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.
Why is Big Sur so ugly?
- Thread starter name1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That notification icon is so out of place... the rest of the icons in system preferences also look really weird. Now that everything is getting ipadified (oh god), the dock icons also don't really match the system icons.
Who's in charge of UI at Apple, and why did they decide on something that looks so bad?
No, I love it. Just let the people who wants to live in the past be.
Opinions are opinions, and I personally think it looks gorgeous. Macs were never supposed to “look professional”— that was for IBM, and later Microsoft. It’s colorful and it looks fun to use, just like the first Macintosh did (Minus the color).
Nice try. I’m in my mid thirties, work in the entertainment field, and have used Macs for fifteen years now. All of my peers use Macs and love them (save for a few chromebook users). I know people who build desktops to game, but they’re used primarily for that.
And you’re right, Windows 10 isn’t bad. I like both operating systems, but prefer MacOS.
I thought Windows 8.1 was better, because I love tablets. I bought a Surface Pro 2 and loved it so much that I preordered the SP3. Tablets are awesome, especially when they have apps optimized for them. The Win 8.1 stock apps, especially the News app were GORGEOUS. Tablet IE was great. You had ComiXology on a huge, beautiful screen on the Surface Pro 3, way before the big iPad Pro came out. The Charms were great. All of that is gone, now.
Why? Because millions upon millions of geezers hate change, and couldn’t couldn’t swallow their pride and accept that all you had to do was press win-D to get to the normal desktop. Hell, you could even set it up so it booted into desktop, instead of the tablet UI.
”BUTTTT MY START MENU HOW DO I FIND MY PROGRAMS” all you had to do was just freaking type the first letters. Or pin your favorites to the task bar. Or put them on the desktop.
What a shame. I’m surprised that MS didn’t just re-air the Windows 95 “Start Me Up” commercial to introduce Win 10. And put the Buddy Holly video in your videos file.
this is the thread that never ends, lol. yet it's pretty simple; some of us like the new look, some don't.
by the time ppl come to accept that, the next OS will be here, and the debate will start all over again. at least it makes this forum entertaining. i enjoy being entertained... on the sleek, clean look of my mac, running big sur 👍
by the time ppl come to accept that, the next OS will be here, and the debate will start all over again. at least it makes this forum entertaining. i enjoy being entertained... on the sleek, clean look of my mac, running big sur 👍
After using BigSur for a while, I've gotten used to it. It still needs some tweaks to contrast, sizing, dialogue windows and not being able to see "Save, Delete, Cancel" buttons in some apps and various slight design tweaks but I don't really miss Catalina.
I was a pretty big critic when it first came out, but I've grown to like most of it or gotten used to it I guess; but I would say give it another year before things are cleaned up to another level. However, it's not as bad as I knee-jerked I guess at the onset of BigSur
I was a pretty big critic when it first came out, but I've grown to like most of it or gotten used to it I guess; but I would say give it another year before things are cleaned up to another level. However, it's not as bad as I knee-jerked I guess at the onset of BigSur
Who’s in charge? Is there any adult there? Has the Jobs’ GUI philosophy been lost? It was the ONLY thing that made the Mac better than a Windoz system.
Whoever thinks that dumbing down the Mac OS to look and operate like a low cost iPad or iPhone obviously does not know who or why someone buys and stays a loyal Mac user. I’ve NEVER heard any Mac user say they wished their Mac worked like an iPad or iPhone.
Apple is a $$BILLION company and its system and application software should not be managed as if it is a basement or garage based tinker’s play thing.
Does anyone in the Mac OS and APP Software Development organization know what Requirements Management or Configuration Management/Change Control is?
Having been a Software Development engineer and manager for over 30 years and a Mac/Lisa Evangelist since 1982, I have been very disturbed by the GUI changes that Apple has made to the OS X over the past 10 years especially to the iPhone & iTunes apps and to its basic OS
Users have invested MILLIONS of hours into using the system and apps to manage their databases of financial documents, correspondence, genealogy data, photos, videos and music. Apple’s changes to the OS GUI and Apple apps without regard to user impact is unprofessional, immature and outrageous.
The most costly investment a user makes in any computer system and its software is in the user training to become productive in its use.
This is where the GUI makes or breaks the user experience and is a major factor in a user’s decision to continue its use or toss it and replace it with another app with a more familiar and user friendly GUI.
When Apple makes changes to the GUI with no apparent benefit except that some naive, inexperienced programmers decided they didn't like the old way and wanted to "make it their own", it costs the user community literally hundreds of thousands of hours in lost time adjusting to the new GUI without any added benefit. And it creates frustration and disappointment with the app. It also creates a sense of betrayal and fear that other unneeded changes to the GUI will follow with more lost time.
Any well managed organization that depends on customer satisfaction, requires a strictly controlled change control process that assess the pros and cons and cost benefit on the end user experience when any contemplated GUI change is being considered. EVERY feature and capability in a system should be a result of a thoroughly reviewed and approved Requirements Specification. Any change or addition to a system must have a corresponding requirement associated with it.
From a company viewpoint any change to a current system, especially the GUI, is a VERY costly project since the cost in time, resources, and money to do a thorough and complete regression test of the total system is not cheap.
Any change to an established GUI should be a very critical concern of any Software Manager who has any concept of user impacts. GUI changes should only be done to fix a major error or to add new features, which should not impact the GUI for current features unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.
In GUI software, change for change's sake should be quickly stopped and denied approval for implementation.
A change request must be created and thoroughly reviewed specifically with the the impact on users being the foremost consideration. Current features/capabilities should NOT be eliminated without extensive evaluation and feedback from the user community.
When new features are added, the GUI should be consistent with the current feature GUI as much as possible. Obviously, when a released feature's GUI proves to be cumbersome and unproductive, it should be revised. But revised only to minimum extent required. When a new GUI for current features can be justified based on consistency, improved productively and/or accuracy, then an option should be provided to current users to revert to the old GUI if they choose to for at least 1 or 2 releases/updates. For every release complete documentation must be provided to users specifying the changes made and/or new features added.
GUI changes should be beta tested by a broad base of REAL experienced users before being released. REAL user testers should be heavily weighted to LONG time users and not just based on younger, inexperienced users with very little investment in time relative to the current GUI. Is there a Mac OSX User Group that is involved in OS X change control?
BTW,
The fact that Apple allows these kind of system and app GUI and functional changes without regard to their impact on its user community SHOULD make every user think twice about using Apple’s iCloud service. When a user allows a 3rd party to gain control of their data and information, that user becomes a potential hostage to the 3rd party in the future and may have to pay to get their data and information back and it may not even be available in the future.
The PC “Revolution” was about users getting control of their hardware, software and more importantly, their data, and away from the totalitarian control of main frame IT departments. Now the megalithic computer companies have found a way to get control of user data again. This can potentially expose a user’s data and information to “unrestricted” access by anyone who can “hack” their systems or from government agencies data mining and snooping for information.
Being a long time Apple shareholder and a Mac Evangelist since 1984 (even had a Lisa in 1982!), I am deeply concerned that Apple has lost it's way.
A user friendly, well tested GUI was Apple's discriminator and is what created a loyal user base. Let's hope Apple does not lose sight of their product’s best feature.
Whoever thinks that dumbing down the Mac OS to look and operate like a low cost iPad or iPhone obviously does not know who or why someone buys and stays a loyal Mac user. I’ve NEVER heard any Mac user say they wished their Mac worked like an iPad or iPhone.
Apple is a $$BILLION company and its system and application software should not be managed as if it is a basement or garage based tinker’s play thing.
Does anyone in the Mac OS and APP Software Development organization know what Requirements Management or Configuration Management/Change Control is?
Having been a Software Development engineer and manager for over 30 years and a Mac/Lisa Evangelist since 1982, I have been very disturbed by the GUI changes that Apple has made to the OS X over the past 10 years especially to the iPhone & iTunes apps and to its basic OS
Users have invested MILLIONS of hours into using the system and apps to manage their databases of financial documents, correspondence, genealogy data, photos, videos and music. Apple’s changes to the OS GUI and Apple apps without regard to user impact is unprofessional, immature and outrageous.
The most costly investment a user makes in any computer system and its software is in the user training to become productive in its use.
This is where the GUI makes or breaks the user experience and is a major factor in a user’s decision to continue its use or toss it and replace it with another app with a more familiar and user friendly GUI.
When Apple makes changes to the GUI with no apparent benefit except that some naive, inexperienced programmers decided they didn't like the old way and wanted to "make it their own", it costs the user community literally hundreds of thousands of hours in lost time adjusting to the new GUI without any added benefit. And it creates frustration and disappointment with the app. It also creates a sense of betrayal and fear that other unneeded changes to the GUI will follow with more lost time.
Any well managed organization that depends on customer satisfaction, requires a strictly controlled change control process that assess the pros and cons and cost benefit on the end user experience when any contemplated GUI change is being considered. EVERY feature and capability in a system should be a result of a thoroughly reviewed and approved Requirements Specification. Any change or addition to a system must have a corresponding requirement associated with it.
From a company viewpoint any change to a current system, especially the GUI, is a VERY costly project since the cost in time, resources, and money to do a thorough and complete regression test of the total system is not cheap.
Any change to an established GUI should be a very critical concern of any Software Manager who has any concept of user impacts. GUI changes should only be done to fix a major error or to add new features, which should not impact the GUI for current features unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.
In GUI software, change for change's sake should be quickly stopped and denied approval for implementation.
A change request must be created and thoroughly reviewed specifically with the the impact on users being the foremost consideration. Current features/capabilities should NOT be eliminated without extensive evaluation and feedback from the user community.
When new features are added, the GUI should be consistent with the current feature GUI as much as possible. Obviously, when a released feature's GUI proves to be cumbersome and unproductive, it should be revised. But revised only to minimum extent required. When a new GUI for current features can be justified based on consistency, improved productively and/or accuracy, then an option should be provided to current users to revert to the old GUI if they choose to for at least 1 or 2 releases/updates. For every release complete documentation must be provided to users specifying the changes made and/or new features added.
GUI changes should be beta tested by a broad base of REAL experienced users before being released. REAL user testers should be heavily weighted to LONG time users and not just based on younger, inexperienced users with very little investment in time relative to the current GUI. Is there a Mac OSX User Group that is involved in OS X change control?
BTW,
The fact that Apple allows these kind of system and app GUI and functional changes without regard to their impact on its user community SHOULD make every user think twice about using Apple’s iCloud service. When a user allows a 3rd party to gain control of their data and information, that user becomes a potential hostage to the 3rd party in the future and may have to pay to get their data and information back and it may not even be available in the future.
The PC “Revolution” was about users getting control of their hardware, software and more importantly, their data, and away from the totalitarian control of main frame IT departments. Now the megalithic computer companies have found a way to get control of user data again. This can potentially expose a user’s data and information to “unrestricted” access by anyone who can “hack” their systems or from government agencies data mining and snooping for information.
Being a long time Apple shareholder and a Mac Evangelist since 1984 (even had a Lisa in 1982!), I am deeply concerned that Apple has lost it's way.
A user friendly, well tested GUI was Apple's discriminator and is what created a loyal user base. Let's hope Apple does not lose sight of their product’s best feature.
Love your post. I simply do not understand why the big sur change was needed, let alone who asked for this change. There is nothing revolutionary in the change, not at all. Most of it introduces more clicks to do the same, like hidden menus, hidden buttons in notifications. I am not welcoming big sur at all! For me it is a regression.
outside of, say, the leap from OS 9 to OS X, mac OS versions are evolutionary, not revolutionary. and apple does what it chooses to do... as always.
some of us enjoy moving forward with them (even if any one of us, myself included, find things we don't like in newer versions). you cannot please everyone; if apple tried to build their OSes based on, say, forums like this, we'd get Homer's car
btw, where do we have to do 'more clicks?" 🤔
Sorry to say but that is 'old peoples thinking' that nothing can change because it already works.
In the current world where we have live services in gaming and software where there are new and changed features every month because a lot of people actually ask and yearn for these things. Standing still is falling behind, especially in a highly competitive world we live in today.
Also Apple sells more Macs then ever before, so they are doing some things right. Even Windows 10 is planning a UI overhaul early next year with their Sun Valley update.
?? What is 'old people thinking'? It appears you may have missed the point.
I said nothing about not fixing or enhancing a product. Every product must respond to the user's needs and the competition. BUT when it is decided, after a rational and procedural analysis, to change a product, there is a right way and a wrong, quick, cheap, and/or expedient, way to do it. Once a developer is successful, through his artistic software talent, in creating a software product that has a larger user base, he becomes necessarily constrained from limitless future changes by their impact on his loyal users.
Immature developers who make changes without understanding the potential negative impact on users are making a poor bet that their users will either be disgruntled but will accept the ill-considered changes or decide it is time to find a developer's product that does understand their needs. I think all of these posts clearly show that a lot of users are DISGRUNTLED by the way Apple has been making changes, with little or no perceived value, without regard for their impact on their user community.
Software development has always had to walk a fine line between a managed engineering process approach while avoiding stifling the "artistic creational" talents of the individual developers who always take pride in making something their own even if it means changing software that is proven and relevant unless they are restrained by others who see the bigger picture. I know first hand because I was an "artistic" software programmer for many years and considered whatever I did my personal creation. But when you are part of a multi-million or billion $$$ software product development team that millions of users depend on for their personal and financial success and/or their physical safety, you have to be more disciplined and control your own personal concepts of what is "better" and consider what is better for the overwhelming number of end-users.
Apple's proprietary hardware development history is littered with hardware changes that have frustrated and cost end users $$$ and time: Lisa, DE-9, SCSI (DB-15, DB-25, HDI-30), Serial, Firewire (400/800), Apple Data Bus (ADB), LocalTalk, Centronics Parallel, Thunderbolt 1/2/3, S-Video, NuBus, PDS, DAV, Apple Display I/Fs (VGA, mini-VGA, ADC, DVI, mini-DVI, DisplayPort, mini-DisplayPort), iPhone interface/charge cables, just to name a few. Anyone want to buy boxes full of these obsolete cables and connectors?
since the future doesn't happen until we get there, a corporation like apple has several choices; they can advance the technology (& we all play catch-up), or they can wait and see what their user base wants, and build on that, thus ensuring that their tech will be always be behind the curve.
apple dealt with the butterfly keyboard because they had to; they've invented things that didn't last. but they take (sometimes big) steps forward, and this makes life, at the very least, interesting, and at the most... very useful (ie the M1).
apple's user base has grown incredibly over the years, so they must be doing something right. and i, for one, am grateful they push forward.
re: the question "Why'd they do it?"
a theory
There was a time, from Jaguar through Mavericks, when the gap between OS releases was never less than 16 months and was as long as 2.5 years. Since Mavericks, the first free release, updates have consistently come out every year, in the fall.
Why?
Well for one thing, it's easier to ask people to install a new OS when they don't have to pay for it. That goes for the new software as well as the idea of replacing the current software. When we used to buy the OS, we didn't really want to be doing it all the time, right?
So why is the software free?
A couple reasons. One, to make the update cycle easier to swallow, of course. Two, to lower the bar for what the new OS needs to offer. Rather than simply let the pace of innovation set the pace of OS releases, Apple has a calendar to stick to. Mojave and Catalina? Those were bull[crap] updates. The latter actually removed a key capability (32-bit app support) while mostly making changes to built-in apps, which could have been accomplished without an OS update. Want a new Notes app? Want all emojis to display correctly in Messages? Update your entire OS! That's pretty asinine, when you think about it.
So why update the OS every year?
Simple: to sell more hardware. (Yes! This is a planned obsolescence theory!)
The earlier versions of OS X were commonly being supported for 4, 4.5 years. Now, and for a while, it's a consistent 3 years. That doesn't sound so generous, but on the other hand, when there are so many OS versions flying around, it's only reasonable to restrict the number you're actively supporting at a time, right? And the same ends up going for developers, if only from a practicality standpoint.
And as the support tail is constantly moving forward and leaving OSes behind, what's doing the same? The update-eligibility tail. Take a look at the list of machines that can install Big Sur. They're all identified by release date—isn't that odd? I have a mid-2012 MBP that is ineligible for Big Sur and yet, from a hardware standpoint, is much more capable than the 2015 MBA that I just installed Big Sur on that I'm typing this on right now. So just as it's "reasonable" to not support old OSes for too long, it's also "reasonable" to not let old computers get the OS for too long. Because the tail is simply dragging forward, at its steady pace.
Thus the clock is officially ticking on that venerable '12 MBP of mine. (It's currently running Sierra like the champ it's always been, by the way. Add RAM, swap in a SSD, add useful life that's not accounted for in Apple's OS eligibility list. Also odd, isn't it? Guess what you can't add or swap into Mac portables anymore?) I can expect support for Catalina, the last OS my MBP can officially run, to end sometime in late 2022, and support from things like third party apps and even web security certificates will start to fall away, and eventually the machine will become a relic no matter how physically capable it still is or is not.
(In the meantime, in another optional move by Apple, text rendering on non-retina screens has turned to garbage since Mojave if not High Sierra, putting yet more pressure on users to replace hardware that's actually otherwise in perfectly fine and functional condition. Does anyone think Apple isn't aware of this problem? Do you suppose, further, the problem might be harder to ignore if users had paid for those OS updates?)
If you don't believe me that Apple really, really wants you to buy new hardware, since they've streamlined their revenue models to practically demand it, you can go find the moment during the Apple event, just a few years ago, when one of their heavies (it might have been smug-o Phil Schiller himself) openly scoffed at a statistic about a particular group of laptop users holding onto their machines for six years. You see, even that kind of longevity is viewed as a threat within Apple. They must find a way to control the cycle. And so here we are.
Now, with respect to "why oh why, Big Sur?" specifically, this is simply the latest manifestation of the reality I just sketched out. That Big Sur is said to be optimized for the M1 is a nice thing, and might actually put it in the category of a legitimate, important update for those machines. For everyone else, though? Well, says Apple, here, have a bunch of superficial changes. Have some new icons! Have some rounder corners and other "pretty things." They may or may not have been well thought through. (We had deadlines.) They definitely won't look good on your 900 px laptop screen or even your 1440 px external. But at least they're free. And when you're ready to break down and buy that new machine, we'll be here, waiting.
a theory
There was a time, from Jaguar through Mavericks, when the gap between OS releases was never less than 16 months and was as long as 2.5 years. Since Mavericks, the first free release, updates have consistently come out every year, in the fall.
Why?
Well for one thing, it's easier to ask people to install a new OS when they don't have to pay for it. That goes for the new software as well as the idea of replacing the current software. When we used to buy the OS, we didn't really want to be doing it all the time, right?
So why is the software free?
A couple reasons. One, to make the update cycle easier to swallow, of course. Two, to lower the bar for what the new OS needs to offer. Rather than simply let the pace of innovation set the pace of OS releases, Apple has a calendar to stick to. Mojave and Catalina? Those were bull[crap] updates. The latter actually removed a key capability (32-bit app support) while mostly making changes to built-in apps, which could have been accomplished without an OS update. Want a new Notes app? Want all emojis to display correctly in Messages? Update your entire OS! That's pretty asinine, when you think about it.
So why update the OS every year?
Simple: to sell more hardware. (Yes! This is a planned obsolescence theory!)
The earlier versions of OS X were commonly being supported for 4, 4.5 years. Now, and for a while, it's a consistent 3 years. That doesn't sound so generous, but on the other hand, when there are so many OS versions flying around, it's only reasonable to restrict the number you're actively supporting at a time, right? And the same ends up going for developers, if only from a practicality standpoint.
And as the support tail is constantly moving forward and leaving OSes behind, what's doing the same? The update-eligibility tail. Take a look at the list of machines that can install Big Sur. They're all identified by release date—isn't that odd? I have a mid-2012 MBP that is ineligible for Big Sur and yet, from a hardware standpoint, is much more capable than the 2015 MBA that I just installed Big Sur on that I'm typing this on right now. So just as it's "reasonable" to not support old OSes for too long, it's also "reasonable" to not let old computers get the OS for too long. Because the tail is simply dragging forward, at its steady pace.
Thus the clock is officially ticking on that venerable '12 MBP of mine. (It's currently running Sierra like the champ it's always been, by the way. Add RAM, swap in a SSD, add useful life that's not accounted for in Apple's OS eligibility list. Also odd, isn't it? Guess what you can't add or swap into Mac portables anymore?) I can expect support for Catalina, the last OS my MBP can officially run, to end sometime in late 2022, and support from things like third party apps and even web security certificates will start to fall away, and eventually the machine will become a relic no matter how physically capable it still is or is not.
(In the meantime, in another optional move by Apple, text rendering on non-retina screens has turned to garbage since Mojave if not High Sierra, putting yet more pressure on users to replace hardware that's actually otherwise in perfectly fine and functional condition. Does anyone think Apple isn't aware of this problem? Do you suppose, further, the problem might be harder to ignore if users had paid for those OS updates?)
If you don't believe me that Apple really, really wants you to buy new hardware, since they've streamlined their revenue models to practically demand it, you can go find the moment during the Apple event, just a few years ago, when one of their heavies (it might have been smug-o Phil Schiller himself) openly scoffed at a statistic about a particular group of laptop users holding onto their machines for six years. You see, even that kind of longevity is viewed as a threat within Apple. They must find a way to control the cycle. And so here we are.
Now, with respect to "why oh why, Big Sur?" specifically, this is simply the latest manifestation of the reality I just sketched out. That Big Sur is said to be optimized for the M1 is a nice thing, and might actually put it in the category of a legitimate, important update for those machines. For everyone else, though? Well, says Apple, here, have a bunch of superficial changes. Have some new icons! Have some rounder corners and other "pretty things." They may or may not have been well thought through. (We had deadlines.) They definitely won't look good on your 900 px laptop screen or even your 1440 px external. But at least they're free. And when you're ready to break down and buy that new machine, we'll be here, waiting.
Last edited:
Exactly! Everything in your post is credible and something I would definitely expect from current-year® apple.
Agree with a lot of what you said, but BigSur running like a champ on my 2014 MBP is hardly the poster child for planned obsolescence.
Big Sur is butt ugly. The worst is the Safari icon. How that ever got approved is beyond me.
I think Apple may have learned its lesson, as far as updates kneecapping eligible devices, with iOS. One lesson coming from the backlash from users, and the other being that the whole plan won't work as well if people are wary of updating. Instead, just let them enjoy the ride until they're cut off.
a. yes, a theory... & nothing more.
b. big sur is running beautifully for a lot of people, so not just for the M1. but an entertaining read (i am a science fiction fan)...
"That Big Sur is said to be optimized for the M1 is a nice thing, and might actually put it in the category of a legitimate, important update for those machines. For everyone else, though?"
the M1 code is optimized for the M1; the intel code is optimized for intel macs. everyone is covered.
Yes. And Catalina was optimized for Intel Macs, and Mojave was, and HS was, and ...
So for everyone else, the new appeal to Big Sur is largely aesthetic. Like I said.
But since you're hammering it I'll revise my previous position: BS is running poorly somewhere, at least on my wife's 2017 Macbook that she reflexively updated since the notification told her to. Hanging menus, stuttering dialogue boxes, etc. I've yet to identify the technical specification that explains why that machine can run BS but a mid-12 MBP can't. If any sleuths want to help me out I'd be grateful.