Can a Mac by customized

I hear they completely made customizing impossible with El Capitan.

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/el-capitan-end-mac-customization/

Good article.  Thanks.  I understand why Apple locked everything down, but am a bit surprised they didn't add in a way to customize the GUI.  Oh well.

Thanks again C242

Think 'Walled Garden' and you have your answer as to why 3rd party customisation programs have been disabled in OS-X.  Apple wants total control over its systems and has been working toward that for the last few editions.  Similarly, and sadly, Microsoft is heading down the same track and customisation will eventually become a thing of the past. 

Sadly, neither Apple or Microsoft have a clue about creating a decent/respectable GUI that's pleasing to the eye, meaning that everyone will be stuck with the crap created at Cupertino or Redmond.

I don't know what the current OSX GUI looks like but I actually did not mind the look of past releases. In my mind, Apple looks better than MS but it could just be personal preference and some might think it is worse than MS. 

Windows & WindowBlinds is Of course better from a customization point of view.

-Looking like a Mac one day, just to have it looking like a Spaceship command central the next.

I was going suggest a felt pen and appliques but figured it wouldn't go over too well. 

I have a Mac Mini with Yosemite on it, meaning I shan't upgrade so I can still customise it.... if/when I get around to it.  It's not a priority right now, though.  I have several other 'non- computer' things going on, so even the Windows rigs are getting little to no attention in that respect.

Windowblinds - cannot skin several parts of the OS thus making your total OS experience looking half baked.

Windowblinds - cannot skin Start menu unless you install another application which reverts you backward to a legacy start menu.

Icon Packager -  Will break your OS if you try to uninstall it. Not compatible with Windows 10.

Object Dock - numerous issues reported especially with 64 bit apps.

So yeah... better....

Hey! but you can still change your Wallpaper!!!

Total Customization is a thing of the past.

Thing is, as MS tightens the screws with Win 10, customisation will eventually become a thing of the past.  The excuse to do this will be to tighten security and close exploitable vulnerabilities, but the truth will be that MS wants to run a system that parallels Apple's... one that it controls and has the final say on what can and can't be installed on it.  As it is, Windows 10 is uninstalling programs it deems 'unsuitable' for the platform... Speccy and Ccleaner being just two that come to mind.

I suppose Stardock and others will always try to find workarounds to keep customisation alive, but as Microsoft continues to 'hard code' more and more of its OS, I have to wonder just how long that can last.  Apple has already 'hard coded' its OS-X in the name of security, and MS is likely to follow suit in its bid for greater control over users choices/options.

On days when I have nothing to do, I look around my Mac for cool features I haven’t tried before. I’m always learning more about what all those info screens in Activity Monitor mean, and you can never know enough about Terminal. Last time I had a look around, I discovered that holding the Command key and then dragging an icon on my menu bar would allow me to reorganize the order. This got me thinking: maybe there are some other cool ways to personalize things on OS X. 

Starkers. ......

It is a narrow view to diminish (even in part) that 'security concerns' over easily exploitable areas in OS code (too often the areas also required in order to 'customize' ) are not worthy of attention by MS, even if that means less 'flexibility'.   After all even android (long the bastion of said flexibility) has become less so (see samsung's modifications many/most due to security reasons).

Not all choice is good for us,  hell these days i'd even go so far as to say that most choice isn't.  Someone needs to perform the thankless task of protecting us from ourselves........before we break everything!

it's not so easy to compare, as a OS X does not follow the same "there's an application and outside the application are borders"-doctrine as Windows.

the title bar is pretty much part of the application itself and makes use of transparency and blur (not as tacky as Windows 7 though) and also client-side decorations. bottom, left, right borders aren't there. 

and despite the article Carl posted, El Capitan can be skinned. it's just no longer a simple point and click affair.

an example:http://allannyholm.deviantart.com/art/REST-Theme-602763156 

needs some work but it´s possible 
 

the_Monk's point is really pertinent. I remember back when OSX came out there were major security concerns regarding its 'sharing' nature (could be wrong, though). 

For me, first the computer (and what it connects to as well as how it connects) should be secure, then how well it works and how well it fills the user's computing requirements, and then how the GUI looks. That is a large part of the use/work experience, as well.

Those are just my priorities...not saying they should be anyone else's. 

Yeah?  Okay, then, when was the last time you [or anyone] heard of WindowBlinds, IconPackager or Cursor FX being a security risk?  When was the last time any of them were exploited to hack peoples PC's?

I'm all for security measures... IF/WHEN they're necessary.   What I'm not for is bullshit excuses to exercise more control over users, and largely, that's what all this is about. 

I use a MacBook Air on the job. It's running Yosemite. There are times when I wish I was using Windows 7. There are good features in both OS'es. For looks though give me Windoes 7. With Stardock of course.

Oh, what a load of crap.

The reason OS makers concern themselves with not having 'skinnability' is simply they do not want to add to their support desk issues.

It has nothing repeat nothing to do with yours [or anyone's] psychoses re paranoia.

Neither Microsoft nor Apple gives 4 fifths of eff-all about you or any other individual.... and whether or not you wet your pants at the thought of their name matters to them diddly-squat.

MS's CEO and Board of Directors check your knickers for twists, too, Mark. They're all out to get you.

And yeah. the_Monk's points are pertinent. WB and WSX aren't the only software out there. 

Excellent questions. I didn't know that skinning is a dangerous hobby.

This wasn't just about skinning software. It was about having a skinnable OS.

..... and I was not suggesting that SD's software (hell not even any other skinning software) was a 'security risk'.  I was pointing out (in response mind you) that the decisions of OS makers in locking more areas of the code down (thus making skinning more unlikely) had more to do with security concerns over sometimes easily exploitable code within their own software than some conspiracy theory floated about removing the individual's choices!

 Of  course Jafo has raised the most pertinent point of all.  It is all about the buck, and having to pay support desk people (even if you're only paying them a dollar a day ) to deal with non-important OS issues (like skinning related questions/bugs) goes against the shareholders profit margins so.....

I think Apple sees it as a benefit that the OS is not customizable. Microsoft probably doesn't have a clear stance on customization. If people want to skin Windows, they can do it, but it's not something MS will encourage.

I can see that.

Yet, I think OSX would be able to double sales numbers if customization was allowed. I know people (like myself) that would never buy a Mac just because of the (weird) UI.