Do you use OS X's new features?

[Project Alice]

There's nothing in recent versions of Mac OS X that I give two craps about. If I Snow Leopard was still supported, I'd use it on everything. Its the same age as windows 7. The only thing making it obsolete is apple. I totally agree with the OP. I use Leopard on every PPC mac that I can get it on. I have had more issues with Mac OS in general ever since they changed to this yearly release crap. Not to mention that its now super ugly compared to 10.9 and under. Even the public beta of cheeta was nicer to look at than this god-awful flat kindergarten drawn trend. I have the same issues with Windows 10.

 

[z970]

There's nothing in recent versions of Mac OS X that I give two craps about. If I Snow Leopard was still supported, I'd use it on everything. Its the same age as windows 7. The only thing making it obsolete is apple. I totally agree with the OP. I use Leopard on every PPC mac that I can get it on. I have had more issues with Mac OS in general ever since they changed to this yearly release crap. Not to mention that its now super ugly compared to 10.9 and under. Even the public beta of cheeta was nicer to look at than this god-awful flat kindergarten drawn trend. I have the same issues with Windows 10.

This is a perfect comment. Well done.
[doublepost=1537665042][/doublepost]

For what I use the most, Quicklook and Spotlight are the only modern features I use most often.

Spotlight and Quicklook aren't modern features. They've been there since 10.4 and 10.5, respectively. We're at 10.14 now.

The OP probably meant something more along the lines of 10.7, 10.8 or so and above.

 

[AphoticD]

Spotlight and Quicklook aren't modern features. They've been there since 10.4 and 10.5, respectively. We're at 10.14 now.

The OP probably meant something more along the lines of 10.7, 10.8 or so and above.

Good point. I am trying to think of aspects of the modern macOS that I consider integral to productivity and nothing beyond Snow Leopard’s feature set comes to mind except for Lion’s HiDPI 2x scaled UI.

Siri, Dynamic Desktop, Notification Center and countless other fluff features don’t improve productivity and it becomes a bit of a joke when the Core OS requires 8GB of RAM and at least 30GB of disk space just to boot [comfortably].

 

[z970]

Good point. I am trying to think of aspects of the modern macOS that I consider integral to productivity and nothing beyond Snow Leopard’s feature set comes to mind except for Lion’s HiDPI 2x scaled UI.

Siri, Dynamic Desktop, Notification Center and countless other fluff features don’t improve productivity and it becomes a bit of a joke when the Core OS requires 8GB of RAM and at least 30GB of disk space just to boot [comfortably].

Meanwhile, Macs are still being sold with underpowered internals and hefty price tags... ...Yet, it's native operating system is among one of the heaviest. Even GNOME 3 is much, much lighter on system resources. Now, compare that to the Pantheon desktop, which is able to run very smoothly with only 2 GB of RAM. And now, given all that, realize that Pantheon is very similar to the OS X environment (that's a positive), yet will run effortlessly on a stock 2008 MacBook Pro, which will wheeze on High Sierra given the same specs.

Here we see a good example of planned obsolescence. Apple has little excuse when even Windows 10 will treat their older hardware nicer than they themselves do.

To add insult to injury, I'd say - without hesitation, given the current state of OS X appearances - that Pantheon is far and away better looking than the High Sierra environment. No nonsense. Cuts to the point, yet still remains lightly elegant. OS X is bright, vivid, colorful transparent colors on steroids. It really comes down to taste, but it isn't cutting it for me.

Anyway... I've said my piece...

That is all.

 

[bunnspecial]

The art style / direction. The under-baked Photos that can't handle moving some files around. The almost garbage Disk Utility that is much more likely to come back at you with errors, be unable to partition partitions where older versions could, and everything else wrong with it (just look at it). Gnome Disks hasn't failed me where Disk Utility constantly has (looks better, too). No graphical way (like there used to be when tweaking Quartz Extreme) to turn off System Integrity Protection. The obvious blatancy that Apple knows how to work your computer better than you do. The inability to customize an OS X install (since 10.7). The mess and shambles of the application that is iTunes 12 (which is now going on four years old). The unsupported designation of an OS release older than 3 years, when it could at least be 5. The specific lack of actual innovation seen often just 10 years ago (to modern Apple, innovation means anemic thinness, lack of ports, and exorbitant price tags). The badly designed application interfaces and stylings. Plus, the unbelievably obvious and excessive copy + pasting of almost everything from iOS, like they believe OS X isn't good enough (in reality, they actually don't). They took Back to the Mac way too far, never stopped, and did much less vice-versa in comparison.

I actually don't totally disagree with you on these points.

I have complained about the new Disk Utility endlessly, although fortunately the functionality of older versions is there if you don't mind to hit the command line. Still, I'd rather have the 10.10 or earlier DU.

SIP is a pain, but I'm not sure what you mean by "no GUI." It's there-if installing a program that the OS doesn't "approve" of, going into system preferences->security and then checking to allow the program to be installed works every time. It's a pain vs. just being able to go in and turn it off permanently(or even pre-emptively), but it's there.

I've been very critical of the change in appearance, but to my eye it's been better since 10.11 and improves with every version. I've hit on a combination that I mostly like, although I'd still rather have a 3D dock and skeumorphism of 10.5-10.9.

I can overlook all of that, though, and recognize that underneath it there's a good, solid OS(or at least in recent versions in the odd-numbered releases). I've come to really like all aspects of iCloud integration, and I like Messages(with SMS integration) in particular.

On the whole, if I were in charge there were things that I would change about the current state of macOS including going back to a 2-year release cycle. Still, I'm not totally unhappy with the product being delivered.

There's also the fact that there are no viable Linux alternatives to programs I consider critical, like Lightroom. Gimp is also a joke compared to Photoshop.

 

[z970]

SIP is a pain, but I'm not sure what you mean by "no GUI." It's there-if installing a program that the OS doesn't "approve" of, going into system preferences->security and then checking to allow the program to be installed works every time. It's a pain vs. just being able to go in and turn it off permanently(or even pre-emptively), but it's there.

You can't mess with files / folders in the System or Library folders, and there's no way to turn it off without jumping through some hoops.

There's also the fact that there are no viable Linux alternatives to programs I consider critical, like Lightroom. Gimp is also a joke compared to Photoshop.

So be it. Use what's good for you.

 

[AphoticD]

There's also the fact that there are no viable Linux alternatives to programs I consider critical, like Lightroom. Gimp is also a joke compared to Photoshop.

I hear you on this point. I love the idea of Linux and I try to make the free software work for me, but nothing beats the heavy lifters From Adobe, Apple and Microsoft.

These free alternatives can possibly achieve the same results. But the workflow rarely works for me and I think this is possibly as I pointed out earlier, because I’ve been conditioned to expect Mac-like UI and UX. I don’t think the software designers of programs like Gimp we’re coming from the same place.

I wouldn’t consider Gimp a joke. It is a massive accomplishment in the free, open source software world. It’s just not a replica of Photoshop.

 

[z970]

These free alternatives can possibly achieve the same results. But the workflow rarely works for me and I think this is possibly as I pointed out earlier, because I’ve been conditioned to expect Mac-like UI and UX. I don’t think the software designers of programs like Gimp we’re coming from the same place.

I wouldn’t consider Gimp a joke. It is a massive accomplishment in the free, open source software world. It’s just not a replica of Photoshop.

And this is probably a major problem in free software adoption. People simply aren't willing to change their own habits, which falls on them, not the free software or its execution.

It comes down to the people and their preferences. Let's see where they go.

 

[pl1984]

I hear you on this point. I love the idea of Linux and I try to make the free software work for me, but nothing beats the heavy lifters From Adobe, Apple and Microsoft.

These free alternatives can possibly achieve the same results. But the workflow rarely works for me and I think this is possibly as I pointed out earlier, because I’ve been conditioned to expect Mac-like UI and UX. I don’t think the software designers of programs like Gimp we’re coming from the same place.

I wouldn’t consider Gimp a joke. It is a massive accomplishment in the free, open source software world. It’s just not a replica of Photoshop.

IME open source software is written by technical people who write for other technical people. What seems intuitive to them may not be intuitive to the non-technical user.

Using GIMP as an example. I loaded a jpeg file to perform some editing. When I went to save the changes GIMP defaulted to its XCF file format instead of the original jpeg format. No problem, I'll just choose "Save As" and save it as a jpeg file. Well, you can't do that. There's no means to save as a different file format. In order to save the jpeg file I edited as a jpeg file I have to export to the jpeg file format. While this is not a difficult thing to do (or learn) it is not intuitive given the original file was a jpeg file. I had to export my jpeg file to a jpeg file.

While this is not limited to open source software I can say it appears to be more prevalent in open source software. I'm not being critical of open source software. I think the developers make a great product and they're more focused on the functionality than they are the interface.

 

[eddjedi]

To add insult to injury, I'd say - without hesitation, given the current state of OS X appearances - that Pantheon is far and away better looking than the High Sierra environment. No nonsense. Cuts to the point, yet still remains lightly elegant. OS X is bright, vivid, colorful transparent colors on steroids. It really comes down to taste, but it isn't cutting it for me.

Thanks for the tip, I use Ubuntu at work but have never heard of this OS. Looks nice so going to check it out.

 

[bunnspecial]

I wouldn’t consider Gimp a joke. It is a massive accomplishment in the free, open source software world. It’s just not a replica of Photoshop.

I guess I should have defined the "joke" thing as specific to my needs, and it fails massively in two areas. The first is that, even though they have made advances in color management, it's still far behind mainstream software. When I'm using Photoshop or Lightroom on a calibrated display, what I see on my screen is exactly what I get from any commercial printer. That's not a given in Gimp.

The second is that, even though there is some RAW conversion functionality, it's VERY poor in my experience compared to the camera maker's software(the best), Adobe Camera RAW(nearly as good, better in some cases), or Apple Camera RAW(still excellent).

If one uses Adobe's free RAW-DNG utility, in my experience GIMP does fine with DNG files. Still, though, no camera I know of natively writes to DNG. I like the fact that the RAW-DNG conversion step is basically "invisible" in Lightroom.

All of that aside, though, if I can't handle RAW files reliably, the software is useless to me.

Also, one of my other major criticisms of GIMP has always been that it almost seems like the developers said "let's look at how this works in Photoshop, and make it work differently." I don't often add text to images, but I remember being incredibly frustrated trying to do this in GIMP. Basically, from what I remember, you have to put the text box in place, type the text, and THEN go back and change the font/size/color after you've typed it. That's in contrast really to every other program I've ever used-not just Adobe products but also things like PowerPoint and Word, where you can define those parameters BEFORE you start typing the text(and of course change them after if what you did didn't work).

Also, all the little touches add up. Whether I'm using Lightroom, Photoshop, Photos, Aperture, Preview, or even older obscure programs like Nikon Scan, when I move a levels or curves slider, the change happens as I'm moving it. Since I'm often making tiny, subtle changes, this is a big deal. The last time I used GIMP, I'd have to move the slider and then wait to see the change. Granted, this may have changed in newer versions, but if it hasn't it's STILL a deal killer for me.

 

[pl1984]

Also, one of my other major criticisms of GIMP has always been that it almost seems like the developers said "let's look at how this works in Photoshop, and make it work differently." I don't often add text to images, but I remember being incredibly frustrated trying to do this in GIMP. Basically, from what I remember, you have to put the text box in place, type the text, and THEN go back and change the font/size/color after you've typed it. That's in contrast really to every other program I've ever used-not just Adobe products but also things like PowerPoint and Word, where you can define those parameters BEFORE you start typing the text(and of course change them after if what you did didn't work).

Perhaps to avoid legal issues?

 

[bunnspecial]

Perhaps to avoid legal issues?

Going back to my example with adding text-the "way it's done" in Photoshop is the same as most any other drawing/illustrating/editing program. Heck, even Preview works the same as Photoshop.

With GIMP, it strikes me as intentionally trying to be different for the sake of it, not because it's a better way to do it.

 

[pl1984]

Going back to my example with adding text-the "way it's done" in Photoshop is the same as most any other drawing/illustrating/editing program. Heck, even Preview works the same as Photoshop.

With GIMP, it strikes me as intentionally trying to be different for the sake of it, not because it's a better way to do it.

That's a possibility. However open source developers tend not to have the legal resources that come with a commercial developer.

 

[SuperKerem]

Quick Look, Mission Control and Retina Display support was a pretty big deal.

 

[MultiFinder17]

Background on Me: Been a part-time Mac user since around 1996 in elementary school, full-time since 2003 in High School. I'm a believer in the apparently old-style of using different machines for different tasks. I have Macs from the good 'ol days of B&W screens and 8MHz 68000s up to a 2016 MacBook that exemplifies everything about the New Apple, and many in between. Main machines at home are a 2010 Mac Pro, 2016 MacBook, 2012 mini, 2005 12" PowerBook. Main machines at work are a 2010 iMac, 2008 iMac, 2011 Air, 2010 MacBook, 2011 ThinkPad T420s.

Feaures-wise, here goes...

Mission Control: I was incredibly displeased when this abomination of Spaces and Exposé came out in Lion, as it took a few features from both, made them worse, ditched many features, and made using multiple monitors a pain. I do appreciate that they kept at it for the next several versions, and El Cap had the first version that I really enjoyed using again, particularly with multiple monitors. I don't really have any particular issues with it at this point, and can happily switch between Mission Control and Spaces/Exposé on my older Macs.

Spotlight: I found Spotlight in Tiger to be vaguely useful, mostly for finding things that I didn't want to search for (this was before I got obsessive in my file organization). Leopard - Mavericks got much more use from me, as it gradually got faster and expanded features. I think it was in Lion that I finally ditched Quicksilver to use Spotlight as my launcher. The current incarnation though, I use it so much. Spotlight is one of those features that, IMHO, has just gotten better and better since its introduction.

QuickLook: This is just wonderful. It's a bit painful to use anything pre-Leopard due to the lack of QuickLook.

Gestures: This rolls the trackpads, magic mice, etc. all into one point. Mother of God, Apple does still have the best trackpad experience out there. The gestures are the thing that I miss most about using my PowerBook, as they make using the machine so much more pleasant and quick. I don't have any issues using a Force Touch trackpad on my 2016 MacBook; it feels for all intents and purposes just like the standard ones on my 2010 MacBook or 2011 Air. As for scrolling, I found Natural Scrolling to be no real issue after a couple days of adjustment, and I now use it on all of my Macs. Even my PowerBook running Leopard using a little app called Scroll Reverser.

 

[AphoticD]

Background on Me: Been a part-time Mac user since around 1996 in elementary school, full-time since 2003 in High School. I'm a believer in the apparently old-style of using different machines for different tasks. I have Macs from the good 'ol days of B&W screens and 8MHz 68000s up to a 2016 MacBook that exemplifies everything about the New Apple, and many in between. Main machines at home are a 2010 Mac Pro, 2016 MacBook, 2012 mini, 2005 12" PowerBook. Main machines at work are a 2010 iMac, 2008 iMac, 2011 Air, 2010 MacBook, 2011 ThinkPad T420s.

Feaures-wise, here goes...

Mission Control: I was incredibly displeased when this abomination of Spaces and Exposé came out in Lion, as it took a few features from both, made them worse, ditched many features, and made using multiple monitors a pain. I do appreciate that they kept at it for the next several versions, and El Cap had the first version that I really enjoyed using again, particularly with multiple monitors. I don't really have any particular issues with it at this point, and can happily switch between Mission Control and Spaces/Exposé on my older Macs.

Spotlight: I found Spotlight in Tiger to be vaguely useful, mostly for finding things that I didn't want to search for (this was before I got obsessive in my file organization). Leopard - Mavericks got much more use from me, as it gradually got faster and expanded features. I think it was in Lion that I finally ditched Quicksilver to use Spotlight as my launcher. The current incarnation though, I use it so much. Spotlight is one of those features that, IMHO, has just gotten better and better since its introduction.

QuickLook: This is just wonderful. It's a bit painful to use anything pre-Leopard due to the lack of QuickLook.

Gestures: This rolls the trackpads, magic mice, etc. all into one point. Mother of God, Apple does still have the best trackpad experience out there. The gestures are the thing that I miss most about using my PowerBook, as they make using the machine so much more pleasant and quick. I don't have any issues using a Force Touch trackpad on my 2016 MacBook; it feels for all intents and purposes just like the standard ones on my 2010 MacBook or 2011 Air. As for scrolling, I found Natural Scrolling to be no real issue after a couple days of adjustment, and I now use it on all of my Macs. Even my PowerBook running Leopard using a little app called Scroll Reverser.

View attachment 792616

Great to see another PB12" in regular use!

I completely agree with you on all 4 features you've listed. I can easily switch between Leopard, El Cap and High Sierra (haven't adopted Mojave yet) and I find very few roadblocks in terms of OS functionality and [workflow] compatibility. Using Tiger regularly (as I do) requires a little patience when it comes to viewing files. I also constantly find myself trying to do basic math calculations in Spotlight and Tiger just gives me a blank stare in return

I have been a long time supporter of Scroll Reverser, it gets installed on any Mac which doesn't do "Natural Scrolling". There is nothing more annoying than expecting the page to scroll down and it moves up.

 

[XaPHER]

This thread makes me want to dust off my SE or IIci, boot System 6 and not use OS X for a while..

 

[bunnspecial]

I don't have any issues using a Force Touch trackpad on my 2016 MacBook; it feels for all intents and purposes just like the standard ones on my 2010 MacBook or 2011 Air.

I spent a few minutes working on someone's mid-2015 MBP this past week at work. I only used it for a few minutes(they needed me to increase their virtual disk size in Parallels) but it honestly wasn't until I was almost done that I remembered it was a force touch pad.

IMO, Apple really nailed the haptic feedback and unless you're actively looking for it you're unlikely to notice that the trackpad doesn't physically move. Once you DO realize that, you can start clicking anywhere on the surface and not just the bottom 3rd like on the older style.

I keep thinking that I'll pick up a Magic Trackpad 2 so that I can actually give Force Touch a try in the real world on my own systems. I like my dual drive set up and several other things about my mid-2012 15"(like the AG screen) to actually give the system up while it's still serving me perfectly well.