If something with a GUI hasn’t been updated in 20 years, chances are it’s not gonna be stellar software. Both technology and UI conventions have changed a lot.
If the situation demands it I would say yes. I treat it as one big refactoring job. There are lots of shims in old software libraries that may not need to be there anymore. There are also lots of vulnerabilities that a fresh set of eyes and a different perspective can illuminate. A product that began its life being developed by a lone developer may have an entire team now. The rewrite is a good opportunity to explore how it works and why certain decisions were made.
... and a good opportunity to break existing and working features along the way.
If something works, why should you fix it?
I think the reason software abruptly changes (API switches, rewrites, UX redesigns, etc) is because doing that employs more software people than incremental improvements to old stuff. I don't think this is necessarily a choice, it's just the way it works out.
It's kind of a perfect business in that way. The downside is that occasionally an important customer says "enough!" They're totally justified in doing that, but it doesn't align with growth, so it's the cost of business.
That’s how you get Windows 10, where you’ll encounter three eras of UI, going all the way back to 1995, just to change your power settings. No thanks.
I’m asking because outside of some big ones that I don’t use, like Final Cut Pro or Pro Tools - most of the Mac apps I’ve found are very low on features or “options” (flexibility). They all seem to try and follow Apple’s model of only serving the happy path and completely ignoring anyone who needs more than that - e.g. power users.
Even normal users get annoyed by this tendency, like recently when Apple removed the “mark all as read” option from Mail in iOS.
* OmniFocus and anything from Omni Group
* Alfred
* Keyboard Maestro
* Drafts
* iStat Menus
* Soulver
* BBEdit
* Hazel
* Marked
* MindNode
and tons more that I have not personally used or found useful.
Apple News, though it's still moist behind the ears and needs more features.
Sequel Pro, though if there's a Windows equivalent my IT department hasn't found it yet.
There are a bunch of tiny workhorse utilities like FileChute, EasyBatchPhoto, and Subler. Though there's probably a Windows version of Subler.
There are a number of Mac-only apps that attract people, but it's not the 1990's anymore. People don't use a platform for a "killer app." Most people choose a computer because they like the way it works. macOS works better for a lot of people than Windows or Linux. They may also be partial to the hardware for various reasons.
They all seem to try and follow Apple’s model of only serving the happy path
Apple, and its users focus on getting things done. Productivity is highly valued.
completely ignoring anyone who needs more than that - e.g. power users.
"Power users" is just Nerd for "tweakers and hobbyists." Apple hasn't been interested in that demographic since 1984. If you're a later-day "power user," good for you. Linux awaits.
The only reason I keep a Windows box around is for IE11 compatibility testing. And Linux I only use on servers. That's because the way macOS works makes sense to me. It didn't at first, coming from Windows. But now that I understand the workflow conventions, it makes sense, and I prefer it.
I don’t buy the argument that Apple wants to let you get things done when their stuff lacks things like that. How is removing a feature like “mark all as read” helping me do that?
And if you think Finder works better than Windows Explorer or other products that emulate Windows Explorer, you’re certainly in the minority.
If I have to install third-party app to do this stuff, it doesn’t really help me when I go over to some junior developers machine to help them.
The problem is that macOS is what they call “app-centric” and they’re the only ones who do it. It’s not better, but Apple will try to convince everyone that it is, just like when they stuck with the single mouse button for a decade, when clearly multiple button mice were considered the standard.
Actually, it’s document centric - the Windows approach is “app” centric. It has always been like that, 35 years and counting. It’s arguably a “truer” implementation of a windowed UI, than Windows.
Windows is window-centric. That’s why when you do alt tab, you see all of the windows. That’s also why you classically see a separate task bar item for each window.
I’d like to hear an argument in support of your view though.
Finder still feels less cluttered to me than Explorer. It isn't quite as simple as Finder vs Explorer, it's the built-in assumptions. For me, Finder + Unix filesystem vs Explorer + Windows filesystem is a no-brainer.
I've used Windows and Linux (several wms), I wouldn't call their window management any more competent (if not less).
If you want a tiling wm for macOs, there are a few.
But managing windows is mostly bikeshedding, and for that something like Linux would serve better...
TablePlus [1] has a Windows port.
Things 3,
Scrivener (Mac only for 5-6 years, later had a Windows port),
Acorn,
Pixelmator Pro,
Transmit,
Capo,
Omni-Graffle,
Omni-Project,
BBEdit,
Dash,
Ulysses,
Final Cut Pro X,
Logic Pro X,
Numbers,
Keynote,
Soulver,
Quiver,
Viscocity,
NVAlt,
>most of the Mac apps I’ve found are very low on features or “options” (flexibility). They all seem to try and follow Apple’s model of only serving the happy path and completely ignoring anyone who needs more than that - e.g. power users.
Or you know, "do a thing and do it well", the UNIX philosophy...
Not sure what power user needs aren't met though (especially with the full unix userland available as well)