Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Tweaks Mac OS X Lion UI In Response to Criticism
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. I'm not sure what the motivation in having such highly-stylized, and ill-fitting UI's are, but they're eyesores, and very difficult to use. I've switched off, and reverted to the "classic" views wherever possible in Lion.
And
major kernel version
1,2: 1.0 and 2.0
3: 3.0, WfW3.11, NT 3.51
4: 95, 98, NT4
5: 2000, XP
6: Vista
7: Windows 7 (but really 6.1)
So the answer is, "marketing"
I see. It's a sequence of versions but they decided to start at a a certain level of windows development or possibly a grouping of versions by category. i always wondered about that.
OS X came naturally after OS 9. I wonder if the version after OS X.9 will be OS X.10 or OS XI? I guess OS X.10 would make sense if the OS doesn't change significantly as it did from 9 to X.
Microsoft needed the good luck after Vista.
LOL - maybe 8 is their lucky number...
As for this control panel issue with buttons versus sliders, why does Apple feel they need to group expose and spaces under one control panel anyway?
Why not just make them separate control panels?
Why not just make them separate control panels?
Well they said that touch screens for desktops/laptops like to be horizontal in front of you, so they already said the trackpad is like their touch screen.
So I don't like the arguments about how the slider isn't good for non-touch screens: the trackpad IS the Mac's "touchscreen"
So I don't like the arguments about how the slider isn't good for non-touch screens: the trackpad IS the Mac's "touchscreen"
I actually really liked the slider style, I would have preferred if they darkened the non-selected items and kept the slider style.
They have the technical skills to do so, it's the marketing side that seems to rule Apples every move.
Never before have they seemed so adrift. While revenue is always of great importance, usually its one element, not the only one that matters. While Apple makes an effort to appear as though they want to make a difference, a contribution to progress and change, its the race to the bottom that is of concern.
To simplify every aspect to its lowest common denominator. No education required.
This may be off-topic, but does anyone know if the recently purchased Mac products are "grandfathered in" for a Lion release? In other words, I just bought a new MacBook Pro yesterday... am I going to need to pay to upgrade to Lion?
It would, of course, be nice if the upgrade was free for recent purchasers similar to what MS did with the release of Win 7, but I'm assuming that since I can't find anything out about it, there's probably nothing to be hopeful about.
It would, of course, be nice if the upgrade was free for recent purchasers similar to what MS did with the release of Win 7, but I'm assuming that since I can't find anything out about it, there's probably nothing to be hopeful about.
Vista is "Windows NT 6.0"
The internal kernel version ID for Vista is Major.Minor = "6.0".
The next major release after "6.0" would be "7" - hence "Windows 7".
However, Windows 7 is a compatible superset of Windows 6.0 kernel APIs, so Windows 7 uses the kernel version ID of "Windows 6.1". This is so that any software checking the major version sees Vista and 7 as the same version.
The internal kernel version ID for Vista is Major.Minor = "6.0".
The next major release after "6.0" would be "7" - hence "Windows 7".
However, Windows 7 is a compatible superset of Windows 6.0 kernel APIs, so Windows 7 uses the kernel version ID of "Windows 6.1". This is so that any software checking the major version sees Vista and 7 as the same version.
Attachments
I've seen worse, and done worse, but still feel you're totally right.
Anyway, to attempt an on-topic post:
This is actually really interesting to me.
Sliders make some sense (they are more tactile for single-choice selections), but they still suck:
First, it requires too much care to try to slide it around.
Second, sliders "value" selections in an order-sensitive way since it is easier to jerk it all the way to one side then to stop it in the middle.
Third, a slider implies intermediate values are passed through.
Sliders suck, not just because we are more familiar with buttons, but because they make everything more complicated despite feeling a bit more tactile.
You should have made mention of the edit in the actual article. I thought many of the early commenters were making things up until I realised they were just commenting on something from your original post.
Don't really see the point of making OSX look like something that was designed to be used with a touch interface when they specifically said there would be no mac device with a touch screen.
Good thing they are changing it up, I hope we don't get an orange faux-cuir iCal. I can just see what great inspiration that'll be to so many great designers of the App Store
Good thing they are changing it up, I hope we don't get an orange faux-cuir iCal. I can just see what great inspiration that'll be to so many great designers of the App Store
I've seen worse, and done worse, but still feel you're totally right.
Anyway, to attempt an on-topic post:
This is actually really interesting to me.
Sliders make some sense (they are more tactile for single-choice selections), but they still suck:
First, it requires too much care to try to slide it around.
Second, sliders "value" selections in an order-sensitive way since it is easier to jerk it all the way to one side then to stop it in the middle.
Third, a slider implies intermediate values are passed through.
Sliders suck, not just because we are more familiar with buttons, but because they make everything more complicated despite feeling a bit more tactile.
You didn't have to slide the thing, you know? It behaved like ol' buttons, to select an option just click it, and the animation instead of been a pressing button was a slider..
And that's exactly why they changed it. To users it isn't apparent that you can click, and sliding on the screen is a waste of time.
No, because then as pointed out by your MS friend, it would be Windows NT 6.1
The reason why it is 6.1 is to maintain compatibility with software/drivers that worked in Vista - they did not want another Vista moment!
I don't get why everybody hates this UI change - I personally think it looks a lot better and people will not get confused
.
It's true, it is a minor change in programming but a major change in identifying itself with an interface. Besides, we hardly hear any news about Mac OS X and there is not much to find from the official side. Any news is welcome and for example this news made me more comfortable with Lion. I still have no idea what is going on behind the GUI, speaking: Things that make a huge difference to the existing system.I mean, sure. Cool that Apple listens, and nice to see they are looking into the look and feel. But hey, can't imagine a more minor change
Some more news like this would make me wondering if maybe I should take a look. Because right now, I really am not interested in Lion at all and I believe, I am not the only one. And I'm not speaking about my personal little Laptop at home, I'm speaking about the main operating system of dozends of office-computers which I decide what to put on. Snow Leopard gave much more useful information away in advance. Lion does not.