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.
WWDC stands for Whatta Disappointment
- Thread starter grcar
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm afraid I agree. I know that WWDC is not a forum for hardware announcements, but the enormous emphasis on iOS, the app world, and conforming OS X to match Apple's walled-garden-ecosystem (both in name and in purpose), makes me believe that Apple is completing its transition to a completely different kind of company. When OS X came out, I found it incredibly exciting -- one platform that supported both serious development work (a full-blown Unix-style OS) and serious consumer use (with the extremely user-friendly Mac UI).
Now, it feels like Apple is abandoning both; with iOS, they've got users penned into Apple's little world, but iOS lacks both the power of Unix and the open friendliness of the Mac UI. The ever-more-constrained designs of each succeeding Mac seem to point to this as well -- Apple itself is taking full control over your hardware and software choices.
So yeah, I don't believe there will really be any more good Mini designs in the future (if there are any new Minis at all). Every device is slowly morphing into some version of the iPhone, both in terms of hardware and software. I find this all awfully depressing...
What you say is true and I for one am not concerned with the hardware right now but more the lack of continuing development and optimization of "mac OS".
I agree. I think the frustration is that when you have a decent hardware release in October or March, then the developer aspect in June makes sense. This time around we've gone over a year without decent hardware and with a company like Apple, it should be great computing hardware.
I agree, I was disappointed with WWDC, but not from a hardware perspective but overall, where watchos and macos stands and its improvements.
The filesystem is the lone huge thing.
(And we'll have to see just how good it is when it launches; I've seen promising new filesystems crash and burn before when first exposed to real-world situations...)
I am not looking forward to that "upgrade" with glee. Once you change the file system, you cannot go back. And what will the upgrade do to my Time Machine backups? Probably 24 hours of disk i / o.
Ha ha! I love it when I see iMacs on the HBO show Silicon Valley. From the back you see the Apple logo, but from the front it looks as though they are running Windows or some flavor of linux.
If it were possible to develop iOS apps without needing OS X, than I'd be happy to keep using Win 10 (which I switched to late last year) and bid good riddance to OS X and the shi*t hardware Apple builds and which is needed to run OS X. But I'd be even happier if Apple sold an OS X that could legally be run on non-Apple compatible hardware.
I will wait a few weeks or months until I update.The filesystem is the lone huge thing.
...how can you claim that there is no development or optimization of Mac OS?
They've introduced a whole new filesystem....that doesn't happen if you don't plan for continued development.
Are you using this as a shorthand for "I didn't get what I wanted"? If so, what exactly were you looking for from 10.12?
The file system is a definite plus and should have happened before this but it is happening now and probably take until next WWDC to fully implement.
I wanted the OS to be cleaned up. Get rid of the bloat and make it more efficient. There is no reason that the OS require 8GB of Ram to have an efficient machine for multitasking. Apple knows this and they why they are making 8GB the standard for their machines.
OSX already has great memory compression....what's the problem here?
What's the efficiency problem you are having on your machine?
I have no problems because I have maxed Ram but I see many people with older Mini's that have problems updating their machines to the latest releases of OS X that do not have the Ram resources for smooth operation.
8Gb as entry threshold is to high for older Mini's.
That's true the mini's have lower RAM in them, but working for two places (ESPN and a College) maintaining the Mac's there I'm just not seeing any issues on the machines with 4GB of RAM. Can you elaborate? Are these people running ancient Mini's with core2duo's or something? I don't think RAM is the performance bottleneck in older minis, it tends to be the HD or just an extremely outdated processor.
Yes, most of them are on older Macs and it could very well be the hardware.
I would suppose for what you are doing are fairly up to date Macs which run much more efficiently.
At the risk of someone already telling you this...this was a Developers Conference...That is Software...WWDC has always been focused on Software. It's for the Developers. Not for the consumers.
I absolutely love the memory compression in OS X; it is light-years ahead of pretty much everybody else.
That said, I rather dislike the fact that OS X requires more memory compression than pretty much everybody else. El Capitan is, basically, unusable on a machine with just 2 GB of RAM. A modern Linux distribution, on the other hand, will run just fine in that amount of space, with plenty of room left over for at least one beefy application.
While it is true that most modern PCs have more than 2 GB of RAM (or, if they aren't manufactured by Apple, they can be upgraded with more RAM), it is kinda disheartening that so much of that RAM is dedicated to the OS. Whenever I'm running out of memory on a modern Mac, I can't avoid that little irritation in the back of my head that says if I wasn't using OS X, I might still have enough memory left...