Mission Control - Still A Failure

[wikus]

Block level snapshotting of documents is stupid now ?

You must not be a profesional. All the Pros need block level snapshotting. It's built in to the big boy toys like NetApp's OpenFiler, Windows Server with Volume Shadow Copy, LVM2 in HP-UX/Linux, ZFS in Solaris/FreeBSD, etc..

But I understand why you would think that, Versions is very much a pro-feature. You need to be a pro to understand.

So youre against giving users options in system preferences to turn off versions, or ungroup windows in Mission Control.

Why?

 

[ScottishCaptain]

Block level snapshotting of documents is stupid now ?

You must not be a profesional. All the Pros need block level snapshotting. It's built in to the big boy toys like NetApp's OpenFiler, Windows Server with Volume Shadow Copy, LVM2 in HP-UX/Linux, ZFS in Solaris/FreeBSD, etc..

But I understand why you would think that, Versions is very much a pro-feature. You need to be a pro to understand.

Good god.

Are you for real?

The "big boy toys" implement this stuff in the filesystem, where it belongs. Versions is a clever hack that runs on top of HFS+, that is, HFS+ itself does not support versioning. If it did, you wouldn't need to recompile anything to use versioning. It would "just work".

Comparing Versions to the stuff already out there is almost an insult to the products that cost real money and actually work. Furthermore, the fact that you made that comparison has convinced me that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Also, "professionals" don't "need" features rammed down their throats. I have not met ONE single "professional" working in a corporate or freelance environment who has actively said "Yeah, I could use that". They all use SVN (usually through Cornerstone) or GIT (via Tower or something else), because those systems at least have the decency to **** off when you don't need them and do what they're told.

Professionals know what they need because they use it every day. We don't need Apple to intrude upon our workflows and say "We're holding your hand from now on, deal with it.". Of course if you were a "pro" yourself, you might know this. Your comment on "big boy toys" kinda demonstrates you're not, or if you are, you sure as **** have no idea what you're talking about.

You're a wonderful Apple zealot, I'll give you that.

-SC

 

[KnightWRX]

You're a wonderful Apple zealot, I'll give you that.

*Meanwhile back in MacRumors News Discussion*

"God KnightWRX, you're such an Apple hater, don't you have anything better to do than troll forums for products you don't own ?"

In case you missed it, the "Pro" comments were aimed at people who claim "Pros use Snow Leopard or XYZ feature, Apple taketh away Pro features!".

Me, an Apple zealot... so laughable. I always get a kick out of the bi-polarity of this forum, where I'm both seen as a hater or a zealot by different people depending on my opinion about 1 facet of Apple's products or corporate conduct.

----------

So youre against giving users options in system preferences to turn off versions, or ungroup windows in Mission Control.

Why?

Versions is not something you can simply turn off in the System preferences. It's coded into the applications. Ask your software vendor to provide both the old "Save/Save As" mecanism and the new "Versions/Autosave" mecanism. Something that is entirely still possible.

Mission Control is again, not Expose. You trying to use it as Expose with "ungrouping Windows" only means you do not understand what Mission Control is. Stop using a spoon when you need a knife. It'll hurt more because it's dull, but it won't get the work done.

 

[Paradoxally]

For now I'm staying with 10.6 and I love it... I certainly would like to try versions, auto-save and the "keep your desktop like it was before shutting down" thing, but I value Spaces+Expose more than those things so... ReSpaceApp for Mountain Lion PLEASEEEEEE!!!

Resume is the worst thing ever.

On paper it looks good. But when you turn off your Mac and forget to uncheck the checkbox and have 20+ apps open at startup and take like 5 minutes to boot you'll see why it just doesn't work.

Auto-Save, yes. Versions, no, it gets way too confusing. I'm responsible enough to save it myself. If I've been saving documents for years with save as, I DON'T WANT Versions messing up my stuff. Imagine if Adobe implemented it in their software. You'd have practically all the Mac userbase switch to Windows or just use an old version.

Do I want programs to save a snapshot in case something happens and I haven't saved the file yet? YES, because if the program crashes, when it boots up most (or all) of my progress is there.

I just don't want it creating a version every time I save a document.

 

[wikus]

*Meanwhile back in MacRumors News Discussion*

"God KnightWRX, you're such an Apple hater, don't you have anything better to do than troll forums for products you don't own ?"

In case you missed it, the "Pro" comments were aimed at people who claim "Pros use Snow Leopard or XYZ feature, Apple taketh away Pro features!".

Me, an Apple zealot... so laughable. I always get a kick out of the bi-polarity of this forum, where I'm both seen as a hater or a zealot by different people depending on my opinion about 1 facet of Apple's products or corporate conduct.

----------



Versions is not something you can simply turn off in the System preferences. It's coded into the applications. Ask your software vendor to provide both the old "Save/Save As" mecanism and the new "Versions/Autosave" mecanism. Something that is entirely still possible.

Mission Control is again, not Expose. You trying to use it as Expose with "ungrouping Windows" only means you do not understand what Mission Control is. Stop using a spoon when you need a knife. It'll hurt more because it's dull, but it won't get the work done.

You never answered my question, I'll ask again;

Why are you against giving users choice?

 

[Sdreed91]

I believe choice was provided before you decided to buy an Apple product or before you decided to hit the buy/upgrade button.

 

[ScottishCaptain]

Versions is not something you can simply turn off in the System preferences. It's coded into the applications. Ask your software vendor to provide both the old "Save/Save As" mecanism and the new "Versions/Autosave" mecanism. Something that is entirely still possible.

Fail feature is fail then.

If Sun came out and said "Hey, you guys need to recompile EVERYTHING to take advantage of the new snapshotting system in ZFS! You need to use this shiny new unproven API to save and open files, but we swear, it's better!"- they would have gotten lynched.

Instead we got ZFS, which- wait for it- supports filesystem snapshots and versioning without the host application having to be aware of anything past the usual APIs used to read and write to disk.

And now you're telling me that it's the developers fault for being binary and not giving us the option. Basically you're saying that- even though Apple refuses to give us options, third party developers should- because Apple's features aren't well thought out.

Huh.

-SC

 

[KnightWRX]

Why are you against giving users choice?

That question is non-sensical given my posting history. I have always been for giving user choices. However, this is not the topic of discussion. Apple is never going to give you choices. What they gave you is what they gave you. Learn to deal with it or move on.

Sticking to your guns 8 months later and still whining about it instead of having adapted... let's just leave it at that. Sometimes you just have to move on with your life you know ?

----------

Fail feature is fail then.

If Sun came out and said "Hey, you guys need to recompile EVERYTHING to take advantage of the new snapshotting system in ZFS! You need to use this shiny new unproven API to save and open files, but we swear, it's better!"- they would have gotten lynched.

Instead we got ZFS, which- wait for it- supports filesystem snapshots and versioning without the host application having to be aware of anything past the usual APIs used to read and write to disk.

And now you're telling me that it's the developers fault for being binary and not giving us the option. Basically you're saying that- even though Apple refuses to give us options, third party developers should- because Apple's features aren't well thought out.

Huh.

-SC

Huh... Versions/Autosave is well thought out. I have yet to see a compelling argument beyond "Duplicate requires 2 more clicks than Save As!" against it (and really, for the benefit it brings, who gives a crap about those 2 clicks except people who just want to flame YALF).

It is an API, developers need to get on it to support it. It's an application level snapshotting feature. There's nothing wrong with that. Developers decided to move to it because they saw the benefits for their users. It's also entirely optional for developers wether or not to implement it. Just like they don't have to use NSRegularExpression, or CoreData or any other Apple provided APIs if they don't want to. fopen/fwrite/fclose are still there.

Admit it, you just don't want to give Apple credit for something in Lion. Do you guys have to be negative Nancies about everything in Lion/Mountain Lion and pollute the forums ?

Move on folks... move on...

----------

I believe choice was provided before you decided to buy an Apple product or before you decided to hit the buy/upgrade button.

That is pretty much how it is with Apple unfortunately. Is it right ? Heck no, Apple should make their systems more flexible. Is it what it is ? You betcha. If you've just discovered this in 2012... well...

 

[klaxamazoo]

I believe choice was provided before you decided to buy an Apple product or before you decided to hit the buy/upgrade button.

That still doesn't clearly state why Mission Control isn't a failure. Mission Control sucks ass regardless of if anyone buys Lion.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

That still doesn't clearly state why Mission Control isn't a failure. Mission Control sucks ass regardless of if anyone buys Lion.

you wouldn't be using mission control if you didn't buy lion.. that's the point.

 

[klaxamazoo]

you wouldn't be using mission control if you didn't buy lion.. that's the point.

No Mission Control exists regardless of if I use it or not. As Mission Control is widely considered a failure by a large number of people, it is a failure regardless of if I use Lion.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1346288/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1202064/

You could look at the App Store rating and between 17% and 30% of users dislike Lion (All versions and current version respectively). Unfortunately, this does not break it down into what they disliked nor their views on Mission Control, but a 1 in 3 people disliking a version OS X seems pretty large.

You are more than welcome to provide statistical data showing that Lion does not have a 17 - 30% disapproval rate.

Lion is Apple's Vista; usable, but not worth upgrading to. If their ideas were implemented properly than Lion's disapproval rating would not be nearly this high.

 

[Sdreed91]

you wouldn't be using mission control if you didn't buy lion.. that's the point.

Exactly while I realize the clean simplistic nature of MC does not work for some it works very well for others. I appreciate the clean arrangement of MC I knew what I was getting into when I purchased lion. I knew what I was getting into when I purchased my MBP. That was when you had choice. Amd as Knightwrk put it no its not fair but that is the way it is.

----------

That still doesn't clearly state why Mission Control isn't a failure. Mission Control sucks ass regardless of if anyone buys Lion.

Mission control doesn't suck as much as you believe. Despite what your number show. It works for some but not for others. It provides a clean and simple view of what you are looking at. Clean and simple is what Apple is all about. MC despite all the complaints isn't going anywhere.

 

[klaxamazoo]

Exactly while I realize the clean simplistic nature of MC does not work for some it works very well for others. I appreciate the clean arrangement of MC I knew what I was getting into when I purchased lion. I knew what I was getting into when I purchased my MBP. That was when you had choice. Amd as Knightwrk put it no its not fair but that is the way it is.

----------



Mission control doesn't suck as much as you believe. Despite what your number show. It works for some but not for others. It provides a clean and simple view of what you are looking at. Clean and simple is what Apple is all about. MC despite all the complaints isn't going anywhere.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1346288/
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...lion

All evidence points to Mission Control and Lion sucking. Try again, with data.

 

[Sdreed91]

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am going to get into some fight with you in which we both throw stats at each other trying to disprove what each is saying. I have no desire to do this. I am merely pointing out that it works for some and not others. It provides a clean and simple look at everything that is open. It works for some and not others. If you wanted to get into a childish arguement with someone over MC you choose the wrong person. I like these forums and information that can be found on them but some of the things we debate about are pointless because we wont change what Apple has in place. This thread has lost any real momentum due to pointless bickering.

 

[tkermit]

All evidence points to Mission Control and Lion sucking.

Mission Control is better for some use cases, and worse for others. The problem is that the detractors are only willing to take a look at specific cherry-picked cases where MC doesn't work very well, and aren't interested in workarounds (that may end up working just as well as the original solution) either. Same with the 'Save as' thing. Just because you can find a scenario where 'Save as' works better, doesn't mean that Autosave+Versions can't be a better solution overall.

For example, if you have very many windows in one application open, Exposé is not very good at all at allowing you to pick out one of the few windows that belong to other applications. And at the same time, you're probably better off using Application Exposé to pick one of the many windows of the one application with the huge amount of windows - which is still possible in Lion.

(exact same window configuration in both pictures)

Snow Leopard Exposé:

Lion Mission Control:

 

[klaxamazoo]

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am going to get into some fight with you in which we both throw stats at each other trying to disprove what each is saying. I have no desire to do this. I am merely pointing out that it works for some and not others. It provides a clean and simple look at everything that is open. It works for some and not others. If you wanted to get into a childish arguement with someone over MC you choose the wrong person. I like these forums and information that can be found on them but some of the things we debate about are pointless because we wont change what Apple has in place. This thread has lost any real momentum due to pointless bickering.

If you are going to say that Mission Control doesn't suck as much as I, and others, think it does then you should be able to back up that statement.

Yes, Mission Control is fine, for only 1/3rd of the users. That is pretty abysmal. And these debates do make a difference as they can be linked to when giving feedback to Apple through the General Feedback section, Developer Feedback section, and direct e-mails to Tim Cook.

Progress has already been made with respect to removing some of the damage Lion did to iCal and Address Book with improvements in functionality restored in Mountain Lion. Issues with Versions are being addressed in Mountain Lion also. As such, these threads serve a purpose regardless of if you personally find them useful.

----------

Mission Control is better for some use cases, and worse for others. The problem is that the detractors are only willing to take a look at specific cherry-picked cases where MC doesn't work very well, and aren't interested in workarounds (that may end up working just as well as the original solution) either. Same with the 'Save as' thing. Just because you can find a scenario where 'Save as' works better, doesn't mean that Autosave+Versions can't be a better solution overall.

For example, if you have very many windows in one application open, Exposé is not very good at all at allowing you to pick out one of the few windows that belong to other applications. And at the same time, you're probably better off using Application Exposé to pick one of the many windows of the one application with the huge amount of windows - which is still possible in Lion:

(exact same window configuration in both pictures)

Image

Image

Yet App Expose pulls you out of Mission Control and now you can no longer manage your Windows. How are you going to move around those 40+ empty e-mails if you are constantly being pulled out of App Expose to move Windows around?

Mission Control would be fine if the "Spread" function actually spread windows out so you could see them while in Mission control. Moving things 25px is useless and poor design.

If Mission Control actually "worked" then 2/3rds of people wouldn't prefer Expose/Spaces. Mission Control only works for some whereas a good program is flexible for work for most if not all.

 

[Sdreed91]

If you are going to say that Mission Control doesn't suck as much as I, and others, think it does then you should be able to back up that statement.

Yes, Mission Control is fine, for only 1/3rd of the users. That is pretty abysmal. And these debates do make a difference as they can be linked to when giving feedback to Apple through the General Feedback section, Developer Feedback section, and direct e-mails to Tim Cook.

Progress has already been made with respect to removing some of the damage Lion did to iCal and Address Book with improvements in functionality restored in Mountain Lion. Issues with Versions are being addressed in Mountain Lion also. As such, these threads serve a purpose regardless of if you personally find them useful.

----------



Yet App Expose pulls you out of Mission Control and now you can no longer manage your Windows. How are you going to move around those 40+ empty e-mails if you are constantly being pulled out of App Expose to move Windows around?

Mission Control would be fine if the "Spread" function actually spread windows out so you could see them while in Mission control. Moving things 25px is useless and poor design.

If Mission Control actually "worked" then 2/3rds of people wouldn't prefer Expose/Spaces. Mission Control only works for some whereas a good program is flexible for work for most if not all.

What is your solution?

 

[tkermit]

Mission Control would be fine if the "Spread" function actually spread windows out so you could see them while in Mission control.

As I've written before, I agree that that would be an improvement I'd like to see as well.

 

[klaxamazoo]

What is your solution?

Feedback to Apple requesting the "spread" function to fully spread out the Windows such that you can actually see them and not be pulled out of Mission Control just to see everything.

At its heart Mission Control is a good idea, group Windows by App to reduce clutter, but the lack of a good Spread functionality makes Mission Control a fancy App switcher that forces the user to use App Expose. This process flow has a number of efficiencies that have already been detailed repeatedly.

 

[Sdreed91]

Feedback to Apple requesting the "spread" function to fully spread out the Windows such that you can actually see them and not be pulled out of Mission Control just to see everything.

At its heart Mission Control is a good idea, group Windows by App to reduce clutter, but the lack of a good Spread functionality makes Mission Control a fancy App switcher that forces the user to use App Expose. This process flow has a number of efficiencies that have already been detailed repeatedly.

Well in pages there is a spread feature that allows you to view all previously opened documents if that was implemented into MC that might solve some issues that people are having.

 

[beosound3200]

If you are going to say that Mission Control doesn't suck as much as I, and others, think it does then you should be able to back up that statement.

Yes, Mission Control is fine, for only 1/3rd of the users. That is pretty abysmal. And these debates do make a difference as they can be linked to when giving feedback to Apple through the General Feedback section, Developer Feedback section, and direct e-mails to Tim Cook.

Progress has already been made with respect to removing some of the damage Lion did to iCal and Address Book with improvements in functionality restored in Mountain Lion. Issues with Versions are being addressed in Mountain Lion also. As such, these threads serve a purpose regardless of if you personally find them useful.

----------



Yet App Expose pulls you out of Mission Control and now you can no longer manage your Windows. How are you going to move around those 40+ empty e-mails if you are constantly being pulled out of App Expose to move Windows around?

Mission Control would be fine if the "Spread" function actually spread windows out so you could see them while in Mission control. Moving things 25px is useless and poor design.

If Mission Control actually "worked" then 2/3rds of people wouldn't prefer Expose/Spaces. Mission Control only works for some whereas a good program is flexible for work for most if not all.

stop using irrelevant surveys.

please post a link to one review, one thread on any forum, one blog etc. where people discuss mission control in a bad way

you really leave the impression that MC is disliked by majority, and thats completely wrong because it would be world known. just the opposite

so deal with it, apple wont change it, its better overall for the MOST people, according to logical assumptions (there is no data, that says it all), and stay on snow leopard

so in the end, a little logical task:

how many individuals in the whole mac community use more than 20 windows in their typical workflow. then that number you've got divide by 2 (30% dislike lion, 60% dislike MC, so lets call it 50%) and you have the number of people that dislike MC

i'll be brave enough to call that number irrelevant, so dont get your hopes up
theres no input to apple, even if they were willing to read user input on forums/reviews/blogs about the MC, where would they read it? except here...

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

If Mission Control actually "worked" then 2/3rds of people wouldn't prefer Expose/Spaces. Mission Control only works for some whereas a good program is flexible for work for most if not all.

2/3rds of MacRumors forum members does NOT equate to nor represent 2/3rds of Mac users....

 

[klaxamazoo]

stop using irrelevant surveys.

please post a link to one review, one thread on any forum, one blog etc. where people discuss mission control in a bad way

you really leave the impression that MC is disliked by majority, and thats completely wrong because it would be world known. just the opposite

so deal with it, apple wont change it, its better overall for the MOST people, according to logical assumptions (there is no data, that says it all), and stay on snow leopard

so in the end, a little logical task:

how many individuals in the whole mac community use more than 20 windows in their typical workflow. then that number you've got divide by 2 (30% dislike lion, 60% dislike MC, so lets call it 50%) and you have the number of people that dislike MC

i'll be brave enough to call that number irrelevant, so dont get your hopes up
theres no input to apple, even if they were willing to read user input on forums/reviews/blogs about the MC, where would they read it? except here...

You can say these surveys don't represent the community as a whole all you want, but you still haven't pointed to a single survey that shows that Mission Control is liked.

Number of data sets you provide = 0
Number of data sets I provide = 3

You bring nothing yet think you have some ground to stand on. Mission Control sucks according to a large contingent of people I suggest finding some data if you want to prove otherwise.

If it didn't suck there would not be so many threads about the subject nor would it be referenced in the negative App Store reviews.

A 30% disapproval rating is huge for a version of OSX and points to Tim Cooks lack of leadership and inability to push software to be better.

 

[Mackilroy]

2/3rds of MacRumors forum members does NOT equate to nor represent 2/3rds of Mac users....

Don't bother using logic, he's afflicted by confirmation bias. Any anecdotal evidence or psuedo-surveys he can find, he'll use.

If it didn't suck there would not be so many threads about the subject nor would it be referenced in the negative App Store reviews.

A 30% disapproval rating is huge for a version of OSX and points to Tim Cooks lack of leadership and inability to push software to be better.

You seriously believe that? It doesn't matter how good something is -- there will ALWAYS be people who don't like it.

 

[beosound3200]

You can say these surveys don't represent the community as a whole all you want, but you still haven't pointed to a single survey that shows that Mission Control is liked.

Number of data sets you provide = 0
Number of data sets I provide = 3

You bring nothing yet think you have some ground to stand on. Mission Control sucks according to a large contingent of people I suggest finding some data if you want to prove otherwise.

If it didn't suck there would not be so many threads about the subject nor would it be referenced in the negative App Store reviews.

A 30% disapproval rating is huge for a version of OSX and points to Tim Cooks lack of leadership and inability to push software to be better.

the fact that there is NO data alone is enough. if something's good, people are silent. if something's bad, people complain. there are no complaints. so? logic?

show me 'so many threads' if you will