Honestly, every time Apple has done anything with the Mac the past couple of years, they've screwed it up. The infamous keyboards that they doubled-down and then tripled-down upon (I have personally had five keyboard replacements). The way Catalina sends the hash of every binary you run to Apple. The built-in Catalyst apps that look ugly and feel out-of-place. The Touch Bar which I still, years later, inadvertently activate several times a day (I've had to remove all the buttons on the right), which they addressed by making mandatory. The recurring bugs and kernel panics that have been lying around for years, unfixed.
I have the least confidence in Apple I've ever had. I'm afraid to run Big Sur, not because it changes things, but because it's Apple who are behind it.
But I have to ask myself: why this release? Why fix bugs in Big Sur, but not Catalina or Mojave? For example, the annoying bug where Mail randomly becomes the active application has been floating around for years and still isn't fixed, and there are only two reasons for this: Apple is stretched too thin and can't spare the developers to work on bug fixes, or Apple doesn't care, and is simply willing to let the Mac languish, taking the reputation hit in favour of increased iPhone sales. The fact that they've overhauled the entire interface means it's not the first one — they do have enough resources to make large, sweeping changes to the OS. So I will be absolutely unsurprised if, ten months from now, I decide to upgrade to Big Sur on a whim, and a couple of minutes in, Mail pops up once more.
Unlikely, given their recent track record. They'll just ignore the bugs in this release until the next big release like they've been doing for the past few versions.
My touch bar had dead pixels (twice), effectively wiping out half the function keys. And when it did work, it was hard to use.
I've been using my MBP as a desktop for the past 8+ months, and while it's slightly better experience, it still sucks that I'm stuck having to buy 3 USB adapters just to make it usable.
I know habits die hard, and "you're holding it wrong" is not a valid excuse- and I know that I also dislike massively not having an escape key.
But for vim specifically; there is an escape sequence and the escape key is an alternative method for that. (similar to how the arrows "work" but hjkl is the "real" way of moving).
Is eating 2 sandwiches also faster than eating one?
Are 2 electrical impulses also faster than 1?
I think not.
Locality is important, in fact it's the largest factor in determining speed of a hotkey's access.. "distance from home-row" is a measurement that is consistently touted when referring to vim in particular.
Control+[ is significantly faster because your hands move independently. However I'm just now remembering that I always remapped my capslock to be an additional control, so it isn't necessarily universal that control is "as fast" since my "control" is actually on the homerow.. which is unusual.
As it happens, though I was wrong earlier and was confusing ^c and ^[
from `:h i_CTRL-C`
> CTRL-C: Quit insert mode, go back to Normal mode. Do not check for abbreviations. Does not trigger the InsertLeave autocommand event.
^[ is interpreted exactly the same as ESC; vim can't see a difference. (you can see this under `:h keycode` )
I got a USB-C monitor last time I upgraded (LG 27" 4K) and having a single cable to plug in, which not only carries the display signal, but also charges my MBP, AND carries the USB signal so that I can plug wired keyboard and anything else into the hub in the monitor still feels ridiculously futuristic to me.
Dell and HP have higher powered docks, but there are many conflicting reports on if it can deliver 96W to non-dell/hp laptops.
TB3/USB-C is a giant mess that is too confusing for even techies to reliably navigate.
 - https://www.caldigit.com/using-the-16-macbook-pro-with-the-c...
Charging works fine even though I don’t think it pumps same power as PSU out.
I do a lot of Rust programming and use VMs too. Haven’t run into a situation where it runs out of juice while attached.
Another 100w option is the Targus dock - https://us.targus.com/products/usb-c-universal-quad-4k-docki...
It’s a hub secondary, and an egpu primarily, but it works fine to power my
Personal 2019 mbp 13 (1.7 i7, 16gb)
Personal Lenovo s740
Work 2019 mbp 16 (2.8 i7, 16gb)
If you're sharing a screen via video conference, you can easily hit 90c, with the CPU throttling hard the whole time.
Wait, what?! What are you referring to here? I just updated to Catalina and I wasn't aware of this.
I would like to know how to disable this and install little snitch. Maybe spctl or csrutil?
And people complained about Windows 10 telemetry.
Last time I run macOS. Time to return to Linux (Pop
OS I think)
A few years ago I remember reading an article where Apple looked at crash metrics and worked very hard to address those. The criticism at the time was that this wouldn't catch slowdowns, hangs, or issues like "why aren't my Messages showing up?" which has been issues more recently.
Compared to what OS?
The latest Windows 10 update buggers up Storage Spaces and printing, hard on the heels of another Windows 10 Update that deleted the user's files.
However, a few years ago a Steam update had potential to erase a bunch of data.
Is there a Linux option similar to Time Machine or Windows Backup (backing to a local network drive)? I've used things like rsync and restic. They work great for jobby-job like needs, but isn't something I could show a point-and-click user to manage themselves.
How soon did you install Linux on your Macbook Pro 2015? Which distro did you go with? When I get a new Mac I usually test out a few Linux distros and it can take years (if ever) to get decent support. Things like; wifi, palm rejection of trackpad, power management (decent battery optimizations or sleep/wake).
My oldest daughter is 16 years old and has always used Linux at home, and she had no problem when Windows was found in some classes in the High School. I think it is possible, as long as you have someone to turn to if there are problems (I am that someone in my family).
Professionally, I work with ultra-low latency systems for high frequency/algo trading and it would be impossible to achieve the level of tuning and performance that Linux offers on other OSes.
I'm interested in the types of issues that made the experience bad for you.
* Even though there is tons of extra swap space, running too many apps at once causes the entire system to become unresponsive for ~20s at a time. Granted, I am using older hardware, but there should be some minimal amount of responsiveness allocated to indicate the system isn't just totally dead.
* Wifi GUI Gnome utility often ceases working and requires wifi to be turned off and on again. I got so fed up with this I just wrote a command to set Wifi to my credentials, and even then, I have to unplug/replug the wifi dongle frequently to get it to re-register with the system. On Arch Linux, this GUI utility doesn't even work at all. This has happened with multiple different makes of dongles.
* When I was using Ubuntu for work purposes (and Python / node / Docker stack), it would frequently run out of file descriptors. There was no solution other than to restart.
* Last night I started to encounter an issue where Ctrl-X would cut text successfully, but when I go to paste it, it will not be there. Possibly a bug with VSCode, not sure yet, but I haven't encountered it running VSCode on Mac at all.
* Something about programs being interrupted by context switches to other programs that are using large slices of CPU time leads to input being misinterpreted. If I am running a Rust compilation in one window, typing `hello` into an adjacent terminal window might show up as `hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllo`. This happens in a wide variety of applications. I suspect the problem has to do with input library routines not receiving real time priority, or something like that. Weirdly enough, I saw the same issue on FreeBSD.
Don’t use gnome and in particular don’t use their network configuration tools. I’ve never seen those reliably work.
>re repeat under load
I’ve had this happen on OSX but I don’t think I’ve ever had it happen on Linux. Then again I almost exclusively type anything long in vim so maybe it’s a bug with the widget toolkit the app is using?
This kind of response, though, gets to the core of why desktop Linux isn't a super popular choice. The defaults should _work_. Most popular Linux distributions use GNOME by default. We should fix GNOME rather than say people should know they need to not use it. If using KDE is the obvious solution to the plurality of problems someone might encounter, why isn't KDE the default for most distros? I'm sure there are political reasons too, but those are reasons that matter to the end user just as much as technical ones. They are, in fact, indistinguishable from that perspective.
Even if the solution is KDE (or something else), a person who switched will find that KDE itself has issues as well, and when someone encounters them, they will complain and be told to not use KDE, use GNOME because it doesn't have that issue. We can't continuously flip flop stacks just because we encounter particular bugs.
> maybe it’s a bug with the widget toolkit the app is using?
I assume that's GTK, and it's possible. I see the bug in Firefox, Chrome, and GNOME's terminal, although strangely not VSCode.
I personally use Linux all the time, but not on the desktop because it's just bad enough that I can't stand it (It's really not Linux, it's X and all its associated crap). I won't criticize those who do because they want a better OS though, that's a good thing.
Because people choose the least shitty solution for themselves whenever they can. So it doesn't make sense to torment yourself with an OS you don't like or cannot utilise to the extent that you'd like.
Still have an ASUS Netbook with Ubuntu LTS, which allows me to validate the "progress" of Desktop Linux on laptops.
Naturally I occasionally get to deal with it via VMs and server deployments, however for my choice of languages the OS hardly matters anyway.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head that unified interactions (and with the keyboard, not some dumb new hamburger menu for mouse users like the new gedit) are what’s required and missing for speedy daily use. I couldn’t articulate it until reading your comment, thanks.
Serious question? Otherwise I have to respond with LOL. Only people inside the tech bubble would think a Linux desktop was normal, and even inside the tech bubble you truly have to have a reason.
The largest install of Linux as a desktop for a company I've seen has been at a post house where all of the software ran on Linux. The users only used it to launch the specific app they needed. They had TDs (technical directors) to do all of the Linuxy type of stuff.
relevant video: https://youtu.be/bC6tngl0PTI (Tom Scott: Why you can't use CON as filename in windows)
type CON > "\\?\C:\CON"
I'm not sure that was ever true but certainly hasn't been true for over a decade. Neither OS is fully stable (how ever you might define that) and neither OS is a terrible unstable mess either.
I am. Absolutely sure. Stability was the reason I switched to Macintosh two decades ago. I've had to run Windows boxes for work at the same time, and with the exception of the most recent few years, Macs have been 100% more stable than Windows.
It isn't the Mac is so good, it is the alternative is downright awful. From Design, UX, to even technical.
Mail still has a message loss bug. 5 point releases later...
<irony> They truly care about privacy... </irony>
I still haven’t upgraded from Mojave to Catalina because of serious bugs reported by other people (including data loss issues in Mail). I’ll see if Big Sur shows improvements (reported by others) and decide when to upgrade. I don’t even run beta versions of macOS point updates, which is in stark contrast to iOS betas, which have been of better quality (comparatively).
Edit: Apple seems to be ignoring long term Mac users (even the vocal ones) for quite sometime. It was poorer hardware quality and lack of hardware updates for several years. Now it’s software, where it’s been going about removing what makes native macOS experiences great. The Catalyst apps are not “native Mac apps” by any stretch of imagination.
At this new role, the 2019 13inch retina MBP I was given seems to have one or two kernel panics a week on Catalina.
Also, I haven't noticed this other issue lately, but for a couple of months my laptop screen would flicker/distort and times for a moment or two; have not noticed that issue since setting up a home office with external monitor for obvious, current reasons.
It's one of the most recent reasons I have yet to update to Catalina.
Thanks, I laughed a little at that.
People have been saying exactly that for as long as operating systems have been on disk. I was thinking just a few days ago that I must have installed OS/2 50 or 60 times in its day.
I can't calculate the number of weeks of my life I've wasted babysitting clean operating system installs.
You're right, it shouldn't happen. But we're decades away from that being the reality.
The Catalina beta was a sh!tshow on my MacBook Pro, as was the first (upgraded) release. A fresh install made most of the issues go away.
Currently have my work desktop (linux + windows for gaming :D) at home for lockdown and a file share/media server (linux) hooked up to the tele. All seems to work. Even my firewire audio interface is more stable on my linux work desktop (it's not supported on Windows 10 > 1903 / OSX > 10.13).
The one thing that is keeping me switching is Apple Music w/ the iCloud Music Library syncing. Legit the only reason I haven't ditched my 10 year old macbook pro yet.
The tl;dr is to use Plasma Desktop, take advantage of its ability to create keyboard shortcuts for everything, and use Plasmoids to create a global menu and dock.
I didn't mention it in the post, but KDE Connect works on most desktop environments and integrates with tablets, phones and other computers, and it's great.
There's sandbox info in the parent post, if you need a sandboxd replacement, too.
1. playdoh os
2. (more seriously) its pretty obvious they are making it look like ios so that catalyst and pure ios/ipad apps dont look too out of place
personaliy, i think its a bit sad, because it makes the desktop feel less professional and notice the larger fonts, spacing etc... seems like the ui could be used for touchscreens almost, instead of optimized for mouse/keyboard....
Trying to delete (instead of backspace) brings up the emoji palette, even using Apple's own keyboards.
Performance was horrible in Firefox on a MacBook Air (mid-2012), which has been dropped from support for this latest macOS.
That sounds like a right pain in the arse. I’d have replaced them if they’re not using updated software personally.
Anyway yeah it's not my business so it's not by business, nose un-poked-in
Apple could do virtualization and run all the way back to macwrite or macdraw. Apple just doesn't get virtualization.
Otherwise, it actually looks okay to me.
Those square icons really got on my nerve for some strange reason. The previous design at least I know I am using a Mac.
Now I felt like I am using a glorified iOS. It feels more like iPadOS being ported to Mac.
Apple announces something you don't want? They are ignoring the vital issues and focusing only on dumb superficial things which just proves they are going down hill.
Apple announces something you do want? Should have happened years ago, and the fact that they've only gotten to it now just proves they are going down hill.
Has it, though? I've never understood how people had a bad time on macOS when it came to development.
I'm developing Python, Go, Terraform, Ansible, and more, on macOS just fine. I've used Vim, gVim, VSCode, GoLand, and more without any issues. iTerm2 helps too.
What issues are you facing?
As they say, "Apple: Going out of business since 1984."
Changes for changes sake are negative for users. The last thing you want to do is change something that was working for users without giving them anything for it.
However a lot of actively developed software today changes because they want it to be "fresh and exciting". Basically because of desire to use changes to market it. But changing anything for that reason hurts usability.
Any change means the user will have to adapt to that change. You want to minimize the user having to adapt to anything. When you do make them adapt you need to give them clear value for that adapting.
Macs usually have large screens, and are driven by a pixel perfect input mechanism. Yet they will now be required to live with a design scheme that is largely designed for devices that would fit in a MacBook touchpad and the primary input for which is a fat finger.
Also, the icons seem to be completely stripped off colors, so I’m not sure where the reintroduction of colors is coming from. Unless you’re talking about the Vista Aero translucent sidebars that are only gonna make things harder to see.
Good thing nothing about that is changing. macOS apps continue to be macOS apps.
> Also, the icons seem to be completely stripped off colors, so I'm not sure where the reintroduction of colors is coming from
Sidebar icons in macOS Catalina and a few releases prior don't have any colours. At all. Those got stripped out a long time ago, maybe as far back as Yosemite but don't quote me.
Now, sidebar icons can inherit an app's accent colour with edge cases designated by the developer or use the system-wide accent colour if the user has selected one.
There is a lot I liked the look of and a few things I didn't like so much but might look better on a real system. Just have to wait and see what it is like to actually use.
From what we saw I don't hate it though. I think it looks quite clean, good spacing (possible touch Macs in the pipeline?), consistent, new icons look good, etc.
I think this really was a historic day as Tim said. After almost twenty years OS X is over. I do kind of wish they had jumped to macOS 14 to align version numbers with iOS and its children.
Apple harps on every year about how their Apple Watch is the most personal device they sell. Personal. Intimate. Love. Magical.
Yet, we still buy the things because we find our own sense of value in it.
Clearly, we don't pay much attention to buzzwords in the marketing. I don't know why you'd start now with some random comment on HN.
Which means that design conventions that happened to be well-optimized for the platform on which they arose are going to suffer.
But don't worry! All the lost productivity will surely be worth the sacrifice if it only provides the one thing that matters above everything when it comes to product and UX decisions: whether it can be used as a positive bullet point on resumes while they're managing up.
This is not a positive. A laptop is not a big iPhone and shouldn't use the same design language. One of the worst thing about Windows 10 is its use of huge, touch-friendly interfaces in an OS most commonly used with a keyboard and mouse. MacOS appears to be headed the same way (and it doesn't even support touch screens).
If not, then I see no reason why the default OS apps that come pre-installed shouldn't look and feel the same.
The same as each other, or the same as their mobile touchscreen counterparts?
But they should behave different to take advantage of different devices strengths and limitations. Spotify does a pretty okay job at this.
There's certainly ways to screw that up, I won't deny that. But I think it's an inherently good direction to aim for. In my mind, that means (1) making sure that functionality is synced whenever possible (the lack of iMessage functionality on macOS after it was enhanced on iOS has bugged me for years), and (2) matching the look and feel to make the macOS version (or iOS version) feel familiar the first time you use the app if you've previously used the alternate platform's equivalent.
Nothing about macOS is being made touch-friendly. Nothing about macOS is being made into an iPhone.
If anything, this release makes it easier for iPad apps to become non-touch-friendly by making it easier to bring iPad apps to Catalyst without having to do complete restylings to match other macOS apps.
That's the benefit of consistent design language. iPad apps become better macOS apps, not the other way around.
The Mac is still a Mac. Desktops are desktops. Laptops are laptops. Separately, in iPad land, tablets are tablets. Nothing about the new design language changes that.
That's only true to an extent. It stops being true when the low-density UI re-design forces the user to take more actions to accomplish the same task. If I have to dig through a deeper menu structure, or flip back an forth between pages instead of having the information all on-screen at once, that change is touch-friendly but hostile to desktop and many laptop users.
Particularly on that subject, density is mostly orthogonal to touch-friendly outside of touch target size, and that's something that Microsoft has been very honest about as a series of lessons learned between Windows 8 and Windows 10.
Keep in mind a lot of the density changes in Windows 8 weren't about touch-friendliness, they were about good typography and reading friendly white space. They tried to optimize the basic app templates for comfortable reading patterns as if every app needed to be a well typeset newspaper with good strong margins between columns/articles. On the surface it was a lot of good ideas individually, but the criticisms were valid that it led to some very sparse designs by default and that they made overriding the defaults a little too hard, the defaults a little too hand-holding.
For reading-only "information" the density of an app can be the same, touch-friendly or not. It's the control targets that should be adjusted just that little bit bigger. The difference in size between a past mouse-only target and touch-friendly is a lot smaller than people think, people are fairly comfortable at touching some very small targets (have you seen how dense most smartphone apps are today?). Even there too, Microsoft found out and admitted that user comfort for touch-friendly allows for far more density of touch targets than they at first recommended in Windows 8. (There's some interesting debate if those changes in UX Research Study results over the lifetime of Windows 8 and early Windows 10 testing were due to increased user familiarity with touch surfaces over those intervening years or some interesting unanticipated bias in the earlier studies.)
The density of the UI should be a factor of the user's ability to focus on said UI more than a "touch-friendly" concern. Even after Microsoft greatly adjusted their design guidelines on density in Windows 10 they keep a lot of their own apps UI at low density not because they "have to" for touch-friendly, but for various concerns like user friendliness, good typography, and analysis paralysis when the user is confronted with too many choices at once.
In a business setting, sure, but I think you underestimate how much consumers are using touchscreens nowadays, even on their laptops.
The less I think about my keyboard layout or system UI widgets the better. I can see why someone might like the novelty of those changing but for me they are just a means to an end. Any time I spend hunting around menus that have changed or fiddling with a novel keyboard means less time for things that I actually care about.
The reason Windows 8 was a disaster was because Microsoft suffered from the same misconception.
That's exactly what Catalyst is for — to take iPad apps and make them good macOS citizens. Is that not exactly what you want?
A consistent design language makes it easier for iPadOS apps to come to macOS via Catalyst without having to be almost completely restyled whilst also preserving everything makes the Mac a Mac.
Your laptop remains a laptop. Your desktop remains a desktop. Ported apps respect the form factor, not force it to become a tablet.
> "using a consistent design language across platforms"
Apple famously refrained from doing this at first, because for platforms with fundamentally different form factors, use cases and input methods it doesn't make much sense.
I do appreciate some parts of the redesign, but others like reducing the information density make things look nicer but make them less functional. We get it, whitespace is good to let things "breathe". Nontheless:
- I use those buttons that seem to be MIA in the screenshots of the new Finder though (to switch between views, the sort menu, the cog icon with extra actions). Will I have to change my workflow?
- I use a lot of items in the macOS sidebar. In the current Finder, my sidebar can show 12.5 items without scrolling. In the screenshots, it's showing 9. Am I going to have alter my workflow here too?
All of these seem like minor things, but they add up. There's a reason some people still download and learn Vim— the 5 seconds it can save you from each time you reach out to a mouse adds up. It might just be 5 seconds, but you do it _all the time_.
Like vim, this doesn't matter for many people, but for people who use an OS mostly for work, not for excitement or leisure, it can be worrying and annoying.
> "introducing new, well tested convenience features."
My worry here is that they might be popular in iOS, but that doesn't mean they are well-tested per se. Launchpad was a "well-tested" iOS feature (the home screen), but when it first arrived in Lion, it was terrible:
1. It was very buggy, as new software tends to be.
2. It was poorly thought out for the Mac.
- It didn't have a search bar, which makes sense in iOS but not in macOS.
- The only way to edit it was with click and hold, which makes sense on touch devices but is unseen in pointer devices.
- It uses the whole screen, which makes sense in single-app environments but not really on large screens with multiple apps are used. Coincidentally, Apple has realized full-screen experiences are dreadful when attempting to multi-task and changed some of these (Siri, calls on iPad) on the latest iOS.
3. It was in general unnecessary. macOS already has a bunch of ways to open apps: the Finder, Spotlight, the Dock, for some users, the Desktop. This is subjective though.
There's a lot of power-user tidbits on the way some of macOS feature's are implemented right now. You can option-click the Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Sound task bar items to bring up extra options or information. People like me who constantly need to read the IP address or access the Bluetooth debug menu rely on these little power features for our workflows. I sure hope Apple hasn't gotten rid of these with the introduction of the Control Center.
No, because those icons are all still there. The cog button has become a … button, but it's the same menu.
> - I use a lot of items in the macOS sidebar. In the current Finder, my sidebar can show 12.5 items without scrolling. In the screenshots, it's showing 9. Am I going to have to alter my workflow here too?
No, just use smaller sidebar icons. System Preferences -> General.
> 3. It was in general unnecessary.
Depends what you consider necessary. I really think Apple wants to start pushing SwiftUI and Catalyst apps.
One issue with both of these is that apps written in either make completely different looking apps for Catalina and iOS 13.
In Big Sur and iOS 14, they'll look less different, which may help adoption. A Catalyst app with no specific changes made to be a good macOS citizen looks naff on Catalina but looks acceptable on Big Sur — so this helps lower the barrier for iPadOS developers to adopt proper macOS design language.
> I sure hope Apple hasn't gotten rid of these with the introduction of the Control Center
The Control Center demo showed dragging those items out to the menu bar so that they could work just like they did before.
No one can explain why the icons, fonts, and toolbars from 3 years ago aren't good enough anymore. No one can explain why we need constant "refreshers".
Let's say you have a new microwave. Every microwave's controls are a little different, but you know generally the conventions of their limited interfaces. There are presets; separate non-microwave functions like timers; maybe a light and a fan control.
The first few times you use it, it's a little weird. But you use the same one for like 5-10 years at a time. It becomes effortless, second nature. Food in, door shoot, beep-boop-beep by muscle-memory. Your food is ready.
Imagine someone snuck into your home and rearranged the buttons, and changed some underlying functions. Now, when the timer is done, you don't hit the timer button to clear the display--you hold the cancel/stop button that also turns off the microwave. They think it's more logical that way.
It doesn't matter, but it's frustrating. "Why was that necessary?", you might ask yourself. Neither way is fundamentally more or less logical. It's just different.
It's not that changes are bad, but semi-annual changes for utilitarian things seem excessive. You accept a certain amount of change when you replace your microwave, or your car, or your computer. But not when you take your car to be tuned up. They don't replace the break pads, and then change the location of the stereo's volume knob.
I think he philosophy of heavy handed redesign was useful in bringing computer interfaces to up to new hardware specs early on in tech, but we're reaching a point where they should be slowed down in favor of utility. The claim that it is design in the name of usability is no longer true. Call it what it is. It is merely seasonal fashion and nothing more. Some fashions are timeless. We should find them and stick with them as defaults that we are very hesitant to change.
Consistency can facilitate clean design, allowing you to conceal and expose complexity by strongly established conventions, helping to achieve balance on the beauty-utility continuum.
They're also slowing experimenting and merging macOS and iOS UI tooling, which necessitates a change on both parts.
Personally, I also wish they would slow down or stop UI changes.
No one makes a computer that Just Works any more. It's a real problem.
Good point. It’s like post-Jobs Apple has forgotten that design is not how it looks, but how it works.
“Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. People think it’s this veneer – that the designers are handed this box and told, “Make it look good!” That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” - Steve Jobs
The Mac App Store is probably a fairer comparison.
I wonder how much of the world's coal and gas has been consumed by browsers struggling under the load of Jira.
I really, really dislike the way macOS has looked since Yosemite, and compared to that, I think this one is an improvement overall. The icons have more depth, and there's far more use of color across the UI.
But, it also looks extremely mobile-inspired—I suspect Apple's primary goal was to make iOS ports and apps look less out of place. That's a fine objective, but it also means they weren't designing for desktop and laptops specifically, and it shows. For instance, most of the apps lack title bars, and I'm not sure where I'd click to drag windows as a result.
My guess is that they expect most people to use the application full screen and not to be moving it around. I've got a large monitor and I don't keep my windows full screened so this annoys me.
If done poorly, then it will look horrible because they got the contrast wrong.
High contrast should be used where you want someone to pay attention (like an "exit only" market on a US freeway exit). Low contrast where you want something to fade into the background (like a mile marker).
The problem with "flat" designs is that it seems hard to get it done well. Just think how long it took the industry to get the "ok" & "cancel" buttons to highlight in a consistent way for users.
Just-in-time UI combined with a complete lack of borders and affordances is the stupidest trend and it needs to end.
Apple took off with the .com boom and became a staple of every startup. But since the iPhone they've shifted to being a consumer focused company, and I don't see any reason why they would dedicate too much resources to improving their products for developers/designers.
It's pretty sad because they are still the best option. But people are not happy with them, and it's been getting worse over time. I really think Microsoft has an opportunity to cater to power users and release a really beautiful OS. But not Windows - would have to be something new
I don't really care for the UI changes, but I spend such little time in the UI that I guess it doesn't matter much. The iOS-ification of Mac OS is an unfortunate change. I don't use any of the built-in apps with the exception of terminal.app and finder. Meh.
Most interesting: This appears to be the end of "OS X" as version was listed as "11.0" in the keynote.
Will Big Sur and Mac OS (beyond OS X) continue to be certified UNIX?
The only session the press cares about is the keynote, so geeky stuff hasn't been keynote fodder for several years. Everything but the WWDC keynote will be for a developer audience.
"Mac OS X" was dropped for macOS in 2016.
Also meant to point out that every year they have a theme - this year is apparently all interface (as they've probably spent all there time getting ARM working smoothly, and want to minimize the plumbing issues).
I personally think the Platforms State of the Union should be quite interesting today (starts in about 20 minutes) and will be much more insightful.
It's admittedly paid and it's stupid that you should need to pay for functionality like this, but it's useful enough for other stuff (e.g. setting up buttons/chords to manage spaces to replace the trackpad gestures) that I live with it.
Sigh, here comes a trove of white-background icons to macOS. Relevant: https://medium.com/swlh/let-s-talk-about-white-app-icons-ce2...
That said, I still think overall it's a loss in terms of usability. (I find that without shape to distinguish icons on iOS, I often confuse icons that are broadly similar in color when I'm not paying attention, even though the images inside the roundrects are different. I can't be the only one.)
A significant piece of character that's just... gone. I think this is what bothers me more than any iOS-ification of the OS, on a UI/UX level at least.
For a comparison, here is the Press Release for Snow Leopard (https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2009/06/08Apple-Unveils-Ma... here is an excerpt from the text
> For the first time, system applications including Finder, Mail, iCal®, iChat® and Safari are 64-bit and Snow Leopard’s support for 64-bit processors makes use of large amounts of RAM, increases performance, and improves security while remaining compatible with 32-bit applications. Grand Central Dispatch (GCD) provides a revolutionary new way for software to take advantage of multicore processors. GCD is integrated throughout Snow Leopard, from new system-wide APIs to high-level frameworks and programming language extensions, improving responsiveness across the system. OpenCL, a C-based open standard, allows developers to tap the incredible power of the graphics processing unit for tasks that go beyond graphics.
Simple, useful information. Information and features that matters to software developers.
Instead in this new macOS we got: Safari, Messages and Maps. Apps that are not that much relevant (since people are too hooked in Firefox/Chrome, Fb/Ig, and Google Maps). If Apple wants to gain marketshare in these areas, that's fine. But they are pushing them to their base as a macOS upgrade. Huh.
The only thing related to developers is XCode "improvements". I guess the message is pretty clear now: The macOS is now only good to develop iOS apps and maybe do graphics/audio/video. If you are a web/sys developer it might be a good idea to start looking for something else.
Anecdata: My family uses Safari, Messages, and Maps extensively (and Fb/Ig don't replace Messages, they're something else that gets used.) Don't confuse "tech people" with "real people", there's a world of difference.
The Xcode release is actually pretty big deal for developers. The tooling is updated for this brave new world of ARM cores.
For you and people like you. Those people make up a minority of Apple's audience. It would be stupid for them to alienate everyone else in their marketing materials. But that doesn't mean there isn't real work being done under the hood.
As a power user of a Macbook Pro, this is cutting into my screen real estate and not very appealing to me.
It's more about the compounding effect when other apps adopt this more spacious UI pattern for their title bar, sidebar, etc.
Presumably Apple didn't want to write OpenGL drivers (full, not ES) for their in-house GPUs.
OpenGL drivers still basically have to be there because of WebGL on Safari. And if it's a derivative of the GPU on iOS devices, then the GL driver is mostly already written.
The other question I would have is how this behaves with shaders, such as BSL?
From what I can tell, commercial game devs treat Mac gaming as an edge case and mostly only the large engine devs care about Metal support (with exceptions, of course).
Looking at a running 1.15 Minecraft instance I see it is using lwjgl 3.2.1 and there a link to "net.java.openjdk.cmd/com.apple.metal", when I do an lsof.
Any further insight would be appreciated.