5 ms·

I can't speak for the gp, but I certainly would still be on Snow Leopard if development for the current version of iOS was still supported on it. I'm now seriou

I can't speak for the gp, but I certainly would still be on Snow Leopard if development for the current version of iOS was still supported on it. I'm now seriously considering switching back to Linux as a desktop OS as I hardly do any iOS work anymore. (I've rather fallen out of love with that platform too as it's pretty clear that the only objective is selling me a new iPad+iPhone every year as this year's iOS always runs like crap on last year's hardware) I guess post Snow Leopard era OSX and Apple apps just feel cheap, unpolished and rushed. It actually feels a lot like Windows, where quality of different parts of the system varies wildly. Examples: Finder and anything file browsing related beachballs much more than before (particularly when dealing with network shares). Visual design seems to have taken a hit - everything seems to just consist of either different murky shades of grey, or jarring skeumorphism. The 10.6-era AHCI kernel panic hasn't happened for a while now, so maybe that was fixed in a newer revision of 10.7 or 10.8, but userspace stability seems much worse. Some of it is crashes, some just weird UI glitches that require a restart or Force Quit. Old problems (like Mail.app reliability or the heap of shit that is iTunes) are ignored completely in favour of sexing up the UI. (the runaway dynamic pager issue FINALLY seems better on 10.8, but again we get loads of other regressions) Add to that what you say: the "improvements" leave most people I know completely cold or even get in the way, and that's not just power users/developers. Since we're "paying" for the (subjectively) unnecessary bling with regressions, the overall impression is that of a negative change. Not that any of this is particularly relevant to the development model. You can end up with festering layers of crap with either model if nobody feels responsible for overall quality. I suspect the objective for Lion was "make OSX look kind of like iOS and get rid of all of that GPLv3 software" and that's basically what was achieved. I guess bug-free software isn't good business, Microsoft were printing money for decades.

rsync 14y ago
Not to fork this discussion further, but it bears repeating how much things changed after SL. In fact, it actually reminds me a lot of the change from FreeBSD 4.x to 5.x ... things worked, people were happy ... and then boom. That was when all of my desktops and laptops stopped running FreeBSD and I "switched" to the mac. I am fairly certain that once running SL stops being practical, I will switch again.
crag 14y ago
"I suspect the objective for Lion was "make OSX look kind of like iOS and get rid of all of that GPLv3 software" and that's basically what was achieved. I guess bug-free software isn't good business, Microsoft were printing money for decades." You can say that again. Frankly, after using Mac for 10 years, this is my last one.
- sounds 14y ago
  Just out of curiosity, would you use newer Apple hardware if you could run older OS X versions on it? Hackintosh or something even worse (and I am with you 100% on the horrible state of OS X) -- I wouldn't want to discount the quality of the hardware.
r00fus 14y ago
As someone who's been on OSX since Panther, I think you may have a slightly rose-tinted view of the past - lots of stuff in OSX has been improved - I remember pretty horrible kernel panics in 10.4 and userland issues in 10.5 that no longer exist since 10.6/10.7 (or have yet to show themselves). Driver support from vendors is vastly improved, and overall, though I agree that quality has been a bit hit-or-miss, the overall usability is improved, IMHO.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  I've been here since 10.2 and IMO the only great releases of OS X were Panther and Snow Leopard, though Panther did begin the whole idiotic metal UI thing. Maybe 10.9 will rock?
  - protomyth 14y ago
    I'm actually finding Mountain Lion much more stable than Lion or Snow Leopard. Lion had some really weird memory things and I did get multiple kernel panics in early Snow Leopard.
    - sounds 14y ago
      Ok, so who's telling the truth? Was Snow Leopard good or did it kernel panic? Is Mountain Lion stable or have users just not reported the issues yet?
      - protomyth 14y ago
        I think we are both telling the truth as we saw / see it. It might come down to machine, configuration, and type of jobs.
        sounds 14y ago
        Sounds reasonable to me.
ralfd 14y ago
> it's pretty clear that the only objective is selling me a new iPad+iPhone every year as this year's iOS always runs like crap on last year's hardware Nothing against a good conspiracy theory, but if you truly think this is intentionally planned then this thought is a bit … dumb.
ralfd 14y ago
> it's pretty clear that the only objective is selling me a new iPad+iPhone every year as this year's iOS always runs like crap on last year's hardware Nothing against a good conspiracy theory, but if you truly think this is intentionally planned then this thought is a bit … dumb.
parasubvert 14y ago
I've not experienced this "bug-free software" you speak of. Where might I find such a thing? It does feel that Apple's development model is changing to an annual release cycle, wherein larger/systemic bug fixes are deferred to the next major release, rather than in a point release. In fact, most OS X release these days feel like "minor tweaks that make consumers happy + a truckload of bug fixes and plumbing". The fact that they deferred so much 10.0-era plumbing to 10.6 and beyond is indicative of why there's a lot of regressions, IMO.
splicer 14y ago
My feelings exactly! I now do virtually all my development in Linux (or ssh'ed into a Linux box from my MacBook Air). I hate what OS X has become. The only thing I now find superior about OS X to Linux is that it runs Logic Pro 9 (which I can't do without); yay for vendor lock-in!

rsync 14y ago

Not to fork this discussion further, but it bears repeating how much things changed after SL. In fact, it actually reminds me a lot of the change from FreeBSD 4.x to 5.x ... things worked, people were happy ... and then boom. That was when all of my desktops and laptops stopped running FreeBSD and I "switched" to the mac. I am fairly certain that once running SL stops being practical, I will switch again.

crag 14y ago

"I suspect the objective for Lion was "make OSX look kind of like iOS and get rid of all of that GPLv3 software" and that's basically what was achieved. I guess bug-free software isn't good business, Microsoft were printing money for decades." You can say that again. Frankly, after using Mac for 10 years, this is my last one.

sounds 14y ago
Just out of curiosity, would you use newer Apple hardware if you could run older OS X versions on it? Hackintosh or something even worse (and I am with you 100% on the horrible state of OS X) -- I wouldn't want to discount the quality of the hardware.

r00fus 14y ago

As someone who's been on OSX since Panther, I think you may have a slightly rose-tinted view of the past - lots of stuff in OSX has been improved - I remember pretty horrible kernel panics in 10.4 and userland issues in 10.5 that no longer exist since 10.6/10.7 (or have yet to show themselves). Driver support from vendors is vastly improved, and overall, though I agree that quality has been a bit hit-or-miss, the overall usability is improved, IMHO.

fusiongyro 14y ago
I've been here since 10.2 and IMO the only great releases of OS X were Panther and Snow Leopard, though Panther did begin the whole idiotic metal UI thing. Maybe 10.9 will rock?
- protomyth 14y ago
  I'm actually finding Mountain Lion much more stable than Lion or Snow Leopard. Lion had some really weird memory things and I did get multiple kernel panics in early Snow Leopard.
  - sounds 14y ago
    Ok, so who's telling the truth? Was Snow Leopard good or did it kernel panic? Is Mountain Lion stable or have users just not reported the issues yet?
    - protomyth 14y ago
      I think we are both telling the truth as we saw / see it. It might come down to machine, configuration, and type of jobs.
      - sounds 14y ago
        Sounds reasonable to me.

ralfd 14y ago

> it's pretty clear that the only objective is selling me a new iPad+iPhone every year as this year's iOS always runs like crap on last year's hardware Nothing against a good conspiracy theory, but if you truly think this is intentionally planned then this thought is a bit … dumb.

ralfd 14y ago

parasubvert 14y ago

I've not experienced this "bug-free software" you speak of. Where might I find such a thing? It does feel that Apple's development model is changing to an annual release cycle, wherein larger/systemic bug fixes are deferred to the next major release, rather than in a point release. In fact, most OS X release these days feel like "minor tweaks that make consumers happy + a truckload of bug fixes and plumbing". The fact that they deferred so much 10.0-era plumbing to 10.6 and beyond is indicative of why there's a lot of regressions, IMO.

splicer 14y ago

My feelings exactly! I now do virtually all my development in Linux (or ssh'ed into a Linux box from my MacBook Air). I hate what OS X has become. The only thing I now find superior about OS X to Linux is that it runs Logic Pro 9 (which I can't do without); yay for vendor lock-in!