Who hasn't upgraded to Mountain Lion?

CarbonDudeoxide

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 15, 2011
19
0
I'm still running Lion because my hardware is too old for Air Mirroring and I have no interested in Facebook and iCloud integration.

What about you guys? Why have/haven't you upgraded?
 

matrix07

macrumors 603
Jun 24, 2010
5,153
1,687
Just upgraded. Last year MBA. My machine feels like new. Every thing is FAST. And I didn't even do clean install. Well worth the money. You might like it. I don't see how it will be worse than Lion.
 

SpyderBite

macrumors 65816
Oct 4, 2011
1,262
8
Xanadu
OP only mentioned 3 of 200 new features; all 3 of which are optional. There are also countless bug fixes and improvements in ML. The only reasons not to upgrade are 1. Machine is not supported 2. Using legacy software not supported 3. Can't afford the $20
 
Nov 28, 2010
22,684
27
located
OP only mentioned 3 of 200 new features; all 3 of which are optional. There are also countless bug fixes and improvements in ML. The only reasons not to upgrade are 1. Machine is not supported 2. Using legacy software not supported 3. Can't afford the $20
1. My machine is supported.
2. I don't use legacy software.
3. I can afford the 20 USD to buy it.

And still I am running Mac OS X 10.6. I tried Lion for a week and Mountain Lion for another. Mac OS X is OS X now, and I don't like the direction it goes, but I can understand why it does (to lure more and more consumers from their iPhones and iPads buying Macs and to make it even more simple than it already was - Mac OS X was like a car with manual transmission, OS X is using an automatic transmission, and even in real life I prefer manual transmission).

In other words, there are more reasons to not upgrade than the ones you listed.
 

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
65,487
31,522
Boston
I'm still running Lion because my hardware is too old for Air Mirroring and I have no interested in Facebook and iCloud integration.

What about you guys? Why have/haven't you upgraded?
If there are no features that compel you to upgrade, then stay put. While Mountain Lion has been quite successful (as apple reports). There's still a sizable contingent that has yet to upgrade.

Personally my two MBPs are on ML, but my mini (for my kids) is still on Snow Leopard as is my Hackintosh.
 

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,419
759
OP only mentioned 3 of 200 new features; all 3 of which are optional. There are also countless bug fixes and improvements in ML. The only reasons not to upgrade are 1. Machine is not supported 2. Using legacy software not supported 3. Can't afford the $20
Those aren't the only reasons. My Macs are supported, as is most or all of the software I use, and the $20 is a pittance. There's nothing in those 200 new features of ML that I want or need, so why upgrade for the sake of upgrading?

Why is it that some people think that if they choose to do something, they think everyone else should do it, too? I upgrade when I need or want to, not when Apple or anyone else thinks I should.
 
Nov 28, 2010
22,684
27
located
What is it about Lion and ML that makes you feel you lost the manual transmission?

To me, as long as I still have the terminal app, I still have the manual transmission option.
For me it is Spaces and Exposé (though the latter has been restored in ML). There are other small things, but Spaces is the biggest. It is just the direction OS X seems to go that I don't like. I have nothing against automatic transmissions, they are fun to drive sometimes, and I can understand, that many people prefer that. But I am just wired differently. Maybe one day I can make peace with Mission Control or with one of the Spaces alternatives, that are not quite there yet. But since my Macs are still going strong, I don't have to cross that road yet, only when I need a new Mac in two/three years.
 

Liquinn

Suspended
Apr 10, 2011
3,016
56
Those aren't the only reasons. My Macs are supported, as is most or all of the software I use, and the $20 is a pittance. There's nothing in those 200 new features of ML that I want or need, so why upgrade for the sake of upgrading?

Why is it that some people think that if they choose to do something, they think everyone else should do it, too? I upgrade when I need or want to, not when Apple or anyone else thinks I should.
I agree 100% with you. I'm still running Lion and probably will for some time. I don't see the point in upgrading yet. :p
 

fhall1

macrumors 68040
Dec 18, 2007
3,457
602
(Central) NY State of mind
I never jump on the .0 release...usually .3 before I do an upgrade...but it sounds like ML "might" be a little more stable out of the gate. Maybe I'll just wait for the .1 release to upgrade.
 

ScoobyMcDoo

macrumors 65816
Nov 26, 2007
1,189
34
Austin, TX
For me it is Spaces and Exposé (though the latter has been restored in ML). There are other small things, but Spaces is the biggest.
My opinion is that the first try at spaces was half-assed at best. In lion they further crippled it. The KDE and Gnome folks have been doing a much better implementation of virtual desktops for years. As far as I know the folks in redmond still haven't found it in their hearts to add such a feature.

----------

I never jump on the .0 release...usually .3 before I do an upgrade...but it sounds like ML "might" be a little more stable out of the gate. Maybe I'll just wait for the .1 release to upgrade.
Completely agree. I have too many mission critical projects going on right now to jump to the bleeding edge. Plus, I'm going to have to get my VMWare updated to the 4.x version before making the ML leap.
 
Nov 28, 2010
22,684
27
located
My opinion is that the first try at spaces was half-assed at best. In lion they further crippled it. The KDE and Gnome folks have been doing a much better implementation of virtual desktops for years. As far as I know the folks in redmond still haven't found it in their hearts to add such a feature.
I don't use Linux extensively, thus I have no experience with their virtual desktop implementation (CompiZ? probably not), but what I like about Spaces is the grid view, I can live without every Space having its own name or desktop background. The grid view is the important feature for me, especially with 12 to 16 Spaces, something Mission Control fails at with more than 5 to 6 Desktops.
 

ScoobyMcDoo

macrumors 65816
Nov 26, 2007
1,189
34
Austin, TX
I don't use Linux extensively, thus I have no experience with their virtual desktop implementation (CompiZ? probably not), but what I like about Spaces is the grid view, I can live without every Space having its own name or desktop background. The grid view is the important feature for me, especially with 12 to 16 Spaces, something Mission Control fails at with more than 5 to 6 Desktops.
With both KDE and Gnome, there is a small grid view always present down in what would be called the dock in OSX terms. Inside of that small grid view, you can drag windows from one desktop to another, just as you can in the SL grid view. Also, on each window, you can click on an icon in the title bar to get a menu to send the window do a different desktop. There is also an option to have a window show up on all desktops simultaneously.