Originally Posted by nvidia2008
I have to agree. So far all the new features of Lion seem very "fluffy". Where's the beef? Also, trying to iOS-ify it seems noble but the implementation so far seems somewhat confused. Reversing the scrolling? Risky move.
Yeah, that move seems a little risky. I'm glad they also put in an option to take it back to how everyone's used to.
Along with Bertrand Serlet's departure, I really wonder what is going on in the OS X team.
I'm pretty sure nothing's going wrong. I wouldn't be surprised that this is the direction he wanted OS X to go.
You may remember when Serlet talked at a keynote, he seemed to have a great vision for the Mac. He talked about a revolution of in just a few years having gigabytes not megabytes of RAM, powerful GPUs and CPUs, multiple-core CPUs and approaching terabytes of storage. He seemed to have a passion to really want to leverage that.
Wasn't that what things like 64-bit processing, GCD and OpenCL were developed to do? So if OS X is fulfilling his vision, what's the problem there?
Ironically in the time since he spoke of this everything went to mobile and the things people do with their computers seem more "dumb". Facebook, web, Microsoft Office. RAM, GPU, CPU, storage (16GB compared to 1TB in laptops!) reversed in direction by becoming less powerful eg. iPhone and iPad which pales in comparison to what we have today on a MacBook Pro.
The things people did with their computers didn't seem more "dumb", it's simply that people who typically never used computers before actually began to use them to do the things they love to do. And I'm not quite sure where you got the "reversed direction" bit. Aren't traditional computers increasing in power? Aren't MacBooks of today containing powerful CPUs and GPUs, large aounts of RAM and plentiful storage? What has been reversed there? What has been unfulfilled in Serlet's vision then? How have iPhones and iPads reversed the direction that traditional computers are going (seriously, do you even understand what you're writing)? iPhones and iPads began with hardware that was never up to the level of the Mac's. Shouldn't you be happy that they're increasing in power at a faster rate? Instead you're lamenting that people are using these devices for what they really were for. Also, what were the less "dumb" things people used computers for before they were "reversed" by Apple's iOS devices?
Don't get me wrong, the iPhone and iPad is important and impressive by any stretch of the imagination.
So you're complaining that these important and impressive devices shouldn't be so important nor impressive anymore? If they're so important and impressive, why do you complain about their existence?
But Serlet must be at some level disappointed that the Mac always catered to a more intelligent crowd that did interesting things with it. Now it is a fancy toy for many.
Um, when has it not been a fancy toy for many? There's a larger percentage of people in most groups who aren't hardcore, using every little bit of their system. I doubt this will stop those that do use their system completely.
How many really need 4GB of RAM? Sandy Bridge? What is infuriating as well to me sometimes is that these hardware advancements in the Mac are not balanced. The CPU is great but 320GB SSDs can have a big impact, they're still shipping slow-ass 5400rpm drives.
Y'know what those 320 GB SSDs will also do? Increase the price of their machines. You can buy yours and install it (aren't you one of the "smart" users?) so what are you complaining about? It's not like they're limiting access to their Macs with each generation. It's either they're easier to access, or they stay as hard as they were.
There was a lot of promise of GPU computing but instead of quality GPUs we get rubbish Intel graphics.
So, the Nvidia and AMD graphics are completely non-existent now? I do wonder if you're blaming Apple for Intel forcing everyone using their CPus to use their GPUs (that suck) as well.
This goes to show there isn't really a consensus on what the Mac should be doing for people, instead they're riding the specifications train to sell to less and less clued-in customers.
This doesn't go to show anything. And what do you mean by "riding the specifications train to sell to less and less clued-in customers"? Is it their fault that some people understand what they're being sold and some people don't? Are you suggesting that they stop advertising/displaying the specifications of their computers?
The weirder thing is that we have cheap Windows laptops that have these hardware advancements but they are all still laggy and bogged down, whenever someone tries to connect their iPad to it I see them struggle with just opening iTunes and dismissing all sort of popups from their antivirus.
So what does this have to do with the Mac?
There is a lot of talent in the Mac OS X team, but maybe some have been pulled to iOS (GarageBand for iOS for example is quite impressive).
Since iOS and OS X share a lot of similarities, isn't it understandable that those from the Mac OS X team also develop iOS? Besides, isn't the GarageBand team different from the OS X team?
There doesn't seem to be a clear direction on what Lion should be and how it fits in the transition to an eventual seamless iOS on Mac experience.
So it's not already clear to you that Lion is the OS where iOS features and Mac OS X features are brought together?
Again, my theme of the year, with Steve unwell, there seems to be lack of cohesiveness. In this case, OS X seems to be floundering somewhat, not in terms of quality but in terms of substance.
Again with the silly assumptions. Has it occured to you that Steve being unwell has no effect on the OS X team? You just wrote they were talented, yet you're assuming that they are nothing without Steve Jobs? I really think you didn't mean to write that they were talented at all. And how is OS X floundering? It's going as planned and giving us new features.
To me, if Apple really needed to, Lion should be all about two things - One, for existing Mac users, give them real features they need (the wishlist is long, no doubt). Two, focus on an out-of-the-box pure intuitive experience for Switchers, of which there will continue to be many.
So, isn't that what they're doing? Those talented engineers already figured that one out without your help thank you very much.
For example, the Dock needs to go. No new user nowadays can grasp its concept. Launchpad is good, but existing with the Dock seems confusing and Launchpad occupying the whole of a 27" screen might seem strange.
This has to be the most absurd thing I've heard. The Dock needs to go because new users don't understand it? Fine then. You know what else needs to go? The Finder, the mouse, System Preferences, the browser address bar, the desktop, dashboard, hot corners and so many other things, simply because new users don't understand this too.
If the Dock goes, how'll you get you most used applications? If the Dock goes, how'll you pin folders to it for fast access? Do you actually plan to make those users drill through the files and folders in the finder? Or, *gasp*, use aliases? I find it funny that you recommend that they remove something that is pretty easy to use and suggest nothing that'll make it easier. I'm guessing you want them to remove Spotlight next right?
No additional multi-touch gestures. Stuffing more and more multi-touch may not be the best thing for new users because multi-touch on the trackpad is different, you control a surface then co-ordinate it with what you see on the screen. It is not a direct interaction of surface and screen like the iPad.
How absurd (again). Do you know what's good about the multitouch gestures? It's that they're pretty much hidden from novice users. If they don't want to use it, the functions these gestures carry out can still be done using shortcut keys. So you want Apple to stop expanding the powerful multitouch capabilities of their trackpads, yet you complain that the features in the upcoming system aren't "beefy"? I bet you were one of those complaining that Snow Leopard had no visual changes from Leopard at all, and that they should've added more user-oriented features.
There are probably a lot of assumptions I'm making and this post is probably too long, but well, that's my 2 cents for now.
Yep. So many assumptions it's unbelievable you weren't ashamed to write all that. If this is what your 2 cents looks like, may I ask that you keep them to yourself? That would save me (or anyone else) the effort of replying like this.