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
"Additionally, Apple could use app-pausing technologies from iOS to pause background application processes in OS X. This is significant as full performance could be given to foreground apps, which could help optimize battery life on Apples notebook computers."
This is not multi-tasking; it's the opposite actually. Pausing background apps to give the foreground app full resources is not "multi". I really hope this is configurable somehow, or could be disabled.
I'd like to be able to continue rendering in the background while checking my gmail in the foreground.
This is not multi-tasking; it's the opposite actually. Pausing background apps to give the foreground app full resources is not "multi". I really hope this is configurable somehow, or could be disabled.
I'd like to be able to continue rendering in the background while checking my gmail in the foreground.
I can see myself being the only one who will like the background app pause feature. As long as the app can send low level info to you I'm all for it. Imagine how much battery life is spent with background apps running.
One thing I want to see out of 10.9 is more of a unified UI. No not iOS on a Mac, but having cross platform icons and settings. Using apps on both Mac and iOS. Just more seamless connection between the two devices.
One thing I want to see out of 10.9 is more of a unified UI. No not iOS on a Mac, but having cross platform icons and settings. Using apps on both Mac and iOS. Just more seamless connection between the two devices.
I don't think you'll need to. The developer will probably implement an API, but it may work in the opposite way as iOS - apps will not pause by default, but the developer can flip a switch to pause apps where it wouldn't be an issue. For example I don't need any CPU cycles checking what's going on in Textedit or Word when they aren't the frontmost app, except in some rare case when I'm doing some kind of processing feature on the text that takes time. Apple couldn't just pause apps in the background by default, it would break over a decade of apps, anything that requires a stable network connection to something, etc.
What possible benefit is there, and it requires you to assume your software is perfect.
I hope this sticky spaces (and fullscreen apps) feature is properly realised, as full screen has been my least favourite feature in the last two versions of OS X thanks to its multi-monitor support being app-specific only.
A redesigned Finder is a must; personally I'm hoping for some improvements that make it easier for touch interaction as well, such as a swipe-able icon view with Launchpad style folders; think of folders opening as balloon and only expanding into the current window if you want to go deeper than one level. Swipe to go back, or swipe between multiple tabs.
The ability to have common Finder windows would be nice too, so I can quickly open a Finder window with a set of tabs that I frequently use for a task.
I dunno, I expect what we'll get will probably be relatively simple, but just about anything would improve the languishing Finder as it's never been the easiest thing to use with a mouse, let alone via touch.
A redesigned Finder is a must; personally I'm hoping for some improvements that make it easier for touch interaction as well, such as a swipe-able icon view with Launchpad style folders; think of folders opening as balloon and only expanding into the current window if you want to go deeper than one level. Swipe to go back, or swipe between multiple tabs.
The ability to have common Finder windows would be nice too, so I can quickly open a Finder window with a set of tabs that I frequently use for a task.
I dunno, I expect what we'll get will probably be relatively simple, but just about anything would improve the languishing Finder as it's never been the easiest thing to use with a mouse, let alone via touch.
As a dev, I can tell you that this tech would very likely be opt-in, just as sudden termination is. The app itself would tell OS X that it is okay to pause it.
Do I read this correctly? Tagging finally becoming a first-class citizen on OS X? This would most certainly mean revamps to the file system! I don't care much for tabbed Finder, but it could be interesting if done right. Oh, and the application-backgrounding APIs sound extremely interesting!
It has always existed with the next release merely building upon it.
Reading through other comments I find it funny people praising Windows - if you have no standards and very low expectations then I'm sure it is a wonderful experience but I'd sooner deal with the few minor issues of OS X instead than the mess that is Windows.
Looking forward to better multi monitor support! Hopefully multiple apps fullscreen on different screens at the same time.
Cabaret is at least indirectly cat related as for example... there's the infamous Chat Noire De La Lune cabaret with the poster that has a black cat on it. But yeah, if they go with that it means OS X 10.9 will be the first OS X not directly named after a big cat.
There's no way that it would be forced upon developers. It'll be their choice to implement if their app is suitable. For example, iTunes when in the background would be doing nothing more than playing music and that's it. The main app can be paused. Other apps are obviously not designed in a way in which this could work. It's a good idea as an option for apps that could make use of it.
I wonder how the new multitasking system will work...What things won't be able to run in the background?
Probably similar to iOS, on a voluntary basis: If your app is moved into the background and doesn't show a user interface anymore (that would happen if another app runs in fullscreen mode), it is told about that; it stops doing things that it shouldn't do in the background (like iPhoto showing a slideshow would be pointless waste of CPU time if the app is in the background), it prepares that it will not get any CPU time unless it asks for it, and it saves its state to the disk so that it can be stopped and restarted if the OS decides to do that.
Another iOS feature that is missing on MacOS X: In iOS, when the user quits an application, that app can continue finishing its work, even though to the user it looks like it has exited. That doesn't work in MacOS X currently.
Don't confuse "multi-tasking" with "running multiple apps in a way that is best for the user". Multi-tasking is easy. Doing what is best for the user is hard, you get screamed at by people who don't understand it, but your users are actually happy. The point here is to pause background activity that shouldn't happen and is a waste of time, as opposed to background activity that _should_ happen.
Actually, it is very, very good. It just doesn't do things the way that some programmers have learned and can't get out of their minds.
Last edited:
I agree re. backgrounding apps.
We have to look at this as a bit of a two-pronged thing.
1. Power Users - Apple needs OSX to remain a high powered OS but people sitting at big workstations with multiple monitors are now only a tiny fraction of even the Mac userbase.
2. Mobile users! Apple is all about the laptops. I suspect that they make up 90% of Apple's revenue from Macs. Laptops need to get smaller and lighter and they need better battery life. If Apple can introduce a system for pausing background applications in a smart way and, in so doing, boost battery life on a Macbook by 10-20% then that's a huge feature.
I really don't understand this argument. I am a safari user for years majorly because it's so fast and smooth as compared to Google Chrome. Over the last one week I moved all my stuff to Google Chrome but that didn't work out as Google Chrome is sluggish and is not smooth.
The only thing Safari probably doesn't have is the amount of applications or extensions available with chrome. That's the reason why I moved but I don't see myself compromising the experience because of that.
A big question is what macs will they drop support for? At this point they're down to all 64 bit machines (including 64 bit efi) so what will the next cutoff point be?
Yeah, we'll probably see Logic 10 around the same time as 10.9. Maybe a bit before, maybe a bit after. It won't require 10.9 so there's no reason for them to release the two together, although if there are new 10.9 features hopefully it will support them. But it's not something that would get a mention in rumors about an OS update, last I checked Logic isn't part of the OS.
Hopefully if this is really a "power user" update, I really really hope they focus on optimizing performance. DAWs (like Logic) are a good example where developers have a hard time getting the mac version to run as well as the windows version.
As long as that praise is specific, I don't see what's so funny. Even someone who prefers OSX should be able to recognize that there are specific things that the other guys do better. Just look at copying a file with "do you want to replace" on both platforms, the OSX version is pretty terrible and generally much worse than it was on previous versions of Mac OS.
Yeah, we'll probably see Logic 10 around the same time as 10.9. Maybe a bit before, maybe a bit after. It won't require 10.9 so there's no reason for them to release the two together, although if there are new 10.9 features hopefully it will support them. But it's not something that would get a mention in rumors about an OS update, last I checked Logic isn't part of the OS.
Hopefully if this is really a "power user" update, I really really hope they focus on optimizing performance. DAWs (like Logic) are a good example where developers have a hard time getting the mac version to run as well as the windows version.
As long as that praise is specific, I don't see what's so funny. Even someone who prefers OSX should be able to recognize that there are specific things that the other guys do better. Just look at copying a file with "do you want to replace" on both platforms, the OSX version is pretty terrible and generally much worse than it was on previous versions of Mac OS.
Multi-tasking method could be either good or bad - but better not be as restrictive as iOS by default.
It would be great to have an application that is idol to be persisted to disk. But please, no automatic closing of applications.
Great to have the focus on power uses.
It would be great to have an application that is idol to be persisted to disk. But please, no automatic closing of applications.
Great to have the focus on power uses.
It has multi monitor support. Eg. the retina macbook pro can support up to 3 external monitors (2 times with full 2560*1440 resolution over displayport, the third with fullhd resoultion over hdmi) additionally to the fullhd resolution using the integrated display.
it also allows easy positioning of the monitors, it stores the positions better than windows (yes really, i have 3 27 inch dell screens using windows and displayport and macbook with displayport, on windows i have to reset the positions all the time after switching. but i think the problem is part of the nvidia driver).
what it can't do is have multiple fullscreen apps on monitors.
That means if you make one app fullscreen, it is on your main monitor in fullscreen mode and the other screens are blank.
Its ok if you app has dockable windows like unity or photoshop because you can then move that windows on the other screens without problem.
But you can't have two applications in fullscreen mode if you have two screens.
Partially its logical because fullscreen mode means "use this application exclusively" and therefore others shouldn't be there.
On the other side it gives you much unused space if the applications dont use it.
What you can do is maximize your windows per screen and therefore use all screens. But it is a little less comfortable. Especially because maximizing windows is not a single click if the application doesn't want to use full screen estate.
It allows a different design methodology where you can assume that anything your app is doing will be in the foreground 99% of the time. You don't have to worry much about hogging resources as a background app, you just have to tell OS X when your app can be paused and it will do so.
You may or may not have noticed that in iOS there is a difference between applications that are "officially" running (shown to the user as if they are running), and apps that are _actually_ running. iOS keeps background apps running as long as memory lasts, so if you switch between a few apps, they are all continuously running. But an app that you last used four weeks ago is still shown as if it was running, and you can use it as if it was running, but it has long ago stopped running, will be restarted when you need it, and continues where you left it the last time.