Now what I really like to hear is versions... would be very nice,as I sometimes make changes, have to revert back to the original, and then back to the new (for the time when people can't make up their minds). Sounds a lot better than having multiple copies save in your system; under different names. My only concern would be how many versions are kept and for how long. May not need to save old documents, but then again - may be an issue with disk space
But they aren't running.
Emphasis mine."Application persistance. Apps and their states are saved when you logout and back in. Background apps may be terminated by Mac OS X and will restore if the user picks them again. Basically the concept of open and closed apps is gone."
Right, but my point is a little different. I'm not worried about killing suspended apps; I'm worried about the fact that they're being suspended in the first place.For the very small number people who should care whether an App is suspended or not, you'll either be able to truly quit it via Activity Monitor, or perhaps we'll see some sort of pseudo-taskbar ala the iPhone, although I doubt it.
You say that as if XML is a good thing... The backend to store the "registry" in doesn't matter. The concept of a registry (central corruptible, deletable) in itself is flawed.
Well, as of GNOME 2.30, the only ugly thing out there is Firefox. Oh, it's not exactly GNOME application.For things included in Gnome. libgtk/libgnome apps are all over the place UI wise (not that QT/kdelibs apps are any better). The stuff included in the KDE main packages is pretty decent as far as interface goes.
You're forgetting K3B (the best burning software. Period) and Amarok (iTunes can go cry in a corner).
But they aren't running. They're either suspended, or open.
For the very small number people who should care whether an App is suspended or not, you'll either be able to truly quit it via Activity Monitor, or perhaps we'll see some sort of pseudo-taskbar ala the iPhone, although I doubt it.
Airdrop=Dropbox=cool. Will it support iOS devices too?
Little concerned about "instantly wiping" my mac...mistakes do happen, including w/ Apple.
Not sure I get what Lion server is - different than Mac OS server?
2. What criteria will the system use to kill apps? What if I want some apps to continue to update in the background (like an IM app)? Will Apple allow some processes to run in the background?
I'm talking about this, more specifically (from the front-page story):
Emphasis mine.
That sounds well and good in theory, but...
1. If the saved-state behavior is as inconsistent as it (still) is on iOS (i.e. devs have to write it into apps), things may be messy for quite a while.
2. What criteria will the system use to kill apps? What if I want some apps to continue to update in the background (like an IM app)? Will Apple allow some processes to run in the background?
3. The saved-state approach was designed for mobile systems with limited resources (compared to a desktop or laptop). It's a compromise between full-fledged multitasking and the previous iOS versions that only allowed you to run one app at a time. It makes sense on a mobile device, but on a PC? I'm not sold yet.
The ability to manually control the state of what apps are and aren't running is part of this.
There was nothing wrong with Command-Q.
My easy guess is: an app in idle event loop with no open files, no open network/Unix domain sockets (neither listening nor connecting), and with no windows open and not minimized, is a perfect candidate.
Concerning that last one about listening sockets. It's already implemented since Tiger: on-demand server startup. launchd happens to know what port an application is going to listen to, from the .plist file, and listens on behalf of the application. When a connection is made on that port, launchd starts the application and hands the socket over to it.
The thing is, launchd then won't stop the server when there are no more connections. Maybe this issue will be addressed, too, and launchd will be able to count idle and restartable server processes, too as candidates for termination.
+1000000
Lion might be the last step before we slide down a slippery slope of dumbification of the platform.
I really hope cmd+q stays. The "you can just open Activity Monitor, find the process and quit it" argument is a load of ****.
Suspended apps in Lion, is fine. They save state and quit completely, then when reopened, pop back up as they were, like Firefox saving tabs, but I don't want resources being sapped all the time because "it's so user friendly to just leave everything running".
I would think it may be something much simpler. It will only kill apps that support suspend and resume. An IM would not support suspend, since it stays active in the background, so it would not be eligible to be killed. It's up to the developer.
That's what a lot of people have been saying. It's the new users from the iDevice fad that are all excited about "Lion", when it appears much of it is "dumbed down" and based from iOS.
I have a tendency to throw things away and empty my trash and then want them back a few days later... I'm fairly certain the files are still on your hard drive for a while after you empty your trash (unless you secure empty it,) so it'd be nice if I could get them back...
If this doesn't cost the same as Snow Leopard did I wont be buying it.
Suspended apps in Lion, is fine. They save state and quit completely, then when reopened, pop back up as they were, like Firefox saving tabs, but I don't want resources being sapped all the time because "it's so user friendly to just leave everything running".
TLDR: its retarded if you cannot arbitrarily close running apps.
its retarded if they turn a desktop OS into a mobile OS.
do you not think things as basic as controlling whats executing and whats not is important?
I would think it may be something much simpler. It will only kill apps that support suspend and resume. An IM would not support suspend, since it stays active in the background, so it would not be eligible to be killed. It's up to the developer.
Resources aren't being sapped, apps become suspended, which you say is fine. Not sure what you're complaining about.
Thts exactly what I thought when they implemented it in to the portable iDevices, but if they can include a close app option to that, don't you think it'll come to the OS X too?![]()
I mean if I can manually quit and have it reopen as I had it, that would be good. As long as there's a manual option there, I don't need to wait for a timeout, nor would I run into the problem of cmd+tabbing to Mail, then going back to Safari only to have to wait for it to resume (ie. I'd leave it completely running).
.