What you call the backwards way is the intuitive way on a iDevice.
Notice that the Macintosh is not an iDevice. I know with Lion and now ML that may take some imagination, but it's all true. It's a Mac. Limited as they are, compared to what PCs can be, they are for all intents and purposes infinitely more capable than an iDevice.
Point being, what is intuative on a limited handheld device looks dumb on a so much much more capable computer, such as the Macintosh.
And though iDevice people can, and did, manage to use the "backwards" way on their OS X system, making everything consistent is a good idea, especially when it only takes minutes to adjust to the new way.
No, not really - the iToys are by design and lack of power, far, far less capable than a Mac. Using the extremely limited, lowest common denominator, way of the iToy on a Mac is more than backwards, it's ass-backwards.
I guess I should thank all that's holy that Apple didn't invent the T9 numerical keyboard input. Close call!
If you can't discern between one device and another, you have more problems than most people. One realized that stepping on the pedals of an airplane doesn't throttle up the gas! One doesn't try to pedal in the car as one would do on a bicycle, would one?
One would not expect a 27" stationary full-fledged computer to act like a handheld device. For one, they're obviously not a similar device, so expecting them to work in a similar way makes little sens and for another, what makes sense on a 3" monitor makes no sense on a 27" monitor. Such as disappearing scroll bars - in particular since disappearing scrollbars don't help anyone who goes from a iToy to a Mac.
Do you think people break out in cold sweat and confusion when those scroll bars just don't DISAPPEAR??!!! No, it was made for a cosmetic, vain and mostly dumb reason. Because they could. For the lulz.
Apple really had two choices, either change the way it is done on idevices, or change the way it is done on OS X. Having two opposed way of doing things is silly and inconsistent.
The two products, Macs and iToys are by their very nature "inconsistent". Why can't I move my Mac Pro with me? Put the iMac in my pocket? Use the touchscreen on my Macbook? Can I call from any of these devices using the SIM card?
Your first logical fallacy is to consider iToys and Macs anything but inconsistent. Your second logical fallacy is to make the artificial demand that there has to be any kind of internal consistency between the two very inconsistent devices.
There is an ocean between the two in actual capability, in physical design and in intended application. Thus the artificial demand that they "need" or "should" be treated in any similar way is based on a false premise.
It would be silly and inconsistent if Macs were not more or less the same to use, as would it be silly and inconsistent if iToys were not more or less the same - but to join the two just because they're made by Apple, that's a major case of missing the point.
Now, because there are more idevice users, and because on an idevice the old way is ineffective, the choice seems quite obvious; they made the right decision.
Again the logical fallacy that there has to be some sort of joining, completely ignoring that the "unification" of these devices the iToys and the Mac serves no purpose other than saying "it has been done". It changes nothing for the limited device that is the iToy, while it dumbs down the Mac.
When a UI created and designed for a 3-4" phone is used on a full size Mac, guess what: it's the Mac that's going to be dumbed down. Furthermore, it's a logial fallacy to imagine that because iToys are more popular they are to be imitated by Macs. They are popular as iToys, not as Macs.
That's one thing not even Windows - once famous copiers of all things Macintosh - have considered doing. Apple is so far 'round the bend that even Redmond has decided to head somewhere else for inspiration of their Windows 8.
If the ultimate point of this stillborn joining of the iOS and OS X UI is to make iToys users a little more comfortable when they are faced with an actual computer, well that's not a reason. That's something closer to codependence.
Keeping the legacy code in the new platform and having to continuously test the new code to insure it doesn't conflict or break prior compatibility is the cost of maintaining these virtual environments. The time spent doing that could be invested into developing new features that the overwhelming majority of people are interested in.
Seeing as the environments in question are self contained apps that effectively are not changing, they should not break. I'm sure Apple coded them properly to begin with - further more seeing what they wasted their time with instead of making the minimal effort of having either PPC and/or Classic working still proves my point in an unexpected way.
Namely that Apple would have done better to ensure that what they already had was good and ready for the future rather than to waste time and effort on meaningless gibberish such as iOSification of Mac OS X. While ardent fans of iToys applaud this confusing strategy of Apple, perhaps thinking their choice in a handheld toy has somehow been reaffirmed, these things aren't selling the Mac. Something else is, the Mac sells faster than the competition - not because Apple is making more effort than the competition to upgrade the Mac OS or the Macintosh hardware - no despite Apple not doing that very much.
Apple are successful with the Mac - finally - but despite themselves. Tragicomically.
In a world of unlimited recourses and time, sure keep all the backwards compatibility. In our world, strip away the fat.
In general, you're right - yet you once again build everything on a logical fallacy - namely that these things are actual backwards compatibility, in the sense that they are old APIs or fundamental frameworks. They are not, they are emulators.
Essentially independent apps, running on top of the system - like Word or VLC or DOSBox. These apps don't break when the system is upgraded. That's not the norm, that all or even most or even a considerable amount of apps breaks in a system upgrade. There are always some, especially those that rely on some system frameworks or APIs that are significantly worked on in the system upgrade.
Rosetta was a PPC emulator, for instance. It was an application that relied on no special APIs, no danger of it breaking. It just pretended to be a PPC CPU.
Obviously you don't realize the difference between actual backwards compatibility á la Windows and this. This is a virtual machine. An independent and isolated virtual machine. Once installed, it's there for free.
Furthermore, I reiterate, considering the waste evident in the Lion "upgrade" and now the ML "upgrade", what has actually been cut is the meat and we're left with the fat - in the form of shiny and lickable effects and new ways to integrate Apple's on-line store into our credid card.
Also, a lot of effort (or perhaps not even a lot, judging by the mediocre results) has gone into iOSification of the Mac OS instead of actually improving the UI, the underpinnings and the technological features of the Mac OS. Once it was UNIX. Once it was also a pretty neat server OS. Once we knew that whatever new technology came on market, we the Macintosh users would enjoy it sooner or later.
Now all the effort, all the fat, is used to sell us insignificant things - virtual space, virtual music, virtual video - intangibles. Consumables. Fat.
Don't use all my files, and just unhide the library.
Naturally I do this, but that doesn't make the hiding of the library and the inane attempt to present a non-hierarchical file system: dumb. Even extremely dumb. Which was my original point.
Not really. It helps protect the system from inadvertent user mistakes. I'd call that considerate. People who know what the library is, and who are smart enough to use it wouldn't causing damage, and smart enough to find the library folder or unhide it.
Microsoft couldn't have designed it better themselves. Hide the problem. Actually that's exactly what they do in their fine OS. Thanks Microsoft! It's wonderful to be considered as smart as a Microsoft user!!
I don't mind that, but /Library is not goddam hidden. Just ~/Library. That's dumb.
'fraid you don't.
I agree with Einstein, I'd like things "made as simple as possible, but not simpler". Now, to understand what he meant, you might have to think a little.
Yeah he's agreeing with my post that you quoted. It's that you don't seem to figure out the difference between something that's simple and simplistic.
Dunno, let's see when it comes out how it works. I'll judge by the function that is achieved or not achieved. I'm not in the habit of prejudging things before I know enough about it to responsibly comment.
Yet you have made quote the fuss and prejudgement on how good it will be when Mac OS X has absorbed as much as it can if not all of iOS UI and quirks and idiosynchracies.
You prejudge, a lot in fact. You claim people are afraid of learning, when at the same time demanding that things be changed so you don't have to learn.
You claim you can't prejudge whether it is stupid or unintuative or even simplistic to put Software Update into the MAS, where you can only have access by releasing personal information and credit card info - thus jeopardizing the safety of Macs in order to get more MAS accounts, because not all will register.
That's dumb. Yet another dumb decision by Apple, and what I mean by OS X moving in the dumb direction.
