Anyone else try out Lion and decide to sit out with SL?

[farmermac]

I've tried Lion on my main iMac at home since the GM came out, and finally tried it yesterday on my MBP. There's too many things that were perfectly fine in SL that got broke. Expose was perfect. The gestures were fine as they were - with Lion you lose 3 finger gesture in the web browser. It doesnt seem like a very Apple move to go and change half the gestures on the trackpad. Talk about change for the sake of change.

I have to say that between the launchpad (what a joke), mission control and the bungled up gestures, there isnt a compelling reason to move to Lion besides 64-bit iTunes - but we all know this could have been done in SL. I hope Apple will fix some of that stuff (but I dont see it happening - when SJ puts his head in the sand, it's there to stay)

I sound like a whiney little bitch anti-apple fanboy, but ive got literally 10k in apple stuff sitting around so please dont bash me all the way...This just reminds me of when MS released Vista with a bunch of Whiz bang visual stuff to "freshen" XP that was perfectly fine.

 

[ace-tone]

Where I would disagree with your XP-->Vista comparison is that the Vista upgrade was actually a detriment to performance. Even newer computers pre-installed with it ran noticeably slow. With Lion I'm not noticing any performance issues yet, apart from third-party software compatibility which is pretty inevitable with new operating systems.

I loved Snow Leopard, but the full-screen apps feature in Lion and Launchpad are reasons I can't go back 🙂 Launchpad initially did seem like a gimmick to me but because of it I no longer need a permanent dock and that just means more real estate on my 13" MBP.

The only thing I'm not liking right now is that it seems Finder no longer allows folder navigation gestures (back and forth with 2-finger swipe). Just seems like a silly oversight, but I'm hopeful of its return in a future update.

 

[ugahairydawgs]

Where I would disagree with your XP-->Vista comparison is that the Vista upgrade was actually a detriment to performance. Even newer computers pre-installed with it ran noticeably slow.

This is just the inherent problem with Windows in general....vendors are free to bundle whatever crappy hardware they want with Microsoft's software. In the end HP, Toshiba, Sony, etc are not the ones who got (rightfully) blamed for most of the issues with Vista. Microsoft did and it is because they have no control over software/hardware configs.

There were far too many 1.x Celeron machines with shared video/system RAM (often nowhere near enough) that were on the market when Vista first came out that completely ruined the experience. Many of the first Vista machines were far too underpowered and it was all done in an attempt to get the $300/$350 laptop in stores. I have a 2 year old PC with a mid-level dual core processor and dedicated graphics card that I run Vista on at work and have never had issue one.

People were buying 30 year old Ford Pintos and complaining because it didn't run like a new Benz.