Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Signal-11

macrumors 65816
Mar 23, 2008
1,474
2
2nd Star to the Right
one point to consider

If you do not like do not buy it , stay as you are and enjoy the OS you have

good grief if we did not change we would still be using DOS with a tape drive or UNIX command line

It's not that simple.

I went back to a SL backup after a month of really, really trying to like Lion.

When that MBP failed under warranty, I was given a new MBP as a replacement. With Lion. I am now stuck with Lion. I don't have a choice to go back to Spaces+Expose, which was a much more powerful and much useful UI. Many other aspects of Lion I don't particularly like that mess up my multi-platform workflow with different organizations (versioning, etc), I can turn off or work around. The lack of window management utility to Mission Control drives me nuts. It's like taking the pro power tools a professional contractor is used to and giving him Home Depot tools made for the weekend warrior.

Now, I must also use many more Windows apps through Parallels/VMs because there are many apps because of Lion incompatibilities. I saw some of that coming - Rosetta support had to stop some time - but no, you do not always have a choice of not upgrading.
 

barmann

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2010
941
626
Germany
we need an OS X Pro with options to turn "features" on/off :cool:

You know, that's actually a very good point .

iOS features and apps are obviously crippled, compared to their computer OS counterparts .

Yet still the majority of OSX users would be perfectly happy with a crippled OS, if it saves them some effort here and there .

For the demanding users who require a fully featured OS , security ( aka privacy, no iCloud ), and adjustability for their workflow there could be a pro version .

I don't see the need to seperate the two, as OSX has worked fine for everyone so far, and iOS itsself can obviously not be used on a computer.

Mission control, Autosave, Versions, full screen behaviour and a few more things really compromise a proper workflow, but there are lots of programs with some of those features - and in all of them (that I know of), you can simply turn them off .

Anyways, there seems to be a demand for iOS features on Macs, and advanced finger gestures and such for casual users - at some point a phone OS and computer OS will just not play well together , as it's the case to a degree in Lion .

So an additional, more flexible and open OS with advanced options, but without some of that iOS stuff, might work best .
 

HONDAxACURA

macrumors regular
Sep 6, 2008
119
0
California
I'm all for Apple and applaud their works. But this release of Mountain Lion doesn't seem to be worth it. A couple tiny features that is not worth the money, maybe $20 for the AirPlay mirroring.

Hopefully Apple is bringing the iPad more like OSX, not the other way around. I hope to see a little more integration with Google, because I have set up camp there.

Apple and Google should be friends! :) The ultimate combo of computing.

----------

You know, that's actually a very good point .

iOS features and apps are obviously crippled, compared to their computer OS counterparts .

Yet still the majority of OSX users would be perfectly happy with a crippled OS, if it saves them some effort here and there .

For the demanding users who require a fully featured OS , security ( aka privacy, no iCloud ), and adjustability for their workflow there could be a pro version .

I don't see the need to seperate the two, as OSX has worked fine for everyone so far, and iOS itsself can obviously not be used on a computer.

Mission control, Autosave, Versions, full screen behaviour and a few more things really compromise a proper workflow, but there are lots of programs with some of those features - and in all of them (that I know of), you can simply turn them off .

Anyways, there seems to be a demand for iOS features on Macs, and advanced finger gestures and such for casual users - at some point a phone OS and computer OS will just not play well together , as it's the case to a degree in Lion .

So an additional, more flexible and open OS with advanced options, but without some of that iOS stuff, might work best .

I definitely agree with this post! +1 for more options. Please help support the power users!
 

barmann

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2010
941
626
Germany
It's not that simple.

I went back to a SL backup after a month of really, really trying to like Lion.

When that MBP failed under warranty, I was given a new MBP as a replacement. With Lion. I am now stuck with Lion.....

- but no, you do not always have a choice of not upgrading.

I had a very similar experience, only I'm still running pimped out older (2008) Hardware .

But you have to keep in mind, most posters here never had to maintain a workflow over several years and several versions of OSs, are casual users and don't understand the impact of seemingly minor OS changes, which can actually be a major paradigm shift .

At the same time, one needs to update hardware in certain intervals, for business reasons, which is where Apple breaks OS compatibility very frequently now .

Lion is the only incarnation of OSX (and earlier Mac OS) I can't switch to for reasons other than maturity, so I'm still hoping ML will fix the shortcomings of it .
 

Carl Sagan

macrumors 6502a
May 31, 2011
603
17
The Universe
First.. I know there are many Apple fanboys on this forum, who will defend any step Apple does. I am not interested to get any comments from non-adequate fans. But there are other people who were happy to have OS X as a great alternative to crippled MS Windows.

I did like OS X as it had a great feeling of freedom and simplicity for developing and using software. And now, when Steve is gone, they are starting to kill this unique atmosphere with their attempts to lock the system down and make their expensive and powerful computers just another proprietary and locked entertainment system.

Please do not tell me "Apple will never do that" or "You can disable those restrictions" etc. It's OBVIOUS that Apple is pushing the closed system approach with GateKeeper in OS X.

What do you think about this picture?

http://gizmodo.com/5885837/this-is-...napproved-apps-with-mountain-lions-gatekeeper

That is scary (especially for developers who don't get a chance to be approved by Apple) and is the first sign of a total control. Of course, they cannot force a total control immediately cause they'll get flooded with court cases. BUT!
They will try to push developers and users as much as they can to use AppStore, which is a form of closed and restricted system.

I know it's fine for many MacRumors visitors , but I don't want to convert my Mac in a powerful iPad version. I already have an iPad for entertainment and mobile online activities and it's enough for me.

Apple, please don't make Mac os X a victim of your greed and DRM restrictions! This system was so good to make it locked! And it's based on open-source software. You just have no moral rights to close it and even to attempt to control it fully!

And don't tell me it's about security - it's not. It's all about 30% commission they earn from every app sold and about Apple stock graphs their management is watching daily.

Fans, you can write your usual comments. I know you'll say "don't use it if you don't like it, get away from Apple". That's all you can say.

When Steve was gone? Are you for real?? What makes you think they aren't executing a plan of his?:D
 

throAU

macrumors G3
Feb 13, 2012
9,198
7,349
Perth, Western Australia
That is scary (especially for developers who don't get a chance to be approved by Apple) and is the first sign of a total control. Of course, they cannot force a total control immediately cause they'll get flooded with court cases. BUT!
They will try to push developers and users as much as they can to use AppStore, which is a form of closed and restricted system.

This is an OPTION. That many will be happy to take, and for good reason. You don't need to be "approved by apple", the status quo is maintained.

If you want a cert, you pay 99 bucks to get the developer program and a certificate, and then you can sign your code.

If a user wants to run unsigned code, they can. However, the ability to turn off unsigned code closes a huge number of potential security issues in one fell swoop.


Much like most of the other lion stuff. its all OPTIONAL, barring the mission control replacement for expose, which i don't see big deal to be crying over.

The only thing I don't like about lion is the performance decrease vs snow leopard, but mountain lion should fix that, and RAM is cheap anyhow.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
we need an OS X Pro with options to turn "features" on/off :cool:

Problem is apple moving away from "pro" type features. Just look at FCPX and Aperture both have consumer features and in FCPX they dropped pro features (though they are slowly adding them back in because of the backlash).
 

Fabricman112

macrumors regular
Apr 3, 2010
211
0
I´d gladly pay $129 for a more relaxed version of OS X, by pro I mean there are some users very comfortable with any OS... I want my computers to act my way not your way
dont see it happening anytime soon though, apple is getting more and more obsessed with having the world their way
 

stevemiller

macrumors 68020
Oct 27, 2008
2,057
1,607
I realise that in Lion it takes a couple of extra steps but I keep seeing people say that the windows are stacked and that you can't easily select the one you want, when in fact you can.

4 finger swipe up to access mission control.
Select the top most window of the app you want (regardless if it's the actual window you want).
4 finger swipe down and all windows of that app type are arranged in a grid pattern with no overlapping and easy to see labels.

In fairness I've never used Snow Leopard in any meaningful way so I haven't had any exposure to spaces and expose. I just think that maybe mission control isn't as 'broken' as some people make it out to be.

Yeah its the addition of those extra steps that frustrate me. For example, if i have a bunch of visual references open in preview for a project i'm doing, and i quickly want to go to a specific image, in lion i have to:

1) invoke mission control
2) potentially swipe through all the desktops to find the one with the preview app
3) click the stack of pictures that represents preview to make it active
4) invoke app expose (the grid pattern of app windows you described)
5) visually select the image i am looking for

now my point is, since you are looking for a picture, nothing until step 4) in the previous set of steps will actually guarantee you a visual on the content you're looking for if its buried in a stack of app windows. essentially steps 1 through 3 do nothing more than give you a fancy zooming and swiping experience for finding an application. so unless you just enjoy pretending you're tom cruise in minority report, you might as well just:

1) press the preview app icon on the dock, this will INSTANTLY transport you to whatever desktop the app is located in, and make preview active and at the forefront.
2) invoke app expose
3) visually select the image

and now for the kicker, before lion, and why expose used to be SO awesome, when you wanted to find that open image:

1) invoke expose to see all your open windows in all your apps, with no overlapping
2) visually select the image

and the consequences of this inefficiency are endless. say for whatever reason you have some images open in preview and some open in photoshop and you want to find a particular one. unless you have pre-lion exposé which shows you all your images at the same time, it now becomes a guessing game in lion of which stack of app windows do i think its in.

consider another scenario where you are dragging and dropping files between windows. you want to move something from the desktop to a finder window you have open. you reveal the desktop, start dragging the file, invoke mission control, and discover that the window you want to drag the file into is buried in a pile again. now what??

my feeling is that the usage model lion (and assumedly ML) favours is doing mostly one thing at a time (like on an iPad/iPhone), and "multitasking" is simply task switching. if you just want to go from your Facebook page or blog post to iTunes, and you aren't in a hurry cuz you're hanging out at a coffee shop, it gives you some pretty animations while you're at it. and i love that on my iPhone; heck i'm even getting tempted by the iPad 3, not because it fulfills any pressing need, but because apple makes incredibly appealing casual computing experiences. and that is of value.

but i also come from the group of people who work in the content creation industry, and started using apple in the first place because they were at the forefront of innovation when it came to elegant tools for scatterbrained creatives who need to work with chaos. thats why i'm mourning these losses, not because what we're getting isn't decent in its own right, but because it is a shift away from the paradigms that first attracted what was at one time apple's primary target market. and i honestly don't see *anyone* moving to cater to that niche anymore.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
The issue is that OS X doesn't actually do anything to help you work with higher resolutions. There aren't any helpful functions for dealing with multiple windows or multiple monitors.

Yes you can put windows next to each other manually. However Windows 7 has Aero Snap...

Oh, it's all just about Areo Snap. :rolleyes: Frankly, I hate that feature they stole from KDE. I hated it in KDE when Windows tried to "snap" some place I didn't want to just because I was dragging them beyond some boundary, I don't like it now either.

OS X doesn't actually need to do anythig to help you work with any resolution. They all just work fine.

----------

There's some credence to that remark but it seems everyone is rushing to integrate, so you can hardly blame apple for jumping on the bandwagon

They are just going about it in the worse way. Social media integration should just be about 3rd parties being able to plug-in, not about Apple writing support for one or the other.

Make a social media framework which application/plug-in providers can use to connect their "app" to the system's social media features. That way, if I want "Twitter integration", I install the twitter stuff. If I want facebook, I install the facebook stuff. If I want none of it, I install none of it at all.

Simple no ? Apparently not so for Apple.
 

rorschach

macrumors 68020
Jul 27, 2003
2,299
1,977
First.. I know there are many Apple fanboys on this forum, who will defend any step Apple does. I am not interested to get any comments from non-adequate fans. But there are other people who were happy to have OS X as a great alternative to crippled MS Windows.

I did like OS X as it had a great feeling of freedom and simplicity for developing and using software. And now, when Steve is gone, they are starting to kill this unique atmosphere with their attempts to lock the system down and make their expensive and powerful computers just another proprietary and locked entertainment system.

Please do not tell me "Apple will never do that" or "You can disable those restrictions" etc. It's OBVIOUS that Apple is pushing the closed system approach with GateKeeper in OS X.

What do you think about this picture?

http://gizmodo.com/5885837/this-is-...napproved-apps-with-mountain-lions-gatekeeper

That is scary (especially for developers who don't get a chance to be approved by Apple) and is the first sign of a total control. Of course, they cannot force a total control immediately cause they'll get flooded with court cases. BUT!
They will try to push developers and users as much as they can to use AppStore, which is a form of closed and restricted system.

I know it's fine for many MacRumors visitors , but I don't want to convert my Mac in a powerful iPad version. I already have an iPad for entertainment and mobile online activities and it's enough for me.

Apple, please don't make Mac os X a victim of your greed and DRM restrictions! This system was so good to make it locked! And it's based on open-source software. You just have no moral rights to close it and even to attempt to control it fully!

And don't tell me it's about security - it's not. It's all about 30% commission they earn from every app sold and about Apple stock graphs their management is watching daily.

Fans, you can write your usual comments. I know you'll say "don't use it if you don't like it, get away from Apple". That's all you can say.

Hilarious. No, it's not "OBVIOUS" that Apple is moving towards a "closed system approach." GateKeeper provides MORE user control, not less. Mountain Lion is a step AWAY from a "walled garden" model and I will tell you right now that you will never see the ability to install any application you want removed from OS X. You can bookmark this post and quote me if I'm ever proven wrong.

Do you know how much of a profit Apple makes from iTunes and the App Stores? Barely any. That 30% take is not pure profit. Almost all of it goes towards hosting, support, advertising, and the credit card fees that Apple provides for every developer on the App Store - even the free apps.
 
Last edited:

MrAndy1369

Guest
Nov 27, 2011
36
0
You can install SL on your MBP. Current models are supported by SL. You'll need a SL 10.6.7 DVD that was included with another MBP, and once installing 10.6.8, you'll be all good to go. Worked for me; find a friend who has a MBP 2011 notebook and SL 10.6.7 (cannot be lower than 10.6.7), then just install and update, and you don't have to deal with Lion. :)

It's not that simple.

I went back to a SL backup after a month of really, really trying to like Lion.

When that MBP failed under warranty, I was given a new MBP as a replacement. With Lion. I am now stuck with Lion. I don't have a choice to go back to Spaces+Expose, which was a much more powerful and much useful UI. Many other aspects of Lion I don't particularly like that mess up my multi-platform workflow with different organizations (versioning, etc), I can turn off or work around. The lack of window management utility to Mission Control drives me nuts. It's like taking the pro power tools a professional contractor is used to and giving him Home Depot tools made for the weekend warrior.

Now, I must also use many more Windows apps through Parallels/VMs because there are many apps because of Lion incompatibilities. I saw some of that coming - Rosetta support had to stop some time - but no, you do not always have a choice of not upgrading.
 

MasterHowl

macrumors 65816
Oct 3, 2010
1,067
182
North of England
I think all the "iOS features" they've brought in so far are a fantastic addition... resume for apps, notification centre (my favourite), full screen mode, the new gestures brought in for Lion, launchpad.

I could probably go on, but for me, all the iOS features they've brought to the mac make my life much easier and the whole "Mac experience" better!
 

r0k

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2008
3,612
76
Detroit
First with .ds_store, then with LaunchPad and now with .versions files Apple seems to be making war on the Unix filesystem and end users are the ones that stand to lose the battle if this goes unchecked.
Can you explain what you mean by this? This is an honest question too.

Apple is using dot files to keep track of stuff like custom folder colors. Come on. I don't use custom folder colors but I have to contend with .ds_store being created on any folder I touch. I didn't mention this in my post, but for a while there, if I created a USB stick to take out to my car and listen to music with 100 mp3 files on it, OSX put 100 parasitic ._whatever.mp3 files on the stick to confuse the heck out of my car stereo and confuse the heck out of anybody who looks at that folder that isn't on a Mac. Bad form. To me this is ignoring how the file system was intended to be used and running roughshod over it as a means to Apple's ends.

I further think Apple feels they have moved beyond the traditional file system. They want the file system to go away. On iOS, everything is sandboxed and the only way to share data between apps is to "open with" which makes YET ANOTHER copy of the file you pass along in the next app's little sandbox. There is one exception in that multiple apps can see the "camera roll" but otherwise all they can see is their own little sandbox and their own little slice of iCloud. I see sandboxing of apps on OS X as another step away from a filesystem that might bring this sort of lunacy to OS X. Can you imagine viewing a PDF in Preview only to find you have to download it again if you want to view it in Acrobat reader? Can you imagine going part of the way through creating a spreadsheet in LibreOffice and deciding to open it in iWork instead only to find you must pass iWork its own separate copy and LibreOffice has a "copy lying around" that will never get updated unless you pass the document back again?

So when I see .DocumentRevisions... sitting in / on Macintosh HD and it contains autosaved copies of any document I've modified in an Apple app, whether it's a PDF in preview or a word document in Pages, it bothers me. A lot. Suppose I decide I want to back up stuff. Ok fine, I tell crashplan to back up everything in my Documents folder. But it's not all there because the OS is sneaking around making copies of my stuff down in /.DocumentRevisions... My personal files, such as a scanned PDF of a family member's passport belongs in exactly one place and that's the folder I saved it to.

So IMHO Apple has declared war on general purpose computing and Unix is a casualty along with it. All they need is reliable preemptive multitasking but the rest of Unix Apple assumes we can live without.

I was a Linux user for close to 15 years before I was an OSX user and what drew me to OSX was that underneath it's Unix. All these multiplying dot files and back door tricks to "manage stuff" for me behind my back feels too much like iOS. I never jailbroke my iOS iThings but I'd jailbreak my Mac on day one if I found myself in a straight jacket that prevented me from using the work flow that works best for me. If

Apple can somehow pull off curated computing on the desktop without dumbing things down the point it's just a "giant iPod Touch" I'll have to hand it to them. But since I'm still waiting for a legit filesystem (without jailbreaking) my iPad 1, I doubt Apple can pull it off. I should explain further that I don't mind the fact my iPad is just a giant iPod Touch. I like a lot about the iPad the way it is, but with its big screen it's more computer than iPod Touch I'd like it even more if I could share files between applications and manage my own files if I wanted to.
 

WSR

macrumors regular
Jun 9, 2011
249
2
I don't have any problems with iOS and MacOS sharing some interface features. It does make since that some of the experience would be the same between the two especially for things like messaging and Facetime.

The problem is when Apple removes feature from MacOS to make it more like iOS.

For example:
1. The downgrading of Spaces and Expose. I find Mission Control to be less powerful, and I'm sure Apple can give us a choice between Classic Spaces/Expose and Mission Control.
2. I don't want Resume, Versions or AutoSave and not all of these can be turned off.
3. The loss of "Do you want to Save?" I want control over what is saved, and as some have reported Versions is taking up a lot of drive space contrary to what Jobs said.
4. I don't want my apps sandboxed on my Mac. I don't mind it on my iPod Touch, but not on my Mac.
5. i don't want my only source of apps to be the App Store. Again, I don't mind it on my iPod Touch, but not on my Mac.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
Apple is using dot files to keep track of stuff like custom folder colors. Come on. I don't use custom folder colors but I have to contend with .ds_store being created on any folder I touch. I didn't mention this in my post, but for a while there, if I created a USB stick to take out to my car and listen to music with 100 mp3 files on it, OSX put 100 parasitic ._whatever.mp3 files on the stick to confuse the heck out of my car stereo and confuse the heck out of anybody who looks at that folder that isn't on a Mac. Bad form. To me this is ignoring how the file system was intended to be used and running roughshod over it as a means to Apple's ends.

What does your FAT32 formatted USB stick and car stereo that assumes a FAT filesystem and doesn't ignore .hidden files have to do with a "war on the Unix filesystem" exactly ?

No, really, Apple's use of .files is fine. It's all the devices that don't follow Unix conventions that break, not Apple that is breaking Unix.

If anything, Apple's VFS layer should detect when it is writing to a DOS/Windows formatted drive (either FATXX or NTFS) and automatically set the H attribute on the file (which is what those filesystems use).
 

Lonectzn

macrumors member
Mar 8, 2011
33
0
but i also come from the group of people who work in the content creation industry, and started using apple in the first place because they were at the forefront of innovation when it came to elegant tools for scatterbrained creatives who need to work with chaos. thats why i'm mourning these losses, not because what we're getting isn't decent in its own right, but because it is a shift away from the paradigms that first attracted what was at one time apple's primary target market. and i honestly don't see *anyone* moving to cater to that niche anymore.

I feel the same way. And it's not quite as simple as "If you don't like it don't use it". Some people have a considerable investment in applications and experience using OS X. Switching entails a real cost in dollars and time.

It's certainly not at the stage where I have to drop it all and find another solution, but Apple seem to have been saying pretty clearly that they have a new demographic now. And Apple is exactly the kind of company that is willing to sacrifice other users to better serve their target market. That's kind of their whole thing - laser sharp focus on your users, ignore everything else. It's good business sense, but that's not really any consolation for the ones left out.
 

Lonectzn

macrumors member
Mar 8, 2011
33
0
Oh, it's all just about Areo Snap. :rolleyes: Frankly, I hate that feature they stole from KDE. I hated it in KDE when Windows tried to "snap" some place I didn't want to just because I was dragging them beyond some boundary, I don't like it now either.

OS X doesn't actually need to do anythig to help you work with any resolution. They all just work fine.


That's mostly preference, and you'd have to be in the minority for hating something that merely saves time placing windows and can be turned off. It could also be turned off in KDE, but the point was it was there if you wanted it.

It's not just about that, either. I'd like the dock to optionally show window titles on minimised applications, finder could use just about a complete rewrite to use available space better, UI text sizes should be adjustable, mission control is inefficient, <etc more niggles here>.
 

Joe HS

macrumors 6502
Jun 22, 2011
273
3
United Kingdom
What do you think about this picture?

http://gizmodo.com/5885837/this-is-...napproved-apps-with-mountain-lions-gatekeeper

That is scary (especially for developers who don't get a chance to be approved by Apple) and is the first sign of a total control. Of course, they cannot force a total control immediately cause they'll get flooded with court cases. BUT!
They will try to push developers and users as much as they can to use AppStore, which is a form of closed and restricted system.

The picture? I think it shows that novice users will never need to be concerned about virus' or malware again. Only software verified to be safe can be run. Users who know what they're doing will turn it off, and it has to be on by default else truly novice users would see no benefit.

Developers who's apps don't conform to the App Store's rules can sell their apps elsewhere. The apps that need to access more of the system than Apple wants aren't the kind of apps that 'Gatekeeper users' need to run or know about.
 

Signal-11

macrumors 65816
Mar 23, 2008
1,474
2
2nd Star to the Right
You can install SL on your MBP. Current models are supported by SL. You'll need a SL 10.6.7 DVD that was included with another MBP, and once installing 10.6.8, you'll be all good to go. Worked for me; find a friend who has a MBP 2011 notebook and SL 10.6.7 (cannot be lower than 10.6.7), then just install and update, and you don't have to deal with Lion. :)

I'm aware of this and I am considering a 2nd partition for 10.6.x, but to be honest, (and I've gone down this road before - over-committing to past versions for specific features that were written out) it doesn't end well for that proverbial eskimo on the ice floe.

The versioning and window restoration stuff, I've turned off and have created workarounds for. But man, the loss of Spaces + Expose features drives me batpoo bonkers every day because I remember what I used to be able to do or how would have found a lost window. In SL, it used to be amazingly easy to find specific windows across a dozen Spaces/Desktops over multiple OS/VMs and remote desktop windows... :mad:

This is without a doubt the feature I miss the most.
 

Tinyluph

macrumors regular
Dec 27, 2011
191
0
If you're worried that iOS is going to replace OS X then stop, pause, and take off the tinfoil hat because that's never going to happen.

If you're upset that Apple is drawing from the same set of design principles they use in iOS to improve OS X then I suggest you either get used to it or find a new platform because they're never going back on that.
 

cocky jeremy

macrumors 604
Jul 12, 2008
6,500
7,165
apple wants to have one single os across all devices. if you feel that is bad for you, go back to microsoft :rolleyes:

Agree. They aren't "making OS X like iOS". They're simply adding a lot of the same features to both so you can seamlessly go back and forth between devices. This is good, not bad.
 

heimbachae

macrumors regular
Aug 1, 2011
151
1
If you're worried that iOS is going to replace OS X then stop, pause, and take off the tinfoil hat because that's never going to happen.

If you're upset that Apple is drawing from the same set of design principles they use in iOS to improve OS X then I suggest you either get used to it or find a new platform because they're never going back on that.

so here's a good question. why can features be ported from iOS to OS X and not the other way around.

for example: gatekeeper. discuss.
 

416049

macrumors 68000
Mar 14, 2010
1,844
2
so here's a good question. why can features be ported from iOS to OS X and not the other way around.

for example: gatekeeper. discuss.

I am guessing gatekeeper isn't ported because the ios system is locked down enough as is and if i remember correctly you can't install software from unknown sources unless you jailbreak.
 

Tech198

Cancelled
Mar 21, 2011
15,915
2,151
....

I don't mind Lion, to be honest, But Mountain Lion?

This is getting outta control... Why would you wanna sense SMS/message a Mac ? Makes sense fro ma tablet like the iPad, and/or IPhone, but a Mac is a computer, Notification Centre is another one....


You can't help feeling, "all IOS based features will be migrated to the Mac. regardless of how u-important/useless they may become" *shrugs*

Seems were going down this road.... Lion is ok,, but i'll probably stick with it, Being Apple, there'd be no way to disable notifications on the Mac when Mountain Lion ships or even in the future..

Thats just my 2 cents...

Apples slogan to saying "its just works".. my response is "not any more now"
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.