Mountain Lion = ....meh?


Recommended Posts

Performance is way better, even on older hardware. You're not just getting a new interface, you're getting benefits you'd normally only get from a hardware upgrade. That's worth $40 (roughly what I paid to upgrade my RAM to 8GB).

Quite a few people here noticed the same with OS X Mountain Lion. Beyond that a lot of users complain Metro apps currently take for ever to load and it isn't because of debug code. My The time you save during startup you basically loose when trying to launch an app.

I disagree. Mission Control isn't as good as it could be, but full screen options in Lion are really welcome.

Well there is nothing wrong with liking full screen and I'm happy for you if you do, but even that is an example of a complete **** implementation of a feature. If you have more than one screen, full screen only uses one monitor and disables your second monitor. Tiles it with that stitched pattern Apple likes using now, and doesn't let you use it, at all. And supposedly that was being fixed in Mountain Lion but lo and behold, it actually isn't. The only improvement in ML is that you can now choose which monitor gets to use the full screen. But your other monitor is still disabled. Why? How stupid is that? Especially considering apps such as VLC have had proper full screen implementation since before Lion.

--x-snip-x--

People have put Apple on a pedestal for so long. They are no longer underdogs. Success is basically a given. They don't have the same fight anymore.

--x-snip-x--

I absolutely agree with your sentiment there. Now that they are "on top" (at least from a profitability stand point and especially now that they are the darling of the media) there are different expectations. But I'll probably be one of the firsts to download ML when it is finally released. When the hell is it going to be released anyway? Didn't they say July?

Well there is nothing wrong with liking full screen and I'm happy for you if you do, but even that is an example of a complete **** implementation of a feature. If you have more than one screen, full screen only uses one monitor and disables your second monitor. Tiles it with that stitched pattern Apple likes using now, and doesn't let you use it, at all. And supposedly that was being fixed in Mountain Lion but lo and behold, it actually isn't. The only improvement in ML is that you can now choose which monitor gets to use the full screen. But your other monitor is still disabled. Why? How stupid is that? Especially considering apps such as VLC have had proper full screen implementation since before Lion.

The direction they took with fullscreen apps seems to be the culprit and I don't expect that they are going to be able to fix it anytime soon. The fullscreen API is intertwined with the virtual desktops API. I can't really say if it was just a bad choice of direction. I love the fullscreen apps when I'm just using my 15" laptop screen or if I'm connected remotely on my iPad. When I'm hooked up to my 27" monitor putting an app into full screen mode just doesn't make any sense and always looks terrible. I think that as your desktop real estate goes up, the utility of going into full screen mode goes down anyway...

I was more interested in the possibility of new iMac hardware than anything else, I'm starting to feel a little in the dark

Count yourself lucky that the iMac still exists! :rofl:

They axed my beautiful 17" MacBook Pro completely. Now I have to step down to a 15" model if I want to "upgrade".

Quite a few people here noticed the same with OS X Mountain Lion. Beyond that a lot of users complain Metro apps currently take for ever to load and it isn't because of debug code. My The time you save during startup you basically loose when trying to launch an app.

That's an app specific problem, not an OS level one. The apps that get coded well will see preference, and overall you'll see better performance throughout.

Well there is nothing wrong with liking full screen and I'm happy for you if you do, but even that is an example of a complete **** implementation of a feature. If you have more than one screen, full screen only uses one monitor and disables your second monitor. Tiles it with that stitched pattern Apple likes using now, and doesn't let you use it, at all. And supposedly that was being fixed in Mountain Lion but lo and behold, it actually isn't. The only improvement in ML is that you can now choose which monitor gets to use the full screen. But your other monitor is still disabled. Why? How stupid is that? Especially considering apps such as VLC have had proper full screen implementation since before Lion.

It's mainly people with laptops, or smaller screens who benefit from full screen, and for those people, the lack of proper support for a second monitor is hardly a problem. If my MacBook had HDMI out to allow hooking it up to my HDTV without going to the hassle of an expensive converter cable that's not even officially allowed and therefore not available from any reputable site, then I suppose that might materialise as a real problem. I'm not otherwise defending the crappy implementation of it, but I think it's telling that the people who like it the most never noticed anything wrong with it.

It seems like Mountain Lion is akin to a maintenance release with just a few added features. Similar to Snow Leopard. Except that SL concentrated on under the hood changes whereas Mountain Lion's focus is more on refining user-visible features.

Yeah, I'm not too fond of the visual changes. Back when OSX had the pinstripe Aqua look and XP had Luna, I liked that OSX was cleaner and more consistent in look throughout, while each program in XP seemed to have its own skin that contrasted (usually quite badly) with the default UI. Now Apple is baking that bad contrast right in. Their whole brushed metal phase got a bit boring too, but at least it was consistent. Not a big deal if I hardly use any of the apps that ship with OSX, but it will get annoying if devs start taking after it as well.

It's $20/year now if you want to keep up. You can get Windows 8 for $40, and that's for a 3 years of development.

If you can't spend 20 bucks every year and a half then upgrading it's not the biggest of your problems I'm afraid.

Even though some apps spot a different texture window chrome they all work alike so in that regard OS X is still highly consistent. Like you said, things were getting too boring.

That was the wrong way to fix the boredom though. It just shows that they weren't sure what to do and figured they had to do something.

Apple charge for updates (service packs?) to their os? If so will they start charging for updates to ios then? Or should I not give them ideas :(

No, if they charged for updates they wouldn't be able to squish JB exploits so easily, and would have to continue supporting older versions.

That was the wrong way to fix the boredom though. It just shows that they weren't sure what to do and figured they had to do something.

In your opinion. If everything looks exactly the same things get boring, no way around that but to introduce some change here and there. Since the apps don't actually work any different than the norm I really don't see the issue.

That's always the worst reason for justifying any price.

It's an OS upgrade. You can't compare OS X upgrade model to Windows. OS X has always been about constant refinements over the years, Windows is about change of paradigms within their own system.

That's an app specific problem, not an OS level one. The apps that get coded well will see preference, and overall you'll see better performance throughout.

Who cares where the problem lies? In the end the result is the same. FYI, we're talking about Microsoft's own apps here.

Dictation on the ML works well a friend of mine has a copy of it on his system and it is one thing that makes things much simpler in so many ways for things as she is back to school and stuff and could use it for her courses and stuff so yea that is 1 upgrade well worth it also seems to run faster on her imac then regular lion did with 12gb of ram

Apple charge for updates (service packs?) to their os? If so will they start charging for updates to ios then? Or should I not give them ideas :(

Not going to have this debate again.

Not going to have this debate again.

Not going to have this debate again.

IT'S NOT A GOD DAMN SERVICE PACK!

Damn it...oh well, here we go again...

  • Like 3

Both Lion and Mountain Lion are crap....

Are you running the latest GM of Mountain Lion. Compared to Lion it's a speed demon and right up there with Snow Leopard and this is on a mac that went through several "over the top" installs rather than clean installs.

Agreed there is nothing revolutionary like Xp to Vista or the new Metro interfaces, theres nothing glaringly looking at you to say it's different but theres an undeniable speed increase and some nice tweaks to general apps. For ?13.99 I'm really on the fence about if it's worth it so far..

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Stellarium 26.2 by Razvan Serea Stellarium is a free open source planetarium for your computer. It shows a realistic sky in 3D, just like what you see with the naked eye, binoculars or a telescope. It is being used in planetarium projectors. Just set your coordinates and go. Stellarium key features: Realistic simulation of the sky, sunrise and sunset Default catalogue of over 600,000 stars Downloadable additional catalogues for up to 210 million stars Catalog data for all New General Catalogue (NGC) objects Images of almost all Messier objects and the Milky Way Artistic illustrations for all 88 modern constellations More than a dozen different cultures with their constellations Solar and lunar eclipse simulation Photorealistic landscapes (more are available on the website) Scripting support with ECMAScript (a few demo scripts are included) Extendable with plug-ins: 8 plug-ins installed by default, including: artificial satellites plug-in (updated from an on-line TLE database) ocular simulation plug-in (shows how objects look like in a given ocular) Solar System editor plug-in (imports comet and asteroid data from the MPC) telescope control plug-in (Meade LX200 and Celestron NexStar compatible) The major changes of this version: Added new sky culture Added new plugin: Planes Many improvements in plugins Many improvements in Core and GUI Many updates in sky cultures. [full release notes] Download: Stellarium 26.2 (64-bit) | 456.0 MB (Open Source) View: Stellarium Home Page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      418
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!