Features you wish macOS had?

[satchmo]

I tend to leave Finder windows open for the specific purpose of dragging and dropping the folder I want to save to directly into the File>Save dialogue box. Then it's just a matter of saving.

Thanks. I wasn't aware of this. Have to give it a try.

I've used Default Folder X to solve that problem for years. Much less of a hassle—when a standard Save As... dialog box is open, just Command-click on an open Finder window (or on the Desktop) where you want to save the folder, and the Save As destination is immediately updated with the new destination. Simple as pie, and a huge time-saver. It's one of those things that should be built into the OS, but isn't.

Thanks. Yeah, there are 3rd party solutions but not really looking to spend on something that as you said, should be built into the OS.

 

[eyoungren]

Thanks. I wasn't aware of this. Have to give it a try.

NP. Also, if the actual folder you want to save to is itself open, you can grab the icon of the folder in the window title bar and drag that into the Save box. That way you don't have to open the folder one level up just to drag and drop the folder icon for the save location.

All of this assumes you are using either icon or list view. If you use column view, the save location is going to jump to whatever folder you click on.

 

[srbNYC]

Whimsy and Animation
I miss the ripples when you'd put a widget on the desktop. And the cool feelings of the genie effect on the dock or warp when minimizing. Our computers have so much power now, I'd love to see more use of animation or effects in the OS.

This category is undervalued -- and too frequently maligned here. (Sign-in memoji animation, anyone?) But it was always a hallmark of Apple and I miss it, too. There's a slightly personal element to the brand, something that connotes that there are real people building this stuff, that they shouldn't abandon.

 

[Heindijs]

This category is undervalued -- and too frequently maligned here. (Sign-in memoji animation, anyone?) But it was always a hallmark of Apple and I miss it, too. There's a slightly personal element to the brand, something that connotes that there are real people building this stuff, that they shouldn't abandon.

I agree. It was even more prevalent in macOS during the classic era with the system sounds for example. Everything had a fun sound (unless you turned it off, of course ), even dragging windows around had a whirring sound.

 

[salamanderjuice]

I agree. It was even more prevalent in macOS during the classic era with the system sounds for example. Everything had a fun sound (unless you turned it off, of course ), even dragging windows around had a whirring sound.

Those got pretty annoying fast even if they were fun for a bit IMO. Apple also had more whimsy in their computers too like the iMac G3. The modern stuff is just so sterile although the new iMacs have slightly more whimsy.

 

[orionquest]

No direct reference, no. I'll see if I can find the webpage(s) that led me to this later on today. But the workaround would be connecting via AFP and not SMB. That said, I have NOT tried connecting via CIFS (which is SMB1) so I can't say the problem is entirely SMB (yet).

Thanks that would be great.

I was using AFP originally with my NAS but AFP has it's own bugs. With AFP there is a noticeable slow down when copying files over time, which is why I switched everything over to SMB(3). It has been much more stable and consistant in this regard. I could try and use a SMB2 connection, but I have this suspicion it won't matter.

I'm guessing this is something Apple knew about and fixed it in later version of MacOS, or not as they tend to do.

 

[eyoungren]

Thanks that would be great.

I was using AFP originally with my NAS but AFP has it's own bugs. With AFP there is a noticeable slow down when copying files over time, which is why I switched everything over to SMB(3). It has been much more stable and consistant in this regard. I could try and use a SMB2 connection, but I have this suspicion it won't matter.

I'm guessing this is something Apple knew about and fixed it in later version of MacOS, or not as they tend to do.

OK. Not in any way definitive by a longshot, but here's where it all went for me.

Google search results were weighted towards people with server share problems and NAS problems, not anything specific to my problem of shared network drives. But it's SMB, so…looking at the links pertaining to Catalina (and a couple for Monterey) there seems to be some issues.

But I got here: https://www.synoforum.com/threads/smb-share-disconnects.3110/

And a user on the forum in the second reply says "Mac Catalina has had (still has) issues with SMB connections. AFP still works."

At that point I said 'screw it' to myself and just shared the drives via AFP. Because, I figure that if the above statement is true…then it's got to be true about Mojave, the version prior to Catalina.

So, an Apple backed, definitive source, no.

Anyway, sharing via AFP has solved the issue. It was what I was doing before I started trying to use SMB more and more and it's only in the trying that it became a problem.

 

[vddobrev]

I would like the ability to split a desktop space horizontally not just vertically.

 

[conmee]

Remember OS/2? If not, something like that was at least one of the reasons why you don't.

Such an compatibility layer would remove any incentive to provide proper, native Mac applications.

We were using OS/2 to run ATMs and a voice response system at a credit union I worked for way back. OS/2 2.1 I believe had an edition that came with all the floppies for a fully licensed Windows 3.1 (if you didn’t already have DOS/WIN) and it was marketed as providing “Better Windows Than Windows” experience. And look how well that turned out for IBM and OS/2.

 

[jchap]

Thanks. Yeah, there are 3rd party solutions but not really looking to spend on something that as you said, should be built into the OS.

Mmm, yes, I can understand what you're saying. That said, Apple is a huge global corporation now with many, many stakeholders who have their hands in the proverbial pie, and they're unfortunately not as open as they used to be to making these kinds of small but ultimately useful changes, unless there's a real push and outcry from many users to do so. That's where third-party developers come in—they extend the functionality of the OS beyond what the manufacturer is capable of doing or willing to do, adding something meaningful for users like us. Some developers ask for money to compensate them for their time spent on doing these things, which is fair. Others do not. Personally, I find Default Folder X (in this case) by St. Clair Software to be a really good option that saves me a lot of time and hassle in this instance, so much that I'm willing to pay for it, because I acknowledge the value and hard work of the developer.

We could be purists and say that "if it's not baked into the OS, it's not worth my time," but I think that there are so many great third-party solutions these days to take care of a world of needs, it makes sense to pay the developers of these solutions a little if they bring us value and save our time.

But I digress.

 

[orionquest]

OK. Not in any way definitive by a longshot, but here's where it all went for me.

Google search results were weighted towards people with server share problems and NAS problems, not anything specific to my problem of shared network drives. But it's SMB, so…looking at the links pertaining to Catalina (and a couple for Monterey) there seems to be some issues.

But I got here: https://www.synoforum.com/threads/smb-share-disconnects.3110/

And a user on the forum in the second reply says "Mac Catalina has had (still has) issues with SMB connections. AFP still works."

At that point I said 'screw it' to myself and just shared the drives via AFP. Because, I figure that if the above statement is true…then it's got to be true about Mojave, the version prior to Catalina.

So, an Apple backed, definitive source, no.

Anyway, sharing via AFP has solved the issue. It was what I was doing before I started trying to use SMB more and more and it's only in the trying that it became a problem.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I might share out my volumes using both SMB and AFP and mount them at the same time and see what weird things happen.

 

[Jack Neill]

YES. I can't believe this STILL isn't a thing. The column view seems to be made for Windows xxxxxxxx.exe naming convention.

• Please give me back the old iTunes we all hated. The Apple Music app has taught me humility and showed me how good we used to have it. I thought it didn't get any worse than iTunes. I was wrong.
• Alternatively, provide API for other players to allow streaming from Apple Music, including my own library.
• AirPlay to Sonos. I have an app on my headless server allowing it, so don't tell me it's impossible.
• PLEASE revamp the iCal/Calendar/whatever. Buy Fantastical (which also doesn't have great UI despite the silly subscription prices, but beggars can't be choosers). Really, just give me one thing – when I click on the currently set appointment time, don't make it move UP so that I have to move the cursor and click elsewhere to change it.
• I'd like some cheese with my whine.

I still use iTunes on Monterey on Intel but alas on M1 12.9.5 won't work. I share the same sentiment, Music is trash.

 

[R3k]

Snappier finder would be nice and I would personally like to be able to use colored lines for files in list view instead of dot tags. Like we had a few years back.

 

[jchap]

Those got pretty annoying fast even if they were fun for a bit IMO. Apple also had more whimsy in their computers too like the iMac G3. The modern stuff is just so sterile although the new iMacs have slightly more whimsy.

I think you "whacked the mole real good" there with the word "whimsy." I've also felt in recent years that the Mac designs have been sterile, very streamlined but lacking in real character. I was glad to see what they did with the 24-inch iMacs and the color schemes, even though the large "chin" under the display didn't go well with a lot of users.

Come to think of it, Apple generally seems to do at least one thing in each iteration of their Macs that irritates a large subsection of users, whether it be the switch to all-USB-C ports and nothing else on the previous MacBook/MacBook Air/MacBook Pro versions, the replacement of the Esc key and the entire function key row with the Touch Bar on the previous MacBook Pros, the camera notch on the newest MacBook Pros and so on. At least they've gone for a more functional and practical design with the newest MacBook Pros (14-inch/16-inch models), with more ports that mostly eliminate the need for dongles and adapters.

As far as "whimsy" goes, about the only "whimsical" design element that the newest MacBook Pro features is the black keybed under the keyboard, rather than the raised keys cut out from the aluminum chassis like they used to do.

 

[Malus120]

Remember OS/2? If not, something like that was at least one of the reasons why you don't.
Such a compatibility layer would remove any incentive to provide proper, native Mac applications.

I kinda disagree with this as macOS (X) (on Intel) runs a lot of Unix/Linux/Windows software with very little effort (either natively or via VM) and still gets great apps (IMHO OS/2 had other problems, although I'm no expert)
That said, I see your point on Apple likely not wanting such a compatibility layer used for pro apps.

I should've just said "games," as that's what I really meant.
For gaming, unless Apple suddenly decides they're willing to put in a lot more work (money) to get developers porting games to macOS again, gaming on the mac looks to be entering another dark age. No bootcamp, no x86 compatibility, and I can't think of ANY AAA games with a mac port incoming. A lot of people used to buy a mac because they could just use bootcamp for their gaming needs. Not anymore.
Now you might say "buy a console or gaming PC" and yeah I did that and I'm happy with those, but not everyone can afford to and for some segments of the market it just feels like a waste (and lost sales) given the CPU/GPU power available on even the lowliest MBA, let alone the MBP and Mac Studio.

I really think if Apple worked (maybe with Valve) to build something like Proton on macOS it'd make the Mac a much more appealing platform to a lot of people.

I do think there are other semi-viable way forward like a revamped Apple Arcade but that's a discussion for another day.

Core ML?

You got me there. I forgot about CoreML. Again not an expert but it feels like Apple needs to do a lot more to fight CUDA/ensure apps get adequate optimization

 

[eyoungren]

…and I would personally like to be able to use colored lines for files in list view instead of dot tags. Like we had a few years back.

Labels.

And you can still get that with XtraFinder.

 

[Raging Dufus]

Mmm, yes, I can understand what you're saying. That said, Apple is a huge global corporation now with many, many stakeholders who have their hands in the proverbial pie, and they're unfortunately not as open as they used to be to making these kinds of small but ultimately useful changes, unless there's a real push and outcry from many users to do so. That's where third-party developers come in—they extend the functionality of the OS beyond what the manufacturer is capable of doing or willing to do, adding something meaningful for users like us. Some developers ask for money to compensate them for their time spent on doing these things, which is fair. Others do not. Personally, I find Default Folder X (in this case) by St. Clair Software to be a really good option that saves me a lot of time and hassle in this instance, so much that I'm willing to pay for it, because I acknowledge the value and hard work of the developer.

We could be purists and say that "if it's not baked into the OS, it's not worth my time," but I think that there are so many great third-party solutions these days to take care of a world of needs, it makes sense to pay the developers of these solutions a little if they bring us value and save our time.

But I digress.

I agree with this, which is why I don't think so much about features I wish MacOS had, as long as third-party solutions can give me what I want. A good example is, as @Doq mentioned earlier in the thread, the behavior of the green window button for several versions now, full-screening an app in its own space instead of maximizing it. Rectangle solved that issue for me and gave me other functionality I was looking for. I'm just one individual user with my own wants and needs, and so long as there's a way to meet them, that's good enough for me.

What's more important (to me) is the things Apple prevents me from having. Like Classic in Leopard; or Rosetta in Lion; or 32-bit apps in Catalina; etc., etc., etc. Soon enough it's bound to be X86 apps in later versions of MacOS. There's no way around these limitations, because Apple forecloses all such options.

But it's not reasonable to expect Apple to care what I want, because I haven't bought anything new from them since a copy of Tiger I purchased in 2005. And probably never will, no matter what they do, so they're not going to make money off of me. They should probably listen to some of you though

 

[R3k]

Labels.

And you can still get that with XtraFinder.

Yes, I tried that years back. Not a fan of having a whole finder layer just for the functionality, nor the issues it may cause to system stability. I tested it, remember it crashing and I immediately uninstalled it.

If there was a simple Terminal command, I'd use it though.
I don't think it would be that difficult to implement, as a couple of years after they first removed the functionality you could still find it in one particular place..
Finder Preferences -> General --> New Finder Window Opens --> Other and the browser that popped up showed the labels, ha. They missed that one for a while.

 

[ignatius345]

Yeah, sometimes you just need to momentarily get to something underneath a Finder window. Minimize in place was perfect for that. Now, you have to minimize to the dock and then go find the window in the dock when you're done. I know there's a keyboard shortcut to return a minimized window but I haven't bothered to learn it because it's easier just to hide the app for a moment.

I feel like Mission Control makes it very easy to quickly locate and activate a window. If you're on a trackpad it's just a three-finger swipe up to give you a very fast overview of everything on your screen. From there you just click on the window you want and you're done. I also have it set up as a hot corner for when I'm using a mouse.

 

[joevt]

I feel like Mission Control makes it very easy to quickly locate and activate a window. If you're on a trackpad it's just a three-finger swipe up to give you a very fast overview of everything on your screen. From there you just click on the window you want and you're done. I also have it set up as a hot corner for when I'm using a mouse.

Mission Control seems useless when you have a 100 windows from 15 apps...

 

[m1maverick]

I wish it had the interface and ease of use of pre-OS X.

 

[eyoungren]

I wish it had the interface and ease of use of pre-OS X.

As long as we get to keep how it handles RAM and open apps, then okay. Otherwise, I'm out. I refuse to go back to how OS9 handled things, the running out of memory, the crashes, the bombs and the forced restarts.

Now we get Kaleidoscope and all it's themes back too then that's gravy on top.

 

[m1maverick]

As long as we get to keep how it handles RAM and open apps, then okay. Otherwise, I'm out. I refuse to go back to how OS9 handled things, the running out of memory, the crashes, the bombs and the forced restarts.

Now we get Kaleidoscope and all it's themes back too then that's gravy on top.

We can, that's why I specifically referred to the interface. Mac OS behavior with OS X under pinnings.

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

Well, we can use this in the meantime.

Infinite Mac

A classic Mac loaded with everything you'd want.

macos8.app

 

[ignatius345]

Mission Control seems useless when you have a 100 windows from 15 apps...

Not if you're using it right. Activate the relevant app and then use Mission Control to quickly give you an overview of just the windows from that app only. You can map this to a trackpad gesture, a keyboard command, or a hot corner very easily.

Alternately, plan things out a bit and use multiple desktops dedicated to certain apps. Command-tab to the app you want and you'll be taken to the desktop with the windows relevant to that app. I work this way a lot. Illustrator windows in one desktop, a bunch of Finder windows in another, email and messaging on a desktop dedicated to communication stuff.

Any of this is a hell of a lot faster than manually shrinking down and expanding windows one by one into little floating toolbars like we used to be able to.