macOS 27 changes invalidate 'forward-moving' arguments for Tahoe

[capamac]

It just sucks that Intel users are stuck on the worst version of macOS ever released

They can switch to Sequoia, which many regard as superior to Tahoe.

 

[maxoakland]

They can switch to Sequoia, which many regard as superior to Tahoe.

I guess so. I'm still on Sequoia. But will apps stop supporting it sooner than Tahoe? I'd guess they will

 

[capamac]

I guess so. I'm still on Sequoia. But will apps stop supporting it sooner than Tahoe? I'd guess they will

One way of looking at this issue is: The software that I have now does what I need. If an updated version of this software doesn't run on my version of operating system, the software version I already run does what I need.

So you're not losing anything. Everything continues to work as it has been working thus far.

 

[Populus]

Regarding the corners, I have mixed feelings.

First, yes, on Tahoe the corner radius was inconsistent across different apps and window types. However, instead of unifying the UI around the old corner shape, like they did on macOS 27, couldn’t they have done it using the new Tahoe shape? That way, it would have matched with the rounded Liquid Glass buttons’ shape, leaving a uniform padding.

Second, if you’re going to say that Tahoe’s rounder corners made it difficult to grab them with the pointer in order to resize, I think that’s fixable: just modify the “grabbing area” according.

What do you think?

PS: I’m assuming Golden Gate windows’ corners have exactly the same radius as the Sequoia and earlier versions. If that’s not correct, just let me know!

 

[Omega Mac]

Regarding the corners, I have mixed feelings.

First, yes, on Tahoe the corner radius was inconsistent across different apps and window types. However, instead of unifying the UI around the old corner shape, like they did on macOS 27, couldn’t they have done it using the new Tahoe shape? That way, it would have matched with the rounded Liquid Glass buttons’ shape, leaving a uniform padding.

Second, if you’re going to say that Tahoe’s rounder corners made it difficult to grab them with the pointer in order to resize, I think that’s fixable: just modify the “grabbing area” according.

What do you think?

PS: I’m assuming Golden Gate windows’ corners have exactly the same radius as the Sequoia and earlier versions. If that’s not correct, just let me know!

Take it to the Tahoe forums
😉

 

[Populus]

Take it to the Tahoe forums
😉

Why? I’m talking about GG first beta‘s windows corners… just asking if they are exactly the same as sequoia (or maybe they have a slightly larger radii), and the possible mismatch between GG’s windows corners and Liquid Glass round buttons…

I cannot take this to Tahoe’s forum because this is a “looking forward” comment and Tahoe’s design tweaks are finished at this point.

EDIT: okay, maybe I misunderstood the thread’s title. Wrong thread but definitely not the wrong forum.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Regarding the corners, I have mixed feelings... instead of unifying the UI around the old corner shape, like they did on macOS 27, couldn’t they have done it using the new Tahoe shape? That way, it would have matched with the rounded Liquid Glass buttons’ shape, leaving a uniform padding.

I think there’s still more to change throughout the betas, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the buttons changed shape or scale too.

The WWDC presentation and initial beta are more about addressing the strongest concerns regarding Tahoe, albeit in Apple’s usual ‘backtracking-come-feature’ prose.

It’s safe to assume that the whole purpose of Liquid Glass is to unify touch interfaces across platforms, but Apple will be keenly aware now that Macs are pointer-first devices and touch is simply a “nice to have”. Thus, the interface could adapt according to whether the user is touching the trackpad or screen, rather than forcing the two together.

I realise this is entirely speculation, however with Alan Dye gone the design team can return to some common sense.

 

[Omega Mac]

Why? I’m talking about GG first beta‘s windows corners… just asking if they are exactly the same as sequoia (or maybe they have a slightly larger radii), and the possible mismatch between GG’s windows corners and Liquid Glass round buttons…

I cannot take this to Tahoe’s forum because this is a “looking forward” comment and Tahoe’s design tweaks are finished at this point.

Non one gets me tongue in cheek jokes here (even when using a emoji!), as in it's funny these are rear-view mirror issues, i.e. Tahoe and we're past that now looking forward right?

Like, you know, let them deal with in the Tahoe forum, because future changes will probably make sense of current changes, not everything is done and dusted I would wager, with more to come, which we look forward to instead of previous dread, it's nice to be "looking forward" to something.

 

[Populus]

I think there’s still more to change throughout the betas, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the buttons changed shape or scale too.

The WWDC presentation and initial beta are more about addressing the strongest concerns regarding Tahoe, albeit in Apple’s usual ‘backtracking-come-feature’ prose.

It’s safe to assume that the whole purpose of Liquid Glass is to unify touch interfaces across platforms, but Apple will be keenly aware now that Macs are pointer-first devices and touch is simply a “nice to have”. Thus, the interface could adapt according to whether the user is touching the trackpad or screen, rather than forcing the two together.

I realise this is entirely speculation, however with Alan Dye gone the design team can return to some common sense.

There’s a lot of backtracking in GG, that’s for sure. And most of it, for good. That sidebar always made me wonder if that was “courage” or just a rushed concept, but I definitely prefer something simpler. Not necessarily the flat surface of pre-Tahoe, but something that attracts less attention.

We’ll see if during the next betas we see more progress, because there were quite a lot of back and forward changes last year.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

That sidebar always made me wonder if that was “courage” or just a rushed concept

Definitely conceptual; a flawed one at that.

Dye (I reference him purely because he introduced the concept originally) suggested that Liquid Glass is based on the idea of hierarchy, that elements should be stacked based on their purpose. Thus, if you take the Finder window, there would be a white background layer, the left ‘sidebar’ menu, the content itself, and the controls and status area.

The problem with the floating sidebar as a concept is that it assumes all windows feature the sidebar as an optional pane, rather than integral part of the window itself. So, whilst Finder technically can hide the sidebar, the reality is that no user would choose to do this under normal circumstances, which makes the additional design pointless.

The GG sidebar isn’t floating but is part of the background window itself. This dramatically improves legibility since you don’t have the distraction of the additional borders and padding, and returns to the ‘less is more’ principle of Sequoia.

Yet, this new/old design now breaks a fundamental aspect of Liquid Glass which is the hierarchy. What does this new sidebar actually fold into? What level is it resting on? These are ridiculous questions that shouldn’t need answering, but have been created by an ill conceived attempt to merge a spatial computing GUI with a pointer and keyboard one.

Hence, I think Apple knows the execution of Liquid Glass was a mistake and they must find a way to unify the behaviour of the new/old sidebar and the interesting new bubbly control elements.

 

[erikkfi]

Now let's go back to Mavericks or even Snow Leopard. Mirror dock or bust.

 

[Populus]

Yet, this new/old design now breaks a fundamental aspect of Liquid Glass which is the hierarchy. What does this new sidebar actually fold into? What level is it resting on? These are ridiculous questions that shouldn’t need answering, but have been created by an ill conceived attempt to merge a spatial computing GUI with a pointer and keyboard one.

Hence, I think Apple knows the execution of Liquid Glass was a mistake and they must find a way to unify the behaviour of the new/old sidebar and the interesting new bubbly control elements.

Yeah. I think I saw on the keynote that when you scroll elements horizontally, the items continue moving below the -now flat- sidebar, and thanks to the sidebar translucency you can see it moving… but I think they showed the music app, not the finder.

 

[svenmany]

The right-side sidebar leaves me scratching my head. I haven't seen GG's yet, but I understand that it still extends to the top of the page. I guess Apple is trying to balance the left-side one, which they didn't do in the past. Here's Sequoia:

Here's Tahoe:

The way the sidebar slices through the toolbar on Tahoe is disconcerting. This pattern gets pretty bad in Pages, where they try to adapt the toolbar according to whether the sidebar is being shown.

New Pages with sidebar hidden:

New Pages with sidebar shown:

Toolbar icons are hidden in this last snapshot.

Can anyone defend this design? Is there anything positive to say about the decision to extend the sidebar into the toolbar on the right side other than it somewhat balances the decision of the doing it on the left?

I was disappointed to hear (earlier in this thread) that GG still has this design decision in place.

 

[thebart]

I was thinking about this idea recently, that all the serious and important fixes will be reserved for and in Golden Gate and that really gives Apple the strongest leverage/argument to get people to upgrade to the latest macOS, which makes Tahoe the deadest of OS's or a dead OS walking, and this is the right orientation, posture and motivation for Apple and it's user base on macOS, because it's a win-win approach, whereas updating to Tahoe was at leat a win-lose outcome and in many circumstances, a lose-lose

It's looks like the "market" is kinda working for a change, time will tell, but the adoption stats are gong to reveal the true story of Tahoe now that it is bookended by Golden Gate.

If you need an app that hasn't been updated to ARM you are stuck on Tahoe and its shenanigans :/

(There are legacy Intel apps that work just fine with Rosetta.)

 

[capamac]

If you need an app that hasn't been updated to ARM you are stuck on Tahoe and its shenanigans :/

(There are legacy Intel apps that work just fine with Rosetta.)

Yes but on the other hand if need an 680x0 app that hasn't been updated to PowerPC, Intel or M-series, you're stuck on MacOS 10.4 Tiger and its shenanigans.