OS X 10.9 to Bring Enhancements to Finder, Safari, Multiple Monitor Support, and Multitasking

[ConCat]

You do realise I was posting about automatic termination and not this backgrounding API?

Automatic termination already exists and works this way (the world "possible" makes it sound like you're talking about something that doesn't exist yet). Its main value is freeing up resources for foreground apps. TextEdit will use it if no windows are open. Give it a try!

 

[splitpea]

Glad to know, Safari will be faster, when I use it to download Firefox and Chrome.

I hope, you can turn off background suspend. When you have a process that will take days to run, you don't want to freeze it, just because you want to check something on a web page.

It would be nice, if we could set the priority of background and foreground tasks. Lets say, 95% background 5% foreground.

This. If I can't run background tasks, or even have to jump through hoops to do so, my computer is useless. That's it for me with OS X, and by extension Apple, since the OS is 95% of the reason I pay their premium prices.

 

[Otterblue]

All the features that should of been included in OS X 10.8...

 

[Komentra]

Tabbed browsing in finder. Thank you!

I tried using TotalFinder but it would freeze and had all kinds of issues and would occasionally crash.

EDIT: Good to hear about Safari too. I already prefer Safari over the competition so I have no real complaints but improvements don't hurt.

 

[scottishwildcat]

I try to give Apple the benefit of the doubt when most people bash the company, but I have to say, features like multi-monitor support for full screen applications should have been done right from the beginning, or at the very least made right in OS upgrades like Mountain Lion, when they had already had more than enough time to review customer complaints, analyze the technical aspects, and test any improvements. That being said, I'm looking forward to the new features described in the article.

While I agree they've had a long time to fix this, that does seem to be the Apple way when they've clearly got something wrong. Rather than continuously tinker with it, they don't talk about it, they spend a long time thinking about it, then they fix it once and for all (whether you think the fix is an improvement or not).

 

[HenryDJP]

What i want is that only the monitor that has the cursor on it swipes through desktops and apps, and the other one keeps still. I have 6 desktops, 3 full screen VMs and more apps. I want to be able to put any 2 of those 10+ spaces on my monitors. And to switch through those 10+ spaces independently, so i have space 1 on monitor 1 and space 9 on monitor 2, and that i can put any space between 1 and 1x while keeping space 1 on monitor 1.

I hate to tell you this but, dream on. Not to say that your request doesn't have validity but your setup is far from what the usual daily user does.

 

[JarJarThomas]

I'll be the judge of that, thanks.

Thats something the developer of the application should decide.
If his app takes a lot of time to start and load resources, he should not enable the automatic termination.
Although it even then makes sense on smaller machines because they have less resources and it makes your current application faster.

I'm a better judge of what application I need open and active than Apple is.

You decided that you don't need it open because you closed it already.

By no means guaranteed.

If not the developer of the application made a bug.
But if the developer fails to implement save correctly ... thats nothing you can blame apple for.
And also here ... automatic termination happens only if no documents are opened. So ... there is nothing you can loose because your application doesn't have any open documents.
(And if it does ... blame the developer not apple).

Desktop.

Sorry dont understand that

 

[mrwheet]

The iOS-style multitasking thing worries me somewhat, it could be great but the thought of having to leave Coda as the "active" app while uploading a new website is horrid (as an example). As long as we get some sort of choice, I mean as useless as Launchpad is at least I can pretend it's not a part of my Mac.

Of course we know very little at this point if it is indeed even true, but it's a little concerning nonetheless.

Yeah, I'm sure the only addition from iOS would be the option to pause the background task... I mean, I've never had any problem with multitasking on OS X. I either use Spaces or command-tab and there's never been an issue. Of course, it would be nice to be able to set priorities, but I also don't want to be doing this manually all the time. Maybe it could just be a vertical list of running (user) processes, that you drag up/down to assign priorities... and maybe with an optional slider for fine-tuning? That would be simple, quick, and still provide at bit of "power user" benefit. Dunno... But I definitely don't want to be busy thinking about this all the time. I often work between 5+ apps and if I'm concentrating on the work I shouldn't be distracted by traffic control...

 

[TyPod]

Multiple monitor support, this should be really nice!

 

[JarJarThomas]

This. If I can't run background tasks, or even have to jump through hoops to do so, my computer is useless. That's it for me with OS X, and by extension Apple, since the OS is 95% of the reason I pay their premium prices.

That is a strange assumption that osx would suspend all applications forever if they are not in the foreground.
The feature is optional and has to be enabled by the developer.
So if the developer says "Hey i don't do anything in the background, suspend me" great. you save battery life. power, memory. PErfect.

If the developer says "I am a big fat rendering software in the background, i CANT be suspended" it will not be suspended.

 

[e-coli]

Really hope this is true. The current fullscreen mode is more aggravating than useful. And Safari has gotten pretty bad in comparison to other browsers.

Tabbed Finder...like seeing Bigfoot.

 

[mrxak]

I can. Instead of having 10 different finder windows open I can have just one opened with 10 tabs. Would look a whole not neater on the screen.

Clearly you never move files from one folder to another.

 

[Carouser]

Fixing it isn't a feature, it's a bug fix and they should be embarrassed that it's taken two MAJOR OS releases to correct the issue.

should have been there since OS X 10.7.1 at the latest.

Agreed. Most of these "new" features should have been integrated long ago.

All the features that should of been included in OS X 10.8...

I don't understand this argument of complaining when the OS doesn't do something, then complaining when Apple fixes it. You're basically saying "This isn't good enough; Apple should have done this sooner than they did it". It's a pretty empty criticism, since by the time you utter it, it's too late for anybody to bother listening. You could say it about literally everything everyone has ever done since the dawn of time.

I'd like to be able to continue rendering in the background while checking my gmail in the foreground.

This. If I can't run background tasks, or even have to jump through hoops to do so, my computer is useless. That's it for me with OS X, and by extension Apple, since the OS is 95% of the reason I pay their premium prices.

If you think Apple will disallow any kind of background activity, well, I'm speechless. Do you really think they would do that? Really? Come on.

 

[JarJarThomas]

What i want is that only the monitor that has the cursor on it swipes through desktops and apps, and the other one keeps still. I have 6 desktops, 3 full screen VMs and more apps. I want to be able to put any 2 of those 10+ spaces on my monitors. And to switch through those 10+ spaces independently, so i have space 1 on monitor 1 and space 9 on monitor 2, and that i can put any space between 1 and 1x while keeping space 1 on monitor 1.

More interesting would be to see how you want to control this ?
If the setup gets much more complicated than just moving windows ... it makes no sense to have a special mechanism for it.
At least i can't imagine a simple easy ui to achieve these features

 

[sseaton1971]

"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 Apple’s 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.

Of course you will still be able to render in the background while you are using an app in the foreground. I have no idea what this rumor is all about, but it won't cripple your laptop or workstation. We don't even know if this feature will actually appear in OS X.

 

[HenryDJP]

iWork isn't a part of OS X, so of course it won't be improved in OS X 10.9.

I think you're misunderstanding the idea here. Generally an iWork upgrade gets presented when there's a new version of OS X. This is especially important to show the infusion of features in iWork that will be in OS X. So yes, iWork is not part of OS X but the update has always been presented during an OS X upgrade presentation and it's very much due for an upgrade. Can't say that it will happen but I would be shocked if iWork was ignored during WWDC. Developers may have apps that could infuse well with iWork.

 

[ConCat]

I'll be the judge of that, thanks.



I'm a better judge of what application I need open and active than Apple is.



By no means guaranteed.



Desktop.



No it doesn't.



Apple can't even get Safari to keep the machine awake when there's an active file download.

So much nonsense... Apple has no say when it comes to when an app can be terminated. The ball is completely in the app dev's court. They are the ones who tell apple when to use automatic termination. Apple does not decide for anyone. No way you can lose your work unless the app devs are morons.

What on earth does keeping the machine awake have to do with automatic termination?

Your argument that you're using a desktop only argues against bad battery life. Less CPU and RAM usage are still relevant on a desktop.

 

[lilo777]

Copying more iOS features to OS/X can mean only one thing - more cuts to OS/X functionality. UNIX has had excellent multitasking capabilities for many decades now. What's the point in pausing background apps? There are two (I am simplifying) types of apps - interactive and batch ones. If interactive app is not being actively used it does not consume any resources and most of its memory will be swapped by system to the hard drive. The batch applications are run to perform some specific tasks (say, video conversion). If you started such application, you do not want it to be paused. Now, iOS with its rudimentary multitasking is a totally different matter but they should not mess with OS/X.

 

[3282868]

Yes, yes, yes! Finally, focusing back on power users. All the issues many of us have had with 10.7/8 are finally being addressed. Improved Finder, multi-monitor support, and hopefully OpenGL Core 4.0+. Once again, I'm looking forward to an OS X update as I did when versions before 10.7 were in development.

 

[JarJarThomas]

Yeah, I'm sure the only addition from iOS would be the option to pause the background task... I mean, I've never had any problem with multitasking on OS X. I either use Spaces or command-tab and there's never been an issue. Of course, it would be nice to be able to set priorities, but I also don't want to be doing this manually all the time. Maybe it could just be a vertical list of running (user) processes, that you drag up/down to assign priorities... and maybe with an optional slider for fine-tuning? That would be simple, quick, and still provide at bit of "power user" benefit. Dunno... But I definitely don't want to be busy thinking about this all the time. I often work between 5+ apps and if I'm concentrating on the work I shouldn't be distracted by traffic control...

No you are NEVER in control of this. It also makes no sense to control this.
The application developer is in control of this (it is an api to be used by the developer).
So if the developer says "Hi i am a nice developer, my app does nothing, suspend me or even terminate me" the os would do it as soon as it realises it makes sense (eg cpu usage is more than 50% power is less than 30% free memory is to small).

But you as the user don't need control over it if the application developer did it correctly.

Btw. you can nice your apps (thats how its called on kernel terms, you can nice every application by moving it with lower priority). There are commandline and ui tools for it.

 

[Michael Goff]

I think you're misunderstanding the idea here. Generally an iWork upgrade gets presented when there's a new version of OS X. This is especially important to show the infusion of features in iWork that will be in OS X. So yes, iWork is not part of OS X but the update has always been presented during an OS X upgrade presentation and it's very much due for an upgrade. Can't say that it will happen but I would be shocked if iWork was ignored during WWDC. Developers may have apps that could infuse well with iWork.

Didn't they just hire more people for the iWork team recently? So, yeah, a new iWork version is likely coming soon. How soon is to be seen.

 

[HenryDJP]

OSX Pussycat

Although Lynx, Wildcat or Cougar are more likely.

It's a shame we aren't upgrading from Leopard, as you could have Clouded Leopard to indicate the new cloud features.

I'd be okay if Apple completely got rid of these cat names and just called it OS X 10.9. Ever since Google came out with Android and those silly little childish schoolgirl dessert names for their phone OS I've been turned off of code names. Thank goodness I don't have a phone with an OS named Sugar Plum cherry pie, Apple dumpling or chocolate ice cream sundae.

 

[Aeolius]

This. OS X 10.9 Top Cat.

Or perhaps...

 

[gnasher729]

This. If I can't run background tasks, or even have to jump through hoops to do so, my computer is useless. That's it for me with OS X, and by extension Apple, since the OS is 95% of the reason I pay their premium prices.

Please calm down and read through some earlier posts.

Copying more iOS features to OS/X can mean only one thing - more cuts to OS/X functionality. UNIX has had excellent multitasking capabilities for many decades now. What's the point in pausing background apps? There are two (I am simplifying) types of apps - interactive and batch ones. If interactive app is not being actively used it does not consume any resources and most of its memory will be swapped by system to the hard drive. The batch applications are run to perform some specific tasks (say, video conversion). If you started such application, you do not want it to be paused. Now, iOS with its rudimentary multitasking is a totally different matter but they should not mess with OS/X.

Bla bla bla. As usual, attacking anything Apple does or Apple is rumoured to do. iOS does multitasking the way it is supposed to do it, and it does that very well. "If interactive app is not being actively used it does not consume any resources and most of its memory will be swapped by system to the hard drive". The first part of it is wishful thinking, but it looks like Apple is actually going to make it true. The second part, that would be quite awful and kill performance when you resume using the app.

 

[3282868]

Or perhaps...
Image

Even though it's old, it still cracks me up. Good one