Apple's new Lion beta bakes in iCloud Apple's iCloud has floated a bit closer with the release of a new beta of Mac OS X Lion version 10.7.2 that integrates the cloudy services package into the OS itself. It's been a busy few days for Apple's beta-shippers. Last Friday, they released the latest betas of iTunes 10.5 (beta 8) and iWork for iOS (beta 3), and on …
There are definitely a few gremlins that need addressing but I'll be happy enough if they address the fact that the shutdown dialog is incapable of remembering whether I want to reopen windows when logging back in (I don't) and the fact that the new Lion fullscreen mode is fundamentally broken for users of multiple monitors.
Apparently the fact that users might want to watch a fullscreen movie or browse the web fullscreen on one monitor while engaging in productive work on the other screen never crossed the mind of the Lion design team... guess I was just doing it wrong in Snow Leopard.
Apple's idea of fullscreen apps is simple. if you want to run something in fullscreen mode it means that you want to focus just on that app, nothing else - and it makes sense. there have been few studies about fullscreen apps and how they affect productivity. if you'd like to have 2 screens filled with your apps, just resize app window and problem solved. I have 2 screens and don't find this to be a problem.
...is the tool that ships with Lion that will migrate Windows users to OS X.
Only no-one can get it to work properly, including the geniuses and "Engineering support".
(Funnily enough the idea of using Thunderbird to read all the emails from Outlook and then importing them into Apple mail had a side-effect; Thunderbird was more usable so is actually staying as the mail reader!)
When you say a whole different way of working with your computer, is it like you feel you now have to interface with your Mac using your anus or something?
IMHO - DO upgrade as Mission Control is the slickest way to date, of controlling multiple desktops and applications on any operating system (nod to Linux). However, Launchpad - who cares? turn it off, you can still use cmd + shift + a or cmd + shift + u.
The rest is fairly innocuous stuff that can be easily integrated into anyone's work flow. Don't believe the FUD folks.
One thing always makes me wonder with Apple.
They seem to get away with things that, were it say Microsoft, users and (for want of a better term) Apple Fanboi's would scream blue murder.
Examples such as with Lion - clearly, from the bugs it has been rushed to release. When MS do this (Vista, anyone) they are crucified. Why do Apple seem to get such special treatment?
I have also always been curious why the Apple equivalent of MS's UAC never drew the same kind of response as it did in Vista? It seems no less intrusive to me (I use Windows, Snow Leopard and Linux, for the record).
Just curious.
...easy on the crack pipe there Tex. To be absolutely clear Vista was a complete bag of shite. This was recognised across industry after years of ongoing problems reported by thousands of users. Hell even Microsoft have stopped supporting the first release BEFORE Windows XP SP3 lol. Your comparison makes no sense.
That's not to say Lion doesn't have it's issues but they are in no way on the scale of Vista's. We have Vista machines now that have been known to take up to 20 minutes to log on the network and boot to a usable desktop state. Our Mac's usually take under 45 seconds. We're now in the process of looking at alternatives as we'd like to do some work.
Hmm was the crack pipe insult aimed at me?
Yet again the fanboy extremist (they exist on both sides) chose to hurl insult rather than verfiable fact.
Why not provide statistical evidence over a broad user base to compare crashes between say XP, Vista, 7, OS X Leopard, OS X Snow Leopard and OS X Lion? And throw in a couple of Linux variants whilst at it.
And I mean real world tests with real world users? With proof and documented evidence.
I never once claimed Vista was better than Mac OS X did I? For the record, though, I'm forced to use it on my current corporate machine - not had a single problem with it in the 4 months that I've had it so far.
I have Windows 7, XP, Ubuntu Server 11.04, CentOS 5, Windows 2003, Windows 2008 and Windows 2008R2 in use and in my lab environment at home - and although I treat it as such, it's actually running day-to-day, live services.
I have had one BSoD on one Windows 7 machine when I tried to force Win 7 onto it and use an outdated XP driver because there were no 7 drivers.
Hardly the OS's fault. Or the hardware's. I knew it would probably fail when I tried, so no complaints.
I've had zero BSoD's on anything else and some of it is 5 years old. And I've had no problems with the MB Air.
I tried to keep my comments pretty neutral and asked questions, so why the pointless insult?
UAC under Windows is more in-your-face than 'nix sudo or Mac prompts.
For example, every time I run my antivirus it UACs. Neat way to train users to click OK. Every time I want to set my ODBC sources, ditto. There is a conceptual difference between an install program modifying a resource and a user specifically launching the admin dialogs to modify that resource. MS doesn't get that. Just the way it doesn't get that, yes, I am OK with running my own bloody macros on my own bloody Excel spreadsheets.
Last, nix and OSX users expect UAC. Windows users didn't and even "clever" Windows reviewers will gleefully explain how to turn it off. Which is _dumb_.
re. Lion itself, I agree. A lot of the design drift towards "touchiness" was expected and I held off to see if it interfered with actual use. Turns out there are pretty big forums slagging Lion for lots of technical issues as well.
But, to put things in perspective, I doubt Lion will end up being like Windows ME or Vista. Early adopters got burnt, yes. Too bad for them, let others take the lead is my motto. But I figure things will settle after a while. "A while" being, I fully expect, a considerably shorter time than a Windows SP1 wait.
Otherwise... SL works fine for me.
Basically, no OS is perfect, though I've long wanted to try my hand at the non-Mac BSDs.
I've been a Windows and *nix users for over 20 years. Back in January I decided to finally start using Macs as I'd always had this image in mind of sleek, stable, intuitive machines that had but one drawback: price. Sort of like Mercedes Benz.
Well after a total of four Macs (an Air, a MB Pro, and two Minis) used intensively daily in a mixed environment with some Win7 and Ubuntu machines, I can say without doubt that Macs (OSX) are certainly no more stable than a $399 Walmart Win7 PC, and since Lion they are definitely FAR less stable than even our worst Windows machine. It's like finding out the lingerie model you miraculously began dating is a closet schizophrenic -- very disenchanting to say the least. I've lost work several times on Macs, something that has not happened to me on Windows in quite a few years. All of the machines have frozen solid at one time or another, requiring a hard restart. Apps freeze regularly, and the overall experience has led me to not trust any of the Apple machines for serious work unless I compulsively hit Command-S every 10 seconds or so.
All of the Apple fanboy talk about Windows crashing all the time is pure psychological projection. They unconsciously project the instability they encounter in their Macs on to Windows machines, and then multiply it by 10 for good measure. In reality a healthy Windows machine rarely ever crashes, while Macs do it almost daily.
Windows does of course have far more malware problems, however that tends to affect mainly people who are clueless about computers. I haven't had a malware problem in Windows in years by simply practicing "safe computing".
All that said, there are so many dead sexy aspects to these Apple machines that I am absolutely torn. Despite the fact that it simply lost several hours of work back in March, I remain in love with the Mac Air.
Bottom line: if Macs really were as reliable as the fanboys pretend they are, Apple would absolutely rule the computer world. As it stands, be prepared for a great deal of disillusionment if you "switch". The fanboys are doing Apple no favours by fabricating myths.
Hrmm. You see, my experience is exactly the opposite. I don't (ok, didn't) experience system crashes or app crashes more than once a year on any of my Macs. In fact I have a lampshade iMac G4 that has an uptime of over 2 years right now. My wife's MacBook never crashes although it's often used by my 6 year old to play some questionably coded online games. I've had a series of MacBook Pros in the last decade and have never had crashing problems.
That is until I got a new MBP last summer (2010). I used the migration tool to move my account and apps from the old MBP to the new one. After that, when I woke up from sleep (by opening the laptop) about 1 in 10 times the system would fail to return to normal and a hard reboot was needed. After about 6 infuriating months of this I was about to wipe it clean and do a fresh install when I tried one last thing: I disassociated the MBP from our corporate Active Directory domain. Life's been one sweet ride ever since. Not a single crash in 5 months of apps or OS. In fact, everything I do seems just a bit snappier. And it didn't affect my ability to reach AD resources since KeyChain happily supplies my creds under the hood without needing to be a member of the domain. If your machines are connected to an ActiveDirector domain I would suggest removing AD from your directory list and seeing if anything changes.
For the record, I am a Windows and Linux admin by day; I use Macs at home and I have one for troubleshooting the corporate network (because the Unix underneath makes AD network troubleshooting easier, go figure). I don't know if the blame for this lies with Apple or MS and I don't care. I just like the results of non-integration.
@TonyJ
I too pondered the whys and wherefores before trying a Mac in 2006.
The transition from XP to Mac OS was a bit choppy for me taking about 18 months+ (XP had, is and still will be around for a long time No?)
I think one factor for Mac adorationists is trust even to the point of being forgiving if things go wrong because there is a trusting expectation that it will be put right eventually.
Another is marketing.
PC: hardware overhype/over abundance; software similarly so?
Mac: hypes the hardware in terms of what it allows you to do and how that integrates with the operating system and goes for a device wide integration that (usually) makes for easier working methods = you get to the stuff you want easier.
The above are personal views - many other people;s views will differ and I don't mean this post o contribute to PC-Mac-Nix flamewars although a good (mature?) professional debate/discussion will do no harm to either/any party.
(I half expect Mac OS, iMac, .... kit range to be dropped in favour of iOS ways of doing things though)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
