store, despite the price for a new os x release (and not an under the hood service pack one like sl) being a record low, despite record sales of new macs with lion pre-installed during the period, still had 4 times less the user base than snow leopard, and it had barely hit 2/3 of leopard? You know why that is? Cause people tell it's other, don't install it, it's crap, it will confuse you, it's messes up so much of a functional ui, it's buggy and it's slow and despite fixing some security issues it's bringing nothing much to the table. That's what I say, and most everyone I know does too. It still hasn't migrated to a better file system, it's still hasn't fixed accessibility issues of os with some way to scale up fonts for seniors who suffer through unbearably small menu item font such as the ones apparent in safari, it has messed up usability with monochromatic ui elements, it's messed up expose into the mess that is mission control and it's has inexplicably turned mac looking apps such as calendar and contacts into ipad looking apps that have less information and functionality and are not suited for os x but for a device such as the ipad, it's messed up smb shares so people cannot access ubiquitous windows networks without some problem or other, mail can get to 1.5gb memory because of memory leaks and safari reloads tabs...

Yeah Lion has been a resounding success...:rolleyes:

Do you think apple marketing would have pre released mountain lion, unlike ANY previous os x release, to a couple of known apologists who s... their pants when apple calls them up, if they knew they had a great product to show in a keynote and they didn't want to pre-empt the oncoming critical wave since lion?

But who am I trying to put forth rational arguments to? Kids that apple is some sort of quasi deity to them...

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9221827/How_is_Mac_OS_X_Lion_doing_
November 15, 2011 06:42 AM ET20 Comments
Computerworld - Adoption of Mac OS X 10.7, also known as Lion, has stalled, according to statistics from online ad analytics company Chitika.

"Lion's adoption rate has been less than stellar, to say the least," Chitika reported in a blog post Friday, citing data that showed Lion was only the third-most-popular of all Mac editions with a 16% share, behind both OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) with 56% and 10.5 (Leopard), with 22%.

Chitika claimed that Lion's adoption rate dramatically slowed during September and October, with increases in those months of just one-fourth that of August.

Apple, however, has touted Lion's success several times since its July launch, saying in early October, for instance, that the new operating system had sold 6 million units, nearly double the number of copies sold of Snow Leopard during a similar period in 2009.

Sdreed91
Apr 1, 2012, 03:27 PM
Frankly your very aggressive tone has made you look childish. Grow up.

Secondly I can buy apps with my own money much like I have bought all of my "toys" and computers. Just because an OS works for me and not you does not mean that I am a child living off of my parents.

Thirdly what's your point? If you are that unhappy with Apples features or lack there of proper functioning features go buy a Windows machine and see how green the grass is on the other side. The only thing flying over my head is all of your BS. We get it you don't like Lion or Mountain Lion. Stop whining about how much you hate it. You have made your point. We have said that Lion works for us. But because we said that we Enjoy Lion we are automatically cast aside as foolish children.

Go cry elsewhere.

blow45
Apr 1, 2012, 04:12 PM
Ok, enjoy it, but when you come here you should try engaging in arguments like adults. I've made my point, but it seems I keep getting retorts from you guys that hardly make any sense with non existent evidence. My tone wasn't aggressive, it was condescending but that was warranted, and it's what happens when people who think have a clue but don't, tell you you don't know what you are talking about.

Am not going to be engaged in a false dichotomy either like it or buy windows (btw a lot of my friends and family ARE going to be buying windows at my suggestion and they are going to be buying googles desktop os soon too). Apple isn't some kind of fascist regime imposing it's bs ui modifications on users, or some fantasy impeccable father figure -but it might be to some of you guys here- it's an electronics manufacturer who has to produce good software products that enable their users work flow. If their products are not good, if they are in many ways even a step back to their previous offerings, if they insist on not providing options to their users thinking they own the holy grail of ui design and they can do no wrong despite screwing up in so many ways, people will criticize them, leave them feedback demand that they improve them, despite hoards of kool aid kids coming to their aid. I don't know what makes apple exempt from criticism unlike any other company on the globe.

And frankly I don't know what's it with you guys that need to come here and defend them for no reason and piss people such as myself off who suffer from the daily annoyances of lion just because apple in their infinite wisdom decided to blackmail me into upgrading by withholding a service such as mobileme (now icloud) that I'd been paying for for so long. Are they your family and friends? Do they put food on your table? What's with that need you feel to stand up for multi million dollar making executives and programmers?

Sdreed91
Apr 1, 2012, 04:33 PM
I have no idea how you might receive this. But here goes, I do not wish to worship Apple I am a supporter of there design approach and tight integration of software and hardware. I completely agree a hindrance of workflow not only creates bottlenecks but also headaches. They do not put food on my table nor are they family. I just happen to like there style. That does not make me an idiot or a child. Perhaps you feel your condescending tone was warranted but I do not. Making great software is what they should strive for and usually do. Apple is not gods gift to earth. MC works for some and not others, and if we can agree on that I'll offer an apology for this unnecessary arguement. These forums are a great place for information and objective discussion. And with that I tried to end this arguement. I hope you can accept that. You seem very knowledgeable and despite what you think I can offer a good discussion as well. I hope this clears it up. But if not all I can say is I tried.

klaxamazoo
Apr 3, 2012, 08:57 AM
Steve's last couple of years were focused on fighting for his life, a long hard fight, getting liver transplants, recovering from operations, etc. etc. Of course he was aware of several planned changes in lion, but his focus was on much more things, the ipad and its launch, the iphone, ios, icloud, itunes, books for itunes, music and tv deals, his tv conception, forward looking patents and ideas, the product pipeline, the campus, his legacy, apple's legacy, etc. He didn't have the executive control of os x. Someone run by him mission control as a general idea and then they executed it poorly. Someone run versions by him and then they executed it poorly. Don't kid yourself that a person in the last couple of years of his life, under so much biological stress and with several priorites ahead of os x could have bothered to focus on the details of os x or exercise executive control and be his usual demanding and excelling managing self over a team that anyway would soon have to do without him. Mission control is apple without Steve and it's evidenced by how crap it is.

And mountain lion is apple a few months down the line without Steve. Who would have thought a few years ago when we were waiting for zfs say that a few years down the line the world's most advanced os would be promoted based on a reminders and notes app, twitter, and growl notifications...


I agree. Lion's lack of polish and the Steve Jobs biography make it pretty clear that Steve was focused on larger things. Mission Control could have been a great revolution instead of a being half-assed like it is. So now, instead of being great for all the users, it is only good for some. I used to always be amazed by OSX because, whenever I wondered if something was possible, I found out it was. There was always a seemed to be six ways to do something and the OS conformed to my needs instead of the other way around.

Most things are possible in Lion, but they take more work for me to accomplish. While that is fine for a lot of people, it isn't for me. It is like driving a car with tires that are always under-inflated. Sure, it will get me from A to B just fine under most circumstances, but it is costing me extra gas and that is annoying.

I just spent the last 4 days working at home on SL and it was wonderful. Now I'm back in the lab on Lion and it is frustrating to deal with unpolished software. At least my thesis is almost done so I'll sell my Macbook Air and no longer be annoyed about spending $1,700 on a computer that I don't like using.

blow45
Apr 3, 2012, 09:56 AM
amen brother.

People fail to understand there's a fine line between good and great software, and that this extra polish, this extra work to make something great is very hard indeed and requires talent and vision and someone at the helm with a very keen eye on not so much what functionality to add, but on how to optimally implement it, and above all what NOT to add, and what direction NOT to take. In os design there's also the issue of what options the user should and shouldn't have. Far too many options (and unnecessary ones) make for confusion and bloatware, the just right number of options provide the required flexibility and customizability.

Cases in point: Grouping of windows in mission control. This is not such an insanely good idea, that the user shouldn't have an option to be able to see them ungrouped. For a lot of people it's not a good idea at all. Someone though at os x design feels they have come up with something so great and their ego won't let them backtrack and offer the user said option.

Another case: Monochromatic sidebars. Someone at apple has gotten in their heads some moronic slogan "it's all about content" and thinks that this is a big selling/branding point of os x. No bells are ringing that if such a vast number of their user base says give us an option to not have monochromatic side bars, it means that they are facing a real usability issue with telling greyed up icons apart. They think that somehow people will buy apple and os x because of said "brilliant" user interface that somehow reminds them of os x (again the marketing making decisions and not the talent).

Why should grey sidebars become os x's identity and selling point? OS X has so many advantages to it, it's about no antivirus, it's about unix and the terminal, it's about applescript, it's about no defragmenting, it's about xcode, it's about such nice features as the keychain, colour coding items, spotlight search, finder preview, customizable system preference panes, just off the top of my head...It certainly isn't about grey sidebars and if people don't like them for very apparent ui reasons they should be able to, all the more so when apple's human interface guidelines explicitly state that using colour as a cue is important.

They used to allow customizable images of folders (they still do) that would retain their image when placed on the finder sidebar. Now every folder when placed on the sidebar despite any customization of how it looks when seen in the finder or on the desktop, suddenly reverts to the same grey generic folder look. How are people going to quickly tell apart 10-20 user folders they have placed on the sidebar when they all look the same? By reading the whole list instead of instantaneously going for the color and image cue?

All these decisions are baffling in their stupidity. I am all for not giving the user more options than necessary but just enough. I am all for when you come up with a great idea to implement it and have the user learn a right way of doing things that in the longer run is going to be universally more effective, instead of allowing them to fall back on the wrong habits, but taking away choice when your idea is not all that good to begin with?:confused:

roadbloc
Apr 3, 2012, 11:47 AM
Steve's last couple of years were focused on fighting for his life, a long hard fight, getting liver transplants, recovering from operations, etc. etc. Of course he was aware of several planned changes in lion, but his focus was on much more things, the ipad and its launch, the iphone, ios, icloud, itunes, books for itunes, music and tv deals, his tv conception, forward looking patents and ideas, the product pipeline, the campus, his legacy, apple's legacy, etc. He didn't have the executive control of os x. Someone run by him mission control as a general idea and then they executed it poorly. Someone run versions by him and then they executed it poorly. Don't kid yourself that a person in the last couple of years of his life, under so much biological stress and with several priorites ahead of os x could have bothered to focus on the details of os x or exercise executive control and be his usual demanding and excelling managing self over a team that anyway would soon have to do without him. Mission control is apple without Steve and it's evidenced by how crap it is.

And mountain lion is apple a few months down the line without Steve. Who would have thought a few years ago when we were waiting for zfs say that a few years down the line the world's most advanced os would be promoted based on a reminders and notes app, twitter, and growl notifications...

Boom. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

ssn637
Apr 3, 2012, 12:09 PM
I wonder what the adoption rate to Lion would have been if Apple had released 10.6.9 with its iCloud functionality and MacBook 2011 compatibility?

lordthistle
Apr 11, 2012, 02:32 PM
No, the problem is that you don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/04/sales_of_apples_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_hit_6m_80_more_than_snow_leopard.html

That article was written in October 2011, less than 4 months after the release of Lion.


I am among those who bought OS X Lion in the first weeks after its official release. I have been a very unhappy Lion user till yesterday, when I installed Snow Leopard back. What a pleasure.

Frankly, besides living with far less bugs (I filed more bug reports with Lion than with Leopard + Snow Leopard), I really appreciate having again Exposé and Spaces. May be it would be very difficult to introduce Exposé + Spaces with full screen applications, but Mission Control is really worthless when you are forced to work with many windows and in a double monitor set-up.

blow45
Apr 12, 2012, 03:33 PM
I am among those who bought OS X Lion in the first weeks after its official release. I have been a very unhappy Lion user till yesterday, when I installed Snow Leopard back. What a pleasure.

Frankly, besides living with far less bugs (I filed more bug reports with Lion than with Leopard + Snow Leopard), I really appreciate having again Exposé and Spaces. May be it would be very difficult to introduce Exposé + Spaces with full screen applications, but Mission Control is really worthless when you are forced to work with many windows and in a double monitor set-up.

No you really did like lion and those bug reports are imagined that's the mode of posting by some in this thread.;)

radiogoober
Apr 12, 2012, 05:09 PM
amen brother.

People fail to understand there's a fine line between good and great software, and that this extra polish, this extra work to make something great is very hard indeed and requires talent and vision and someone at the helm with a very keen eye on not so much what functionality to add, but on how to optimally implement it, and above all what NOT to add, and what direction NOT to take. In os design there's also the issue of what options the user should and shouldn't have. Far too many options (and unnecessary ones) make for confusion and bloatware, the just right number of options provide the required flexibility and customizability.

Cases in point: Grouping of windows in mission control. This is not such an insanely good idea, that the user shouldn't have an option to be able to see them ungrouped. For a lot of people it's not a good idea at all. Someone though at os x design feels they have come up with something so great and their ego won't let them backtrack and offer the user said option.

Another case: Monochromatic sidebars. Someone at apple has gotten in their heads some moronic slogan "it's all about content" and thinks that this is a big selling/branding point of os x. No bells are ringing that if such a vast number of their user base says give us an option to not have monochromatic side bars, it means that they are facing a real usability issue with telling greyed up icons apart. They think that somehow people will buy apple and os x because of said "brilliant" user interface that somehow reminds them of os x (again the marketing making decisions and not the talent).

Why should grey sidebars become os x's identity and selling point? OS X has so many advantages to it, it's about no antivirus, it's about unix and the terminal, it's about applescript, it's about no defragmenting, it's about xcode, it's about such nice features as the keychain, colour coding items, spotlight search, finder preview, customizable system preference panes, just off the top of my head...It certainly isn't about grey sidebars and if people don't like them for very apparent ui reasons they should be able to, all the more so when apple's human interface guidelines explicitly state that using colour as a cue is important.

They used to allow customizable images of folders (they still do) that would retain their image when placed on the finder sidebar. Now every folder when placed on the sidebar despite any customization of how it looks when seen in the finder or on the desktop, suddenly reverts to the same grey generic folder look. How are people going to quickly tell apart 10-20 user folders they have placed on the sidebar when they all look the same? By reading the whole list instead of instantaneously going for the color and image cue?

All these decisions are baffling in their stupidity. I am all for not giving the user more options than necessary but just enough. I am all for when you come up with a great idea to implement it and have the user learn a right way of doing things that in the longer run is going to be universally more effective, instead of allowing them to fall back on the wrong habits, but taking away choice when your idea is not all that good to begin with?:confused:

Meh. To me it's extraordinarily obnoxious of you to state that a design decision is "baffling in ... stupidity" just because *you* don't like it. Probably the single greatest thing that Apple does is *not* listen to its users because it would be impossible to please every single person, each having their own opinions.

blow45
Apr 12, 2012, 05:25 PM
Meh. To me it's extraordinarily obnoxious of you to state that a design decision is "baffling in ... stupidity" just because *you* don't like it. Probably the single greatest thing that Apple does is *not* listen to its users because it would be impossible to please every single person, each having their own opinions.

It's not because I don't like it, it's because a large proportion of apple's user base don't like it and are up in arms about it, it's also because eg. colour cues are an important part of user computer interaction in every design manual including apple's own human interface guidelines (until the last time I checked them), and because substituting what once could be an easily discernible customized image of a folder in the sidebar to a generic monochrome folder in the sidebar and forcing the user to read through their sometimes 10-20+ sidebar folders instead, is, indeed, quite baffling in its stupidity. And don't worry apple listen to users all the time when they eff up such as when they had to bring back optional matte on most of the macbook pros or when they had to restore the option of the ipad mute button to be the orientation lock button. Some people in the dev team don't like to admit that they made the wrong choices so they usually avoid changing something that they didn't implement well to begin with...

hafr
Apr 12, 2012, 06:13 PM
Why don't you kids go play elsewhere? Plenty of apps to buy with dad's credit card. I' ve pretty much had it with you. If you don't get something, you don't. Things fly over you heads what can we do. No one's blaming your toys here, you can still enjoy them.

You are quoting the arch apple propagandist appleinsider from October huh? Ok how about an independent report from analytics company a month later. Lion despite the huge incentive of icloud where users are able to sync their ios devices that apple very dishonestly has withheld from sl in an unprecedented move that obsoletes the last os in terms of cloud services - even the same people who were paying them their hard earned cash for mobile me, despite the ease of download via the app store with no need to go to a physical store, despite the price for a new os x release (and not an under the hood service pack one like sl) being a record low, despite record sales of new macs with lion pre-installed during the period, still had 4 times less the user base than snow leopard, and it had barely hit 2/3 of leopard? You know why that is? Cause people tell it's other, don't install it, it's crap, it will confuse you, it's messes up so much of a functional ui, it's buggy and it's slow and despite fixing some security issues it's bringing nothing much to the table. That's what I say, and most everyone I know does too. It still hasn't migrated to a better file system, it's still hasn't fixed accessibility issues of os with some way to scale up fonts for seniors who suffer through unbearably small menu item font such as the ones apparent in safari, it has messed up usability with monochromatic ui elements, it's messed up expose into the mess that is mission control and it's has inexplicably turned mac looking apps such as calendar and contacts into ipad looking apps that have less information and functionality and are not suited for os x but for a device such as the ipad, it's messed up smb shares so people cannot access ubiquitous windows networks without some problem or other, mail can get to 1.5gb memory because of memory leaks and safari reloads tabs...

Yeah Lion has been a resounding success...:rolleyes:

Do you think apple marketing would have pre released mountain lion, unlike ANY previous os x release, to a couple of known apologists who s... their pants when apple calls them up, if they knew they had a great product to show in a keynote and they didn't want to pre-empt the oncoming critical wave since lion?

But who am I trying to put forth rational arguments to? Kids that apple is some sort of quasi deity to them...

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9221827/How_is_Mac_OS_X_Lion_doing_

This was posted April 1, I'm guessing it's a joke.

radiogoober
Apr 12, 2012, 06:25 PM
It's not because I don't like it, it's because a large proportion of apple's user base don't like it and are up in arms about it, it's also because eg. colour cues are an important part of user computer interaction in every design manual including apple's own human interface guidelines (until the last time I checked them), and because substituting what once could be an easily discernible customized image of a folder in the sidebar to a generic monochrome folder in the sidebar and forcing the user to read through their sometimes 10-20+ sidebar folders instead, is, indeed, quite baffling in its stupidity. And don't worry apple listen to users all the time when they eff up such as when they had to bring back optional matte on most of the macbook pros or when they had to restore the option of the ipad mute button to be the orientation lock button. Some people in the dev team don't like to admit that they made the wrong choices so they usually avoid changing something that they didn't implement well to begin with...

I love that a few bored dorks on the internet is credited as "a large proportion of apple's user base don't like it and are up in arms about it." I just looked outside and I didn't see any protestors or rioters or looters shouting about monochromatic folders. The truth is the vast majority of people don't give a crap. The few who do just cry about it on an Apple web forum. My wife loves her Mac, but would never know when a new version of OS X is out, or that new versions even get released. I put Lion on her computer and she didn't even notice a difference.

MythicFrost
Apr 12, 2012, 06:37 PM
I believe the spaces at the top should up off screen and have those page dots like in iOS to show which space you're on, and when you move your mouse up to the very top of the screen the spaces drop down. I'd like a similar thing but with minimised windows at the bottom of the screen, and I want the dock to disappear.

That, along with better layout for the windows being displayed. Try opening six different Safari windows, just as an example, and then use Mission Control. They're all too close together to find the one you want comfortably, and even when scrolling up with the mouse to pan them out, it's still too difficult to find what you want.

Now, I quite like Mission Control, but I'm wanting some improvements.

blow45
Apr 12, 2012, 06:38 PM
This was posted April 1, I'm guessing it's a joke.

Sadly, lion wasn't released on April 1st as well. :)

I love that a few bored dorks on the internet is credited as "a large proportion of apple's user base don't like it and are up in arms about it." I just looked outside and I didn't see any protestors or rioters or looters shouting about monochromatic folders. The truth is the vast majority of people don't give a crap. The few who do just cry about it on an Apple web forum. My wife loves her Mac, but would never know when a new version of Mac is out, or that new versions even get released. I put Lion on her computer and she didn't even notice a difference.

So this dork, me, once had a (replica of a) Matisse opposite a brick wall in my flat, I took it down when I was moving, and the brick wall opposite it hardly noticed a difference.

chrono1081
Apr 12, 2012, 06:54 PM
Mission Control doesn't bother me one bit and I'm a multitasking mo-fo.

I do personally like space better for some things, but Mission Control has its merits, like seeing each document a certain application has open all at once.

Thankfully I don't suck at computers and can adapt to anything thrown at me and still get my work done.

Jagardn
Apr 12, 2012, 07:41 PM
Boom. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Boom. Someone proved a point that is purely opinion to a bunch of random people on the internet. :rolleyes:
Don't really think anyone is a winner here.

radiogoober
Apr 12, 2012, 07:49 PM
So this dork, me, once had a (replica of a) Matisse opposite a brick wall in my flat, I took it down when I was moving, and the brick wall opposite it hardly noticed a difference.

Haha :) It's just about obsessing over pointless crap. We all do it over things that shouldn't warrant a second thought.

----------

Boom. Someone proved a point that is purely opinion to a bunch of random people on the internet. :rolleyes:
Don't really think anyone is a winner here.

If anything, we're all losers for reading this thread!

blow45
Apr 12, 2012, 07:52 PM
Haha :) It's just about obsessing over pointless crap. We all do it over things that shouldn't warrant a second thought.

----------



If anything, we're all losers for reading this thread!

points taken. :o :)

now apple fix mission control and bring back some damn colour in the sidebar, I can't tell **** apart and I am not getting any younger.

Jasoco
Apr 12, 2012, 07:58 PM
My two cents:

I like Mission Control, but at the same time I miss Exposé the way it was. Really the ONLY problems I have with it:

The window grouping - I liked having all windows be by themselves. They should still group them but not overlap them so much. Right now it's impossible to pick out a single Finder window when I have a dozen open. Also, scrolling on the app group only spreads them out slightly. If you're going to spread them, put them all over the whole screen so I can make them out!

The old "Hold mouse on the Dock to make App Exposé open" option - WTF? That was a nice feature that was well touted when SL was out. Of course I can just swipe down with 4 fingers, but still. I always forget that exists.

Four-finger swipe down in Fullscreen doesn't do anything - Some apps can have multiple windows open in multiple spaces or sometimes even hidden behind a window that you can't get to without the Window menu. Make it so swiping down in a Fullscreen App shows me ALL the windows in that app including all other fullscreen windows as part of it and all the windows that fell behind the main window.

On the same note, other apps that open in a Fullscreen space but have no Dock icon - They end up getting lost and can't be found unless somehow refocusing them. These should also show up in MC somewhere. Because it's silly.

jameslmoser
Apr 13, 2012, 12:29 AM
The old "Hold mouse on the Dock to make App Exposé open" option - WTF? That was a nice feature that was well touted when SL was out. Of course I can just swipe down with 4 fingers, but still. I always forget that exists.


Exactly, I can't believe they removed that... now it does NOTHING. What was the point?? It just seems like so much of this was just change for changes sake...

lordthistle
Apr 13, 2012, 01:10 AM
I think Mission Control is perfect for people working with one window per app + some full screen apps. In these settings it is the perfect window manager, much better than Exposé+Spaces.

Or may be it is the ultimate window manager of the third millennium and I am just too old to appreciate its novelty. In my case I stopped using virtual desktops in Lion and my desktop was always a mess.

blow45
Apr 13, 2012, 06:18 AM
Exactly, I can't believe they removed that... now it does NOTHING. What was the point?? It just seems like so much of this was just change for changes sake...

And to add insult to injury it's a privacy nightmare to show all your recent files by default upon both hold and cmd click on the dock.

thenewperson
Apr 13, 2012, 11:00 AM
And to add insult to injury it's a privacy nightmare to show all your recent files by default upon both hold and cmd click on the dock.

And it's a privacy nightmare to show recents by default in the menu bar isn't it? :rolleyes:

Anyway, on ⌘-click on an app in the dock it shows the app's enclosing folder.

Frozzie
Apr 13, 2012, 12:48 PM
Even what we have now is much better than what is in Windows. I used Mac all the time and whenever I use Windows I feel my productivity has decreased by 70%...

Mackilroy
Apr 13, 2012, 01:11 PM
Don't really think anyone is a winner here.
I think this (http://xkcd.com/386/) comic certainly applies here. :D

lordthistle
Apr 14, 2012, 06:59 AM
I think this (http://xkcd.com/386/) comic certainly applies here. :D

Excellent :D

tory237
Apr 14, 2012, 08:11 PM
Exactly, I can't believe they removed that... now it does NOTHING. What was the point?? It just seems like so much of this was just change for changes sake...

It's now a two-finger double tap on the icon. I miss the cool glow effect on the icon also

jameslmoser
Apr 15, 2012, 02:39 AM
It's now a two-finger double tap on the icon. I miss the cool glow effect on the icon also

if you have a track pad... I do but I don't like it, its not as precise as my mouse.

I don't like wireless mice (or keyboards) either because they are not as accurate and I hate having to switch out batteries all the time, and they only make a wireless trackpad.

Jagardn
Apr 15, 2012, 07:14 AM
if you have a track pad... I do but I don't like it, its not as precise as my mouse.

I don't like wireless mice (or keyboards) either because they are not as accurate and I hate having to switch out batteries all the time, and they only make a wireless trackpad.

I know, I have to change out my wireless mouse batteries ever 12 months, it's exhausting. :rolleyes:

roadbloc
Apr 15, 2012, 08:37 AM
I don't like wireless mice (or keyboards) either because they are not as accurate and I hate having to switch out batteries all the time, and they only make a wireless trackpad.

I fail to see how wireless mice are any more inaccurate than wired mice's.

xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 15, 2012, 09:36 AM
I fail to see how wireless mice are any more inaccurate than wired mice's.

normal computing they are not...

for hardcore gaming some users can tell a difference because of the latency.

jameslmoser
Apr 15, 2012, 02:05 PM
I know, I have to change out my wireless mouse batteries ever 12 months, it's exhausting. :rolleyes:

its more than just changing them out... and if you get 12 months use out of batteries, I'm surprised. The wireless mice and keyboards always seem to have issues remaining connected, and it gets worse when the batteries get low. Or the computer starts complaining about low batteries at 20%. If you get 12 months, than thats a couple of months worth of warning.

Not to mention, they simply are NOT as accurate. I can take my wired mouse, move it around to a different monitor, and it stops when I stop it. With their wireless mice, if I go from one monitor to another one quickly, the pointer almost always keeps moving a little bit after I stop it.

If I have to hold down the option key to select another boot volume, or boot into single user mode, half the time it doesn't work with wireless keyboards. I have had almost every single one apple has ever made and some third party ones.

With a wired mouse and keyboard, I never have to worry if the mac is going to "see" the mouse or keyboard. It just works.

----------

I fail to see how wireless mice are any more inaccurate than wired mice's.

they are not less accurate as far as pin pointing a specific location, but they aren't as accurate moving them there.

gumblecosby
Apr 17, 2012, 07:07 AM
One complaint I had with mission control is the speed it takes to activate. Much slower than the older exposé's. This command helps for me:

defaults write com.apple.dock expose-animation-duration -float 0.22; killall Dock


The 0.22 is the speed I find to be the best but you should experiment with 0.20 to 0.26. I think the default is 0.26 but you can revert to the default speed with this command if you didn't know already:

defaults delete com.apple.dock expose-animation-duration; killall Dock


I think this originated from here:
http://osxdaily.com/2012/02/14/speed-up-misson-control-animations-mac-os-x/

matrix07
Apr 17, 2012, 07:10 AM
Even what we have now is much better than what is in Windows. I used Mac all the time and whenever I use Windows I feel my productivity has decreased by 70%...

Yesterday I was back at my Windows machine and I keep exposé-ing it with multi-fingers swipe up. :D

bedifferent
Apr 17, 2012, 04:25 PM
This thread just gave me a mission control migraine

*LTD*
Apr 18, 2012, 07:21 AM
There's little point in complaining ad nauseum about this.

1) It's a key feature, one that Apple is proud of and views as quite successful in its current implementation. It isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

2) There aren't *enough* consumers complaining about it to justify changing it. Apple has actually sold more Macs than ever with *this* implementation of Mission Control. If you can't live with it the way it is, then switch to Windows or something else. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels. Unless it's about increasing your post count.

klaxamazoo
Apr 18, 2012, 07:35 AM
There's little point in complaining ad nauseum about this.

1) It's a key feature, one that Apple is proud of and views as quite successful in its current implementation. It isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

2) There aren't *enough* consumers complaining about it to justify changing it. Apple has actually sold more Macs than ever with *this* implementation of Mission Control. If you can't live with it the way it is, then switch to Windows or something else. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels. Unless it's about increasing your post count.

It is a crappy design that has earned its negative criticism.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1346288
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1206106


The complaints aren't going anywhere so it isn't worth complaining about the complaints ad nausem. If you don't like reading about complaints I suggest spending your time in the 10,000+ other posts on this site that aren't clearly titled "Mission Control - Still a Failure."

jameslmoser
Apr 18, 2012, 12:17 PM
There's little point in complaining ad nauseum about this.

1) It's a key feature, one that Apple is proud of and views as quite successful in its current implementation. It isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

2) There aren't *enough* consumers complaining about it to justify changing it. Apple has actually sold more Macs than ever with *this* implementation of Mission Control. If you can't live with it the way it is, then switch to Windows or something else. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels. Unless it's about increasing your post count.

Hmm. And yet for some reason Lion is still about half of snow leopards market share, and you can't buy a Mac with snow leopard anymore.

Mission Control along with a number of other forced changes in Lion are failures. Key features or not... Apple had better do something about that.

hafr
Apr 18, 2012, 01:16 PM
Hmm. And yet for some reason Lion is still about half of snow leopards market share, and you can't buy a Mac with snow leopard anymore.

Mission Control along with a number of other forced changes in Lion are failures. Key features or not... Apple had better do something about that.

I think Mission Control is great, I use it all the time. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't use it. In what way is Mission Control a forced change?

xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 18, 2012, 07:41 PM
Hmm. And yet for some reason Lion is still about half of snow leopards market share, and you can't buy a Mac with snow leopard anymore.

Well, I would certainly hope that Snow Leopard has a larger market share. It has been out for 32 months, while Lion has only been out for 9 months.

Snow Leopard accounts for 44% of all macs in use. Lion accounts for about 39% of all macs in use. So Lion has grabbed nearly the same market share as Snow Leopard even though it has had 23 months less time.

Yeah you're right, those sales numbers are abysmal, apple better do something quick.

source (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9224808/Windows_XP_slide_continues_Mac_OS_X_posts_record_gain?taxonomyId=125&pageNumber=2)

jameslmoser
Apr 18, 2012, 07:59 PM
Well, I would certainly hope that Snow Leopard has a larger market share. It has been out for 32 months, while Lion has only been out for 9 months.

Snow Leopard accounts for 44% of all macs in use. Lion accounts for about 39% of all macs in use. So Lion has grabbed nearly the same market share as Snow Leopard even though it has had 23 months less time.

Yeah you're right, those sales numbers are abysmal, apple better do something quick.

source (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9224808/Windows_XP_slide_continues_Mac_OS_X_posts_record_gain?taxonomyId=125&pageNumber=2)

Not all sites are reporting those numbers for Lion.

http://insights.chitika.com/2012/update-mac-os-x-mountain-lion-preview-takes-06-share-of-all-mac-os-x-traffic/

Apple has previously enjoyed mass adoption of their new OS to a majority of their macs for a number of reasons. That wasn't the case with Lion. When Snow Leopard was released, Twitter reported the magority of their mac users upgraded in 9 days!

http://www.macworld.com/article/1142933/snow_leopard_adoption.html

The mac has also been loosing market share. And its not because IOS is taking it all, Windows market share is growing (and has been for months).

http://insights.chitika.com/2012/operating-system-market-share-march-2012-update/

Lion hasn't been a success for Apple...

----------

I think Mission Control is great, I use it all the time. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't use it. In what way is Mission Control a forced change?

I didn't say Mission Control was a forced change, I said "Mission control along with ..."

Though if you wanted to continue using virtual desktops or expose like window management, your now forced to use mission control. In fact, you can't shut it off. You never had to use spaces or expose before if you didn't want to.

xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 18, 2012, 08:12 PM
I wouldn't say that mac adoption rate slowing in the month of March relates to Lion.

Macs have been increasing in market share every month since Lion's release, and then slows down for only one month. It is much more likely that people are waiting to buy new macs after they are updated with Ivy Bridge.

You will see mac usage rate shoot up again when new machines are released in the coming weeks.

Jagardn
Apr 18, 2012, 08:40 PM
Hmm. And yet for some reason Lion is still about half of snow leopards market share, and you can't buy a Mac with snow leopard anymore.

Mission Control along with a number of other forced changes in Lion are failures. Key features or not... Apple had better do something about that.

Not everyone goes running to use a new OS when it's released. I know plenty of people who have Macs who haven't upgraded, Not because they hate anything about Lion, they are just content with what they have. Hell, I know plenty of people still using Vista, even with it being a train wreck.

----------

The mac has also been loosing market share. And its not because IOS is taking it all, Windows market share is growing (and has been for months).

More and more people shop at Wal-Mart every day, and they are gaining market share. Does that mean Wal-Mart is the best place to shop?

Does Outback have better steaks than Ruth's Chris? Nope, its just cheaper and more readily available.

jameslmoser
Apr 18, 2012, 09:17 PM
Not everyone goes running to use a new OS when it's released. I know plenty of people who have Macs who haven't upgraded, Not because they hate anything about Lion, they are just content with what they have. Hell, I know plenty of people still using Vista, even with it being a train wreck.

----------



More and more people shop at Wal-Mart every day, and they are gaining market share. Does that mean Wal-Mart is the best place to shop?

Does Outback have better steaks than Ruth's Chris? Nope, its just cheaper and more readily available.

These are completely useless comparisons.

Lion's adoption rate is horrible compared to Apple's previous OS releases.
During Snow Leopard (and Leopard, Tiger, ....) Mac market share was increasing, not decreasing.

These are not just coincidences that don't mean anything. And you can't go comparing Walmart market share to Apple's market share. Your not even comparing the same markets.

Believe me, Apple seen this same thing. Thats why they rushed to get Mountain Lion out into the public, without any sort of special event or keynote. They are trying to put Lion into the past. If they could completely change most of these often discussed features of Lion they would, but if they changed things too much they would basically be saying "Yeah, Lion sucked, our bad."

wikus
Apr 18, 2012, 09:44 PM
...but if they changed things too much they would basically be saying "Yeah, Lion sucked, our bad."

Apple's already done that though; go back to the Mac OS 10.5 release and you might remember when Apple completely SCREWED some people by removing the ability to show folders in the dock with LIST VIEW;

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Leopard_Changing_Dock_Stacks_to_Folders/

A couple revisions later, and 10.5.2 had the option come back. Nobody cared about Apple's screw up at that point, it gave them more credibility for actually LISTENING to its users. They don't need to change much, just improve on it and fixing the bugs.

However, they badly need to add some options to do as they did before. Mission Control is a complete failure, Lion is laggy even with the new MacBook Pros, versions is redundant (and stupid) as is auto-save, The Finder icons should be in colour for easy recognition, etc. Most of those things can easily be fixed with some simple OPTIONS.

I cant understand though, why OPTIONS are seen as an EVIL AND BAD thing on MacRumors?? Why are so many people against having a couple checkmarks to satisfy a lot of Mac OS users?

And why the hell SHOULDNT System Preferences get those features?? Thats what System Preferences is for!!!

xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 18, 2012, 10:46 PM
Lion's adoption rate is horrible compared to Apple's previous OS releases.
10% of mac users upgraded to Lion within 2 weeks. They sold 6 million copies in the first few months of release, 80% more than any previous version of OS X during the same period. So how exactly is that horrible adoption rate?


Believe me, Apple seen this same thing. Thats why they rushed to get Mountain Lion out into the public, without any sort of special event or keynote. They are trying to put Lion into the past.
The largest complaint about Lion is Mission Control... which is UNCHANGED in Mountain Lion. So if Apple is rushing to "fix" Lion, why didn't they "fix" the biggest complaint. Mountain Lion is Lion + some iOS apps to sync through iCloud.

jameslmoser
Apr 19, 2012, 12:58 AM
10% of mac users upgraded to Lion within 2 weeks. They sold 6 million copies in the first few months of release, 80% more than any previous version of OS X during the same period. So how exactly is that horrible adoption rate?

The largest complaint about Lion is Mission Control... which is UNCHANGED in Mountain Lion. So if Apple is rushing to "fix" Lion, why didn't they "fix" the biggest complaint. Mountain Lion is Lion + some iOS apps to sync through iCloud.

Millions bought lion, and many reverted shortly after. I'm one of them and know others.
So you acknowledge that Mission Control has many people complaining? =)

If they don't change anything at all about Mission Control that would be pure stubbornness on their part. Its extremely buggy and has so many problems. The main reason they made Mission Control was because of the new Fullscreen apps, which also has its share of problems. These implementations are in pretty bad shape... they could appease people with a few options, or they could be rethinking/rewriting them all together. I guess only time will tell.

With them now offering Snow Leopard for free so people will buy Lion, I think they are trying (hoping) to find other reasons people might not be upgrading...

jameslmoser
Apr 19, 2012, 06:08 PM
Also, why did they remove Mission Control from the Dock by default in Mountain Lion? Are they trying to hide/move pass this disaster and make it less noticed/used? Or are they actually working on something to address the issues it created? I really hope its the later and we get the Spaces and Expose functionality back we lost with Mission Control.

lordthistle
Apr 20, 2012, 03:07 AM
Apple is targeting a group of people which is different from the past. Now they target people buying music, surfing the internet and purchasing small apps in their App store. And they are winning. I think many Apple users did not even use Exposé and Spaces and do not use Mission Control.

Now, the fact they are selling Lion does not necessarily mean all the features in Lion are 'goog ideas'. Is 'Duplicate+Save' better than 'Save As'? I am not speaking about the versioning they introduced, but the removal of a 'Save As' that they could have implemented internally as 'dup+save'.

Another example. The filesystem used in OS X is just ridiculous. The fact that OS X Leopard, SL, and Lion have been purchased by a lot of people does not make that filesystem less ridiculous.

The fact that the filesystem is still there after all these years clearly indicates that Apple is not targeting advanced computing environments, where the difference in functionality between Exposé and Mission Control is more easily noticed.

ixodes
Apr 20, 2012, 12:42 PM
I find it amusing when people describe MC as failure, problem, or with other strong words. It's different, and one can not like it, but that doesn't make it a problem/failure.

Very well said! I agree completely.

There's a lot about Lion I dislike, after years with every OS since System 7, yet I certainly would not call Lion a failure. While far from what I would enjoy, I do understand (even though I disagree) why Apple is taking the direction it is with OS X. I have great concerns with Lion that I have decided to put aside, while I wait and see just where Apple goes with the next rev: 10.8.x

I understand Apple's priority no longer seems to be it's loyal home and professional computer users. That fact is backed up by the undeniable success its having with iToyz. These lightweight iOS powered entertainment oriented products appeal to the inner child in people of all ages.

One look at the apps offered, stocked to the hilt with simple games, and all manner of minutiae in addition to some useful more functional apps is a perfect reflection of Apples new mind set.

There's simply no denying that in order to satisfy Apple's addiction to being the center of attention, grabbing headlines, and generating mind boggling profits, they have hit upon a very successful strategy.

secretanchitman
May 2, 2012, 12:59 AM
not anymore! as of the updated DP3 that was released earlier tonight, it has been "fixed" for the most part! you can now FINALLY ungroup windows by application. that is all i wanted in mountain lion, so now i will finally upgrade whenever it gets released.

i wonder if the minimized applications will show up too in ungrouped mission control, and not just in app expose only.

http://i.imgur.com/rkhbK.png

http://i.imgur.com/eh8M5.png

http://i.imgur.com/atDj8.png

credit goes to neogaf for posting the pictures!

Blue Sun
May 2, 2012, 03:29 AM
not anymore! as of the updated DP3 that was released earlier tonight, it has been "fixed" for the most part! you can now FINALLY ungroup windows by application. that is all i wanted in mountain lion, so now i will finally upgrade whenever it gets released.

i wonder if the minimized applications will show up too in ungrouped mission control, and not just in app expose only.

Image (http://i.imgur.com/rkhbK.png)

Image (http://i.imgur.com/eh8M5.png)

Image (http://i.imgur.com/atDj8.png)

credit goes to neogaf for posting the pictures!

I'm stoked with this update.

Thank you, Apple.

Any chance of incorporating this into the next Lion update?
(wishful thinking, I know)

thenewperson
May 2, 2012, 03:36 AM
I'm stoked with this update.

Thank you, Apple.

Any chance of incorporating this into the next Lion update?
(wishful thinking, I know)

I'm thinking Mountain Lion will be a free update anyway.

blow45
May 2, 2012, 04:24 AM
I'm thinking Mountain Lion will be a free update anyway.

yeah but it wont work on non 64 bit mobos macs, so not 2007 past

laudern
May 2, 2012, 04:44 AM
i wonder if the minimized applications will show up too in ungrouped mission control, and not just in app expose only.



Can someone please answer this?????

shimatta
May 2, 2012, 05:02 AM
Can someone please answer this?????

Nope, they don't show up.

chevalier433
May 2, 2012, 06:18 AM
[QUOTE The filesystem used in OS X is just ridiculous
[/QUOTE]What.?:confused:Wrong.If the UNIX is ridiculous what windows users have to say and do Suicide???The Unix Filesystem is a major factor that OS X is centuries ahead in stability and rebility from windows.

thenewperson
May 2, 2012, 08:04 AM
yeah but it wont work on non 64 bit mobos macs, so not 2007 past

Ah, yes. Oh well.

Mad Mac Maniac
May 2, 2012, 09:01 AM
yeah but it wont work on non 64 bit mobos macs, so not 2007 past

true but.... this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1325818) and this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1325709) suggest otherwise... ;)

Eithanius
May 2, 2012, 09:49 AM
i wonder if the minimized applications will show up too in ungrouped mission control, and not just in app expose only.


Nope, they don't show up.

Time to feedback Apple on implementing "Show minimised windows on Expose" back on Mountain Lion...? :D:D

blow45
May 2, 2012, 11:26 AM
[QUOTE The filesystem used in OS X is just ridiculous
What.?:confused:Wrong.If the UNIX is ridiculous what windows users have to say and do Suicide???The Unix Filesystem is a major factor that OS X is centuries ahead in stability and rebility from windows.[/QUOTE]

get a spell check, learn to quote without messing it up, and educate yourself on fs basics...yeah in a few centuries windows might catch up to the unparalleled hfs+, hell unix distros might even go with it...

----------

true but.... this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1325818) and this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1325709) suggest otherwise... ;)

yeah, looking good, many kudos to the guys who 've put this together, I hope app store release doesn't mess it up on updates though. :)

pdjudd
May 2, 2012, 11:43 AM
true but.... this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1325818) and this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1325709) suggest otherwise... ;)

I wouldn't count on hacks working for too long - especially given the distribution method and update method. If the installer doesn't work, I wouldn't try it.

chevalier433
May 2, 2012, 12:29 PM
[/QUOTE]get a spell check, learn to quote without messing it up, and educate yourself on fs basics...yeah in a few centuries windows might catch up to the unparalleled hfs+, hell unix distros might even go with it...[COLOR="#808080"][/QUOTE]
I am not an english neither an american so i don't give a f@ck getting a spell check.Educate myself about what? First time in my life i heard from you that Unix filesystem is non reliable.

blow45
May 2, 2012, 12:50 PM
get a spell check, learn to quote without messing it up, and educate yourself on fs basics...yeah in a few centuries windows might catch up to the unparalleled hfs+, hell unix distros might even go with it...[COLOR="#808080"][/QUOTE]
I am not an english neither an american so i don't give a f@ck getting a spell check.Educate myself about what? First time in my life i heard from you that Unix filesystem is non reliable.[/QUOTE]

ok, whatever buddy, take it easy. :)

baryon
May 2, 2012, 01:04 PM
not anymore! as of the updated DP3 that was released earlier tonight, it has been "fixed" for the most part! you can now FINALLY ungroup windows by application. that is all i wanted in mountain lion, so now i will finally upgrade whenever it gets released.

i wonder if the minimized applications will show up too in ungrouped mission control, and not just in app expose only.

Image (http://i.imgur.com/rkhbK.png)

Image (http://i.imgur.com/eh8M5.png)

Image (http://i.imgur.com/atDj8.png)

credit goes to neogaf for posting the pictures!

Well THAT is a huge surprise!!! Amazing, I'm very happy about it.

wikus
May 8, 2012, 08:34 AM
There's little point in complaining ad nauseum about this.

1) It's a key feature, one that Apple is proud of and views as quite successful in its current implementation. It isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

2) There aren't *enough* consumers complaining about it to justify changing it. Apple has actually sold more Macs than ever with *this* implementation of Mission Control. If you can't live with it the way it is, then switch to Windows or something else. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels. Unless it's about increasing your post count.

Hi LTD.

Please scroll up and and take a look at the images posted above showing Expose's return in Mountain Lion. With that said;

There aren't *enough* consumers complaining about it to justify changing it.

Would you care to elaborate on that comment of yours and your Anti-Choice stance? Clearly you were proven VERY wrong by none other than Apple itself.

thenewperson
May 9, 2012, 05:25 AM
Hi LTD.

Please scroll up and and take a look at the images posted above showing Expose's return in Mountain Lion. With that said;

That's hardly Expose. That's just one thing from Expose returned (which seemed like the biggest complaint about MC I had seen - the grouping of windows).

Would you care to elaborate on that comment of yours and your Anti-Choice stance? Clearly you were proven VERY wrong by none other than Apple itself.

That doesn't look like an "anti-choice" stance. Just seems like someone explaining why Expose hasn't returned. And he's hardly been "proven VERY wrong" if Expose still isn't there.

spl456
May 9, 2012, 07:35 AM
I wonder if the minimized applications will show up too in ungrouped mission control, and not just in app expose only.


I wonder if minimised apps (in the dock) will pop up when using CMD+Tab, not just the top menu bar, in the future?
Three places where Windows is ahead, Alt+Tab, Minimise/Maximise open windows/apps/programs, windows 'snapping' half screen. Apart from that, Apple ******'s on Windows, lol. :D

Simplicated
May 9, 2012, 08:15 AM
I wonder if minimised apps (in the dock) will pop up when using CMD+Tab, not just the top menu bar, in the future?
Three places where Windows is ahead, Alt+Tab, Minimise/Maximise open windows/apps/programs, windows 'snapping' half screen. Apart from that, Apple ******'s on Windows, lol. :D

Apple's window management has been Exposé since 10.3, and Cmd-Tab focuses on switching between applications instead.That green button in a window is not a Maximize button, it is a zoom button. It makes sense when you know how it works.

cmChimera
May 9, 2012, 09:01 AM
That's hardly Expose. That's just one thing from Expose returned (which seemed like the biggest complaint about MC I had seen - the grouping of windows).



That doesn't look like an "anti-choice" stance. Just seems like someone explaining why Expose hasn't returned. And he's hardly been "proven VERY wrong" if Expose still isn't there. That looks like exposé to me. What is missing?

Mad Mac Maniac
May 9, 2012, 09:47 AM
That looks like exposé to me. What is missing?

I think he's referring to the fact that it's still a "mission control" version of expose. Meaning it still shrinks the screen and shows all the mini desktops at the top.

thenewperson
May 9, 2012, 10:52 AM
I think he's referring to the fact that it's still a "mission control" version of expose. Meaning it still shrinks the screen and shows all the mini desktops at the top.

That, and you can't see all windows across Spaces and no window labels. App Expose is still closer to the real thing, and if you're still missing it you might as well use that.

Rayxxy
May 9, 2012, 05:36 PM
Well, im currently using SL. I never used lion or higher. Speaking of how bad u guys say Mission Control is (well most of ya), when ML comes out (hopefuly its coming wiht a mac), i will see how bad misson control is, or good. Few more month till my answer. Cannot wait! Or you have my answer now, :) probaly not. But apple does, but they'll never tell me now.

wikus
May 9, 2012, 06:02 PM
Apple's window management has been Exposé since 10.3, and Cmd-Tab focuses on switching between applications instead.That green button in a window is not a Maximize button, it is a zoom button. It makes sense when you know how it works.

I still have RightZoom installed on every computer and every account. The green button's default setting is ridiculously stupid. I dont waste my time anymore resizing windows to get them aligned.

RightZoom combined with Cinch makes a stellar combo.

klaxamazoo
Jun 20, 2012, 10:10 AM
The new Beta of TotalSpaces has implemented an Expose clone.

http://totalspaces.binaryage.com/changes
http://totalspaces.binaryage.com/

The implementation is still very early and has a few rough edges to polish out, but it looks like the developer is making a lot of progress.

sireShonBohn
Jun 20, 2012, 12:16 PM
I just bought my first Mac after using them at my previous job for a couple years. Since I had a period of time not using a Mac during which Apple switched from Expose to MC, I might have a unique perspective on MC. Which is to say, it's not what I expected, but, neither am I totally ingrained with the behavior of Expose. Having said that, I have found that MC is unable to provide me with a view of tabbed browser windows. Even Windows 7 is kind enough to give you a couple different ways to discover your tabs quickly and easily through the task bar. (One of which OSX also provides; right-click on icon.)

When I was using a Mac before I found that I came to rely on Expose more and more. With MC, I find myself wondering about its usefulness. I don't want to say Apple needs to chuck MC, it seems interesting, it's just not totally "there" yet.

I think the problem is that App-Expose does nothing. MC is not bad, though the "spread" gesture should do more. The real issue is that once you find your app through MC, you're still in the same boat if you try to use App-Expose. App-Expose does nothing for tabs. I was expecting old Expose behavior for App-Expose, and that makes sense even in the context of MC. The problem with old Expose was that EVERYTHING got exposed. I work with web development so maybe my case is unique. The issue I used to have with old Expose was that I'd have the same page open in 3 browsers and it was hard to tell which one I wanted to see through old Expose. So MC makes sense for sorting that out. Where everything falls apart is with app-Expose, so I've found the app I want through MC, select it and swipe down, annnnd not a damn thing happens.

My suggestion is to have App-Expose function just like old Expose.

jackeill
Jun 20, 2012, 02:27 PM
My suggestion is to have App-Expose function just like old Expose.
But it hasn't changed at all...?

Simplicated
Jun 20, 2012, 02:29 PM
But it hasn't changed at all...?

Yes it has. Now it shows recent documents (along with minimized windows in the same area that confuses many) as well. It's very perplexing.

sireShonBohn
Jun 20, 2012, 06:42 PM
But it hasn't changed at all...?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't old Expose show tabs? It would be nice IMO if app-expose revealed all the tabs or documents currently open in the active app... I see that App-Expose currently does this if the app creates a new window for each document, but it does nothing for tabs that I have seen.

newagemac
Jun 20, 2012, 06:48 PM
You do realize you are supposed to use the spacebar in combination with the swipe up in Mission Control right? That eliminates the need to even use App Exposé in most cases. The swipe up allows you to hover over any window easily (it will get a blue outline.) And then you use the spacebar to make it much larger to see the contents of that particular window.

sireShonBohn
Jun 20, 2012, 07:03 PM
You do realize you are supposed to use the spacebar in combination with the swipe up in Mission Control right? That eliminates the need to even use App Exposé in most cases. The swipe up allows you to hover over any window easily (it will get a blue outline.) And then you use the spacebar to make it much larger to see the contents of that particular window.

Unfortunately, that is nowhere near the same thing as what old Expose does.

Think about it for a second. I have 20 tabs open in a browser window, I want to see them all visually and go straight to the one I want, I could do that with old Expose.

As I stated in another post, the "spread" function does next to nothing and pecking in and out with spacebar is a waste of time which also does not allow you to view the content of tabs.

I have another problem with the spacebar, why am I doing that when I've just been using gestures? Perhaps the "spread" gesture should produce an effect similar to old Expose, but only for the selected app of course.

newagemac
Jun 21, 2012, 04:58 AM
Unfortunately, that is nowhere near the same thing as what old Expose does.

Think about it for a second. I have 20 tabs open in a browser window, I want to see them all visually and go straight to the one I want, I could do that with old Expose.

As I stated in another post, the "spread" function does next to nothing and pecking in and out with spacebar is a waste of time which also does not allow you to view the content of tabs.

I have another problem with the spacebar, why am I doing that when I've just been using gestures? Perhaps the "spread" gesture should produce an effect similar to old Expose, but only for the selected app of course.

You couldn't see tabs within a browser window in the old Exposé. I'm not sure what you are remembering.

antoniogra7
Jun 21, 2012, 05:46 AM
Unfortunately, that is nowhere near the same thing as what old Expose does.

Think about it for a second. I have 20 tabs open in a browser window, I want to see them all visually and go straight to the one I want, I could do that with old Expose.

As I stated in another post, the "spread" function does next to nothing and pecking in and out with spacebar is a waste of time which also does not allow you to view the content of tabs.

I have another problem with the spacebar, why am I doing that when I've just been using gestures? Perhaps the "spread" gesture should produce an effect similar to old Expose, but only for the selected app of course.

If you mean windows and not tabs, you can still use exposé in Lion, the problem is that it only show the windows of the active app and not all apps like in SL, but if you know what window do you want to select, you won't have a problem.

If you really meant tabs, then you are wrong. Exposé has never show windows tabs.

sireShonBohn
Jun 21, 2012, 12:36 PM
If you mean windows and not tabs, you can still use exposé in Lion, the problem is that it only show the windows of the active app and not all apps like in SL, but if you know what window do you want to select, you won't have a problem.

If you really meant tabs, then you are wrong. Exposé has never show windows tabs.

I could have sworn that it used to do that. Maybe there was something installed on the mac that added that functionality? I wouldn't know for sure because it wasn't my computer.

Whether I remembered it correctly or not, I think it would be nice to have a way to view tabs, Win 7 makes that pretty easy, but not as nice as Expose like functionality would be.

Crazy Badger
Jun 21, 2012, 12:47 PM
I still miss spaces and don't see why Apple couldn't have both options. Have got used to Mission Control but it doesn't offer the same level of "control" as spaces did. Come on Apple, give us the choice!

chaise2jardin
Jul 24, 2012, 11:24 AM
I'm also not happy with the current implementation of Mission control. I've done like the person with the Mac pro since it seemed at least to make Apple to react a little bit : I created a Facebook Page about it. If as me you want to see Mission control improved please like this page : http://www.facebook.com/WeWantANewMissionControl

Hephaestus
Jul 24, 2012, 11:54 AM
Mission Control is indeed total crap, they butchered expose and spaces completely. Why would anyone want to see that horrific dashboard space in the corner when browsing open applications? Mission Control displays redundant and irrelevant spaces.

OP is totally right, there was NO point in combining spaces with expose, none what so ever. All it does is clutter and remove functionality. Stacking windows from the same app together? You surely have lost the plot Apple. I don't understand how such a stupid flaw can come into fruition.

nuckinfutz
Jul 24, 2012, 11:57 AM
Mission Control is indeed total crap, they butchered expose and spaces completely. Why would anyone want to see that horrific dashboard space in the corner when browsing open applications? Mission Control displays redundant and irrelevant spaces.

OP is totally right, there was NO point in combining spaces with expose, none what so ever. All it does is clutter and remove functionality. Stacking windows from the same app together? You surely have lost the plot Apple. I don't understand how such a stupid flaw can come into fruition.

No one used Spaces but Geeks.

Hephaestus
Jul 24, 2012, 12:02 PM
No one used Spaces but Geeks.

If that's the case then why not include it as an optional feature? Why FORCE every one to see it in a flawed manor when trying to use expose? Mission Control incorporates irrelevant spaces anyway when you use expose. Its a complete mess.

nuckinfutz
Jul 24, 2012, 12:12 PM
If that's the case then why not include it as an optional feature? Why FORCE every one to see it in a flawed manor when trying to use expose? Mission Control incorporates irrelevant spaces anyway when you use expose. Its a complete mess.

Not really. It's simple.

Mission Control shows you a list of your spaces at top and what apps are running full screen.

Below it shows the windows of apps that aren't running full screen. It's simple enough to explain to the average consumer. Those that want the old skool way can get it in Hyperspaces or TotalSpaces

Simplicated
Jul 24, 2012, 12:13 PM
No one used Spaces but Geeks.

That's totally the truth. :rolleyes:

nuckinfutz
Jul 24, 2012, 12:26 PM
That's totally the truth. :rolleyes:

I know

:apple:

Hephaestus
Jul 24, 2012, 12:29 PM
Not really. It's simple.

Mission Control shows you a list of your spaces at top and what apps are running full screen.

Below it shows the windows of apps that aren't running full screen. It's simple enough to explain to the average consumer. Those that want the old skool way can get it in Hyperspaces or TotalSpaces

How exactly is mission control more functional that expose and spaces in SL? Snow Leopard allowed one to see all of the windows open, which is the whole point. Mission Control groups and layers the opened windows into separate apps, so you can't actually see what is open at all.

I know the spaces are displayed a long the top, but why? If a person only has one space open, which according to people on here most people do, what is the point of that huge grey border and the two irrelevant spaces? What is even the point in showing dashboard at all? It serves no purpose at all. Like I said, its a mess.

nuckinfutz
Jul 24, 2012, 12:34 PM
Expose and Spaces didn't scale well.

The more open windows an application had the smaller they scaled in Expose. Spaces was too complex for consumers. You had to choose which apps were supposed to open in one or all spaces. Often if you messed up opening a particular app would disrupt what was going on and yank the user into the space designed for the app just opened.

I do not deny that Expose and Spaces were powerful but they just didn't provide utility across the majority of Mac users which means a redesign. Apple's not interested in catering to just a few hardcore users.

roland.g
Jul 24, 2012, 12:37 PM
Whoever said full screen apps are opened far right. Yes, but you can order them to your liking by dragging. Then a three finger swipe always takes you in the order you want and expect.

The only thing I don't like is that full screen apps like iPhoto aren't fully operational in full screen so you have to take them out to do certain tasks.

Krazy Bill
Jul 24, 2012, 01:22 PM
OP is totally right, there was NO point in combining spaces with expose,I can see both working together nicely if they'd just change some things:

Step 1: Get rid of this "full-screen-apps-need-a-dedicated-space" nonsense. It makes no sense why an app with no menu/title bar is so special it warrants its own corner of the universe. Let full screen apps mingle with other apps on the same space/desktop. FS Apps screw up dual monitors.

Step 2: If only using a single desktop, get rid of that redundant icon at the top. I'd rather use that wasted screen real estate for expose'.

I don't mind having both Spaces AND expose on one screen with just a swipe. Couldn't do that with Snow Leopard.

Stacking windows from the same app together? You surely have lost the plot Apple. I don't understand how such a stupid flaw can come into fruition.Mountain Line now lets you "unstack" all windows now as an option. i.e., the old Expose' in SL is back.

----------

No one used Spaces but Geeks.Look at the top of MC when you have no other spaces defined. There's a useless and silly-assed "space" right there showing you a miniature thumbnail of what you're already looking at below.

Welcome to Geekdom.