I'm amused at some of the "wowing" & "about time" comments, when Xtrafinder has been here for a long time, increasing my productivity & efficiency on 10.6.8 considerably (I am a pro photog; am waiting for some serious issues on 10.7/8 to be worked out).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OS X 10.9 to Bring Enhancements to Finder, Safari, Multiple Monitor Support, and Multitasking
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm amused at some of the "wowing" & "about time" comments, when Xtrafinder has been here for a long time, increasing my productivity & efficiency on 10.6.8 considerably (I am a pro photog; am waiting for some serious issues on 10.7/8 to be worked out).
I really hope that multi-tasking is fixed; I hate it when Finder hangs because the foreground Window has hung. That is so 90s.
Windows 7 / 8 Explorer.exe rarely hang as much as Finder does with a mis-behaving app these days.
Windows 7 / 8 Explorer.exe rarely hang as much as Finder does with a mis-behaving app these days.
This seems to be a dot release, i.e. minor update as opposed to a new, named OS (whatever cat they will use this time). I'm a little dissapointed.
I'm all for progress, but I can't help feeling that one of the biggest enhancements in 10.9 would be having the option to run PPC software again. All recent versions of Windows have a very useful "compatibility mode" for older software. Why can't OS X?
As for names: they say a cat has 9 lives. As OS X 10.0 Cheetah was the first, 10.8 Mountain Lion the 9th, maybe it's time for something different?
Rosetta was licensed software and the license ran out. Backwards compatibility has been a major problem for Microsoft. Their OSes would be a lot cleaner if it weren't for that, and compatibility mode doesn't always work.
I must admit that I occasionally run old DOS programs on my PC. Luckily I got into the Mac recent enough that I never had an OS 9 or earlier program and all of my OS X PPC programs were supported and revised for Intel.
I didn't know about the freebsd thing. I don't really know much about licensing, maybe that change would make it easier for Apple to adopt, but at this point my guess would be that an in house solution is more likely. I don't really care either way, they just need to do something, particularly with checksumming and error correction.
Keeping backward compatibility may be a problem (I doubt it's been a "major" one) for Microsoft, but it's also a key consideration for many PC users when they upgrade to the newest version of Windows. Also, IMO, it hasn't stopped successive versions of Windows generally improving on the former. Apple could learn from this.
Purely from commercial interest, it's probably more important for Microsoft to maintain compatibility mode, regardless of any issues. Not least as they're heavily reliant on generating maximum sales of every new Windows release & PC users, generally, have much more choice.
Otherwise, what's stopping even more PC users simply not upgrading their Windows, or else using an older version when they buy a new PC?
FWIW, if I could have downgraded from Lion to Snow Leopard when I bought a new Mac in 2011, without any hassle, I'd have done so immediately.
Last edited:
Certainly! Apple's closed system allows them to force upgrades. Microsoft has no such luxury! At work we are finally moving from XP to 7 later this year, and even then it is with reluctance. I still run a Windows 2000 virtual machine for some old programs for which reinstalling would be messy or perhaps impossible. And there is incredible backlash against Windows 8 and 7 is still readily available for purchase even on new machines.
Problems:
1. There are patents.
2. The technology is owned by Oracle, who just sued Google about Oracle-owned technology.
3. It's probably not compatible with technologies like Fusion, Apple's full-disk encryption technology, Time Machine.
4. If anything goes wrong, this could be a total disaster.
5. It takes lots of man power.
Benefits: So how many more Macs is Apple going to sell because of this technology?
----------
On MacOS X, unlike iOS, there's an additional distinction between "going to the background" and "being invisible". In iOS, background apps are invisible. On MacOS X, they _can_ be invisible but aren't necessarily. The sports tracker should keep tracking while it's visible, but should stop when it's invisible, for example because you use a fullscreen app on the only screen.
If Apple creates their own solution comparable to ZFS, it should be more reliable than HFS+ and there's no reason they couldn't get fusion working with it. I think people have ZFS/fusion combos working already, and they are superior to doing it with HFS.
Taking work to do and having risk that there might be bugs are issues with any software, if those were the only considerations nothing would ever get improved.
I don't doubt that it works on a fusion volume (edit: or maybe it wont?), but it seems a bit odd since ZFS has it's own volume manager. Appart from that, Zevo seems to be the ZFS implementation to go for on OS X.
Last edited:
That's not a fix, that's a bad workaround, particularly when you want to select the last item on a list - we are talking about column view.
True enough. However, a lot of negativity about Windows 8 seems to be down to unfamiliarity & some ignorance. FWIW, I've only used it for a few weeks. Its biggest initial drawback, the Metro interface on non-touch screens, actually has an easy enough workaround to revert back to a Windows 7 type start screen. Windows 8 Blue, out later this year (essentially a W8 SP1), should fix such issues. Overall though, W8 maintains excellent BC, boots faster, makes better use of hardware, etc. IMHO, it's a fine OS.
That said, I much prefer OS X. I do most of my serious work on my Mac because, generally, I tend to do things faster. But I think as time goes by, any "incredible backlash" against W8 will subside significantly.
Keep in mind that many PC users still even hate Windows 7 & swear that they'll stick with XP for as long as its feasible to do so.
Fact is, many people simply don't like change. Particularly if it means abandoning computer interfaces that they're long familiar with.Switch sort order. I do all my file selections from the keyboard, I don't see it as a workaround at all. Are you telling me that you can not scroll your list.
Anyhow, I just tried to offer a suggestion, clearly a mistake.
Ok, can you or can you not do it. if you can, and it's what you currently do, what exactly are you expecting from the new version of the os to do differently?
I guess I must be confused on what you're trying to get me to do. I apologize for my confusion.
Listen man it's a simple question: what usage scenario with multiple monitors are you after that is not currently available, as you said, on os x 10.8.3 but seems it will be on 10.9? It's a legit question I am asking. I 'll soon have a dual monitor scenario and I 'd like to be informed on what limitations there are currently. Is there any reason why you don't want to give a straight answer and you are acting like an 8 year old?
Listen man it's a simple question: what usage scenario with multiple monitors are you after that is not currently available, as you said, on os x 10.8.3 but seems it will be on 10.9? It's a legit question I am asking. I 'll soon have a dual monitor scenario and I 'd like to be informed on what limitations there are currently. Is there any reason why you don't want to give a straight answer and you are acting like an 8 year old?
I like (and almost need) to have one monitor dedicated to my code that I'm writing (applications like Eclipse, VisualStudio, etc.). On the secondary monitor I like to have reference code and chrome open to follow my assignments. When I enter full screen mode I get a gray color on the monitor that isn't expanded and I can no longer use the secondary monitor. I really don't think I'm acting like an eight year old, I was just thoroughly confused at what you were asking.
Ok, no worries, I misunderstood, thanks for explaining to me said limitation.
That's one serious limitation, and I agree with your prior post when you required this to be fixed via an x.x update and not a new os x version.
Ok, no worries, I misunderstood, thanks for explaining to me said limitation.
It's all good buddy! Sorry again for the confusion!
That's like saying the airbags and computer skid control should have been in cars since the beginning in 1901.
Background application pausing is nothing new. Games have always had it. You don't want the game to run without your input while you're focused on another application, and the computer doesn't want to render graphics without them being visible.
Such games can only be single-player, and the thing that's certain about them is that they're purely leisure applications. I don't know what serious programs could benefit from this feature, except for stuff like display output, which is an obvious thing to pause when not visible, and probably already implemented.
Such games can only be single-player, and the thing that's certain about them is that they're purely leisure applications. I don't know what serious programs could benefit from this feature, except for stuff like display output, which is an obvious thing to pause when not visible, and probably already implemented.
Last edited: