I don't think so. A lot of people didn't like Yosemite and a lot won't like El Capitan either. With the 3D effects back in El Capitan, albeit subtle, I could live with it if I had to. I suspect however that as others venture outside of Apple as I did recently, regardless of whether they like the new looks of Yosemite, I think they'll find most Linux, BSD, and Windows versions even worse looking. There was one version of Linux that looked sort of interesting and its name escapes me, but it's still Linux, which to me isn't a selling point any longer (been stung by Linux more than once in my life).
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.
El Capitan: Does this mark the death of OS X as a serious OS?
- Thread starter B-Eugen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think so. A lot of people didn't like Yosemite and a lot won't like El Capitan either. With the 3D effects back in El Capitan, albeit subtle, I could live with it if I had to. I suspect however that as others venture outside of Apple as I did recently, regardless of whether they like the new looks of Yosemite, I think they'll find most Linux, BSD, and Windows versions even worse looking. There was one version of Linux that looked sort of interesting and its name escapes me, but it's still Linux, which to me isn't a selling point any longer (been stung by Linux more than once in my life).
Linux is great for being mostly free and for specific uses but it'll never be accepted by the average user. It's too difficult to track down and fix issues for the regular guy who doesn't care about how a computer works. The issue I have with win 10 is a lot of the core systems still look like win xp and earlier. It's a visual mess. That and the fact it's essentially spyware now with their "free" based OS updates.
People who've never bought a Mac before don't know the difference nor do most computer users. As for those who do know I seriously doubt a lot of them will dislike El Capitan. Take a good look on the forums here and elsewhere. There are many many very positive reactions to El Capitan, especially when it comes to performance such as the smoothness of animations.
That is like saying there is one version of a car that looked sort of interesting. Linux is just the kernel, what you mean is a distribution. There are many of those and quite a lot have various flavours. It is not uncommon that they have a version for GNOME, XFCE or KDE. And it is also not uncommon that you can install any of those afterwards. When it comes to looks and usability Linux doesn't come near OS X. That's why a lot of Linux users are actually using OS X. Linux and the BSD derivatives are usually a server OS. Btw, I think you might be thinking of a Linux distribution based on Debian which is called ElementaryOS. It is aimed at making it easy to use and fast. You'll notice it looks quite a lot like OS X.
Basically there are only two big mainstream operating systems for desktops: Windows and OS X. Windows is something most people use because they simply don't know any better and/or because the software they use require it. Most of the OS X users seem to have chosen OS X for usability and not for its looks.
In general you'll find that people don't pick their operating systems because it looks "good", "cute", "nice", "charming", "manly", etc. They pick it because it came with the machine or because they heard it was easier to use or the software they want/have to use requires it. If you buy it because of it looks you're going to have buyers remorse quite soon...with any OS that is.
Last edited:
I do think the visual appeal and polish of an OS is important though - part of the joy of a good UX is having something that looks and feels well thought out and cared for. When I switched to Mac in 2003, the cool animations and fun, aqua interface are part of what drew me in, having been staring at WinXP for too long. Since then, Apple have kept things fresh and El Capitan continues that.
Visual appeal and polish are important but they are not that important. In the end you buy it to do something and it needs to be able to that something. Looking good comes second or even third. There are many parameters at play here and their order of "importantness" depends greatly on what you are buying and the person who is buying it.
I've advised many Linux users wanting a Mac. The main reason for that is that OS X is like Linux except that it just works on notebooks. Linux is too fiddly in that area. Most people wanted a Mac because they heard it didn't crash or because they knew that these were not domain-joined and thus faster to boot/reboot. You usually don't hear "this app looks ugly, I want something that looks the part". It mostly is "this app doesn't work that nice, I want something that works nicer".
I've advised many Linux users wanting a Mac. The main reason for that is that OS X is like Linux except that it just works on notebooks. Linux is too fiddly in that area. Most people wanted a Mac because they heard it didn't crash or because they knew that these were not domain-joined and thus faster to boot/reboot. You usually don't hear "this app looks ugly, I want something that looks the part". It mostly is "this app doesn't work that nice, I want something that works nicer".
That's true - though i think our respective audiences are different! Most people I talk to/am asked to advise about computers wouldn't have the first idea about what domain-joined means, and they certainly wouldn't be switching to/from Linux - rather, they use a mac for the first time and say 'ooooh, it's really NICE, isn't it?', referring to the hardware and software. Their second question tends to be 'and does it run Office?'; that's as deep into functionality as they go ('is the software I use available?').
Maybe some people are now looking at Windows for some reason or another, but I can summarize my opinion of their interface with two words: No Thanks!
People may actually be starting to look at Windows not because of the OS at all but rather the cost of the Mac systems and their structure/ruggedness. Years ago you could go out and buy an iBook or even one of the plastic MacBooks for your kid at a higher-than-normal but still reasonable price, and it could be expected to handle at least moderate abuse. I don't think the same can be said of the newer "thin" Mac portable computers. I mean seriously, the ultra-thin design really just about forces a kid to treat the thing in his/her backpack like they have a piece of crystal in there, not a computer. You can get much cheaper systems that could easily handle more abuse with other brands, and none of them run OS X.
People may actually be starting to look at Windows not because of the OS at all but rather the cost of the Mac systems and their structure/ruggedness. Years ago you could go out and buy an iBook or even one of the plastic MacBooks for your kid at a higher-than-normal but still reasonable price, and it could be expected to handle at least moderate abuse. I don't think the same can be said of the newer "thin" Mac portable computers. I mean seriously, the ultra-thin design really just about forces a kid to treat the thing in his/her backpack like they have a piece of crystal in there, not a computer. You can get much cheaper systems that could easily handle more abuse with other brands, and none of them run OS X.
Really? The aluminum unibody line is one of the most abused but least "affected" laptops I've ever seen around. Dings, dents, drops and scuffs, and it continues to work for many years. That can't be said for non-metal laptops that no matter their price point seem to fall apart at the seams and hinges after moderate usage. Usage statistics in certain environments seem to confirm this, at least.
Last edited:
This does not adhere to my observations, at least. The plastic MacBooks were probably the least sturdy Mac that I have ever worked with. The plastic was very prone to cracks and discolouration. The pre-unibody MacBook Pros were also quite easily damaged. The newer thin Macs? We have dozens of them in my organisation and only few people use protective sleeves (personally, I gave up on them when I got my first retina Mac). Sure, they scratch and get dents when mishandled, but this does not have any effect on functionality. You shouldn't drop them though. But that is true for almost any laptop
Three words: First world problems!
I quote just one of your 'issues', but the fact remains that Apple are still striking a balance after the overhaul from Yosemite. And that's fine, because it shows that they're refining the experience rather than making changes for the sake of doing so. They know better than anyone else that the Mac is, to some degree, only just getting started...
You mention the Time Machine animation that is no more. Well, it's been replaced by a graphic that is different to when TM is inactive. Users including myself find this less distracting and thus an improvement. By your logic, the change means that OS X can no longer be "taken seriously", and quite frankly that is hurting my ribs right now.
The only response I have to your post is to imagine doing your professional work, whatever this may be (if indeed you do), on another OS. Could you cope on a daily basis? And if so, why haven't you switched already? Windows 10 as an example is turning out to be a fine release, but after spending time with any other OS, I can never wait to get back to my Finder, Dock and lack of clutter that gives OS X so much sense. The same just can't be said about Win 10's U.I, despite nice collection of features.
Ahh yes, it's easy to forget how recent those products were. The white MacBooks were always beautiful and fun looking products and I miss them in that respect, but the polycarbonate was mostly awful.
I had two white MacBooks and on both the magnetic latch (is that the right word?) gave up. Having to store your laptop upside down or put a book on top so it doesn't open isn't very amazing.
I had the same with my aluminium MacBook. The catch is that nobody will actually believe you when you say that the magnets seem to have become weaker or stopped working.
Well said.
10.0 -> 10.1
10.1 -> 10.2
10.2 -> 10.3
10.5 -> 10.6
... etc... all were upgrades which had some new features. Some were very visible (intro Spotlight), some totally not (PPC -> Intel switch). All added features and expanded the usage of new technologies.
Most users were mostly amazed by a new wallpaper....
The only "revolutionary" OS- step was Mac OS 9 -> Mac OS X. And wasn't a "step", it was a "transition" which took time.
BTW, OS X started life in 2000 (Public Beta)
"Classic" Mac OS in 1984 and died officially in 2002. That's 18 years.
Just 3 more years, and (Mac) OS X is 18....
Service packs do not include new kernel level APIs nor new OS features. Service packs are intended to fix bugs, that is why they are called service packs. Or is it the numbering scheme that is confusing you on this.
So *your* definition of a service pack is a OS release which has no new revolutionary things in it and the numbering scheme isn't 10.0, 11.0, etc. After all these years people are still hung up on the numbering scheme.
Last edited:
I was thinking more of the MacBook Air. Remember, I was referring to lower cost units, primarily for kids. I've seen a lot of the logic boards on them (Air's) get messed up from the case being flexed/bent. They can't take the abuse a little kid might give them. I'd speculate that other new thin models may suffer from similar problems.
Why would a parent go with a MacBook Air costing $800 that's potentially much more likely to get damaged due to its ultra thin design when they can buy a Windows based unit for half that and probably equally as capable.
I'm not sure where in Win8 or Win 10 it is noted that you right click the start menu button to get more advanced features.
An example of something simple: Windows 10 client logged in to a domain. User wants to simply logoff. You have to either know that your account name houses the signout command or you have to know to right click the start button then power then signet. Previously in Windows 7 the logoff/signout/switch user was all under power. Anything to do with restarting shutting down and signing off was in one spot, now it's in 3 spots.
Or let's say a new printer is setup and I want to change it so that it only prints in black and white rather than color.
The new settings thing will take you to your installed printers but that's about it. Now you must know that you need to Right Click Start -> Control Panel -> View Devices and Printers -> Right Click Printer -> Printer Properties (not Properties)-> Change Properties ->Advanced -> Printing Defaults -> Paper/Quality -> Advanced -> Print in Greyscale ->On
At least this is how it goes for our HP Officejet 8600 Printers
Opposite of simple.
An example of something simple: Windows 10 client logged in to a domain. User wants to simply logoff. You have to either know that your account name houses the signout command or you have to know to right click the start button then power then signet. Previously in Windows 7 the logoff/signout/switch user was all under power. Anything to do with restarting shutting down and signing off was in one spot, now it's in 3 spots.
Or let's say a new printer is setup and I want to change it so that it only prints in black and white rather than color.
The new settings thing will take you to your installed printers but that's about it. Now you must know that you need to Right Click Start -> Control Panel -> View Devices and Printers -> Right Click Printer -> Printer Properties (not Properties)-> Change Properties ->Advanced -> Printing Defaults -> Paper/Quality -> Advanced -> Print in Greyscale ->On
At least this is how it goes for our HP Officejet 8600 Printers
Opposite of simple.
Wow, that's quite the poorly written sensationalist piece.
It’s not just the average user, also the advanced user doesn’t want to fix problems all the time. I found that Linux works best for me when I never update any important packages. Once I update a whole batch of them there is a chance that something breaks. Things like video card drivers, network cards, Bluetooth and so on. I would go weeks without a restart (you rarely need to) and then suddenly something is not right anymore upon reboot, making it really difficult to track the cause of it. Then you have programs that you need running in Wine or something else and then sometimes they don’t work either without some configuration. I’ve tried to make Linux work, but after months I was just so tired of it. Even with the bugs and issues OS X has, it just isn’t such a pain in the arse, is still has a professionally crafted user interface (although you can disagree on the style), has bleeding edge features and a vibrant developer community (with fantastic apps that not even Windows has).
It’s just mind-boggling how complicated Windows from the outset is. I also noticed that you can barely modify the left side of the start menu. You can hide and show some system locations, but not many. Then you have this upper menu that shows your most often-used programs or recently installed programs, but you can’t modify the list to your own needs without using tiles. Then they also have this application list that is fixed. On my laptop it is so convoluted with lots of folders (often holding just single items). It’s not the simple list that you see in promotional materials. I particularly dislike how they split system preferences between the old control panel and the new settings application. Now you need to use both, depending on the thing you are looking for. For instance, changing your account name or changing the system language cannot be done from the settings application. Finally, I found no way to hide the recycle bin from the desktop. I am so used having it conveniently in the Dock that I just don’t know what the do with it in Windows 10. Currently I use it as a pinned location in the Windows Explorer, but it’s not ideal. Windows just still gets in your way if you just want to get things done, it isn’t as obtrusive as OS X and there is complexity to no end.
Last edited:
I consider the MacBook Air and the 12" Macbook to be more robust than most of the plastic laptops I know of. They flex and bend less, then for instance the Thinkpad X1 Carbon. Besides, what rational parent would get child child an expensive laptop if the child can't take the responsibility? Children can be quite caring with things (even more so than adults), they just need to be tough the value of them. If your child is responsible, I see no reason not to get her or him a MacBook
I have a first generation unibody, aluminum macbook pro from (2009 I think?) I literally tried to break it this year after frustration and buying a new macbook. Like I threw it on the ground, kicked it, cracked the screen... and it works perfectly fine. I use it as a second laptop for testing / extra server / and being able to use el capitan parallel with Yosemite (althoughI may eventually sell it). I've replaced the RAM (which was cheap) added an extra hard drive that's SSD, and I fixed the screen myself by buying a $15 glass replacement (the LCD was fine). Honestly, it works better now that it ever has in the past, and I could probably sell it for a good price if I wanted to (considering the upgraded RAM and SSD).
The unibody design is more reliable and sturdy than i imagined a laptop would be at the time (it was also my first mac). These machines are definitely worth the money IMO.
On a side note - I rarely see the Von Neumann Bottleneck discussed when comparing computer architectures. RAM, cache layers, PCIs - SSDs, and the way in which those components of the computer are put together, are exponentially more relevant to performance than CPU / Memory / Storage alone. I might be completely wrong about this issue, but it's the best theory I have why Macs (in general) seem to run better than PC's which may have substantially greater specs on paper.
The unibody design is more reliable and sturdy than i imagined a laptop would be at the time (it was also my first mac). These machines are definitely worth the money IMO.
On a side note - I rarely see the Von Neumann Bottleneck discussed when comparing computer architectures. RAM, cache layers, PCIs - SSDs, and the way in which those components of the computer are put together, are exponentially more relevant to performance than CPU / Memory / Storage alone. I might be completely wrong about this issue, but it's the best theory I have why Macs (in general) seem to run better than PC's which may have substantially greater specs on paper.
What you're describing is probably closer to Gene Ahmdahl's "other" law.
Amdahl also argued for system balance. Referred to as Amdahl’s Other Law, he specified this design principal in the late 1960s, stating that for an efficient computing system there must be a balance between the platform clock speed, capacity of main memory (i.e., random access memory, or RAM), and the bit rate (in seconds) of the I/O (input/output) bandwidth. If any one of these three resources becomes constrained, a computation will be forced to wait.
http://www.mulix.org/pubs/vnic/cohen-hunter.pdf
Given that the Intel core microarchitecture uses separate L1 caches for instructions (I-cache) and data (D-cache), I'm not sure how the Von Neumann Bottleneck applies. In any case, Windows and MacOSX machines are largely identical on a hardware level.