1Password only handles web passwords sadly.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
I'm just about finished with Lion
- Thread starter mrgstiffler
- Start date
1Password only handles web passwords sadly.
mrgstiffler
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Messages
- 13,408
I did and still had problems. I went back to Snow Leopard on my MBP but I have Lion on my iMac. My iMac doesn't have many problems at all. My biggest gripe is the crappy calendar skin and lack of Expose.
Exposé became Mission Control in Lion.
mrgstiffler
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Messages
- 13,408
And Mission Control is a huge step backward.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
One mans opinion. I think Mission Control is excellent. They merged Exposé and Spaces to create Mission Control. This has allowed a single gesture or single key to see everything across multiple spaces and applications. I prefer its control over Exposé/Spaces.
I used to use 9 Spaces in Snow Leopard. Mission Control has allowed me the flexibility to move to 3. I'd say it's excellent progress. But we like what we like.
Last edited:
You beat me to it. Multiple desktops were nice but ultimately awkward. So Apple merged Spaces and Exposé and wrapped them in the metaphor of "one app, one screen", which people have instantly taken to on iOS.
You can still manage each space as you would have done in 10.6, but after adjusting, I find myself far more productive with Mission Control than in Exposé and Spaces separately.
What issues are you having specifically? All our AD-related issues went away with 10.7.2.
You can still use Exposé. Here's how you do it: Fn+F11. Simple huh? If that doesn't work, then go to keyboard shortcuts under keyboard in the system preferences. Set your own key for "Show Desktop." You're welcome.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,445
But that makes too much sense.
mrgstiffler
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Messages
- 13,408
All that does is show the desktop. That's the opposite of Expose...
mrgstiffler
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Messages
- 13,408
That's pretty sweet. Thanks!
a key press is significantly slower and less elegant than a mouse guesture to a corner.
Mission control is a piece of shit.
I prefer the fine granularity of expose over spaces - I have many very similar windows open, and on my 13" MBP could still pick out which was which using expose. Not with Mission Control - it's too cluttered now. I'd also adapted the keyboard shortcuts for spaces based on how I used them, and could fly between them as needed in a 2x2 layout, can't do that with them in a line.
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
I have to disagree with you about the first bit. If there is a time difference there, it's going to be so negligible as to be imperceptible (unless you lack the muscle memory as to where the keys are, which I assume isn't the case).
Is it less elegant? Potentially, but it seems like a bit of a straw grasp.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
I'm not too sure what you have open, but I do a lot of productivity work and I haven't run into this problem. It's not unusual for me to have Firefox, uTorrent, Outlook, Photoshop, Aperture, iTunes, Adobe Bridge, Preview, VLC, Adium, and several finder windows open at any given time.
Additionally there are multiple ways to access all of the information available across all the screens. Similar to Spaces, I have all of my applications bound to specific desktops. Therefore if I wanted to see where my torrents are at, I could: press CMD + 3 to go to Desktop 3. I could press CMD + Tab to Tab to uTorrent. I could press CMD + Up Arrow Key to look at Mission Control. I could be super slow and press Control + Right Arrow Key Twice (Assuming I'm on Desktop 1.) Or finally, the slowest way is I could click the application on my Dock and have it move me to Desktop 3. (Note: Obviously some of these methods can be done with gesturing.)
The only way I can see that there could be any problems with this design is if you have 5+ windows open from the same program, on the same desktop, which really should be rare. It's not uncommon for me to be copying things from drive to drive or opening RAW files in Finder rather than in Bridge, but I haven't had any problems with 3-5 Finder windows.
fn+f11 is not a normal key sequence though, so it's one that lacks any form of muscle memory. One of the advantages of expose (and of linux compiz corners) is that you can define the corners to be as needed. I can hit the "show all windows" corner with my thumb with my fingers still in typing position and not need to adjust anything, including selecting quickly the window I need.
I'll regularly have 15-20 terminal windows open in various forms on the same desktop, plus 3-4 firefox windows with a dozen tabs each (depending on the server that I'm working on), my view desktop, a space dedicated to fusion apps, etc. Plus a couple of xcode windows, and an eclipse window, etc.
Simply put, I've gotten incredibly fast with the arrow keys for spaces in the 2x2 grid, and don't feel like slowing down because apple decided they wanted to take away the choice. I'm sticking with SL until I have no other choice, or I get the control back.
I'm having major problems when playing video, whether it be flash-based in a browser or a video file using QT/Perian, VLC or MPlayerX: general system freezes--video freezes, audio continues, system totally unresponsive to mouse/kb input; have to hard shut down by holding down power button. It's pretty much guaranteed to happen if I try to play a HD, 720p video, regardless of container/file format. The inability to turn off auto re-start of apps upon re-booting makes the re-start epically long at times (the offending video app takes forever to load/shut down on re-start)....another feature I don't mind, but damn, give us the ability to turn it off!!!
I know my machine is old (early 2007 MBP, 2.16GHz C2D, maxed-out 3 GB RAM), but I'm incredulous that I can boot from my SL install on an external FW HD & have none of these issues w/ video. I also get weird, intermittent graphics glitches in general use: an area of my screen will become distorted, goes away w/ a mouse click or scrolling typically. I've kept my mouth shut about it since I chose to upgrade to Lion on day one, but I'm so tired of the fanboys who think people having issues like mine are somehow delusional. If a machine like mine wasn't intended for use w/ Lion, then fine. But hey Apple, at least do us a favor & tell us beforehand.
I know my machine is old (early 2007 MBP, 2.16GHz C2D, maxed-out 3 GB RAM), but I'm incredulous that I can boot from my SL install on an external FW HD & have none of these issues w/ video. I also get weird, intermittent graphics glitches in general use: an area of my screen will become distorted, goes away w/ a mouse click or scrolling typically. I've kept my mouth shut about it since I chose to upgrade to Lion on day one, but I'm so tired of the fanboys who think people having issues like mine are somehow delusional. If a machine like mine wasn't intended for use w/ Lion, then fine. But hey Apple, at least do us a favor & tell us beforehand.
There's something going on other than Lion IMO. I run lion on several macbooks from the some era and I don't see these issues. There may be a hardware problem that only surfaces in lion for some reason. I don't know what it would be but maybe a lion reinstall is in order too. I had different issues that a fresh install of lion fixed.. just thinking out loud here..
mrgstiffler
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Messages
- 13,408
I did have issues with Lion and the latest flash version. All of my machines are running a version behind and I've had significantly fewer issues when playing video.
ranviper
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,036
SO my fiance's MBP runs lion just fine, never had any glitches or hiccups. However, my 2008 Alum Macbook was having some issues. Slow, poor battery life, laggy. Anyways, I considered selling it, so I put SL back on there and wow. Runs like it's new. I fell in love with it all over again, no need to sell. It's just too old for Lion, and thats ok. =)
Andross182
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 527
It boggles my mind how some apple users think that a 3+ year old laptop doesn't ever need a "fresh" install of its OS especially with how easy Time Machine makes backups...people bring me their macs that are so laggy and slow I don't see how they can stand to use them. One clean install of their OS later, and boom! Whole new machine....
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,414
thats because after using it so long people don't notice it slowing down til they use something faster. even i've been guilty of that thinking my system was running fine til i'd do a reinstall and realize how friggin slow it really was.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Well it's also the Apple mantra ingrained into OS X. System slowdowns with age, which only happens in Windows, Mac users needed worry about it, only apparently they do.
My sig rig install turned 2 years old the other day and it's just as fast was when I got it setup and I have a TON of applications installed on it. It was never the fastest booting system to begin with as I have a lot of big services running on it related to SQL Server and its components so it takes a good five minutes to get fully going. But then I have a couple of other installs that aren't quite as old that don't have any big startup services and on them Windows 7 boots in about 30 to 40 seconds. My fastest booting Windows 7 is only about two months but with the SSD it's booting in about 12 seconds.
I know that with Windows the registry used to be a big cause of system boot times and responsiveness but with Windows 7 as long as the startup services and apps are kept in check performance just doesn't degrade, even with tons of installs and uninstalls. Im not an OS X user but it would seem that lots of unnecessary services and junk running would be a big culprit there as well and simply keeping them in check would keep performance zippy.
ranviper
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,036
Nonsense. I had a fresh install of lion, didn't transfer any data, and then when it was having issues (right out of the gate) I re-installed lion again, a second time. Fresh, completely wiped. Still, had issues. Then, I did the exact same thing with SL, and bam, all my issues resolved. Am I blaming lion? No, but for whatever reason lion didn't like my system, and SL does.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,445
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
No, that was Leopard.
It's really a troll bait comment. Every OS has had growing pains. I was around for Windows 95/98/2k/ME/XP/Vista/7 as well as Leopard/Snow Leopard/Lion.
It's always the same cycle. Everyone complains that there are bugs or things they don't like, then several years pass and then when a new version of the OS comes out, everyone says the older version is better and the new one is the worst thing ever. One of the ones I really remember was when 2K came out. The big 'gamer' conundrum was whether to even bother upgrading or not because DX performance (at the time) was worse in 2K than in 98. It happened again for the XP launch, and still to this day we can't get people to stop using XP. The same happens with virtually every OS. Some are praised a bit more than others, and some are given a bit more scorn than others. I think Vista is basically a scapegoat.
This isn't to say that there aren't bugs or problems. But there always is with early adoption. Lion at 10.7.2 I think is excellent, but I intentionally didn't upgrade at launch to avoid issues. I used Vista and it was fine. Microsoft's add campaign about blind taste testing Vista I actually think was relevant. But the problem was the mindset of users was already entrenched, Microsoft had no choice but to move on, which is fine, but Vista is more a PR disaster than an OS disaster.
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
I can't say I ever had any significant issues with Leopard. Lion has its quirks, but I suspect they're more a result of the install process not being quite 100% as opposed to issues with the OS itself.No, that was Leopard.
Lion is disappointing in the sense that most application developers have yet to implement many of the features I thought seemed the most useful. Ordinarily, Mac OS developers are quick to implement new OS features, but that hasn't really happened this time around, and the user experience with the OS as a whole (and their expectations about what it should offer) suffers for it.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,445
Wow, I wasn't trying to troll.
Leopard, especially when it was first released had a ton of Active Directory issues and was a nightmare to work with on mixed-system networks.
Also, you apparently didn't use ME, Vista, Server 2008, or the majority of those OSes outside of personal use, otherwise you would have seen many of the flaws in those OSes.
Many of those were a huge headache to manage and maintain, especially Vista within an enterprise environment.
There is a reason so many people chose to stick with XP back in the heyday of Vista.
Even the university I worked for completely skipped Vista after a large amount of problems it gave us in a test lab, and didn't move on until 7 was released.
This wasn't only during its release, but was happening until a few months before 7 was officially released, so we really did give it a chance.
Yes, Leopard had its faults.
Was it a bad OS? No.
Was it a PIA? Under the circumstances, yes.
Also, the comment above mine wasn't troll bait?
Last edited:
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Much of what caused problems with Vista especially in corporate environments was caused by the much improved security model and the mess of VERY of poorly designed in house corporate apps especially from a security perspective.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,445
We had to deal with a plethora of those as well with Server 2008, but it was necessary to move beyond Server 2000/2003R2 at that point.
It really was very unfortunate as I, at the time, was very excited about Vista and Leopard's releases.
In the end, 7 and Snow Leopard fixed almost all of the issues I had with those OSes, even in an enterprise environment.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
In the end, 7 and Snow Leopard fixed almost all of the issues I had with those OSes, even in an enterprise environment.
We were actually working on a corporate wide Vista migration before it was canned and the decision came down to wait for 7. That said the work that was done in during the Vista migration effort very much helped in going to 7. 7 did fix a lot of issues with Vista but the time between Vista and 7 gave 3rd developers time to get their own act together.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,445
Same here, Vista was a really good practice tool, and Leopard was still decent as a stand-alone OS for some of our clients.
Once 7 and Snow Leopard was released, it made quite a few tasks much more efficient.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,445
You probably won't notice a speed difference with the memory, OS X is pretty efficient and fairly light-weight.
Using Activity Monitor, it normally doesn't use more than 700MB on startup, and barely goes over 1GB even when multiple apps like Final Cut Express are used.
I only threw the mem figure in there because it's not the base configuration.
And you're wrong. Going from 2gb to 4gb was a HUGE difference. OS X would hang with the pinwheel of death for a few seconds all the time. This was back on tiger though. Still does it on my friends MBP under leopard with 2gb of mem.
I would never run osx with less than 4gb of mem again, probably why that's the standard setup now.
OS X loves its memory, even if it doesn't always use it all.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,445
What apps were you running while getting the pinwheel with 2GB?
I'm not saying you are wrong, but on 10.4? Wow!