Do You Prefer Stability vs. Features?

[Takuro]

OS X Yosemite often gets some complaints due to stability issues and bugs. Many folks feel now is the time to work on a release that is as stable as Snow Leopard has been.

Apparently Apple engineers felt this way too, since El Capitan does not introduce much new functionality and instead seems to be aimed at defect resolution. I'm just curious how many of you feel the same way.

What's more important to you right now, stability or new features?

 

[Apple_Robert]

Stability. Without it, features become (for all intent and purposes) a moot point.

 

[OG_Macintosh]

What BasicGreatGuy said. Couldn't be said any better...

 

[aevan]

It's actually a tricky question - I bet most people will say stability, and I'm one of them. But we also want more features. In the case of El Capitan where Yosemite brought several issues, I think everyone is happy just to get the performance boost and fixes. However, imagine that the next OS X is also just a quality and not features build. I think people would change their views to something like "Well, I don't mind a bug here and there if Apple is willing to take bold new steps and allow us new things".

 

[navaira]

By all means stability. I need a system that doesn't crash and wifi connection that doesn't just stop at random times. If I wanted an unstable system that crashes and has a zillion features I'll never use, I'd go for Windows.

The only feature I hoped for – and one we are not getting for some reason – was Siri.

 

[zOne31]

Am I the only one who voted new features?

I have had no problems with Yosemite. Maybe it's because I'm not on the Developer Previews but Public Betas? Maybe it's because I don't have a Retina Display laptop. No Wifi drops. No intense crashes. I've only had random Safari crashes in early Yosemite PBs. I dunno. I haven't really experienced a lot of complaints people have had about Yosemite.

Is stability and new features that hard to ask for? I think El Capitan introduced a bunch of new features especially when it comes to Notes and 3rd party Photos extensions. It definitely wasn't as feature-heavy as Yosemite and it looks like the consensus is that El Capitan is a huge improvement.

 

[Traverse]

Those new features don't do anything for you if your system doesn't work properly.

 

[navaira]

I don't use betas at all. Both me and my partner are on 10.10.3. Both of us experience random wifi outages – nothing too complicated, just requiring to switch wifi off and then on again, but it's pretty damn irritating when you're watching a movie or downloading a large file. My computer also has problems with sleep sometimes after 2-4 days uptime (kernel panic reboot, similar to what's described here: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6605372?start=30&tstart=0 ) – we are now doing a test on my partner's computer to see if the same happens, he normally never puts it to sleep.

If El Capitan (or 10.10.4) resolves those two issues I don't really need anything else.

 

[cambookpro]

Stability, by a long, long way. There's not much else I really want in OS X besides Siri, but speed gains and performance enhancements are always welcome and probably improve productivity massively over long periods of time.

 

[KALLT]

Depends on the definition of stability. Yosemite has many glaring bugs and performance issues that should just not have made it into the final release. In that case, I prefer stability. However, I don't favour stability every time, because I recognise that flaws always find their way into bleeding edge software. I am tolerant to a margin of error. Personally, I like using beta versions and I would not want Apple to go back to a release cycle of two years or more.

 

[anp27]

Mac users should have/get BOTH stability and features for the price we pay for Macs. Shouldn't be an either/or question.

 

[jameslmoser]

There is something to be said about new features, but at the same time, most of the new features Apple has added to OS X recently are hardly 'OS features'. I think rootless mode is probably the most notable OS specific feature of El Cap, and I don't think they even mentioned it in the keynote.

I guess Metal is probably one too...

 

[leman]

OS X Yosemite often gets some complaints due to stability issues and bugs. Many folks feel now is the time to work on a release that is as stable as Snow Leopard has been.

Apparently Apple engineers felt this way too, since El Capitan does not introduce much new functionality and instead seems to be aimed at defect resolution. I'm just curious how many of you feel the same way.

What's more important to you right now, stability or new features?

I think that your question does not make much sense in its current form. There is obviously no point in new features if they result in OS instability. I'd rather rephrase it as 'do you prefer an OS that never changes to provide stability or an OS that constantly innovates at the cost of potential compatibility/stability issues?'. Similar but quite different. And I prefer an OS that innovates.

Anyway, Yosemite was hardly less stable than Mavericks or Lion/Mountain Lion. And El Capitan introduces plenty of new features (completely rewritten base applications and services like Notes, Mission Control, Disk Utility), new graphics/compute stack, heavily modified window server, new windows organising tools etc. But for some reason people say that Yosemite was the 'new features' release simply because it introduces a new paint job for the UI. And at the same time, I would certainly not call El Capitan stable. It breaks multiple applications UI and has some very serious WiFi issues. And I don't think that all of this will be fixed by the release.

 

[Superhai]

Without features, no use for stability.
Without stability, what use are features.

The question may rather be what should Apple focus more on, and for me that would be stability. OS X is very much filled with features. (But I know that when they introduce some (killer) features, I am a sucker who install the "bleeding edge" and brace myself for crashes in the joy).

 

[aevan]

So, I think the correct answer is: BOTH!

I think this is the perfect formula: add major features every next year, add quality in between and try not to have major issues along the way. Lean more towards stability and performance (let's not forget performance!) but introduce something useful and fresh from time to time.

With El Capitan, Apple is doing that for the most part.

 

[torana355]

Am I the only one who voted new features?

I have had no problems with Yosemite. Maybe it's because I'm not on the Developer Previews but Public Betas? Maybe it's because I don't have a Retina Display laptop. No Wifi drops. No intense crashes. I've only had random Safari crashes in early Yosemite PBs. I dunno. I haven't really experienced a lot of complaints people have had about Yosemite.

Yosemite runs like a dream for me on my 2008 iMac, my 2011 MBA and my 2012 iMac. I think the main issues are with Retina machines and the dreaded UI lag which i have have seen on every retina machine ive used. However the UI lag is not just in Yosemite it was in Mavericks aswell as Mountain Lion. I just did a clean install today of Yosemite on a mates 2007 iMac which was on Leopard and i was blown away by the performance increase, Yosemite is a great OS.

 

[maflynn]

Its kind of a no brainer, stability. What good is an operating system that can't run the apps you need, or keep the apps running. I need to get my work done, and a computer that is crashing or an app that is crashing just won't cut the mustard.

 

[ron7624]

Not being a beta tester, I voted for stability. I am assuming the new features introduced in Yosemite are what El Capitan addressed and stabalized. If so, then I feel we will get both in a manner of speaking.

 

[navaira]

I sure hope so!

 

[aevan]

Its kind of a no brainer, stability. What good is an operating system that can't run the apps you need, or keep the apps running. I need to get my work done, and a computer that is crashing or an app that is crashing just won't cut the mustard.

It is not a no-brainer, because things are not black and white. I agree, if you can't run the apps you need - that's a deal breaker. But that's not "instability" - that's lack of basic functionality. We're talking about occasional crashes and having to turn your wifi off and on sometimes and lag in certain UI elements here. Yosemite, even with all the quirks _did_ run apps and got work done. It was just prone to certain slowness and had some issues.... But, at the same time, it did introduce a lot of new stuff which makes it a great step forward - considering we're getting El Capitan to fix these issues now. Imagine if everything was super smooth but we stayed on, say, Lion - I wouldn't like that, to be honest. And yet, I'm really glad El Capitan is more about quality than features.

So, the question is not "do you want new features on an OS that doesn't work" it's more "do you prefer to have an OS that has some issues, but brings innovative stuff to the table". I think we need both, and the focus should shift from one to the other every year.

 

[maflynn]

Not being a beta tester, I voted for stability. I am assuming the new features introduced in Yosemite are what El Capitan addressed and stabalized. If so, then I feel we will get both in a manner of speaking.

Its kind of cool to be a beta tester, I used to beta test some norton apps on the PC years ago before Symantec bought them out. That was fun, but I can see running a beta operating system presents itself with a lot more challenges.

 

[cube]

There are hardly any useful new features since many years. On the contrary, important stuff is removed and the GUI made worse, adding bugs, while at the same time only producing weak hardware.

 

[aevan]

There are hardly any useful new features since many years. On the contrary, important stuff is removed and the GUI made worse, adding bugs, while at the same time only producing weak hardware.

What important stuff has been removed? I admit, I haven't used Macs prior to Lion, but I haven't seen anything important get removed. Also, what is worse in GUI? The changes were for the better in my opinion. I guess it comes down to personal preference.

As for the weak hardware, the Macs I own are anything but weak.

 

[cube]

What important stuff has been removed? I admit, I haven't used Macs prior to Lion, but I haven't seen anything important get removed. Also, what is worse in GUI? The changes were for the better in my opinion. I guess it comes down to personal preference.

As for the weak hardware, the Macs I own are anything but weak.

- Rosetta was removed
- SyncServices were removed at some point
- The scrollbars are a disaster
- Maybe flat GUI

There's no Mac hardware for real power users.

 

[aevan]

- Rosetta was removed

Seriously? That is still an issue for some?! What PowerPC apps are you missing today?

- SyncServices were removed at some point

They moved to other network based and cloud based solutions. Please tell me what's the downside without saying that it's just crap. What can't you do today that you could with Sync Services? Honest question.

- The scrollbars are a disaster

In what way? I really don't get it.

- Maybe flat GUI

A matter of taste, but I for one prefer the flat UI.

It is obvious to me that you are simply against change. Either that, or you can explain to me what work were you able to do using PowerPC apps and syncing to old services that you can't get it done better today. I just don't see it. Honestly, I think it's more of that "these kids today.... in my time, it used to be so much better" kind of situation.

There's no Mac hardware for real power users.

I don't know what crazy CPU farms do you think "power users" require, but I would call the Mac Pros and iMac 5Ks quite capable for professionals. 12 cores not enough? 5K resolutions not adequate? No, seriously, I consider myself a power user and a professional illustrator, what hardware am I missing? A PowerPC G5?

Or am I just not a REAL power user.