[MashPot]

Steve Jobs was correct: people don't (necessarily) know what they want until you give it to them. That was his genius; he was able to figure it out. That's why he died (RIP) worth about $10bn. However, the froth in here about what a "bargain" the serial OS releases from Apple are reminds me of driving cross country in high school and being excited about the "free drinks" at casinos in Vegas.
First, $20/GBP20/EUR20 for an OS isn't cheap. It's 20 more currency units than any UNIX/Linux/BSD system. And given the frequency of releases, it's still about a half to 2/3rds what you've spent since 2001 buying Windows XP and Windows 7 for $250 apiece. Apple's WHOLE business is selling commodity hardware at margins that make Bill Gates cringe. Comparable RAM and disk space machines running windows are routinely selling for a third the price of Apple. "But you're not getting the Apple hardware" you say. But it's a f[---]ing COMMODITY. If Apple's hardware were so good on pure performance, the entire internet infrastructure would run on Apple Servers instead of OpenBSD and Linux.

[bastion]

MashPot, on 25 June 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

First, $20/GBP20/EUR20 for an OS isn't cheap. It's 20 more currency units than any UNIX/Linux/BSD system.

You mean except for the UNIX and BSD systems (as well as Linux if you actually want support) that cost hundreds of dollars? And the Linux distributions that are free but carry a media charge in the range of $100 if you want it on disc instead of burning the ISO yourself.

Quote

Apple's WHOLE business is selling commodity hardware at margins that make Bill Gates cringe. Comparable RAM and disk space machines running windows are routinely selling for a third the price of Apple.

I smell troll. Or is there another reason you've ignored the fact that "comparable RAM and disk space" doesn't mean comparable in general? In reality, "standard" PCs that are comparable to a given Mac configuration are typically comparably priced as well. The disparity is typically small in either direction and in some cases the price:functionality curve has been so lopsided in the Mac's favor that it's downright embarrassing.

[RLCUSMC]

Does Mountain Lion contain any new features or capabilities for resolving the syncing problem between contacts and calendar (Microsoft Office 2011 for Macs) and iCal and Address Book?

[JoshuaWeesner]

irwindesign, on 17 February 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

It seems to me that Apple is forgetting the user base that got it where it is. That said, this is more of a concern than a complaint. As an illustrator and designer, my MacPro is a production machine, and as such doesn't need or utilize the gimmicky bells and whistles that Apple is tossing into it's new iOS themed operating systems. I don't need or want a $6,000.00 iPhone. Unity across all of Apple's platforms is certainly necessary and commendable, but Apple seems to be catering to the general user rather than graphic pros. Apple's operating systems have always been clean, stable and simple to use. The more stuff they cram into it to appease the public, it seems, the more that can go wrong. We rely on this machine for our daily livelyhood, hopefully it will remain reliable and stable and will continue to be the platform of choice for many years to come. I do realize that the Mac has reached out to a much broader base of users than graphics professionals, but please don't leave us in your wake.

So you didn't read the finer details regarding support for GTX & ATI current and next gen video cards??? How did you miss that minor detail if you are a professional?

[JackWilliamsdgzf]

JackWilliamsdgzf, on 06 July 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

dghmedia, on 21 February 2012 - 05:39 AM, said:

I guess I have been using Macs for far too long. There are things that I need that have been lost in both Snow Leopard and Lion. Our publishing workflow needs Appletalk, which is gone in Snow Leopard. We need Rosetta, which Lion ate. I hate to even try to run Mountain Lion with our Apps and hardware. It looks like I need to go out and find the biggest and fastest Macs I can find that still run 10.5 and wait until something better comes along. Now I know what those Final Cut Studio users were crying about. I guess Apple's next move is to get rid of the Mac Pro tower.

I'm amazed, as a mac newbie(just got a mini) and IPad/IPhone user since day one, I didn't even realize Appletalk was still in use? I've spent way too many years embedded in the Windows world in IT... I have to say though, one thing that is the same across the industry, from gaming platforms to satellites, the evolution and upgrade cycles have increased at such an alarming rate that keeping any legacy platform alive for more than 3-5 years is near impossible. This sticks in the craw of most every consumer in the Universe. Especially considering the fact that upgrade cycles, while introducing new functionality, almost always retire old functionality. The toughest pill to swallow is when your hardware platform is left in the cold... I'm all for technology but I find it sad that we are so often forced to buy new hardware to avoid obsolescence when often our boxes could easily live for many more years. Sad.

[LuisLopes]

amgpac, on 18 February 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Will I buy Mountain Lion? ... No [censored] way, seeing how Lion was a piece of [censored]!

Honestly i still dont understand why some people hate OSX Lion. Its just great to use, and i bough a MBP with Lion running on it and i loved it!

Its just good to use, i love spaces and launchpad (its not perfect, but i guess it has a great future.

I`ll be honest since 2010 i used only Windows in my life, and i dont know if you know, or still remember...but compared to windows....its just perfect the OSX.


The only problem is gameplaying (but, for that i got Windows 8 Running on dual boot)

[SnowWhiskers]

Am I the only one that doesn't want a Facebook/Twitter OS?

I'll stick with Snow Leopard

[rovertek]

SnowWhiskers, on 07 July 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Am I the only one that doesn't want a Facebook/Twitter OS?

I'll stick with Snow Leopard

You are DEFINITELY not the only one. Feel better?

A lot of newcomers to Mac love the new systems because they arrived from Windows and iOS devices and/or are so young that they do not know any other reality than the "social" reality crap. They did not experience any of the older OS X versions, so they assume that newer is better.

[HalfBlazed]

I personally don't see what people are so angry about when it comes to Lion or Mountain Lion. Obviously there were a few hiccups with Lion for some people in the beginning, but since 10.7.2 all of my machines have been rock solid; I can't speak for others though. I initially had more problems with Snow Leopard than I did with Lion.

I have thoroughly enjoyed almost all of the features that Apple has added recently. I don't understand why people are saying that Apple is forcing iOS down their throat when you really don't have to use any of the iOS features. The only feature you are somewhat forced to use is Mission Control which I find to be infinitely better than Spaces and Exposé. As a "Power User" who is constantly switching between various Adobe applications, I really appreciate the multiple workspace management options. Furthermore, I have never found that any of the new features added in Lion to hinder my workflow in any way, shape or form. If anything, my workflow has improved.

Its not as though the "Lions" are like Windows 8 where you are getting Metro shoved upon you with no escape. I think Apple is doing the right thing here by sprinkling in features of iOS for better synergy between products. I think they realize that most people are using 2, 3 maybe even 4 devices and want consistence across each platform. And yes, they want the iOS users to come over to the Mac but what is wrong with that exactly? They are a business after all.

One of the great advantages to being a Mac user is that Apple isn't bound by the business market like Windows, which is why Microsoft hasn't been able to make any significant UI changes since 95 (I realize that Windows 8 has a new UI but that is just a disaster). If they kept everything the same, the same people would complain that Apple isn't innovating enough. Things are going to change whether you like it or not, especially when it comes to technology. Get use to it.

[KenJr]

I have a Mac Mini. I don't remember when I bought it). Is there a way to identify (other than knowing when it was built) those Mac Minis that won't be eligible for Mountain Lion? I suspect mine which has the DVD slot won't be on the list. To me, my Mac Mini is nearly new and I will be VERY angry if it doesn't qualify (I got angry with Microsoft and switched to Apple - maybe it's time to get angry with apple and give Microsoft another chance.

[bastion]

KenJr, on 12 July 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

I have a Mac Mini. I don't remember when I bought it). Is there a way to identify (other than knowing when it was built) those Mac Minis that won't be eligible for Mountain Lion? I suspect mine which has the DVD slot won't be on the list. To me, my Mac Mini is nearly new and I will be VERY angry if it doesn't qualify (I got angry with Microsoft and switched to Apple - maybe it's time to get angry with apple and give Microsoft another chance.

There are minis with optical drives on the supported list. Find and run the System Profiler application on your machine. Find the model identifier listed on the hardware overview page. It should start with Macmini and then be 2 numbers with a comma between them. You want the first digit to be at least a 3. That gets you back to March, 2009.

You could also compare your specs against this Apple page: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3476

Or you could look at the serial number, which should tell you when it was built. The first 2 characters are the assembly location. The next character is the last digit of the manufacturing year and the next two are the week within that year. So, for example, I have a notebook that starts "4H645E...." 4H indicates where it came from, and it was built in the 45th week of 2006. (And off the top of my head that should be about right; this is a late 2006 MacBook, bought days after they got upgraded to Core 2 Duos.)

[KenJr]

Thanks! The identifier is 3,1. Looks like I'm in. Thanks again.

[StephenBernardo]

Dinkum, on 17 February 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

The real question this & other articles don't address is why anyone would bother upgrading to Mountain Lion after all the problems & disappointment of Lion?
I wish I had stuck with Snow Leopard. I don't want to go through another Lion experience - much less pay Apple again for the experience.

WHY? It's because Mountain Lion is everything Lion SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Lion was more of a 'paid beta' the same way Leopard was a paid-for beta and Snow Leopard was the real deal!

Lion's features are great and if only they weren't so friggin' buggy I wouldn't need to upgrade to Mountain Lion -- oh yeah, and Lion came pre-installed on my machine, so no luck in going back!

Mountain Lion I ~HOPE~ is Lion with all the bugs ironed out, and with apps better integrated with each other. For example -- why doesn't Mail use the names of contacts in AddressBook??

In any case, I'm upgrading as soon as I possibly can! Just sucks that it won't run on my wife's macbook or her sister's mac mini. If that's the case, then I'll downgrade those back to Snow Leopard for a performance boost!

[shailensobhee]

Apple claims to be the most advanced OS. One advanced feature/setting is the ability to chance the system font on the Mac. In Safari, I click View>Zoom Out to make the font size smaller for all the pages. I prefer a certain font size that allows me to read at once more per scroll and faster.

However, if I click on any option from the menu bar, the font size contrast is so big that I have to adjust my eyes to read the big menu fonts.

Lion absolutely does not allow the advanced possibility of changing system font sizes. Does Mountain Lion give us such possibilities? In Microsoft systems, changing font sizes is considered a basic and simple option?