Snow Leopard VS. Lion

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
Some of those comments have suggested glitches causing slow downs, crashes etc. with lion. Clearly it seems most were thrilled with snow leopard.
I'm one of those but one thing to remember is that I have an almost four year old Mac (as does chscag who made a similar comment). I have little doubt that OS X as a whole runs better on a 2011 Mac.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
311
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Location
Shakopee, MN
Your Mac's Specs
iMac, late 2012 model, 21"
Ok no bs here. What I'm reading about lion is worrying me. It's still not too late for me to cancel my iMac order so I'm wondering if I should do that or not?

Don't cancel it. I have an entry level iMac out of the current lineup. When I bought it, it ran Snow Leopard. I upgraded to Lion the day it was released and have been running it ever since. I can tell you that Lion runs great on my machine. I never think to myself, "****, this thing is slow. I wish I had Snow Leopard back." That was even true when I only had 4GB installed on it. (I have 16GB in it now.)

The autosave feature seems like it would be very useful. However, I find it very annoying because it made saving documents a lot more complicated. There is no longer a "save as" function and you instead either have to export it as something or save a version which does not allow you to change the document's name - very frustrating.

Here's what I suggest you do. Before you make any changes to the document, duplicate it and then save. Then you can rename your file and keep the original as is.

This has tripped me up a few times already because it's backwards from how it used to work. In the old days, you could open a file, make changes to it, and as long as you didn't click Save, the changes wouldn't stick. Once you were done modifying the document, you could just click Save As, rename the file and the original would not be touched.

With AutoSave, that's no longer the case, because the system is automatically saving the changes you make regardless of whether you tell it to or not. So, if you open something like a template for a letter and make changes, the system will save the changes to the original file. Hence the need to duplicate it first.

It's not really any more complicated than how it used to work; it's just different. It requires a slight rethinking of your workflow to make use of a new feature (AutoSave) effectively.

The reopen feature is also annoying. Whenever you open up pages or an app it comes up with what you had open last time. It also opens up windows when you shut down your computer and always asks you if you want to reopen the windows when you restart. I can't really say anything bad for this feature except that it really irritates me.

The reopen feature is one that I've had some difficulty getting used to. On the one hand, it's great in iOS, where I never really think about shutting down applications. I may switch to a different app, and eventually come back to the one I was using before, in which case I want to pick up where I left off. On a Mac application though, that's not always the case. I am conscious of quitting applications there, and when I do, in my mind, I'm also closing the window so that it doesn't appear again the next time I open the app. It's annoying for some reason to see spreadsheet I was done working with appear when I open Numbers simply because I didn't close the window before I quit.

The Resume feature is one that I do appreciate though. It is nice to be able to restart my Mac should the need arise, and not have to worry about reopening all the applications I had running. I like the idea of picking up exactly where I left off. The only annoying part about this is that it can take longer to get my machine up and running again while I wait for all those apps to load. This, I think, is a case where the hardware is the limiting factor. Someday, when all of our Macs come with solid state hard drives as a standard feature, and all our apps can open in a fraction of a second, I think many of us will be less annoyed by this feature.
 
C

chas_m

Guest
At face value, these two statements would appear to contradict each other. No one is arguing that Lion isn't fine for light usage (unless you have less than 4GB of RAM and no SSD), but its performance is horrid for power users, particularly those with workflows that involve serious multitasking. The fact Mission Control is a train wreck compared to Exposé exacerbates the frustration for said users.

I think you may be misunderstanding what I said.

I keep multiple apps open ALL THE TIME. Right now as I'm typing this to you I have Photoshop, iChat, TextEdit, Mail, Safari, and an FTP app and GMail client open simultaneously. Safari has multiple tabs open, and I have multiple chats going as well. Photoshop has multiple documents in progress.

So I amend my statement to say I *rarely* have multiple windows open in the same app rather than never, but except for Photoshop and occasionally InDesign I don't ever tend to need multiple windows within the same app open (mostly because of this thing called tabs).

You sound like you're implying that Lion is unsuitable for "power users." Mister, I'm here to tell you I'm a power user. I do all kinds of stuff on this 2007 machine with 3GB of RAM, including video editing, Adobe CS stuff and other heavy-duty apps at least some of my day. It all works so well, in fact, that I've been unable to justify swapping out this ancient Macbook (not even a Pro!) for something newer, though I'm determined to do so this year anyway.

The only time this old machine lets me down is if I'm doing something that really taxes the video chipset (like Google Earth). It works, but not as well as it should. HD video editing is also pretty much out, but this machine wasn't even top of the line in 2007 so on the whole I feel it has served me very well (and it plays 720p video just fine, thanks!).

A quick check of Activity Monitor shows kernel_task at almost identically the same levels as it was at yesterday when I posted: 266.3 of real mem, 12.9 virtual. I have 83MB free and 686.2MB inactive RAM. 1GB in page outs over the course of the day (I've been on the machine about six hours now).

I use Spaces a lot and Expose very little so I'm not taking issue with your complaints about Expose, but your comments about Lion generally are, IME, off the mark. The idea that Lion isn't suitable for "power users" is just plain laughable.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
Birmingham UK
Your Mac's Specs
2011 21.5" i5 iMac 2.7ghz 4gb ram 1tb HDD
I was nearly turned off getting a 2011 iMac due to the myriad of bad reports about Lion. As they came preinstalled with Lion I considered getting a 2010 model just to avoid what was being described by some as Apple's Vista.

As it happens, I like Lion - though it probably helps that I have never used Snow Leopard, Tiger, etc and have nothing to compare it against. It will be the same when I get FCPX, which some hate compared to the previous version.

What I have noticed is that when I go on a Windows machine at work, I find myself swiping the mouse and wondering why the text isn't moving.

Lion is intuitive for Mac virgins and I suspect that's the whole point of it.
 
C

chas_m

Guest
Clearly it seems most were thrilled with snow leopard.

LOL! Oh, how the memory cheats!!

Most of the people who now seem like they are/were "thrilled" with Snow Leopard were the exact SAME people gnashing their teeth and condemning Apple to the skies a couple of years ago. Oh you should have been there! Special web sites (by the dozens!) with compatibility charts and forums filled with fearful faithful! Half the base thought Apple had lost their minds dropping Gx compatibility and the other half thought the idea of charging for a new version with "no new features" was sheer MADNESS that would see Apple lose all its marketshare.

There was MUCH wailing about app compatibility (LOTS of older stuff "broke" under Snow Leopard) and cursing about the dropping of G5s and older. The new features in Snow Leopard were MUCH reviled (at first) and it was Leopard's turn to be the "it ain't broke why fix it" poster boy!

This same Greek tragedy is re-performed every time Apple does the very thing we admire most about them (in retrospect, it would seem) -- push the industry forward by daring to throw out the old. Man I remember when the iMac came out with no legacy ports at all, you should have heard the howling!!

In short, the Mac community is a friendly place with great people, but we're also terrible hypocrites with VERY selective memories and rather picky about stuff as well. For users that have embraced the very ESSENCE of change by picking the "non-standard" platform in the first place, we sure do get cranky when Apple changes stuff ... as a user since the mid-80s I'm just endlessly amused by the occasional hysteria of Mac users ... remind me to tell you about iMovie '08 User Revolt sometime ...
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
3,343
Reaction score
213
Points
63
Location
Forest Hills, NYC
Your Mac's Specs
15-inch Early 2008; Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; Memory 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM; 10.7.5
I think you may be misunderstanding what I said.

I keep multiple apps open ALL THE TIME. Right now as I'm typing this to you I have Photoshop, iChat, TextEdit, Mail, Safari, and an FTP app and GMail client open simultaneously. Safari has multiple tabs open, and I have multiple chats going as well. Photoshop has multiple documents in progress.

So I amend my statement to say I *rarely* have multiple windows open in the same app rather than never, but except for Photoshop and occasionally InDesign I don't ever tend to need multiple windows within the same app open (mostly because of this thing called tabs).

You sound like you're implying that Lion is unsuitable for "power users." Mister, I'm here to tell you I'm a power user. I do all kinds of stuff on this 2007 machine with 3GB of RAM, including video editing, Adobe CS stuff and other heavy-duty apps at least some of my day. It all works so well, in fact, that I've been unable to justify swapping out this ancient Macbook (not even a Pro!) for something newer, though I'm determined to do so this year anyway.

The only time this old machine lets me down is if I'm doing something that really taxes the video chipset (like Google Earth). It works, but not as well as it should. HD video editing is also pretty much out, but this machine wasn't even top of the line in 2007 so on the whole I feel it has served me very well (and it plays 720p video just fine, thanks!).

A quick check of Activity Monitor shows kernel_task at almost identically the same levels as it was at yesterday when I posted: 266.3 of real mem, 12.9 virtual. I have 83MB free and 686.2MB inactive RAM. 1GB in page outs over the course of the day (I've been on the machine about six hours now).

I use Spaces a lot and Expose very little so I'm not taking issue with your complaints about Expose, but your comments about Lion generally are, IME, off the mark. The idea that Lion isn't suitable for "power users" is just plain laughable.

About the memory management: The reason kernel task is only sitting at or around 200-300 MB is because you have 3 gigs of RAM. Were you to have 4 gigs, it would sit at around 400+. 6 gigs, 600 MB+ and so on. So you can see how that would go if you had 8 gigs. You'd be losing a gig or so, leaving you with 7 to play with, which might seem excessive (in the loss dept).

As far as Spaces and Exposé go, the current methodology of the latter is different from how it was in SL, which I guess isn't such a big deal if we take into consideration that Mission Control is simply replacing it. So we're not really disagreeing here, it's just a matter of rewiring ones thinking to get used to it.

The current incarnation of Expose then, should actually work well, if used properly. As an example, working in PS or In Design etc, having multiple projects open. I too only use tabs in a browser, so it was only a point I was trying to make, though likely moot now.

Like I said, I'm going to try and give Lion a fair shake, and re-wire my brain a bit and see what happens. And for the record, I already knew about the restore check box, and have always had it unchecked.

Another "for the record": Lion is plenty fast on my late 2008 MBP with 4 gigs of RAM. No complaints in that department.

I do wish though, that we could customize the gestures even further. I really miss the 4 finger tap/swipe to the app gesture.

Doug
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
39
Points
48
Your Mac's Specs
Black MacBook 2.2GHz C2D, 4GB Ram - iMac G4 700MHz, 512MB Ram
I got the chance to use Lion for the first time in my school's Library a few days ago, and I have to say, it's the first Mac OS X release that I wasn't immediately impressed by. It feels...unnatural to me. The scrolling was reversed (and unable to change due to the school locking the settings) I disliked the "Gray theme" it seemed to be having. Launch Pad looked really similar to iOS, which I suppose was intended. But not something I would prefer.

I'm not sure how to explain it really, all I know is that it didn't seem up to par with the previous Apple Mac OS's.

Take a look at the change from OS 10.4 to 10.5. MAJOR changes right? It really brought OS X into what it looks like today. 10.6 wasn't a huge step forward in the looks department, but the drop of PowerPC made it a huge revolution "under the hood" and was noticeably faster than Leopard.

Now, Lion. Some notice slowdown, others notice a slight increase in speed. Rosetta was dropped, which I wouldn't exactly consider a pro. It still looks extremely similar to OS 10.5 & 10.6. Apple seemed to really have screwed over Expose, with this "Mission Control" causing some people to totally despise the OS as a whole.

I'm on the fence about it, and that itself is a bad thing in my eyes. I should love the way things are going with a new OS, there should be improvements, things should move faster, work better, bugs should ironed out, and you should be able to get your work done quicker and more efficiently. I just don't see that happening with Lion.
 

dtravis7


Retired Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
30,133
Reaction score
703
Points
113
Location
Modesto, Ca.
Your Mac's Specs
MacMini M-1 MacOS Monterey, iMac 2010 27"Quad I7 , MBPLate2011, iPad Pro10.5", iPhoneSE
Remember MD, you can turn off all those changes except the Expose/Spaces thing some are upset about.

A couple of posts here are causing people who come to Mac forums not to want a new Mac. That bugs me in a way as many will see some of this and go buy a Windows 7 and later 8 PC due to all the negative comments. Lion is FAR from bad. Just a few changes that has old time Mac people who like the old way better, upset.
 
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
39
Points
48
Your Mac's Specs
Black MacBook 2.2GHz C2D, 4GB Ram - iMac G4 700MHz, 512MB Ram
Remember MD, you can turn off all those changes except the Expose/Spaces thing some are upset about.

A couple of posts here are causing people who come to Mac forums not to want a new Mac. That bugs me in a way as many will see some of this and go buy a Windows 7 and later 8 PC due to all the negative comments. Lion is FAR from bad. Just a few changes that has old time Mac people who like the old way better, upset.

Oh of course, Lion isn't "bad". It just failed to have some improvements that I expected it to, and some changes that I didn't particularly favor.

Lion is still FAR better than any Windows OS ever released. There's no doubt about that. :)
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
3,343
Reaction score
213
Points
63
Location
Forest Hills, NYC
Your Mac's Specs
15-inch Early 2008; Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; Memory 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM; 10.7.5
I'm finding that by using "Better Touch Tool", my trackpad experience is back to where it was in SL and then some. I think I can easily adjust to the way Mission Control has taken the place of the old Exposé, but I still prefer the way I was able to see every single app, in every single space all at the same time, vs the way you can only really see a tiny bit of what is open in every virtual desktop in Lion.

But this is also why I like the tap to switch apps gesture. All I have to do is tap on the trackpad with 4 fingers and the cmd/tab list comes up. Then I just tap to the app I want open. This is faster than using MC or swiping to another desktop with 4 fingers or any other method I've tried.

People definitely should't be turned off by Lion, it's a great OS once you update to 10.7.2. I'll post back from time to time after I've given PS, Aperture and Lightroom a whirl. Need to see how speedy things are in that dept vs with SL.


Doug
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
75
Points
48
Your Mac's Specs
2.6GHz Core i7 15" MacBook Pro - 8GB DDR3 SDRAM - 750GB 7200 RPM HDD - GeForce 650M GT 1GB VRAM
I think you may be misunderstanding what I said.

I keep multiple apps open ALL THE TIME. Right now as I'm typing this to you I have Photoshop, iChat, TextEdit, Mail, Safari, and an FTP app and GMail client open simultaneously. Safari has multiple tabs open, and I have multiple chats going as well. Photoshop has multiple documents in progress.

So I amend my statement to say I *rarely* have multiple windows open in the same app rather than never, but except for Photoshop and occasionally InDesign I don't ever tend to need multiple windows within the same app open (mostly because of this thing called tabs).
Funny, I remember referring precisely to Photoshop and InDesign when discussing the shortcomings of Mission Control. There are a number of applications that either don't support tabs or are best used with multiple windows, and these don't lend themselves well to Mission Control.

You sound like you're implying that Lion is unsuitable for "power users." Mister, I'm here to tell you I'm a power user. I do all kinds of stuff on this 2007 machine with 3GB of RAM, including video editing, Adobe CS stuff and other heavy-duty apps at least some of my day. It all works so well, in fact, that I've been unable to justify swapping out this ancient Macbook (not even a Pro!) for something newer, though I'm determined to do so this year anyway.
I only referenced its unsuitable performance on machines with 2GB of RAM, which is bad specifically since Apple still ships machines with 2GB of RAM. Adding more is necessary for even light multitasking, and you have more than that. You're actually supporting my assertion.

The only time this old machine lets me down is if I'm doing something that really taxes the video chipset (like Google Earth). It works, but not as well as it should. HD video editing is also pretty much out, but this machine wasn't even top of the line in 2007 so on the whole I feel it has served me very well (and it plays 720p video just fine, thanks!).
If you're boasting about 720p playback and having trouble with Google Earth, your standards are about 6 years behind the curve. I wouldn't take this as a positive for Lion.

I use Spaces a lot and Expose very little so I'm not taking issue with your complaints about Expose, but your comments about Lion generally are, IME, off the mark. The idea that Lion isn't suitable for "power users" is just plain laughable.
I never said Lion was unsuitable for power users. I said it was unsuitable for people that do heavy multitasking and that it required more RAM than Snow Leopard did to perform acceptably. There is a marked difference. I suppose I could have been more specific and thrown in the implied "It's unsuitable for people with workflows that actually leveraged Exposé," but I thought my heavy focus on what a poor replacement Mission Control is covered that.

LOL! Oh, how the memory cheats!!

Most of the people who now seem like they are/were "thrilled" with Snow Leopard were the exact SAME people gnashing their teeth and condemning Apple to the skies a couple of years ago. Oh you should have been there! Special web sites (by the dozens!) with compatibility charts and forums filled with fearful faithful! Half the base thought Apple had lost their minds dropping Gx compatibility and the other half thought the idea of charging for a new version with "no new features" was sheer MADNESS that would see Apple lose all its marketshare.

There was MUCH wailing about app compatibility (LOTS of older stuff "broke" under Snow Leopard) and cursing about the dropping of G5s and older. The new features in Snow Leopard were MUCH reviled (at first) and it was Leopard's turn to be the "it ain't broke why fix it" poster boy!

What do you call FUD when it's about a group of people the poster is trying to feel superior to? I never had any such "new feature" complaints about Snow Leopard, and I don't know anyone that did. My only complaint about Snow Leopard from the start was that Apple was charging for something that should have been a free upgrade to the bloated Leopard. I might have been a bit annoyed about PowerPC support being dropped too, but it wasn't a big deal for me at that point anyway since I had traded up. The main issue with Lion isn't a compatibility chart or shiny gimmicks - it's the removal of useful features, which is a first for OS X. The resource inefficiency and bugs that persist two major updates later are an added bonus.

This same Greek tragedy is re-performed every time Apple does the very thing we admire most about them (in retrospect, it would seem) -- push the industry forward by daring to throw out the old. Man I remember when the iMac came out with no legacy ports at all, you should have heard the howling!!

In short, the Mac community is a friendly place with great people, but we're also terrible hypocrites with VERY selective memories and rather picky about stuff as well. For users that have embraced the very ESSENCE of change by picking the "non-standard" platform in the first place, we sure do get cranky when Apple changes stuff ... as a user since the mid-80s I'm just endlessly amused by the occasional hysteria of Mac users ... remind me to tell you about iMovie '08 User Revolt sometime ...

Accusing all criticism of Apple as the work of Luddites is rather closed-minded. I'm open to Exposé being enhanced or even replaced with something better - I just didn't want it replaced with something that has less functionality and requires more clicks and swipes to do the things it can do.

I'm open to new takes on the fullscreen idea that get around it "covering up" a bunch of windows - I didn't want multi-monitor fullscreen support to be killed off in the process.

The iMovie '08 "revolt" was justified even by Apple's tacit admission, since they made iMovie 6 HD available as a free download until all the features they had removed were put back into later versions of iMovie. The Final Cut Pro X "revolt" happening right now is even more justified, since Apple is essentially forcing professional video editors to go through the costly process of switching to another software solution.

Apple's products are not exempt from criticism just because some of their actions push the industry forward. Spotlight doesn't justify Apple having the gall to charge people for .mac/MobileMe as an example. To close your eyes to all faults in their products and services is tantamount to encouraging Apple to not change and improve them, which would be terrible. I'm not asking for Exposé back: I just want Mission Control, and indeed Lion itself, to be molded into worthy successors.


I'm one of those folks who read the comments section more than an article purporting to praise or decry something.

Some of those comments have suggested glitches causing slow downs, crashes etc. with lion. Clearly it seems most were thrilled with snow leopard.

It reminds me of when Millenium edition of windows came out and it sucked. Then they released XP which was extremely stable. Then Vista came out and sucked.

I'm thinking I might be ok because I've never had a Mac before so I'm getting used to an entirely new system but the main reason I'm switching is because of Mac's rep for stability and reliability.

It's a big investment and I don't want to regret it.
As harsh as I may seem with my criticisms of Lion, I would never compare Lion to Windows Millennium Edition. For all its faults, OS X Lion is still better at window management than Windows 7 by a huge margin. And even though there are some bugs in a few of Lion's bundled apps, Windows doesn't even come with bundled programs that I deem acceptable to use over any alternatives to begin with. And if Apple continues as it's been doing for the last two OS X releases, 10.8 will probably only be $29 when it comes out anyway. Trust me: most of the criticisms of Lion I've made in this thread wouldn't be there if I were coming in brand new without any prior OS X experience. I just hold Apple to a higher standard than I do Microsoft because I know from experience that they can do better than this.
 

dtravis7


Retired Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
30,133
Reaction score
703
Points
113
Location
Modesto, Ca.
Your Mac's Specs
MacMini M-1 MacOS Monterey, iMac 2010 27"Quad I7 , MBPLate2011, iPad Pro10.5", iPhoneSE
If you're boasting about 720p playback and having trouble with Google Earth, your standards are about 6 years behind the curve. I wouldn't take this as a positive for Lion.

Remember, not everyone can afford a brand new Mac every day! I was lucky to get a used Macbook with 4GB RAM and love it.

And like I said, I am a multitasking freak. Have been since the Amiga (The finest Multitasking computer for many years) and am very demanding that way, and I see no multitasking issues with Lion using 4GB here on my iMac.
 

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
And like I said, I am a multitasking freak. Have been since the Amiga (The finest Multitasking computer for many years) and am very demanding that way, and I see no multitasking issues with Lion using 4GB here on my iMac.
Same here. Running "basic" apps isn't an issue but I can see how it becomes a problem with some more demanding apps. That, however, is not a Lion issue and is more a hardware issue. I'm sure you've seen it on your hardware as well Dennis (which is very similar to mine) when you get a few larger apps going. While I don't run many, I do run VMs and when those are doing something the lest bit demanding, OS X becomes sluggish. Again though, that's not so much Lion as it is four year old hardware that I'm pushing.
 

dtravis7


Retired Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
30,133
Reaction score
703
Points
113
Location
Modesto, Ca.
Your Mac's Specs
MacMini M-1 MacOS Monterey, iMac 2010 27"Quad I7 , MBPLate2011, iPad Pro10.5", iPhoneSE
Same here. Running "basic" apps isn't an issue but I can see how it becomes a problem with some more demanding apps. That, however, is not a Lion issue and is more a hardware issue. I'm sure you've seen it on your hardware as well Dennis (which is very similar to mine) when you get a few larger apps going. While I don't run many, I do run VMs and when those are doing something the lest bit demanding, OS X becomes sluggish. Again though, that's not so much Lion as it is four year old hardware that I'm pushing.

Agreed. When I boot into Snow Leopard on the same iMac, I don't see any difference. The multitasking on Lion or SL for that matter is a lot better to me than Windows running on quite powerful hardware here. That is one thing that drew me to OSX. The Multitasking.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
75
Points
48
Your Mac's Specs
2.6GHz Core i7 15" MacBook Pro - 8GB DDR3 SDRAM - 750GB 7200 RPM HDD - GeForce 650M GT 1GB VRAM
Agreed. When I boot into Snow Leopard on the same iMac, I don't see any difference. The multitasking on Lion or SL for that matter is a lot better to me than Windows running on quite powerful hardware here. That is one thing that drew me to OSX. The Multitasking.

Windows XP's dismal RAM and window management basically pushed me to OS X when I saw the wonders of Exposé and UNIX-managed memory in one package. Even Windows 7 isn't up to the standards of OS X 10.3 when it comes to multitasking. That's why it pains me so to see Lion take steps backwards in that area, to be honest.
 

cwa107


Retired Staff
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
27,042
Reaction score
812
Points
113
Location
Lake Mary, Florida
Your Mac's Specs
14" MacBook Pro M1 Pro, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD
As harsh as I may seem with my criticisms of Lion, I would never compare Lion to Windows Millennium Edition. For all its faults, OS X Lion is still better at window management than Windows 7 by a huge margin. And even though there are some bugs in a few of Lion's bundled apps, Windows doesn't even come with bundled programs that I deem acceptable to use over any alternatives to begin with. And if Apple continues as it's been doing for the last two OS X releases, 10.8 will probably only be $29 when it comes out anyway. Trust me: most of the criticisms of Lion I've made in this thread wouldn't be there if I were coming in brand new without any prior OS X experience. I just hold Apple to a higher standard than I do Microsoft because I know from experience that they can do better than this.

Could not agree more, very well said.
 
C

chas_m

Guest
I only referenced its unsuitable performance on machines with 2GB of RAM

I did everything I mentioned before I upgraded the RAM. I only upgraded it because I got a sweet deal on it. Though for me it was a 50 percent increase, it's still well under the 4GB I believe you previously claimed as the minimum, so it should be awful by that standard. Only it isn't.

If you're boasting about 720p playback and having trouble with Google Earth, your standards are about 6 years behind the curve. I wouldn't take this as a positive for Lion.

You know better than this. Those references VERY SPECIFICALLY refer to the shortcoming of the video chipset in my MacBook (the GMA 950) and have *nothing whatsoever* to do with the operating system (behaved exactly the same under Leopard and Snow). As you (should) well know, if for no other reason than because I made it quite clear.

I never said Lion was unsuitable for power users. I said it was unsuitable for people that do heavy multitasking and that it required more RAM than Snow Leopard did to perform acceptably.

I love subjective terms as much as the next guy, as long as the next guy understands that they are being subjective. What you really mean is that in your *particular* case you find Lion more taxing on some specific activities than you did under Snow Leopard. To this I have to reply "so what?" Either time will fix it or the market will. It seems to work fine for the majority, given that Apple is increasing its Mac marketshare by very significant numbers of late. Last quarter the company shipped nearly *5 million* Macs. In three months. An all-time record.

I suppose I could have been more specific and thrown in the implied "It's unsuitable for people with workflows that actually leveraged Exposé," but I thought my heavy focus on what a poor replacement Mission Control is covered that.

No, I think that's been made clear. Your big problem with Lion really boils down to "I don't like Expose now." Okay, fair enough. A valid but subjective complaint. You're unlikely to be alone in that, but I'm just pointing out that because something doesn't work well for you (or me) doesn't mean it doesn't work well for *most other users.* That's all.

Accusing all criticism of Apple as the work of Luddites is rather closed-minded.

Yes, good job nobody here did anything like that then! Nice straw man, did you build it yourself? Oh dear it's fallen down now. :)

As you'll recall, I both referenced and endorsed Ars Technica's Lion (10.7.0) review as fair and accurate. Had you bothered to read it (I forgive you if you haven't had time -- it's unbelievably long and detailed!), you'd have found that it specifically addresses some of your stated concerns.

I'm open to Exposé being enhanced or even replaced with something better

It is entirely possible that Apple will introduce refinements in a future revision. Or not. All I can say with certainty is that they put a lot of effort into thinking about this stuff, but that's not to say they're perfect. Remember when "stacks" first came out? It was a great idea in its way, but the original implementation was just horrible. They heard back on that point from their users and fixed it fairly quickly (not instantly, but fairly soon). You certainly have the same option on the subject of Expose and I encourage you to share your thoughts with Apple on it.

I'm open to new takes on the fullscreen idea that get around it "covering up" a bunch of windows - I didn't want multi-monitor fullscreen support to be killed off in the process.

This specific criticism I'm VERY confident will be addressed in a future revision.

The iMovie '08 "revolt" was justified even by Apple's tacit admission, since they made iMovie 6 HD available as a free download

Hey, thanks for falling into my little trap there. No, this is actually not true. Apple a) did not remove any existing installs of iMovie HD and b) had already posted iMovie HD as a free download BEFORE iLife 08 actually came out. I know this for a fact because I wrote numerous articles on the change of iMovie HD to a free download THE DAY BEFORE iLife 08 was released. Apple was (of course) very aware that iMovie 08 was a big change, that's specifically why they did what they did, it was NOT in reaction to consumer feedback, as they did both of these things before they'd gotten ANY consumer feedback. But thanks for playing the mythology card.

Yeah, iMovie 08 was brilliant but half-baked. No argument here on that point, not the first time nor the last time Apple will do something like that. But, as predicted by many, time fixed it. Magic takes time sometimes.

I predict more-or-less the same pattern with Final Cut X. People who jump into it fresh tend to LOVE IT in my experience, people who were used to the old way HATE IT but will come around in a year or so, particularly with the growth of the third-party plug-in market, and within another couple of years it will be THE standard and Premiere and Avid et all will announce "revolutionary new versions" of their products. Same old, same old.

since Apple is essentially forcing professional video editors to go through the costly process of switching to another software solution.

Nope: Apple resumes selling Final Cut Studio | MacNN

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. If you want to ding Apple because sometimes they push the industry forward too hard, I think you have a fair point there. But it should also be noted that they are not deaf to criticism.

Apple's products are not exempt from criticism just because some of their actions push the industry forward.

Nobody here has said anything even REMOTELY contrary to that, so there goes another straw man. Apple exempt from criticism? Perish the thought! There are plenty of nits I can pick (some bigger than others) on any Apple OS or product. But I recognise that that's mainly due to their failure to consult me during the development process. :)

I'm not asking for Exposé back: I just want Mission Control, and indeed Lion itself, to be molded into worthy successors.

Magic takes time sometimes, and sometimes you have to have a little faith that Apple is self-aware of where improvements can be made and that they will -- in time -- make them. Generally speaking, in my long history with the company, they DO have that self-awareness and they generally get it right eventually. That it's not fast enough for some is the price of pushing forward, IMO (which is not the same as giving them a golden pass on every idea they've ever tried out. Look at the design history of the shuffle for a good example of this).

The entire computer industry is so consumed by competitiveness that it can't really spend much time or resources on looking back. Windows being the ultimate example of this. Some may see this as a shame, but I see it as the (sometimes very annoying) price of continuous innovation. The technological industry is more like a play -- full of minor mistakes the sharp-eyed will pounce on but ultimately ongoing -- than let's say a craft like horseshoe making, where the blacksmith generally has all the time in the world to get it right (or right enough, anyway). Is this a better or worse approach? Not for me to say, really.

As harsh as I may seem with my criticisms of Lion, I would never compare Lion to Windows Millennium Edition. For all its faults, OS X Lion is still better at window management than Windows 7 by a huge margin. And even though there are some bugs in a few of Lion's bundled apps, Windows doesn't even come with bundled programs that I deem acceptable to use over any alternatives to begin with. And if Apple continues as it's been doing for the last two OS X releases, 10.8 will probably only be $29 when it comes out anyway. Trust me: most of the criticisms of Lion I've made in this thread wouldn't be there if I were coming in brand new without any prior OS X experience. I just hold Apple to a higher standard than I do Microsoft because I know from experience that they can do better than this.

I don't have a problem with this sentiment at all. As much as I appreciate and enjoy Apple products, I would never suggest that they are immune from flaw and legitimate criticism (though I see a LOT of misplaced criticism on forums like this, where the user is often at fault rather than Apple. I'm not suggesting your points fall into that category in any way).

This is why although I'm often amused by some of the hypocrisy in the Mac community, I love it -- there's no better "check and balance" for a computer company around than what the Mac community -- as noisy and picky and hyperbolic as they can be -- provides. Though prone to hyperbole and inaccuracy, the basic criticisms we hear from user feedback usually have a foundation in truth ... which is why Apple tends to address them so often.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
75
Points
48
Your Mac's Specs
2.6GHz Core i7 15" MacBook Pro - 8GB DDR3 SDRAM - 750GB 7200 RPM HDD - GeForce 650M GT 1GB VRAM
I did everything I mentioned before I upgraded the RAM. I only upgraded it because I got a sweet deal on it. Though for me it was a 50 percent increase, it's still well under the 4GB I believe you previously claimed as the minimum, so it should be awful by that standard. Only it isn't.
Very well, I'll amend 4GB to "over 2GB," since I didn't have a setup with an amount of RAM in between the two test with. That doesn't detract from the fact that Lion's miserable performance on certain machines that ship with it is completely unacceptable or that the required amount of RAM needed for it to run acceptably is higher than that of Snow Leopard.

I love subjective terms as much as the next guy, as long as the next guy understands that they are being subjective. What you really mean is that in your *particular* case you find Lion more taxing on some specific activities than you did under Snow Leopard. To this I have to reply "so what?" Either time will fix it or the market will. It seems to work fine for the majority, given that Apple is increasing its Mac marketshare by very significant numbers of late. Last quarter the company shipped nearly *5 million* Macs. In three months. An all-time record.
Given that Lion only has a 3.5-star rating on the Mac App Store and that average has been steadily declining as people have spent more time with it (see the all-version average of 4 stars versus the current version average of 3.5), I somehow doubt Lion's changes are responsible for keeping people buying Macs. I'd say Lion's faults are far from being particular to my specific usage habits as a result. The revamp to the MacBook Pros, a growing economy, the overwhelming success of the iPad, and the fact the last three months included the holiday season seem to point to much more likely reasons for Mac sales.

No, I think that's been made clear. Your big problem with Lion really boils down to "I don't like Expose now." Okay, fair enough. A valid but subjective complaint. You're unlikely to be alone in that, but I'm just pointing out that because something doesn't work well for you (or me) doesn't mean it doesn't work well for *most other users.* That's all.
Mission Control is only overlooked as much as it is because most people don't actually use it, similar to how most people didn't use Exposé. This is because the vast majority of people use their laptops for little more than the web browser.

Yes, good job nobody here did anything like that then! Nice straw man, did you build it yourself? Oh dear it's fallen down now. :)

...

Nobody here has said anything even REMOTELY contrary to that, so there goes another straw man. Apple exempt from criticism? Perish the thought! There are plenty of nits I can pick (some bigger than others) on any Apple OS or product. But I recognise that that's mainly due to their failure to consult me during the development process. :)

This is ridiculous. I guess I'll just repost these choice words:
LOL! Oh, how the memory cheats!!

Most of the people who now seem like they are/were "thrilled" with Snow Leopard were the exact SAME people gnashing their teeth and condemning Apple to the skies a couple of years ago. Oh you should have been there! Special web sites (by the dozens!) with compatibility charts and forums filled with fearful faithful! Half the base thought Apple had lost their minds dropping Gx compatibility and the other half thought the idea of charging for a new version with "no new features" was sheer MADNESS that would see Apple lose all its marketshare.

There was MUCH wailing about app compatibility (LOTS of older stuff "broke" under Snow Leopard) and cursing about the dropping of G5s and older. The new features in Snow Leopard were MUCH reviled (at first) and it was Leopard's turn to be the "it ain't broke why fix it" poster boy!

This same Greek tragedy is re-performed every time Apple does the very thing we admire most about them (in retrospect, it would seem) -- push the industry forward by daring to throw out the old. Man I remember when the iMac came out with no legacy ports at all, you should have heard the howling!!

In short, the Mac community is a friendly place with great people, but we're also terrible hypocrites with VERY selective memories and rather picky about stuff as well. For users that have embraced the very ESSENCE of change by picking the "non-standard" platform in the first place, we sure do get cranky when Apple changes stuff ... as a user since the mid-80s I'm just endlessly amused by the occasional hysteria of Mac users ... remind me to tell you about iMovie '08 User Revolt sometime ...
You saw that someone new was looking at all the complaints about Lion and decided to try to discredit them by saying the Mac community always whines when Apple changes things - despite the fact everyone here voicing their concerns are doing so after they have had half a year to adjust and Apple has had half a year to refine Lion. Don't try to hide behind not having directly said the exact word that describes what you were trying to accuse us of being for daring to not like every change Apple makes.

As you'll recall, I both referenced and endorsed Ars Technica's Lion (10.7.0) review as fair and accurate. Had you bothered to read it (I forgive you if you haven't had time -- it's unbelievably long and detailed!), you'd have found that it specifically addresses some of your stated concerns.
I read the review the day it was posted by Ars. Thanks for being condescending. Of course, the issue with a review along those lines is it fails to take the user experience into account because many things that may seem like minor annoyances at the time turn out to become much worse when you have to deal with them every time you use the OS. But Ars never claims to be that kind of review - John is purely technical in his assessment, and I respect that. Unfortunately, that doesn't provide the whole picture.


It is entirely possible that Apple will introduce refinements in a future revision. Or not. All I can say with certainty is that they put a lot of effort into thinking about this stuff, but that's not to say they're perfect. Remember when "stacks" first came out? It was a great idea in its way, but the original implementation was just horrible. They heard back on that point from their users and fixed it fairly quickly (not instantly, but fairly soon). You certainly have the same option on the subject of Expose and I encourage you to share your thoughts with Apple on it.
The difference is that even the first iteration of stacks still maintained the functionality of the old "folder in the dock" way of doing things. It didn't remove anything. I have shared my thoughts on this with Apple. That said, I've also shared my thoughts on how ridiculous it is that OS X still doesn't have native NTFS r/w support and somehow I doubt that's going to change for the foreseeable future. Time will tell on this one: it's hard to say because so few computer users would make use of something like Mission Control or Exposé, as I previously stated.


This specific criticism I'm VERY confident will be addressed in a future revision.

10.8? A year or more would be a long time to go without this for some people.

Hey, thanks for falling into my little trap there. No, this is actually not true. Apple a) did not remove any existing installs of iMovie HD and b) had already posted iMovie HD as a free download BEFORE iLife 08 actually came out. I know this for a fact because I wrote numerous articles on the change of iMovie HD to a free download THE DAY BEFORE iLife 08 was released. Apple was (of course) very aware that iMovie 08 was a big change, that's specifically why they did what they did, it was NOT in reaction to consumer feedback, as they did both of these things before they'd gotten ANY consumer feedback. But thanks for playing the mythology card.

Yeah, iMovie 08 was brilliant but half-baked. No argument here on that point, not the first time nor the last time Apple will do something like that. But, as predicted by many, time fixed it. Magic takes time sometimes.

I predict more-or-less the same pattern with Final Cut X. People who jump into it fresh tend to LOVE IT in my experience, people who were used to the old way HATE IT but will come around in a year or so, particularly with the growth of the third-party plug-in market, and within another couple of years it will be THE standard and Premiere and Avid et all will announce "revolutionary new versions" of their products. Same old, same old.

...

Nope: Apple resumes selling Final Cut Studio | MacNN

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. If you want to ding Apple because sometimes they push the industry forward too hard, I think you have a fair point there. But it should also be noted that they are not deaf to criticism.

Not much of a trap since I didn't say anything about when Apple made iMovie 6 HD available online. The fact they felt the need to do so preemptively only reinforces the notion that they released iMovie '08 knowing it was half-baked. They did something similar with Quicktime X, but at least QuickTime 7 was an optional install on the Snow Leopard DVD and you never actually had to open the QuickTime 7 Player to access the framework - it happened through the QuickTime X frontend seamlessly. iMovie '08 was lazy, and they should have waited until they were done with it to release. FCP, on the other hand, Apple did not realize was terrible until it got bad press from everywhere.

Yes, they resumed selling the old version later (thanks for the link), but a number of studios switched over before that point due to Apple's initial response being less than adequate. Apple cost these people money in making them switch, and they have as a result jeopardized their stake in the professional video editing market. You know you've done something horribly wrong if you have to issue refunds. I don't really take the reviews from people using FCP for the first time very seriously, since the new price-point drew in a lot of so-called "prosumers." Yes, it's fabulous for people that only have iMovie to compare it to. But I can't fathom someone doing this professionally for a big studio choosing it over Adobe's solution or the old Final Cut Studio - it can't even import industry-standard file types properly.

Magic takes time sometimes, and sometimes you have to have a little faith that Apple is self-aware of where improvements can be made and that they will -- in time -- make them. Generally speaking, in my long history with the company, they DO have that self-awareness and they generally get it right eventually. That it's not fast enough for some is the price of pushing forward, IMO (which is not the same as giving them a golden pass on every idea they've ever tried out. Look at the design history of the shuffle for a good example of this).

The entire computer industry is so consumed by competitiveness that it can't really spend much time or resources on looking back. Windows being the ultimate example of this. Some may see this as a shame, but I see it as the (sometimes very annoying) price of continuous innovation. The technological industry is more like a play -- full of minor mistakes the sharp-eyed will pounce on but ultimately ongoing -- than let's say a craft like horseshoe making, where the blacksmith generally has all the time in the world to get it right (or right enough, anyway). Is this a better or worse approach? Not for me to say, really.
They become aware because of feedback, as you yourself admit - not by magically knowing what's right. That is how the industry works. If everyone just sat on their hands and took it on good faith that Apple would fix things eventually, we'd still be dealing with the old version of Stacks. This is part of why your marginalization of complaining Mac users is particularly offensive.

I don't have a problem with this sentiment at all. As much as I appreciate and enjoy Apple products, I would never suggest that they are immune from flaw and legitimate criticism (though I see a LOT of misplaced criticism on forums like this, where the user is often at fault rather than Apple. I'm not suggesting your points fall into that category in any way).

This is why although I'm often amused by some of the hypocrisy in the Mac community, I love it -- there's no better "check and balance" for a computer company around than what the Mac community -- as noisy and picky and hyperbolic as they can be -- provides. Though prone to hyperbole and inaccuracy, the basic criticisms we hear from user feedback usually have a foundation in truth ... which is why Apple tends to address them so often.
Elevating yourself above the masses whose hyperbolic language amuses you doesn't come off that well when you describe user complaints as akin to a "Greek tragedy." That said, I see where you're coming from a little better.
 

dtravis7


Retired Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
30,133
Reaction score
703
Points
113
Location
Modesto, Ca.
Your Mac's Specs
MacMini M-1 MacOS Monterey, iMac 2010 27"Quad I7 , MBPLate2011, iPad Pro10.5", iPhoneSE
Just a note. When I first got my iMac C2D 2007 and installed SL, I was running 2GB RAM. I would hit the end every day and have slowdowns. I had to upgrade to 4GB for all the stuff I do. It got annoying always having it bog down. Even after the 4GB upgrade I was using most of it on a daily basis. Same here in Lion doing same stuff. So they seem very close to me in RAM usage overall.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
191
Points
63
Location
Tucson, AZ
Your Mac's Specs
Way... way too many specs to list.
Just a note. When I first got my iMac C2D 2007 and installed SL, I was running 2GB RAM. I would hit the end every day and have slowdowns. I had to upgrade to 4GB for all the stuff I do. It got annoying always having it bog down. Even after the 4GB upgrade I was using most of it on a daily basis. Same here in Lion doing same stuff. So they seem very close to me in RAM usage overall.

I'd agree with this. I've been playing with a new iMac today. It runs great for most things on the 4GB of RAM it unboxed with. Then I launch CS5. That's not necessarily the fault of the OS though.. CS5's hungry in general.

It'll be interesting to see how much better it runs tomorrow night. O:)
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top