don’t have any of these problems but i agree that some window elements can me more polished, more beautiful. but i can easily differentiate what is clickable ..i mean, basically all icons are clickable so... and the recents tab..just remove it problem solved
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.
Isn't early OSX objectively easier to navigate?
- Thread starter mectojic
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When the switch away from LucidaGrande and toward (new) SanFrancisco occurred, my eyes and my brain could not adjust to it, just as my eyes have struggled with Tags dots and not Labels bars. What made LucidaGrande and Label bars across the file info useful for not only new-to-Apple users, but also for casual users and power users, was their legibility and comprehensibility.
San Francisco, modelled heavily after Helvetica (both being Neo-Grotesque typefaces), may logically seem legible to the eyes, and in the right context, it can be. I’d not find it surprising to learn Apple’s UX/UI team turned to case studies on MTS in New York City adopting Helvetica in the 1970s for its wayfinding signage (or U.S. federal agencies adopting Helvetica for signage, liveries, and stationery).
On a printed medium, a grotesque typeface is easy to read and easy on the eyes. It‘s arguably better suited to larger text treatments and not body text — “book’-modified variants notwithstanding. This, however, does not translate well to pixels — not even Retina-grade pixels.
Lucida Grande, by contrast, was created and optimized for on-screen pixel display (it’s also in a family of typefaces called Humanist, which departs from Grotesque/Neo-Grotesque typefaces along a mess of technical subtleties which are worth exploring if you’re interested in typographic theory). I gather Apple chose Lucida Grande over Chicago (the classic Mac OS typeface) not only because it gave a fresh face for a fundamentally different operating system, but also was qualitatively better for the new demands of on-screen display (heading away from CRTs and toward LCDs) and improved dot-pitch of newer displays.
When something works, don’t break it. It’s an idea Apple would have done well to reflect on when they were considering major UX changes as part of incremental OS updates (and whether those changes were prone to push away power users and limited-sight users who need to scope a display quickly and with an absolute minimum of conscious cognitive distractions — that is, any UI/UX element or function which forces one to momentarily pause their train of thought in order to execute an action on that UI). A similar case argument could be made for preservation of well-tested skeuromorphic elements which persisted over several versions of the big cat OS X builds.
In the end, I used that tiny utility to flip the UI back to a LucidaGrande UX, and to this day I still struggle with the Tags dots on my High Sierra and Sierra boxes. I will not be moving up to Catalina or Big Sur (which, for the person earlier who wasn’t sure what all the post-big cat names are, they’re geographic locations within the state of California, including on or just off the coast — Mavericks and Big Sur, respectively).
Last edited:
Agree with the issue of the finder columns never being wide enough to show full title names, it's a headache. Similarly, agree with the printer details not just being an easy drop-down anymore.
The bigger issue with the two most recent versions of Mac OS is the buggy nature of them. Catalina tended to crash a lot. Big Sur doesn't crash, but if I open a Microsoft word doc or .pdf, the document or pdf won't actually open until I go to the dock and click on the application icon to prompt the app to open.
The bigger issue with the two most recent versions of Mac OS is the buggy nature of them. Catalina tended to crash a lot. Big Sur doesn't crash, but if I open a Microsoft word doc or .pdf, the document or pdf won't actually open until I go to the dock and click on the application icon to prompt the app to open.
what were they gonna do...house cat...maine coon, savannah cat?...okay the last one is kinda cool, but not exactly good name for a OS. Big Sur? it's a location...they didn't just pull it out of there ass. I really like the California theme names. Can't wait for Mac OS 11 Death Valley
I have to agree with the point that the goal of minimalism has, at least for me personally, crossed the line of what I think looks appealing and is easy to use. I really do understand and appreciate a lot of the push for simplistic and minimalistic design that Apple and a bunch of other companies have undertaken in recent years. Most of the time I think it looks great. For instance, I think the more simplistic design that was introduced in iOS 7 was phenomenal on the iPhone. The problem is that if you keep turning the dial up on simplicity you end up with something that looks like a kid's toy instead of an operating system, and I think Big Sur is getting dangerously close to that.
A few years ago (early 2017), somewhat cynically, I threw out some additional cat names Apple could have used:
And then I switched over to cynicism-posting, completely unaware how close I’d get with “macOS 10.16”:
Same here. Lucida Grande looks great, especially on HiDPI displays. There was no need to replace it IMO. None at all.
Names should not matter. What matters is the "holder of the name" so to speak. Linux Mint releases are named after girls. So? A name doesn't automatically make something good or bad.
Last edited:
Let’s see - OS X Cougar ? OS X Bob Cat, many many cats out there
It already is a kids toy - look at the icons ! They look like kids designs.
I have to agree.
The first thing I do is load my tool bars with as much short-cutting as possible. I have to add folders to the sidebar, including my HD, User, and often-used folders. iCloud integration is awful, and learned the ignorant way by activating it, then using my documents folder to store the hundreds of videos I edit in PP on a weekly basis. I disabled that feature faster than lightning.
OSX needs to pause the changes and stick to the fundamentals.
iOS is a different story. The App Library was the game changer, whereas before, even with clever folder names, I’d end up searching for an app now and again. The cherry on top would be a list view for apps. Otherwise, unless apps and widgets are carefully placed, one can forget what’s on their devices.
Last edited:
The problem with Lucida Grande is... that font was more adequate for the kind of monitors we had back then. Now we all have flat, big monitors all over the place, retina screens. That demands a different type of font. For example, for all my web works we've been using Helvetica Neue, Open Sans and Roboto.
But yeah, Lucida Grande was a good classic macOS font. I also like the ones from macOS 9 (Monaco and Charcoal, if I am not wrong?)
But yeah, Lucida Grande was a good classic macOS font. I also like the ones from macOS 9 (Monaco and Charcoal, if I am not wrong?)
I use Lucida Grande as system font on all my 4K and retina LCDs. I even have Firefox set to ignore all website font settings and use Lucida Grande everywhere. It's just great.
To hell with Helvetica Neue. Ugly and boring as sin.
LOL, calm down. I use whatever font I am paid to use. Petrobras Brazil for example has their own font for their entire graphics design (including websites) and we're forced to use them.
I have nothing against any font at all, not even Helvetica Neue, the most used font on websites. OK, only against Comic Sans. I for one actually like the current macOS font, the SanFrancisco Pro if I am not wrong. Other variants of SanFrancisco are used on iPhone, iPad and Watch, with the weight being the only difference.
But if I were to choose, I'd go with OS9 fonts.
I have nothing against any font at all, not even Helvetica Neue, the most used font on websites. OK, only against Comic Sans. I for one actually like the current macOS font, the SanFrancisco Pro if I am not wrong. Other variants of SanFrancisco are used on iPhone, iPad and Watch, with the weight being the only difference.
But if I were to choose, I'd go with OS9 fonts.
LOL, I am calm.
No point getting worked up over a font. That's not a font, it's a crime against humanity.
This is my take.
Apple was desperate in 1999-2000 and wanted to appeal to as many people as possible. Mac OS X gave you a powerful Unix-like OS with really good drivers, something we take for granted in 2021 with Linux on off the shelf hardware. Mac OS X appealed to power users, old users of Mac OS classic, PowerPC users (which for some time had more power then x86!), and people that wanted their computer to 'just work'.
Especially after Job's death, everything has come down to either 'status symbol' or 'just works (but not for you power users)'. The hardware has been designed to print more money for Apple rather then appeal to power users, just look at the storage in M1 Macs. No one will ever be able to replace that without Apple. My clamshell might be very hard to replace the HDD but It's possible and not stuck on with a ton of glue.
Apple is no longer using Unix-like as a selling point. They are selling Macs to iPhone users...
If i EVER had to release an app for Big Sur, I'd have to write an entire tutorial to explain how to run my app since I would never pay Apple to have the privilege of using the App Store...
Say @Bruninho, might you be able to tell me the IP addresses your work and home Macs are using? Don’t tell anybody, but I’m going to quietly hack into your boxes and replace your system fonts to run entirely on Hobo (or Revue, I haven’t made up my mind yet).
I’m sure you won’t mind that much.
On the topic of system fonts, I've found Fira Sans (from Firefox OS) to not look half bad on Yosemite and up. Definitely a fun experiment.
github.com
GitHub - jenskutilek/FiraSystemFontReplacement: Modified version of the Fira Sans fonts to replace the default system font on macOS
Modified version of the Fira Sans fonts to replace the default system font on macOS - jenskutilek/FiraSystemFontReplacement
github.com
Following 2011, Macs running OS X/macOS running 10.7 and up have steadily become harvesters of end-user analytics, and the build design of the hardware has quietly grown to reflect their principal purpose as disposable mediums — appliances — for collecting and sending said user analytics back to Apple. None of this benefits “just works” usability.
On the topic of system fonts, I've found Fira Sans (from Firefox OS) to not look half bad on Yosemite and up. Definitely a fun experiment.
GitHub - jenskutilek/FiraSystemFontReplacement: Modified version of the Fira Sans fonts to replace the default system font on macOS
Modified version of the Fira Sans fonts to replace the default system font on macOS - jenskutilek/FiraSystemFontReplacement
It’s definitely on the Trebuchet side of the Humanist style.
I would argue computer manufactures could stop making changes to the interface and no one would be any less / more productive. As someone who has been using computers for many decades I can say that all of the interface changes haven't appreciably increased productivity.
Apple's apparent objective to unify the OS across platforms makes no sense to me. I don't, personally, care what the rationale might be in terms of device coalescence, because to me whether it's an iPhone, iPad or Mac makes zero difference, it's what I use it for - and there is all the difference in the world between them in usage - thus ideal interfacing.
I think there are two problems. The first is that the battle for the interface aesthetic was won by Jonny Ive, a person with a genius for objects, but no talent at all in understanding user interactions. His view seems to be that removal of every shred of character and depth, turning the OS into a minimalist's dream is what 'looks' best. And in a superficial sense he's right, because it 'looks' neat, tidy, and great.
But appearance and use are very different things, and in producing an interface that looks so clean and sharp, the result is one that also looks lifeless and gives the user no personal connections into the system.
Which is problem number two. Many of us found Macs to be much more friendly and usable than PCs (ultimately, Windows), not because Apple was a cute and cuddly company, but because they had made the Mac into an environment that invited use, and ultimately also guided users who were not necessarily much interested in computing, into productive use of computers.
It was subtle, but consistent. MacOS had character and depth, and it made you feel like you and it belonged in a symbiosis. This helped users buy into it and invest themselves into their systems. Skeuomorphism was effective at humanizing the interface and making users more comfortable to use it. What came after was entirely for users who were already committed, like it or not, to computing, so they had no choice - and were given none.
Old MacOS was human, and new MacOS is dead as a doornail. Sadly, Apple don't know the difference, or they don't care .
I think there are two problems. The first is that the battle for the interface aesthetic was won by Jonny Ive, a person with a genius for objects, but no talent at all in understanding user interactions. His view seems to be that removal of every shred of character and depth, turning the OS into a minimalist's dream is what 'looks' best. And in a superficial sense he's right, because it 'looks' neat, tidy, and great.
But appearance and use are very different things, and in producing an interface that looks so clean and sharp, the result is one that also looks lifeless and gives the user no personal connections into the system.
Which is problem number two. Many of us found Macs to be much more friendly and usable than PCs (ultimately, Windows), not because Apple was a cute and cuddly company, but because they had made the Mac into an environment that invited use, and ultimately also guided users who were not necessarily much interested in computing, into productive use of computers.
It was subtle, but consistent. MacOS had character and depth, and it made you feel like you and it belonged in a symbiosis. This helped users buy into it and invest themselves into their systems. Skeuomorphism was effective at humanizing the interface and making users more comfortable to use it. What came after was entirely for users who were already committed, like it or not, to computing, so they had no choice - and were given none.
Old MacOS was human, and new MacOS is dead as a doornail. Sadly, Apple don't know the difference, or they don't care .
Ironically, my current project uses Fira Sans.
On the subject, someone here said one thing right... Apple is currently selling macs to iphone users. Nailed it
Last edited:
I call this "clinical"...all business and no fun. I consider their retail stores to be the same.