Mission Control - Still A Failure

[klaxamazoo]

I am on this forum enough to know the "issues" with MC and the people who are obsessed with complaining about them. I was saying he(KnightWRX) doesn't see the same issues as you do, nor do I.

Knight doesn't have a problem because he has limited Window Management needs and measures things by whether or not he gets his work done, so he finds any operating system workable (at least according to his comments).


Since, in your opinion, Mission Control is better than Expose/Spaces and has no issues, please explain:


1) Exactly how is not being able to see the content of only one Space at a time better?

2) Why are overlapping windows that still overlap and hide content when "spread" better exactly?

3) Why is having to play peek-a-boo using the Spacebar better?

4) Why is having to use App Expose, which takes you out of Mission Control and makes it so that you can't move your Window to another Space without Re-invoking Mission Control better?

5) Why is repeatedly swiping to move between you Spaces always better than being able to see everything?

6) Why are small views of Spaces better than having the ability to see everything at once?

7) Why should finding Windows be a game of hide-n-seek. Exactly how is this better?


Also, 2/3rd of the people in Macrumors (that have responded) don't like Mission Control. In terms on non-macrumors users, my girlfriend, father, sister, and three friends all find Mission Control inefficient and annoying.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1346288/

 

[jameslmoser]

it seems some people think tech savy and computer savy are the same thing based on some responses to my posts... they are not. Also, you do not need to know what a kernel, a process, or any number of other components of the operating system is in order to be computer savy...

 

[Jagardn]

Knight doesn't have a problem because he has limited Window Management needs and measures things by whether or not he gets his work done, so he finds any operating system workable (at least according to his comments).


Since, in your opinion, Mission Control is better than Expose/Spaces and has no issues, please explain:


1) Exactly how is not being able to see the content of only one Space at a time better?

2) Why are overlapping windows that still overlap and hide content when "spread" better exactly?

3) Why is having to play peek-a-boo using the Spacebar better?

4) Why is having to use App Expose, which takes you out of Mission Control and makes it so that you can't move your Window to another Space without Re-invoking Mission Control better?

5) Why is repeatedly swiping to move between you Spaces always better than being able to see everything?

6) Why are small views of Spaces better than having the ability to see everything at once?

7) Why should finding Windows be a game of hide-n-seek. Exactly how is this better?


Also, 2/3rd of the people in Macrumors (that have responded) don't like Mission Control. In terms on non-macrumors users, my girlfriend, father, sister, and three friends all find Mission Control inefficient and annoying.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1346288/

1. I don't need to see any more than what windows are associated with the app that I am currently trying to use.

2. App Expose + CMD Tab

3. See #2

4. Dragging a little tiny window you can barely see to another tiny little window sucks. Just my opinon, obviously you enjoy it.

5. 10lbs of ****** on a 5lb screen.

6. See #5

7. Showing every window you have open causes the same problem. See #5.

All of the people who have posted in that poll are the same ones who complain all the time. The people who are happy with MC probably don't give a **** about voting. 2/3 of 34, not really a great sample size.

 

[roadbloc]

Meh, Mission Control sucks. It's complicated, ugly and messy. Expose was clean, simple and did the job without confusing anyone or making you inspect your screen trying to find that damn window.

 

[klaxamazoo]

1. I don't need to see any more than what windows are associated with the app that I am currently trying to use.

2. App Expose + CMD Tab

3. See #2

4. Dragging a little tiny window you can barely see to another tiny little window sucks. Just my opinon, obviously you enjoy it.

5. 10lbs of ****** on a 5lb screen.

6. See #5

7. Showing every window you have open causes the same problem. See #5.

All of the people who have posted in that poll are the same ones who complain all the time. The people who are happy with MC probably don't give a **** about voting. 2/3 of 34, not really a great sample size.

1) Your not having a need does not explain why it is better. Just like me not eating steak not mean everybody should do without steak knives. Some of us do need to see what is going on, the majority in fact (see the poll).

2) Exactly, there is already a perfectly good app switcher, no need to ruin Expose/Spaces. Once again, CMD-Tab does not say WHY a small spread is better than actually showing them all. Providing a poor replacement does not explain why windows should not spread out

3) See #2. Why is peak-a-boo better? All you do is point to a poor alternative that already existed before Mission Control. Clearly Mission Control is not an improvement.

4) Windows are tinier in Mission Control. I never had a problem handling 60+ windows even on a 15" screen. See CMD-Tab, App-Expose if you need to narrow it down. Once again, App Switcher already exists. Also, why is being dragged out of Mission Control to find a window where you are not able to move it to a new Space better? You seem to have problems addressing the question.

5) Finally, a legitimate reason. The ability to see larger, individual Spaces can be beneficial. Personally, I never had a problem seeing 60+ windows spread across 4 - 6 Spaces and would rather have access to everything.

6) See #1, 5

7) But you don't address why hide-n-seek is better. Why must widows hide each other and the spread function fail to reveal windows? Why SHOULD windows be hidden within Mission Control without any way to properly spread out the Windows of an App without leaving Mission Control?


2/3rds is still greater than 1/3 no matter what the sample size. If Mission Control was successful then it wouldn't be failing so hard.

Mission Control is a failure and the only question you actually answered was #5. Try again and maybe you can get a gold star sticker.

 

[heisenberg123]

i know people would rather complain that use an alternative but have anyone tried hyper dock?

 

[tkermit]

i know people would rather complain that use an alternative but have anyone tried hyper dock?

Hyperdock is an alternative solution for the App Exposé function, not the All Windows Exposé one.

 

[klaxamazoo]

i know people would rather complain that use an alternative but have anyone tried hyper dock?

View attachment 331951

That is an interesting suggestion. I'm still pinning my hopes on ReSpaceApp since it is specifically looking to act as a Expose/Spaces replacement.

 

[Jagardn]

Mission Control is a failure and the only question you actually answered was #5. Try again and maybe you can get a gold star sticker.

Who really gets the last laugh here. I like MC, you don't. I can enjoy it, you have to live with it. There's your gold star.

 

[baryon]

Well, there's something called the Superbar, and it works A LOT better than the Dock on the Mac.

Who Alt-Tabs on Windows? Really. I'm a power user on Mac AND Windows and that's such a waste of time. When I want a window, I invoke Mission Control/go to the Dock on Mac or go to the Superbar on Windows 7. So much faster.

And now Windows 8 is coming and pretty much killing off that concept so...

I just can't get my head around that Superbar. If you have 2 windows open for an application, and you click on its the icon in the Superbar, nothing happens, except you get a tiny thumbnail preview of both of the windows. Generally, they're too small to tell which one you want, so you have to mouse over either one to actually see the window itself. That's not enough, though, because once you see the window, it's not actually active, you still have to click on the thumbnail. It just really annoys the hell out of me.

In Windows XP, I think things were much better: each window had its own button in the taskbar, and given that you knew the name of the one you're looking for, you could just click on it to bring it to the front. Sure, you can still change the settings in Win 7 to do that, but that just means we're back to where we were 10 years ago in terms of window management, which is kind of stupid for a modern OS.

On OS X, to do the same thing, you just click on the dock icon. That's it. It brings all of the application's windows to the front, and you're done. If one's hiding the other, you can always do Mission Control or Exposé and see the ACTUAL window, not a tiny iconic representation of it that requires you to hover. But if there are 2 windows open from the same app, and you're only working with 1 of those windows and don't want to close the other, then you just keep that one window in the front and it stays in front of the other window, so clicking the dock icon is often enough. In Win 7 you ALWAYS have to choose which window you want to bring to the font, so having more than 1 window open per app slows down your work a lot and adds a lot of extra steps.

Although I find Mission Control to be quite bad, I still think it's much better than what we have in Windows 7, since in OS X you still always deal with the window itself, not a small thumbnail representation, except in the case of Mission Control's desktop thumbnails, which I do hate.

 

[klaxamazoo]

Who really gets the last laugh here. I like MC, you don't. I can enjoy it, you have to live with it. There's your gold star.

Actually, I don't have to live with it and don't plan on either. If you had been able to read and understand the comments in this thread, you would have seen that there is an Expose/Spaces replacement in the works that is making good progress, i.e. ReSpaceApp.


Also, once my thesis is done I can sell my Macbook Air that only supports Lion as I will no longer need a backup computer. My main computer runs Snow Leopard just fine and there is nothing compelling about Lion nor Mountain Lion that warrants a forced upgrade. Calendars, Contacts, and Mail are better synced through gmail, and SugarSync is better than iCloud, iCal on 10.6 is better than iCal on 10.7, Address Book on 10.6 is better than Address Book on 10.7. Versions is more work that helpful for what I do.

Overall, there is nothing compelling nor particularly worthwhile about Lion and Mountain Lion seems to follow a similar trend. I won't use Notifications because I don't like distractions, iCal is still worthless and ugly, Address Book is now even uglier, Game Central is a pathetic joke and looks like crap (I mean, who thinks of black jack tables when they think of video games?). I don't need or use Notes, I've shown that iMessage is really just a setup for Spam, I'm not 12 so Twitter integration is useless, my memory is excellent so Reminders and Notes is also worthless. All Apple did was add some Apps, some API's for Notification Center and added a slight garden wall with GateKeeper.

The only thing to miss is swipe backward for Firefox and even then, the majority of my internet consumption is on my iPad, so no big loss.

The big loss is that without Steve Jobs, Apple software is starting to look like Microsoft software. With its use of inefficient skeuomorphic idioms that look like crap and provide less power but add additional complexity. Mission Control is a perfect example of not fully thinking a problem through and applying a half-hearten solution instead of really caring enough to be brilliant.

 

[KnightWRX]

Knight doesn't have a problem because he has limited Window Management needs and measures things by whether or not he gets his work done, so he finds any operating system workable (at least according to his comments).

No, you have no idea what my window management needs are. The only reason I can get work done in any operating system is that I don't expect the system to change to fit my "only one way of doing things", I adapt to the system I'm using and learn its ins and outs and how to be productive in it.

And frankly, I don't know what you guys think is so great in Spaces, it's just a cheap implementation of virtual desktops compared to what I've seen elsewhere, in things like Englightenment, KDE and other much more versatile systems.

You guys are just "knocking it before you try it". Just learn to use darn Mission Control, the old way is not coming back.

 

[klaxamazoo]

No, you have no idea what my window management needs are. The only reason I can get work done in any operating system is that I don't expect the system to change to fit my "only one way of doing things", I adapt to the system I'm using and learn its ins and outs and how to be productive in it.

And frankly, I don't know what you guys think is so great in Spaces, it's just a cheap implementation of virtual desktops compared to what I've seen elsewhere, in things like Englightenment, KDE and other much more versatile systems.

You guys are just "knocking it before you try it". Just learn to use darn Mission Control, the old way is not coming back.

How many windows do you typically have open at once then? All of your posts point to relatively simple Window Management needs. Mine is usually 60+ if I'm on Snow Leopard and has to drop down to ~20 on Lion because Lion can't handle lots of Windows.

Also, Expose/Spaces is coming back, just through outside developers. See ReSpaceApp.


Also, since you here. You never did managed to provide any good reason why:

1) Exactly how is not being able to see the content of only one Space at a time better?

2) Why are overlapping windows that still overlap and hide content when "spread" better exactly?

3) Why is having to play peek-a-boo using the Spacebar better?

4) Why is having to use App Expose, which takes you out of Mission Control and makes it so that you can't move your Window to another Space without Re-invoking Mission Control better?

5) Why is repeatedly swiping to move between you Spaces always better than being able to see everything?

6) Why are small views of Spaces better than having the ability to see everything at once?

7) Why should finding Windows be a game of hide-n-seek. Exactly how is this better?

 

[KnightWRX]

How many windows do you typically have open at once then? All of your posts point to relatively simple Window Management needs. Mine is usually 60+ if I'm on Snow Leopard and has to drop down to ~20 on Lion because Lion can't handle lots of Windows.

Depends on what I'm actually doing. Unix server maintenance ? Can be high up in the 40s and 60s too, depending on how many servers/tasks to perform on each.

I use GNU screen a lot of simplify and shrink the count when possible too. Tabs help reduce the active number of windows too. So yes, while I don't have 40 to 60 Windows open, I have many tabs and those tabs are split up.

When coding, frankly, I keep it minimal. 1 tab/window per open file, I try to limit it to 2 or 3 classes at a time, otherwise debugging becomes a nightmare.

This doesn't count all the other stuff I have open like music player/browser/finder/mail. Each task is relegated to a desktop for cleanliness. I don't check my e-mail on the desktop I'm working in Terminal from and vice versa.

Also, Expose/Spaces is coming back, just through outside developers. See ReSpaceApp.

Good, why are you still here whining about Mission Control, pissing in everyone's cereal then ?

Also, since you here. You never did managed to provide any good reason why:

1) Exactly how is not being able to see the content of only one Space at a time better?

I can see the content of only one Space at a time. It's right there in front of me right now...

2) Why are overlapping windows that still overlap and hide content when "spread" better exactly?

What are you talking about ? Are you talking about Mission Control's application switcher ? Because if you are, you're not meant to actually use it to pick windows, only to pick applications... I've stated so earlier. Pick your application, then switch to App Expose to pick the window.

3) Why is having to play peek-a-boo using the Spacebar better?

I don't know what you're talking about, I've never done that.

4) Why is having to use App Expose, which takes you out of Mission Control and makes it so that you can't move your Window to another Space without Re-invoking Mission Control better?

Because it saves on a lot of visual scanning. More clicks does not mean more time spent. You're too focused on the number of keypresses/clicks/trackpad gestures, you're not seeing the big picture.

5) Why is repeatedly swiping to move between you Spaces always better than being able to see everything?

you don't have to swipe. CMD-#, Mission Control -> click desktop. Pick your poison.

6) Why are small views of Spaces better than having the ability to see everything at once?

Because full screen pager apps suck ? They force you to again, visually scan your entire huge screen, moving your eyes all over the place.

7) Why should finding Windows be a game of hide-n-seek. Exactly how is this better?

It's not, it's now much simpler. Snow Leopard actually makes it like trying to pick out Spartacus in a crowd of slaves. All those squares popping up, all equally shapped, requiring close inspection of each.

In Lion/Mountain Lion, switch to App, App Expose. More keystrokes, less scanning, more productivity for your average person that's not so hung up on scanning his entire monitor each time he wants to find a duck.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, I just think its time you moved on from it. Mission Control has won. Deal.

 

[klaxamazoo]

Depends on what I'm actually doing. Unix server maintenance ? Can be high up in the 40s and 60s too, depending on how many servers/tasks to perform on each.

I use GNU screen a lot of simplify and shrink the count when possible too. Tabs help reduce the active number of windows too. So yes, while I don't have 40 to 60 Windows open, I have many tabs and those tabs are split up.

When coding, frankly, I keep it minimal. 1 tab/window per open file, I try to limit it to 2 or 3 classes at a time, otherwise debugging becomes a nightmare.

This doesn't count all the other stuff I have open like music player/browser/finder/mail. Each task is relegated to a desktop for cleanliness. I don't check my e-mail on the desktop I'm working in Terminal from and vice versa.



Good, why are you still here whining about Mission Control, pissing in everyone's cereal then ?




I can see the content of only one Space at a time. It's right there in front of me right now...



What are you talking about ? Are you talking about Mission Control's application switcher ? Because if you are, you're not meant to actually use it to pick windows, only to pick applications... I've stated so earlier. Pick your application, then switch to App Expose to pick the window.



I don't know what you're talking about, I've never done that.



Because it saves on a lot of visual scanning. More clicks does not mean more time spent. You're too focused on the number of keypresses/clicks/trackpad gestures, you're not seeing the big picture.



you don't have to swipe. CMD-#, Mission Control -> click desktop. Pick your poison.



Because full screen pager apps suck ? They force you to again, visually scan your entire huge screen, moving your eyes all over the place.



It's not, it's now much simpler. Snow Leopard actually makes it like trying to pick out Spartacus in a crowd of slaves. All those squares popping up, all equally shapped, requiring close inspection of each.

In Lion/Mountain Lion, switch to App, App Expose. More keystrokes, less scanning, more productivity for your average person that's not so hung up on scanning his entire monitor each time he wants to find a duck.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, I just think its time you moved on from it. Mission Control has won. Deal.

This is a thread specifically about the problems with Mission Control. 66% of Macrumor members have found it lacking. We aren't pissing in you cereal bowl, we're complaining about the piss.

Tabs are not the same as Windows. Try 60+ windows with Mission Control. Too much work

1) You still didn't explain why only being able to see one Space at at time is better than having the ability to see everything across all Spaces if desired.

2) Being forced to use App Expose takes you out of Mission Control and now you can't move Rearange your windows. Windows are fluid things and should not be attached to specific desktops. We should have the ability to move them easily around with no thought or effort.
2b) Why do we need another App Switcher and why should we get that App Switcher at the cost of having a Window Switcher?
2c) You still haven't explained why the Spread function should only move the Windows ~25 px and not actually reveal overlapping Windows. Why is Apple's implementation of always overlapped Windows within Mission Control better than an implementation that properly spread the Windows out when directed?

3) The SpaceBar is one of people response to why the Spread windows feature should be crippled as it is

4) Once again, hows is being forced to rely on App Expose which does not let you easily move Windows between Spaces better? Why is making it more difficult to move Windows around better?

5) Once again, why is it better? How is NOT having the ability to see what is going on on more than one Space at a time better? In 10.5 I could see everything going on all at once. How ONLY have the ability to ONLY see on Space at a time better?

6) Visually scanning one large screen is faster than swiping through 4 of them. I can scan through 60 - 100 images in 10.5 Expose/Spaces in less time than it takes to swipe through 4 Spaces. Thus, 10.7 is inferior and a failure.

7) Yes, the 10.6 grid layout was a failure, that why the 10.5 Dock hack was implemented.

Overall, you can't explain why the choices made when Mission Control was implemented are better. All you can do is point to alternate workarounds as if what was missing from OSX was an App Switcher.


If you don't want to read about people's dislike and criticism of Mission Control, then don't come to these threads. The topic title makes the content of this thread is explicitly clear. You are choosing to come and read opinions that disagree with your own, you are choosing to enter discussions with people that have opinions different from your own, so don't ask us to shut up. If you want to be around people that bask in admiration of Mission Control, then start your own thread titled "I love Mission Control" or whatever else strikes your fancy. I guarantee I won't participate in it. However, this is a thread bashing a poorly implemented piece of Apple Software. Deal with it.

 

[KnightWRX]

This is a thread specifically about the problems with Mission Control. 66% of Macrumor members have found it lacking. We aren't pissing in you cereal bowl, we're complaining about the piss.

Tabs are not the same as Windows. Try 60+ windows with Mission Control. Too much work

Why ? Tabs were invented for a reason. Hint : Simplify window management. Why do you think tabbed browsers became the norm ? Sure I can open all my tabs as seperate windows... but why ?

Heck, even Photoshop and Illustrator have moved on to using tabs to simplify window management. Maybe a hint you should take there or something ... ?

At this point, you're sounding like a broken record. I've answered your questions. You claim I did not. You're not getting anything else out of me. Frankly, Mission Control works and it works well for me, so I really couldn't care less about your attitude towards it.

Keep enjoying Snow Leopard and being mad at Apple for "ruining" OS X. I'll keep being happy. Guess which of us is enjoying life more now ?

 

[klaxamazoo]

Why ? Tabs were invented for a reason. Hint : Simplify window management. Why do you think tabbed browsers became the norm ? Sure I can open all my tabs as seperate windows... but why ?

Heck, even Photoshop and Illustrator have moved on to using tabs to simplify window management. Maybe a hint you should take there or something ... ?

At this point, you're sounding like a broken record. I've answered your questions. You claim I did not. You're not getting anything else out of me. Frankly, Mission Control works and it works well for me, so I really couldn't care less about your attitude towards it.

Keep enjoying Snow Leopard and being mad at Apple for "ruining" OS X. I'll keep being happy. Guess which of us is enjoying life more now ?

Great, let me know when you've implemented Tabs in all my software. Even then Tabs are not good for seeing content, it is really just a self-contained box that overly relies on names. That fails the content has similar titles such as EBL - T48 - S3 - G4_R06_C05 that are too long to fit in most Tab and always get cut off, well. Tabs don't work but a nice big picture does.

You have simplistic Window Management needs that can be fulfilled by programs that implement Tabs. Not everyone has simplistic needs nor accepts it when Apple pisses in the cereal bowl.

And you still haven't once been able to detail why Mission Control isn't a failure. All you can't point to is App Expose and say deal. Mission Control is a failure and 2/3rds of Macrumors agrees.

And yes, Apple will fall apart without Steve Jobs just like last time because it will soon fill up with "B" players that accept whatever others give them instead of expecting perfect solutions. I know lots of people like you that accept what others give them, its great because you can get **** loads of work out of them while not having to worry about overworking them as they accept readily hierarchies as something they have to "deal" with. Heck, I used to be envious of people that could accept things how they are, but then I figured out how to take control and now I get to have people with no vision implement mine. People that accept things as they are are people that accept mediocracy. Enjoy.

 

[heisenberg123]

it must be a case of you don't know what its like unless you try it but like i mentioned I've only been a Mac user post lion I've seen youtube videos of expose and spaces and i don't get the difference except they separate from each other and mission control is 1 screen?

 

[klaxamazoo]

it must be a case of you don't know what its like unless you try it but like i mentioned I've only been a Mac user post lion I've seen youtube videos of expose and spaces and i don't get the difference except they separate from each other and mission control is 1 screen?

Overall they are very similar and designed to help the user find, organize, and manage content. The key difference is how they display content and the resulting abilities to find and organize the content.

In 10.5 Expose would move and proportionally resize your windows such that everything was visible, nothing hidden and nothing organized. That worked well for visual people but not organization based people.

10.6 changed the way content was laud out and removed the proportional scaling and minimal translation with a randomly oriented grid. Overall is was harder to use for both sets of people, although some people did prefer the tidiness.

10.7 brought back proportional scaling but kept things tidy by grouping content by app in a stack. I.e, all your Preview widows would be stacked together. Unfortunately, having things stacked means you can visually identify content without envoking either App Expose or using a hunt and peck method based around the Spacebar and mouse.

If you have limited Window management needs were few apps have more than one or two windows open, then Mission Control is great. Or, if you have little need to move Contenet around, Mission Control is fine. However, if you deal with lots of windows, the Mission Control is considered vastly inferior by many.

It is almost akin to if Apple or Mozilla removed Tabbed Internet browsing and replaced it solely with Top Sites. Sure, it will get the job done, but it would really suck.

 

[heisenberg123]

Overall they are very similar and designed to help the user find, organize, and manage content. The key difference is how they display content and the resulting abilities to find and organize the content.

In 10.5 Expose would move and proportionally resize your windows such that everything was visible, nothing hidden and nothing organized. That worked well for visual people but not organization based people.

10.6 changed the way content was laud out and removed the proportional scaling and minimal translation with a randomly oriented grid. Overall is was harder to use for both sets of people, although some people did prefer the tidiness.

10.7 brought back proportional scaling but kept things tidy by grouping content by app in a stack. I.e, all your Preview widows would be stacked together. Unfortunately, having things stacked means you can visually identify content without envoking either App Expose or using a hunt and peck method based around the Spacebar and mouse.

If you have limited Window management needs were few apps have more than one or two windows open, then Mission Control is great. Or, if you have little need to move Contenet around, Mission Control is fine. However, if you deal with lots of windows, the Mission Control is considered vastly inferior by many.

It is almost akin to if Apple or Mozilla removed Tabbed Internet browsing and replaced it solely with Top Sites. Sure, it will get the job done, but it would really suck.

i got you ya the examples i seen where just a few windows open so i couldn't see the difference

 

[gumblecosby]

I dont know why the new snow leopard expose gets championed so much. I would not still be using snow leopard if the original style expose could not be hacked into it. Arranging in a grid is awkward compared to relative window size layout (for me anyway). Mission Control at least re-added relative window sizes. For me its:
10.5 expose >Mission Control > 10.6 expose

 

[Sdreed91]

I really don't understand the people who say that they won't leave SL. It really baffles me. Isn't the technology industry one that you either adapt or get left behind?

 

[gumblecosby]

I really don't understand the people who say that they won't leave SL. It really baffles me. Isn't the technology industry one that you either adapt or get left behind?

For me, the main reasons for keeping a relatively old macbook on snow leopard are simple:

-on 10.6 I get 3 1/2 hours battery, on Lion its 2 1/2. I need that extra hour.
-old non multitouch trackpad => no new gestures (have a magic trackpad but bluetooth drains what little battery life I have (on either OS)
-UI stuggles with animation on 10.7 especially on battery mode. Tasks still run quickly though so this is really just an aesthetic issue


I've no problems with using Lion on newer MacBooks, so if I get a newer mac then my problems are not an issue. Lion is smooth, fast and has good battery life on new hardware. They also have mutitouch trackpads.

Snow Leopard runs well on said macbook and 10.6.8 is still targeted for new 3rd party programs and apple security updates so it will do fine for a while yet.

Also happy with the performance of 10.8 on that mac. Has improved over Lion.

 

[Sdreed91]

For me, the main reasons for keeping a relatively old macbook on snow leopard are simple:

-on 10.6 I get 3 1/2 hours battery, on Lion its 2 1/2. I need that extra hour.
-old non multitouch trackpad => no new gestures (have a magic trackpad but bluetooth drains what little battery life I have (on either OS)
-UI stuggles with animation on 10.7 especially on battery mode. Tasks still run quickly though so this is really just an aesthetic issue


I've no problems with using Lion on newer MacBooks, so if I get a newer mac then my problems are not an issue. Lion is smooth, fast and has good battery life on new hardware. They also have mutitouch trackpads.

Snow Leopard runs well on said macbook and 10.6.8 is still targeted for new 3rd party programs and apple security updates so it will do fine for a while yet.

Also happy with the performance of 10.8 on that mac. Has improved over Lion.

Well I definitely appreciate a civilized response and not a hostile one. I do have sluggish problems with animations on my 2011 MBP running lion. But after having moved it to ML wow what a difference everything has improved minus
a few graphical bugs.

 

[klaxamazoo]

I really don't understand the people who say that they won't leave SL. It really baffles me. Isn't the technology industry one that you either adapt or get left behind?

Why would you adapt to poorly implemented programs? There isn't anything to be left behind on that can't be found better implemented by outside developers. Apple makes a good OS but is starting to suck at their default programs (although Keynote still kicks ass)

SugarSync > iCloud
BetterTouchTool > Apple Gestures
Word > Pages
BusyCal > iCal
Bento > Address Book
iMedia Pro > iPhoto, Aperture
Steam > Game Center
etc.

Other than Mail, TextEdit and Preview, I can't think of any Apple Application I use anymore. They are all either really slow (iPhoto), have limited feature set (Pages), are crippled (Mission Control), or ugly as all get out (iCal, Address Book, Game Center).

Mission Control is just another Apple Application that doesn't do a good job of meeting my needs or the needs of others. Once outside developers finish writing replacements (i.e. ReSpaceApp), those of us that have high standards can update the core OS to take advantage of under-the-hood advances.

Adaption does not have to mean adoption. I'm not going to settle for poor implementation when I can just wait while participating with others in demonstrating to outside developers that there is a demand and market for alternative Window Management Applications.