Apple OS X Mountain Lion hits 3.2% penetration in two days - Page 2

Why not use the GPU? Definitely the GPU could do this especially with OpenCL.

If your mac is older than a year and a half, this update (yes update, hardly a new OS) is a bate and switch. It slows your machine and worse, the main features one would upgrade for, are hobbled. No mirroring to apple TV. 

Also, while this maybe a small thing to many, gone is the screen saver with cycling bright color gradients. One downside of my rather expensive expanded RGB self-calibrating monitor suited for print design, is quick burn in. That particular screen saver worked as an excellent overnight screen washer. Now, not only did I not get the one feature I upgraded for, one of the main ones that I relied on every day is now gone. Further more, Fusion, which I also relied on every day, is no longer compatible and is simply moved into a folder called "incompatible software." I loaded ML on my machine at home as a test. I will not allow my machine at work to be upgraded to ML. Unfortunately, Lion turned my work machine into a vehicle for displaying the spinning beach ball of death, so I'm screwed at home, and screwed at work. Is this what we can expect from Apple without Jobs?

I don't give a rat's ass to have my desktop act more like a mobil phone. I just want the features I bought to work, features I already had not to be removed, and for my once zippy machine not to be slowed to a crawl. If you look at the requirements at point of sale, all you get is "Requirements: OS X 10.6.8 or later" with no asterisk to warn buyers of the most important fact, this upgrade is not fully supported on any machine more than 18 months old. That equals misleading advertising, and is a total rip off. F you Apple!

Edited by GMHut - 7/28/12 at 9:57am

 

Not true.

 

 

So it's Apple's fault that you upgraded before checking that third party software you use works? Or it's Apple's fault that Fusion didn't upgrade their software?

 

 

Oh, shut it. Enough of the doom and gloom already.

 

 

So get a refund instead of whining on the Internet, I'd think. Then stop doing business with Apple.

Yes true

 

Apple doesn't list know issues with other software. So the only way to know if a major ap like Fusion is suddenly broken with no fix, is to upgrade to lion. Switching back is time consuming which is lost money to a professional. If you think it's acceptable for manor apps other than Apple software to be broken with new OS, than you're basically saying you're fine with sticking with the apple OS being an expensive time sucking experiment to see of a pro-level machine has just bend rendered useless for much more than status updates about a sandwich you ate and pics of your drunk friends from the last happy hour you went to uploaded to facebook.

 

And I've only had that happen a handful of times, and on ONE machine, six years old, with only 2GB of RAM.

 

 

And I urge anyone with an issue to see if they can resolve it first and report it as a bug directly to Apple on their feedback page second. Complaining about it to anyone but Apple themselves is wasting time.

 

I could have sworn the protocol was to not update at all until you absolutely knew. That's why we see all these people managing buildings full of computers holding off for a few weeks every time a new OS is released, or at the very least doing their research during the Developer Preview stage to let them know what third-party applications will and won't be working on launch day.

 

Not sure what a 'manor' app is. If you mean minor (like a single guy making a utility in his spare time), yes, I think they'll probably get more leeway than a relatively large and stable company (like VMWare) when they don't have an application updated in time for the new OS' release. If you meant major, then, again, I fail to see how this is Apple's fault at all, since a major application will be made by a "major" company-one with the resources and money needed to spend $100 a year on developer releases and new versions of Xcode to make sure their applications work by launch time. And as it is just $100 a year, there are a scant few developers that couldn't afford to do it if they really cared about the products they make.

 

 

I'm upset with "sociopath networking" as well, but I fail to see what the inclusion of features relevant to it has to do with companies that don't take advantage of said features and put out applications that are just their own thing.

Edited by Tallest Skil - 7/28/12 at 1:39pm

I understand from the following list there is probably no way to make you see things differently, so I won't even try to. Also don't want to try to make you see things differently. But there are a few items that I can comment on, hopefully with something you'll find useful.
They really did a poor job with this new 'theme' or whatever one wants to call it. A few hours a week I use Windows, and actually like the integrated approach Outlook has. However, since that program is such a pain to use, I can only say that the integration of 4 apps into 1 makes sense. To me.

Annoys me as well. I have set the scroll bars to always be in view, and understand your point.

Sorry, missing this one…(2x)

Because of that, I'll stick to Cmd-Tab.

You can show all open documents within a single app in MC, which might be usefull to some. iCloud storage is utter crap, but I have to upgrade, nee, install 10.8 to see if it got any better.

I agree that taking away a feature is never cool, but for this particular one I have them written down in an app which I can access on my iPhone, iPad and OSX, (without an internet connection) which I find a real hassle but workable solution. Everyone tells me to use 1password, but I'm weary on storing all that info into a 3rd party software app.

See my Outlook statement. I understand that they added week numbers to iCal, nee, Calendar. Something I have requested through their feedback pages for years. So that single thingy is nice, for me. And some other Europeans I take.

[/quote]

k) the AirPort utility, that no longer shows certain key information

I read that before upgrading to 6.0, so I kept 5.0 as well. Need to install it if I'm going to install 10.8. I might wait till 10.8.1, as I have always done, 'xcept for 10.7, which I regret*.

No no, thanks for the feedback, appreciated. I come here to learn, and your post is an informative on how one uses their Mac, wants it to behave, and why etcetera.

Ah, old school. Love it. I've been using 3.3 and even got to use 4.0. OSX 10.0 was completely unusable with the Finder and all, but looked promising. They sure did 'jellybean-up' version after version, and I am happy with OSX as-is. Still have my Dock on the right, still wish for the old days. But do understand things get broken or discontinued, and realize I shouldn't linger on to how things were.

(*)Though I do have my own gripes:
- Aperture switching to Full Screen is a strep backwards from how it was in 10.6. Simply because they had to make it the same as all apps now can go Full Screen.
- File Versioning. It really is a bug if someone changes a file on a non HFS FS like an SD card and doesn't ask the user to save the changes.
- MobileMe Gallery. Photo Stream is not a replacement. Nor is it part of the OS some will say. But with its tight integration into Aperture, iOS Gallery.ipa and all I believe it is indeed a part of the whole ecosystem as it supposedly is called. I'm all for progress, but don't kill off things that were working perfectly before and got no successor whatsoever.
- Preview Save a copy (or whatever) always defaults to the Desktop in 10.7 Before, it would default to the location of the original file.
- The Finders' sidebar. I cannot drag items out of it and see it dissapear in a poof. Right-click, choose…ooh, how MS-like.
- Colored icons. I understand their stance on 'distracting', but to first remove colored icons from iTunes, getting hammered 'from the community' and then to continue to expand on this feature by doing the same thing in Aperture is beyond my comprehension.
- The Finder would auto-mount a network disk if I dropped a file on its icon in the sidebar. No more with 10.7

An so on and so forth. Some miss Sherlock, some miss the old Cmd-I that would update its info when clicking on a different file. Then you find out that still works by hitting Cmd-Option-I. I surely hope these options are all preserved in 10.8.

Best,
Phil

What exactly are the mentioned great new features? I haven't seen any. What I find interesting, and may be my only reason to upgrade, is that Mountain Lion seems to be faster and more responsive. Anybody got more detail about that?

 

 

I'm not sure why you're trying to pass your anecdotal complaints off as universal. It's bad form. 

 

Mountain Lion seems to be a decent upgrade that performs very well. Worth the upgrade cost, certainly. It runs beautifully on an Early 2008 MBP 2.4Ghz, 6GB RAM. Not a new machine by any means. 

 

If you have so many complaints and are *that* unhappy, why prolong the suffering? Jump ship and go Windows. 

 

 

 

 

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/25/roundup-of-os-x-mountain-lion-reviews-faster-and-smoother-incremental-bargain-at-twice-the-price/

 

With Apple having launched OS X Mountain Lion to the public today, reviews of the company's latest Mac operating system have begun pouring in. Many of the reviews are quite extensive, but we've selected a few choice excerpts to highlight general reaction to the release.

- John Siracusa, Ars Technica

- Jason Snell, Macworld

- Nilay Patel, The Verge

- Brian Heater, Engadget

- Jim Dalrymple, The Loop

- Jesus Diaz, Gizmodo

- MG Siegler, TechCrunch

Edited by Quadra 610 - 7/29/12 at 6:59am

 

"Faster and more responsive" alone, is worth the $20.

 

You can barely buy dinner for one for $20, and then you've eaten it. It's gone. 

 

Some apps that do one thing only cost $20. 

 

With ML, you're getting an OS that is "Faster and more responsive", includes better iCloud integration, Notification Centre, iCloud Reminders, iCloud Notes, refinements to Mail, Dictation, new sharing features, Finder enhancements, enhanced Preview features (annotation, comments), etc.

 

http://www.apple.com/osx/whats-new/

 

http://www.apple.com/osx/whats-new/features.html

 

For only $20 you're getting a better OS. 

Yes, you have absolutely no argument whatsoever and are valiantly and courageously… trying to pass off your singular subjective (and often wrong) position as objective, far-reaching fact.

 

I'll post this again, since you're ignoring it:

 

"BUT APPLE DELETES ALL THE BAD REVIEWS!"

The last word is usually Ars Technica:

 

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/os-x-10-8/

What "assertion" of genius are you talking about?  I simply implied that they're not complete idiots, and know better than to try an x.0 release that will supposedly fix something that ain't broke.

Edited by audioinside - 7/29/12 at 12:47pm

 

So you're STILL insulting all users who might want to update their software, regardless of the knowledge they have about the new OS.

Any benchmarks out yet to support this claim?  Otherwise I think the anecdotal reports are a likely result of Apple's marketing hype feeding the Shiny New Car effect. Even Ars' 24-page review doesn't say a thing about enhanced performance.  My ML install gives nearly the exact same Geekbench numbers as SL, and I can't say that the UI interactions that Geekbench can't quantify feel measurably different one way or the other.  

You are again mentioning things I don't use:

- iCloud was a mess with for me unwanted behaviour, I turned it off: no value for me

- I don't want a notification centre, I don't want to be disturbed while working: no value for me

- refinements to mail: may be useful, I'll have to read about it

- Dictation: may be very useful, will look into it

- I don't use FB, Twitter or other 'sharing' destinations: no value for me

- Finder enhancement, will have to look into it

- enhanced Preview features: not or hardly used

 

So, I ask: is it faster and more responsive? You don't give me a clear answer, but it seems you say yes. I'll check the almighty Ars review for the verdict on that.

 

Then we don't have much to discuss, now do we?

 

As for "faster and more responsive" . . . guess what's the best way of finding out?

 

At the very least, it's a better Lion *already.* That much we can be sure about. 

 

It's $20. Every review out there is telling you you can't go wrong. I'd just install it for the sheer fact that it's the latest, and I'm completely current. It doesn't make things any worse. 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? PDFs are a huge deal for consumers and Pros alike. Anything that makes working them easier and more flexible is very welcome. Preview is pretty much your built-on viewer for everything that is not video. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

which in fact, are the big draws for *everyone else.*

 

At some point you'll need to reconcile yourself with the direction in which Apple is moving. Otherwise I'm sure you'll see yourself having these same conversations for the next several years.

 

Actually, your usage habits seem a bit antiquated, to be honest. Not very progressive. 

Edited by Quadra 610 - 7/29/12 at 2:58pm

Usage patterns are never "antiquated", they are either productive and secure, or less productive or less secure. Usually when it's about "convenience" there's a massive price attached to it. e.g. the whole "let's log in with Facebook" thing just means it's even more easy for Facebook to vaccuum up all your personal information.

iCloud and most cloud services are in essence an attempt of taking user's data hostage such as to bind customers to a computing eco-system that's closed, it's an attempt of creating revenue streams in an age when there's ever less of a need to buy ever newer computers, because even 5 year old computers provide all the compute power people need, unless you waste it with silly, and producitivy slowing UI animations and other useless fluff that eats up CPU and memory resources like mad without bringing tangible benefits besides an initial "wow, looks cool".

e.g. PhotoStream wreaks havoc with my Aperture workflow, fills up my iOS devices' storage with useless pictures, and prevents me from publishing/sharing carefully crafted albums that I would like to keep up for more than just a few months or whatever arbitrary time limit Apple decides is appropriate for PhotoStream. PhotoStream is made for the same idiots who share on Facebook every fart they let go. I take a lot of pictures, and I'm pretty good at it, but if I have 5 per month that are up to the standard that I would want to share them, then that's a lot. (e.g. a profesional photographer once took about 50000 pictures to publish a small book on birds with maybe 100 pictures, and that doesn' t mean he was a bad photographer, but he had standards about how good a picture has to be before it's worth publishing).
I really could care less about all the duck-face-girl pictures shot in the latest drunk haze that seem to populate most of these streams...

I used to have a platform on which to professionally share pictures, and now I have to either make my own, or find a separate service.

e.g. Getting rid of keychain syncing means that people with more than one device will either constantly not have access to the relevant passwords, or they start using the same password everywhere again, so they can remember it. So that's a massive step towards less security.

The whole iCloud document model is retarded, because it's app centric, rather than document centric. A text document I should be able to open with TextEdit, Pages, InDesgin, etc etc., but now documents end up in some app-specific jail. The same app centric view was part of Lion, when one couldn't see all windows on a particular screen (e.g. you're writing an e-mail based on some web research and a Word document, at which point you don't care about all Mail, or all Safari windows, but about all windows pertaining to that task which likely are on the same screen)

The problem is, that while Apple has iPhoto and Aperture, GarageBand and Logic Pro, they only have one OS X, which doesn't even have a "dumb user/expert" toggle. So in order to have appeal to uneducated, illiterate masses, they keep dumbing things down. Computers, from being wheels for the mind (think race car), have become wheel chairs for the impaired minds. While that may sell millions of extra iDevices and Macs as fashion gadgets, it doesn't help anyone who wants to be productive, who cherrishes privacy, and open data formats.

e.g. iTunes Match: could be useful, but any serious music collector has a few thousand CDs already. So the limitation (without much control over the process) to 25'000 songs that haven't been bought on iTunes, makes it utterly useless, because iTunes match complains about the library being too big.

e.g. lack of web hosting: easy, quick, integrated => gone.

So really, iCloud offers nothing to me, other than a free e-mail account, and an iTunes store ID.
AddressBook/iCal "syncing" is something I could have with Yahoo, Google and for that matter with OS X Server.

While MobileMe had a rough start, it actuall ended up a very decent service once the kinks were ironed out. iCloud is "MobileMe Light for Dummies", and as such useless. But I guess it's hip to be stupid, so in that sense I must be antiquated...

Well, I don't mind Contacts to be separate, because I use that also for addressing envelopes and making phone calls, so it's not necessarily all that related to Mail.app. But Calendar and ToDos are more or less the same, in the sense that everything we have To Do, is either an event, has a due date, or is an open ended task. So to dos need some calender integration, and so I want them to be integrated with calendaring. And Notes I often send to myself as a quick e-mail anyway, or send them on to someone else as e-mail. So that's why notes were not misplaced in Mail, even though I don't mind them being a separate app. But the ripping apart of Reminders and Calendar is just an ill conceived attempt of creating a one-to-one correspondence between OS X apps and iOS apps, completely forgetting that these things likely were separate apps on the iOS devices due to limited screen space...
Yup. There are many things that can be fixed, by fiddling with preferences, but the question is, once the default moves to something else, it's just a matter until when Apple removes the option to customize it. e.g. the "classic view" in Mail is just one step away from being called "deprecated view", even though on anything with a slightly larger screen it's much more productive than the "new" iPad inspired view.
Let me try again: There is a time when windows hat borders, these you could grab to resize the window. In the name of elegance, these were reduced to a narrow bar at the bottom of the window in NeXTSTEP, and to a resize corner in OS X. Now there is no UI element anymore, instead there is a "zone" near the window in which the cursor changes to the resize cursor shape. What this really means: we do have a window border again, except it's transparent. So now, do this: make move two windows over a third window, and move the two windows close together, such that there is still a narrow gap through which you can see the third window behind these two. Now try to click the third window in that gap to bring it to the foreground: WONT WORK. Because what you're really doing is not clicking the third window, but the transparent window border of one or the other of the two foreground windows.
Practical example: all the alert bubbles of the new notificaiton system have about a quarter of an inch gap between them, through which you can see the windows behind, but you can't click onto these windows, because what you're really clicking is the invisible/transparent window border of these alert bubbles.

This totally violates the direct manipulation paradigm. If my mouse pointer is over a window, a click should register in that window, and not on a window near the mouse pointer that happens to be layered higher. This is totally unintuitive, and simply the result of trying to get rid of window borders for design reasons.

ctrl-(some digit) works, too. But the problem with that is, if you have to use Remote Desktop, this becomes a massive hassle, because such commands are not properly forwarded to the remote system, but are interpreted locally. Since also the Menu Extra is gone, which allowed direct selection of a specific screen by number, this is a major productivity killer for admin type work.

Also, since I used to have my screens in a 3x3 grid, with mail in the middle position, I was for most things never more than a ctrl-arrowKey away (up was Safari, down was Skype/iChat/AddressBook, left was iCal, right was task specific software, with less important things, like Finder (1), preferences/Terminal (3), iTunes (7), and Remote Desktop (9). This was very productive. Now it's a lot of mousing/pointing to get the same effect (and without first disabling the constant rearranging of the screens it would be even worse.

Ideally, I'd have a 3x3 grid in a torroidal topology, which means in a grid like this:
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
the following squences can be achieved with ctrl-arrowKeys:
1<>2<>3<>1<>2<>3,... 4<>5<>6<>4<>5<>6,... 7-8<>9<>7<>8<>9, ... 1<>4<>7<>1<>4<>7, ... 2<>5<>8<>2<>5<>8, ... 3<>6<>9<>3<>6<>9
this would allow for rapid switching among all the 9 screens. The idea of lining up 9 screens in a line that can only be navigated sequentially is just retarded.
(yes, I can access directly by screen number, but that's not as quick and intuitive for me as relative motion)

In ML, at least one can change MC to no longer group windows by application, which helps things a lot. But in the SL days, I could have all my nine screens visible, with all windows exploded, and I could move a dozens of windows from one screen to another in rapid pace. An operation like this requires now that I navigate to each screen from which I want to move windows, and then move the windows to other screens, one screen at a time. This takes about twice as long.

This is particularly an issue, since windows don't remember which screen they were on when they get restored. e.g. say Safari is by default on screen 2 in my case. This is for general web browsing (quick lookups, reading news, etc.). But web pages that are relevant to specific work contexts, e.g. I work on some home renovation project and I'm looking for water heaters, end up on the screen that I use for working on that particular project. So now I may have about 40-50 Safari windows, and a software update requires me to reboot the computer. Try sorting the 50 windows to their appropriate screens after, do this once in SL and once in Lion and once in ML. Lion is by far the worst, ML is a bit better, but in SL that's at least twice as fast a process.

No app can replace a system facility. Because when it's a third party app, there's lots of politics involved if an app will or will not adopt that app. If it's an Apple provided facility, then that's less contentious. Even so, things like Opera and FireFox don't even use what Apple provides. 1Password is a crap, too. Much too flashy UI which takes up too much space, and it can't handle multiple keychains, which is a big issue where I work, because e.g. the boss may make some keychain accessible to some assistant (e.g. frequent flyer accounts for booking trips), but certainly not all his info (e.g. access to his personal bank account)..

So there's no replacement for keychain access, except that now there's no reasonable way to sync it anymore.

I'm tempted to just throw my keychains into ~/Library/Mobile Documents/ and see what happens, but I'm not sure how well the datastructure of keychains handles the syncing and simultaneous access by the system...

Week numbers are OK, but there were also shared calendars that offered that.
Worse is that nested calendars are all but gone. e.g. I may have a calendar group "work" and a calendar group "private". Each of them may contain a variety of things, like school vacations, conference dates, etc. So with say a dozen calendars for private and work each, switching from "work" mode to "private" mode means toggling 24 calendars: turn 12 on, and turn 12 off. If we had calendar groups again, that would be two clicks: turn the work group on, turn the private group off.

The problem is, the latest 5.6.1 refuses to install. I still have 5.6.0, but that misses the changes that 5.6.1 brought about. It's nice to have the net topology view in 6.x, but 5.x was more useful. Things like SNMP settings remain in the config, but can't be accessed with 6.x. Similarly a variety of other settings that can't be modified anymore (channel width, interference robustness, logs, client connections, location, etc.)
Also try to remote configure your AirPort net e.g. with Back To My Mac with the 6.x software. In 5.6.x they just show up in the list as usual, in 6.x you have to look for them under "other base stations"

I'm never for old stuff for the sake of it being old, but similar I'm not for new stuff, for the sake of it being new. It has to make sense, and lots of things were added because they "demo well", not because they make users more productive. I'm maybe old-fashioned in the sense that I consider a computer a tool, not a eye-candy-show-off-toy.

I agree with most of that. As for the cmd-i: try cmd-alt-i One of the few useful "hidden" features...
Edited by rcfa - 7/29/12 at 5:52pm

One quick word about "performance gains through OS upgrades":

there are a few cases (better compilers, etc.) where identical code can run faster.

However, in general, performance enhancing changes are always a trade off:

e..g do more things with the GPU: if the GPU has plenty of RAM (newer computer), then that increases performance, if the GPU has less RAM, it means more shuffling back and forth between GPU memory and regular RAM, and thus decreased performance.
e.g. space-time trade-off: increasing disk buffer sizes, caches, etc. speeds up performance on computers with sufficient RAM, older machines with memory limitations may slow down, sometimes considerably.
e.g. compressed swap files: on fast CPUs, the compression overhead is less than the IO performance gain, on old computers, the IO performance gain is less than the additional CPU load loss
etc. etc.

So, Apple obviously wants the latest computers to be as fast as possible, and Apple also wants to tune an OS to be most efficient on computers shipping now or in the future. So if today no Mac ships with less than 4GB RAM, that's taken into consideration when optimizing the OS. If you run a new OS designed to have plenty of RAM on a machine with maybe 2GB or RAM or less, it may crawl. Not because the OS is bad or slow, but because it's optimized for a specific context. If one were to optimize it for machines with less RAM, it would not have optimal performance on more recent machines.

Engineering is all about trade-offs.

The real crux is, that there's no backport of iCloud to Snow Leopard, so one's forced to move to Lion or ML, which in many cases means older hardware will not efficiently run these OSs which are optimized for more recent devices. And so something as marginal as iCloud forces a bunch of people to essentially buy new computers. Apple shareholders rejoice, some users groan.

It would be ridiculous to expect that Apple tests thousands of apps for compatibility, particularly since things may exhibit more subtle bugs, and then Apple would be liable when cursory testing didn't reveal a flaw.

The point is "regular" apps will usually just work, unless they are apps from developers notorious for being lazy and using ancient, long deprecated APIs.

However, an app that is close to the iron, such as Fusion or any emulator that tries to squese the most performance out of a system, or anything that requires kernel extensions, has a good chance of failing with each OS update. It's up to the user to identify what's mission critical for them, and visit the publisher's web site and read release notes and other announcements to determine if a given app will be compatible with the latest OS version.

There's a reason why it's been called the "bleeding edge" if people try to always be the first to update to a new release, and that's why any company has a test lab, and why you can boot any Mac from an external drive: it's not that difficult to get a cheap external drive and do a test install of a new OS on that, to see what is or isn't working.

Another intriguing fact is that although 32-bit EFI machines (that still run 64-bit apps, just not the 64-bit kernel) can run Mac OS X 10.7.4, you can no longer buy it. If you haven't upgraded these machines from Snow Leopard, you can't - they're frozen at 10.6.8. Lion was the first App Store-only version of the OS, so you can't just drop in your 10.7 Family Pack DVD and install. Those apps like Avid Media Composer 6.0.1 that work best on 10.7, and aren't qualified for 10.8, are effectively off limits to anyone who hasn't yet got Lion, because you can't go there any more.

 

It's starting to feel like although I've bought my machines, Apple still owns them... as someone will surely pedantically point out, they work as well as they did then, so I can really only rely on what they ran when I bought them... Mac OS X 10.4.9 Tiger, and Avid Media Composer 3.0.

 

So Cloud amnesia is setting in, and here's the first instance of it. Machines forced into obsolescence due to updaters that vanish, because their copyright holders are entitled to withdraw and destroy them.

Edited by fearless - 7/29/12 at 8:34pm

Firstly, I am the customer, so Apple responds to me, and not the other way around.

 

Secondly, I am very 'progressive' as you call it, when it adds value and usability for me. I ditch disk drives, etc. and embrace new ports whenever they add value. A buggy, net connection and power dependent iCloud that messes up my contacts impacts my use negatively. I recently had a talk with other IT people (I work in IT) and one made a great comment: "You should get the shoe that fits you instead of trying to fit the wrong shoe." The same is with software and (IT) services. I don't know how 'always connected' you are, but I am not. Network connections go down or you lose it on your iPhone, and then what? For me 'Cloud' creates a HUGE dependency. Put everything in the cloud and when the cloud has a bad day, you're into your neck in shit. Also, the application dependency of files that Ars mentions is a HUGE usability issue that Apple will have to solve.

 

You call Notifications a BIG draw for people to upgrade. Notifications? What is so big about it?

 

Preview I seemingly misunderstood to be preview in the Finder. When it's the Preview App (my system is in Dutch, we have a localised name for it :D), then I may find it of more value. But... Preview is an application, not what I'd call 'core OS'. Preview is already superiour to many Windows PDF viewers (I just started a new job today and the PDF viewer there even doesn't support 2 page view side-by-side), so I am already very happy with it.

 

About the reviews, actually some things that people post here ARE mixed, so it's not all sunshine. I think the Ars review gives a good insight, and it still gives me little reason to upgrade.

 

Consider that, just as my opinion is not the one and almighty truth, the same is for your opinion. As a long life Apple user and follower and admirer of Jobs in many ways, I have applauded Apple and its choices 98% of the time. I have deep respect for that. So if you jump for joy about Notification center and iCloud, be my guest. Just don't expect that *everyone else* shares your opinion. It is your view.

 

And calling me antiquated... Who's the one being a Quadra? :D :D :D