Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #68675 > unrolled thread

Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-22 17:24 +0000
    Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-22 17:35 +0000
      Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-22 17:58 +0000
        Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-22 18:07 +0000
        Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-23 08:45 +1300
          Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-01-23 00:27 +0000
            Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 03:01 +0000
              Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-01-24 03:42 +0000
                Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-24 13:47 +0000
                  Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-01-25 00:33 +0000
                    Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-25 13:42 +1300
          Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-22 18:57 -0700
        Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-01-23 16:20 +0000
          Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 16:22 +0000
            Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-01-24 21:16 +0000
              Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-24 21:28 +0000
                Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-01-25 17:00 +0000
                  Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-25 17:04 +0000
                Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:26 +0000
                  Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-26 01:53 +0000
                    Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 11:13 +0000
          Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:24 +0000
    Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-01-22 12:55 -0500
      Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-22 12:22 -0700
        Re: Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-23 01:06 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#68675 — Does OSX need a Fedora-style testbed OS?

Reading all the controversy over Apple's release of OSX yearly, and the 
complaints over constant new features making it into the GA, what if 
Apple had its own Fedora-style testbed OS, where new features, kernels, 
apps, could be put out for people who want to test the OS and want to be 
on the bleeding edge.
Would doing something like this lead to a more stable final release of 
OSX?  Stuff could be tried out, tested and if passed the QA tests, roll 
out in the next final release.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#68676

On 2015-01-22, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> Reading all the controversy over Apple's release of OSX yearly, and the 
> complaints over constant new features making it into the GA, what if 
> Apple had its own Fedora-style testbed OS, where new features, kernels, 
> apps, could be put out for people who want to test the OS and want to be 
> on the bleeding edge.
> Would doing something like this lead to a more stable final release of 
> OSX?  Stuff could be tried out, tested and if passed the QA tests, roll 
> out in the next final release.

Despite all the hemming and hawing, there hasn't been any actual
evidence showing that releases are any less stable than the many
releases that came before them. On the contrary, release bugs have
existed throughout Apple's history. Apple's course of action should be
to first identify that there is a problem, and only then fix it. If
there is no problem, nothing needs to change.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68682

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:35:02 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2015-01-22, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
>> Reading all the controversy over Apple's release of OSX yearly, and the
>> complaints over constant new features making it into the GA, what if
>> Apple had its own Fedora-style testbed OS, where new features, kernels,
>> apps, could be put out for people who want to test the OS and want to
>> be on the bleeding edge.
>> Would doing something like this lead to a more stable final release of
>> OSX?  Stuff could be tried out, tested and if passed the QA tests, roll
>> out in the next final release.
> 
> Despite all the hemming and hawing, there hasn't been any actual
> evidence showing that releases are any less stable than the many
> releases that came before them. On the contrary, release bugs have
> existed throughout Apple's history. Apple's course of action should be
> to first identify that there is a problem, and only then fix it. If
> there is no problem, nothing needs to change.

I have OSX 10.4.11, which has been said to be a great release, and have 
read that a lot of people think that 10.6 SL was a high point.  10.7
(Lion) seems to engender bad comments, I have no idea why.
I was just thinking about having a "test bed" version of the OS to 
introduce a lot of new stuff, and to find bugs before they can make it 
into the final release.
Maybe Apple needs an LTS version of OSX?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68683

On 2015-01-22, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:35:02 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> On 2015-01-22, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
>>> Reading all the controversy over Apple's release of OSX yearly, and the
>>> complaints over constant new features making it into the GA, what if
>>> Apple had its own Fedora-style testbed OS, where new features, kernels,
>>> apps, could be put out for people who want to test the OS and want to
>>> be on the bleeding edge.
>>> Would doing something like this lead to a more stable final release of
>>> OSX?  Stuff could be tried out, tested and if passed the QA tests, roll
>>> out in the next final release.
>> 
>> Despite all the hemming and hawing, there hasn't been any actual
>> evidence showing that releases are any less stable than the many
>> releases that came before them. On the contrary, release bugs have
>> existed throughout Apple's history. Apple's course of action should be
>> to first identify that there is a problem, and only then fix it. If
>> there is no problem, nothing needs to change.
>
> I have OSX 10.4.11, which has been said to be a great release, and have 
> read that a lot of people think that 10.6 SL was a high point.  10.7
> (Lion) seems to engender bad comments, I have no idea why.
> I was just thinking about having a "test bed" version of the OS to 
> introduce a lot of new stuff, and to find bugs before they can make it 
> into the final release.
> Maybe Apple needs an LTS version of OSX?

Apple needs to ignore ignorant people and stay the course.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68688

In article <m9rdnd$r8c$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1
<sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:35:02 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > On 2015-01-22, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Reading all the controversy over Apple's release of OSX yearly, and the
> >> complaints over constant new features making it into the GA, what if
> >> Apple had its own Fedora-style testbed OS, where new features, kernels,
> >> apps, could be put out for people who want to test the OS and want to
> >> be on the bleeding edge.
> >> Would doing something like this lead to a more stable final release of
> >> OSX?  Stuff could be tried out, tested and if passed the QA tests, roll
> >> out in the next final release.
> > 
> > Despite all the hemming and hawing, there hasn't been any actual
> > evidence showing that releases are any less stable than the many
> > releases that came before them. On the contrary, release bugs have
> > existed throughout Apple's history. Apple's course of action should be
> > to first identify that there is a problem, and only then fix it. If
> > there is no problem, nothing needs to change.
> 
> I have OSX 10.4.11, which has been said to be a great release, and have 
> read that a lot of people think that 10.6 SL was a high point.  10.7
> (Lion) seems to engender bad comments, I have no idea why.
> I was just thinking about having a "test bed" version of the OS to 
> introduce a lot of new stuff, and to find bugs before they can make it 
> into the final release.
> Maybe Apple needs an LTS version of OSX?

There's absolutely no need. As has already been said, Apple does
release new versions and updaters for OS X to its Developer Community
for beta testing (and no doubt some of the big names get it before that
for testing). They have in the past also sometimes released a new
version of OS X for public Beta testing - they did with the current OS
X Yosemite.

Besides, anyone with more than half a brain also waits for the "0.1"
release of OS X (or any other new software for that matter) before
installing it on important computers, or at least retains the ability
to boot / use their computer with the previous version.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68709

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:45:43 UTC, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 
wrote:

> In article <m9rdnd$r8c$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1
> <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:35:02 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > > On 2015-01-22, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Reading all the controversy over Apple's release of OSX yearly, and the
> > >> complaints over constant new features making it into the GA, what if
> > >> Apple had its own Fedora-style testbed OS, where new features, kernels,
> > >> apps, could be put out for people who want to test the OS and want to
> > >> be on the bleeding edge.
> > >> Would doing something like this lead to a more stable final release of
> > >> OSX?  Stuff could be tried out, tested and if passed the QA tests, roll
> > >> out in the next final release.
> > > 
> > > Despite all the hemming and hawing, there hasn't been any actual
> > > evidence showing that releases are any less stable than the many
> > > releases that came before them. On the contrary, release bugs have
> > > existed throughout Apple's history. Apple's course of action should be
> > > to first identify that there is a problem, and only then fix it. If
> > > there is no problem, nothing needs to change.
> > 
> > I have OSX 10.4.11, which has been said to be a great release, and have 
> > read that a lot of people think that 10.6 SL was a high point.  10.7
> > (Lion) seems to engender bad comments, I have no idea why.
> > I was just thinking about having a "test bed" version of the OS to 
> > introduce a lot of new stuff, and to find bugs before they can make it 
> > into the final release.
> > Maybe Apple needs an LTS version of OSX?
> 
> There's absolutely no need. As has already been said, Apple does
> release new versions and updaters for OS X to its Developer Community
> for beta testing (and no doubt some of the big names get it before that
> for testing). They have in the past also sometimes released a new
> version of OS X for public Beta testing - they did with the current OS
> X Yosemite.
> 
> Besides, anyone with more than half a brain also waits for the "0.1"
> release of OS X (or any other new software for that matter) before
> installing it on important computers, or at least retains the ability
> to boot / use their computer with the previous version.

I did that with Yosemite, and am now back on Mavericks. Waiting for 
10.10.2.

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68724

On 2015-01-23, John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Besides, anyone with more than half a brain also waits for the "0.1"
>> release of OS X (or any other new software for that matter) before
>> installing it on important computers, or at least retains the ability
>> to boot / use their computer with the previous version.
>
> I did that with Yosemite, and am now back on Mavericks. Waiting for 
> 10.10.2.

Why is that?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68839

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 03:01:19 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:

> On 2015-01-23, John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Besides, anyone with more than half a brain also waits for the "0.1"
> >> release of OS X (or any other new software for that matter) before
> >> installing it on important computers, or at least retains the ability
> >> to boot / use their computer with the previous version.
> >
> > I did that with Yosemite, and am now back on Mavericks. Waiting for 
> > 10.10.2.
> 
> Why is that?
 
Number one is that I never did solve the slowness problem that we 
discussed before. Twice I found things that ameliorated it and in 
optimism I declared the problem solved, but then further use 
revealed that it was not completely solved. After reverting to 
Mavericks the machine is noticeably snappier and I can again run 
Parallels Desktop and Eye TV in 1080 mode with perfectly smooth 
animation. There were also some minor annoyances in Yosemite that I 
can't even recall what they were.

I did consider that maybe I had a bad download of Yosemite, but 
concluded that was unlikely given that I couldn't duplicate the 
slowness problem in the admin account on the same computer. I 
considered opening a new account for myself and then copying all my 
files from one account to the other, but decided that was more 
trouble than I wanted to go to, given there was no guarantee that 
the new account wouldn't be just as bad as the old one. Tired of 
fighting the machine instead of using it, I backleveled to 
Mavericks. There was nothing in Yosemite that I miss.

When 10.10.2 comes out I'll give it another try.  

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68856

On 2015-01-24, John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 03:01:19 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-01-23, John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Besides, anyone with more than half a brain also waits for the "0.1"
>> >> release of OS X (or any other new software for that matter) before
>> >> installing it on important computers, or at least retains the ability
>> >> to boot / use their computer with the previous version.
>> >
>> > I did that with Yosemite, and am now back on Mavericks. Waiting for 
>> > 10.10.2.
>> 
>> Why is that?
>  
> Number one is that I never did solve the slowness problem that we 
> discussed before. Twice I found things that ameliorated it and in 
> optimism I declared the problem solved, but then further use 
> revealed that it was not completely solved. After reverting to 
> Mavericks the machine is noticeably snappier and I can again run 
> Parallels Desktop and Eye TV in 1080 mode with perfectly smooth 
> animation. There were also some minor annoyances in Yosemite that I 
> can't even recall what they were.
>
> I did consider that maybe I had a bad download of Yosemite, but 
> concluded that was unlikely given that I couldn't duplicate the 
> slowness problem in the admin account on the same computer. I 
> considered opening a new account for myself and then copying all my 
> files from one account to the other, but decided that was more 
> trouble than I wanted to go to, given there was no guarantee that 
> the new account wouldn't be just as bad as the old one.

That's your best chance of solving the issue, since you have diagnosed
that the issue is something in that user account.

> Tired of 
> fighting the machine instead of using it, I backleveled to 
> Mavericks. There was nothing in Yosemite that I miss.
>
> When 10.10.2 comes out I'll give it another try.  

Don't expect a difference outcome with that same user account, since
that's clearly where the problem lies. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68912

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:47:00 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:

> On 2015-01-24, John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 03:01:19 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-01-23, John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> Besides, anyone with more than half a brain also waits for the "0.1"
> >> >> release of OS X (or any other new software for that matter) before
> >> >> installing it on important computers, or at least retains the ability
> >> >> to boot / use their computer with the previous version.
> >> >
> >> > I did that with Yosemite, and am now back on Mavericks. Waiting for 
> >> > 10.10.2.
> >> 
> >> Why is that?
> >  
> > Number one is that I never did solve the slowness problem that we 
> > discussed before. Twice I found things that ameliorated it and in 
> > optimism I declared the problem solved, but then further use 
> > revealed that it was not completely solved. After reverting to 
> > Mavericks the machine is noticeably snappier and I can again run 
> > Parallels Desktop and Eye TV in 1080 mode with perfectly smooth 
> > animation. There were also some minor annoyances in Yosemite that I 
> > can't even recall what they were.
> >
> > I did consider that maybe I had a bad download of Yosemite, but 
> > concluded that was unlikely given that I couldn't duplicate the 
> > slowness problem in the admin account on the same computer. I 
> > considered opening a new account for myself and then copying all my 
> > files from one account to the other, but decided that was more 
> > trouble than I wanted to go to, given there was no guarantee that 
> > the new account wouldn't be just as bad as the old one.
> 
> That's your best chance of solving the issue, since you have diagnosed
> that the issue is something in that user account.
> 
> > Tired of 
> > fighting the machine instead of using it, I backleveled to 
> > Mavericks. There was nothing in Yosemite that I miss.
> >
> > When 10.10.2 comes out I'll give it another try.  
> 
> Don't expect a difference outcome with that same user account, since
> that's clearly where the problem lies. 
 
The alternatives would have been to go through my account removing 
something and testing, removing something else and testing, until, 
hopefully, the problem disappeared, or else create a new account and
try adding things one at a time. The latter might leave some crud 
attached to some apps at the system level. Better to start with a 
clean install, including reinstalling all the apps, and then start 
adding widgets and add-ons and plug-ins and whatever else that I've 
accumulated over the years.

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68914

In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-pCz0jIVK8EoL@localhost>, John Varela
<newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:47:00 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> wrote:
> > On 2015-01-24, John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 03:01:19 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 2015-01-23, John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> Besides, anyone with more than half a brain also waits for the "0.1"
> > >> >> release of OS X (or any other new software for that matter) before
> > >> >> installing it on important computers, or at least retains the ability
> > >> >> to boot / use their computer with the previous version.
> > >> >
> > >> > I did that with Yosemite, and am now back on Mavericks. Waiting for 
> > >> > 10.10.2.
> > >> 
> > >> Why is that?
> > >  
> > > Number one is that I never did solve the slowness problem that we 
> > > discussed before. Twice I found things that ameliorated it and in 
> > > optimism I declared the problem solved, but then further use 
> > > revealed that it was not completely solved. After reverting to 
> > > Mavericks the machine is noticeably snappier and I can again run 
> > > Parallels Desktop and Eye TV in 1080 mode with perfectly smooth 
> > > animation. There were also some minor annoyances in Yosemite that I 
> > > can't even recall what they were.
> > >
> > > I did consider that maybe I had a bad download of Yosemite, but 
> > > concluded that was unlikely given that I couldn't duplicate the 
> > > slowness problem in the admin account on the same computer. I 
> > > considered opening a new account for myself and then copying all my 
> > > files from one account to the other, but decided that was more 
> > > trouble than I wanted to go to, given there was no guarantee that 
> > > the new account wouldn't be just as bad as the old one.
> > 
> > That's your best chance of solving the issue, since you have diagnosed
> > that the issue is something in that user account.
> > 
> > > Tired of fighting the machine instead of using it, I backleveled to 
> > > Mavericks. There was nothing in Yosemite that I miss.
> > >
> > > When 10.10.2 comes out I'll give it another try.  
> > 
> > Don't expect a difference outcome with that same user account, since
> > that's clearly where the problem lies. 
>  
> The alternatives would have been to go through my account removing 
> something and testing, removing something else and testing, until, 
> hopefully, the problem disappeared, or else create a new account and
> try adding things one at a time. The latter might leave some crud 
> attached to some apps at the system level. Better to start with a 
> clean install, including reinstalling all the apps, and then start 
> adding widgets and add-ons and plug-ins and whatever else that I've 
> accumulated over the years.

Yep, and then only add all that extra rubbish as and when you actually
need it ... you'll usuallyt find that most, if not all, of it never
gets re-installed.

That's why I always advise people to not use Migration Assistant, and
just retrieve what you need as you need it (and keep all the old stuff
on a backup drive in the extremely rare case that you do decide you
need it three years later). Much of the stuff people collect on their
hard drive is garbage that is rarely or never used again - it's even
easier to ignore stuff on a hard drive than it is unused rubbish shoved
into a closet or drawer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68722

In article <230120150845439851%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> They have in the past also sometimes released a new version of OS X
> for public Beta testing - they did with the current OS X Yosemite.

You are right, they did, and are doing it with the .dot upgrades to it
as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68757

sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> 10.7 (Lion) seems to engender bad comments, I have no idea why.

10.7 was awful. It was Apple's Windows Vista. It was the only OS X 
version I ever skipped, despite trying really, really hard to like and 
use it.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68758

On 2015-01-23, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
>> 10.7 (Lion) seems to engender bad comments, I have no idea why.
>
> 10.7 was awful. It was Apple's Windows Vista. It was the only OS X 
> version I ever skipped, despite trying really, really hard to like and 
> use it.

OS X underwent major transitions from 10.7 through 10.10, and it showed.
; )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68882

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> OS X underwent major transitions from 10.7 through 10.10, and it showed.

Apple did really stupid things in 10.7 for reasons that escape me. An 
example was the decision to hide 1/3 of the information shown by Address 
Book at any given time. Thankfully 10.8 restored that. There were a ton 
of similar issues.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68886

On 2015-01-24, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> OS X underwent major transitions from 10.7 through 10.10, and it showed.
>
> Apple did really stupid things in 10.7 for reasons that escape me. An 
> example was the decision to hide 1/3 of the information shown by Address 
> Book at any given time.

I don't remember having (or even reading about) that issue. You're
suggesting Apple did that on purpose for a reason?

> Thankfully 10.8 restored that. There were a ton 
> of similar issues.

You mean bugs? Yes, 10.7 had a fair share of bugs.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68948

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > example was the decision to hide 1/3 of the information shown by Address 
> > Book at any given time.
> 
> I don't remember having (or even reading about) that issue. You're
> suggesting Apple did that on purpose for a reason?

Yes, in all version of OS X except 10.7, Address Book (Contacts) had a 
3-column view - Groups on the left, Contacts in the middle, and contact 
details on the right. 10.7's Address Book had a "book" view, where only 
Contacts was always shown. Either groups or details was hidden at any 
given time. Clicking a little red ribbon would toggle between them.

Remember?
http://www.betalogue.com/images/uploads/macosx/abook6-main.png

Here's 10.8's Contacts - see how the red ribbon is gone and the 3 
columns are back. http://tinyurl.com/mnlalod

> You mean bugs? Yes, 10.7 had a fair share of bugs.

Not just bugs - intentional changes that Apple insisted were "working as 
expected/designed" all throughout the 10.7 beta testing process. 
Believe me, I was there. Many of these were reverted by 10.8.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68950

On 2015-01-25, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > example was the decision to hide 1/3 of the information shown by Address 
>> > Book at any given time.
>> 
>> I don't remember having (or even reading about) that issue. You're
>> suggesting Apple did that on purpose for a reason?
>
> Yes, in all version of OS X except 10.7, Address Book (Contacts) had a 
> 3-column view - Groups on the left, Contacts in the middle, and contact 
> details on the right. 10.7's Address Book had a "book" view, where only 
> Contacts was always shown. Either groups or details was hidden at any 
> given time. Clicking a little red ribbon would toggle between them.
>
> Remember?
> http://www.betalogue.com/images/uploads/macosx/abook6-main.png
>
> Here's 10.8's Contacts - see how the red ribbon is gone and the 3 
> columns are back. http://tinyurl.com/mnlalod
>
>> You mean bugs? Yes, 10.7 had a fair share of bugs.
>
> Not just bugs - intentional changes that Apple insisted were "working as 
> expected/designed" all throughout the 10.7 beta testing process. 
> Believe me, I was there. Many of these were reverted by 10.8.

Ah, yep. I do remember that. Thanks for refreshing my memory.

I consider 10.7 in particular to be a transitional release on the way to
10.8. And in many ways 10.8 was transitional as well. If I had a choice
between 10.7, 10.8, and 10.9 today, I'd definitely pick 10.9. And if
10.10 were an option as well, I'd go straight to 10.10.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68971

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like:
> On 2015-01-24, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> OS X underwent major transitions from 10.7 through 10.10, and it showed.
>>
>> Apple did really stupid things in 10.7 for reasons that escape me. An 
>> example was the decision to hide 1/3 of the information shown by Address 
>> Book at any given time.

> I don't remember having (or even reading about) that issue. You're
> suggesting Apple did that on purpose for a reason?

>> Thankfully 10.8 restored that. There were a ton 
>> of similar issues.

> You mean bugs? Yes, 10.7 had a fair share of bugs.

No, this was a stupid "make Contact like ios Contacts" thing. It was dumb.

-- 
Always be sincere, even if you don't mean it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68980

On 2015-01-26, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like:
>> On 2015-01-24, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
>>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> OS X underwent major transitions from 10.7 through 10.10, and it showed.
>>>
>>> Apple did really stupid things in 10.7 for reasons that escape me. An 
>>> example was the decision to hide 1/3 of the information shown by Address 
>>> Book at any given time.
>
>> I don't remember having (or even reading about) that issue. You're
>> suggesting Apple did that on purpose for a reason?
>
>>> Thankfully 10.8 restored that. There were a ton 
>>> of similar issues.
>
>> You mean bugs? Yes, 10.7 had a fair share of bugs.
>
> No, this was a stupid "make Contact like ios Contacts" thing. It was dumb.

I'm not sure it had anything to do with making it more like iOS; but
it's certainly possible. To be fair, all they did was hide one pane of
the window, making it a little less convenient to use. It definitely
wasn't a good idea, and I'm glad they reversed their decision.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web