or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Traffic from Apple's unannounced OS X 10.9 continues to grow
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Traffic from Apple's unannounced OS X 10.9 continues to grow - Page 5

post #161 of 199

Is it just me, or isn't the "X" in OSX stand for 10?  So wasn't it called origianlly Mac OS X, Operating System Version 10?

So isn't is redundant to say OSX 10.9???

 

I hope this has already been addressed.

post #162 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Seven betas so far of 10.8.3. Is that enough?

 

Curious about your experiences:

 

1. Which bugs?
2. How do we know they're not by design?

3. I preemptively agree with some of them you might say. lol.gif

yeah, like redundant widgets that replicate standard apps?

what about the piss-poor syncing between devices?  Especially podcasts.

What about auto-snaps for justifying windows for side-by-side...drag to edges for fullscreen or top/bottom stretch?  Just crazy you have to download an app to do this.

What about a OS X app for Maps, Find my friends/phones/etc., Trailers (the widget sucks)???

and let's just go there with the inconsistent "Red dot" functionality.

post #163 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScrittoreSabino View Post

I like the way Apple has been going with iOS & OSX borrowing from each other. I hope this continues. However, I hope they do not merge completely into 1 single system. I think Apple has been pretty good about understanding that different devices will have different primary use cases and design must cater to the manner in which we relate to and interact with these different devices, in both physical ways and mental.

I like that gestures have slowly incorporated their way into OSX, and Apple has not made the mistake of going full touch on their desktops and laptop systems. These are devices that are more stationary, and also more keyboard centric. They are not devices I hold in my hand, thus lending to a more touch centric input method like in a phone or tablet. A touch desktop or laptop would be extremely tiresome after even a minute, reaching around. I suspect it would even be less ergonomic. The tilted screen may provide somewhat of a solution, however, here too while it would be less reaching, so less tiresome on the arms, the discomfort would shift to the neck,

I would like to see the 2 systems integrated to a point where the exact same apps can be interchangeable between the two, The same touch gestures you would use on an iPad or iPhone would also be used on the trackpad. is this possible? Programs as we know them, already have ability to take in input from keyboard, mouse, trackpad, and in some cases voice, so why not touch as well? Is this a matter of ARM SoS on mobile vs processors found on laptops and desktops?
 

I've been saying this since OSX.VII - LION.  Especially you last paragraph.

post #164 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

There's different definitions and implementations of merging. All Microsoft did was throw 2 completely separate OSes in a single package. It would be like Apple adding an "iOS" button into OSX, which will throw you into iOS mode. ie, it will never happen. What I DO see Apple doing is from the backend, unify some apis, and from the front end, unify some UI paradigms as well as apps, etc. An iMac will never run the iPhone version of iOS, but Apple can retain different versions of it's OS which all include differing levels of capability and flexibility. iOS is getting more powerful and flexible all the time, as is the hardware its running on. They dont need to look or function in an identical manner, its all about the branding and consistency in certain over arching paradigms. OSX is used in many, many professional industries for many applications- Apple knows this, and they're not about to get rid of that. Is it becoming less important to Apple in the grand scheme of things? Yes, it is, and that's ok. 

They kind of did this (iOS into OS X).  It's call Launchpad.

post #165 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


They'd likely be keeping that name for a decade. Does OS XI work for marketing? Does it make sense to give up the solid market name of OS X just because a number most customers aren't aware of and only a handful take issue with don't like the idea of 10.11.x as internal numbering schema?

I'd think there would have to be some radical changes Apple is sure about to jump from OS X to something else. At least MS kept the Windows part even when they had to get rid of the tainted Vista name. Apple doesn't even have Mac in front of OS X anymore which implies that OS X is the part they think is most valuable for the OS name.

just think of the adds..."we now go up to 11".

post #166 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

Is it just me, or isn't the "X" in OSX stand for 10?  So wasn't it called origianlly Mac OS X, Operating System Version 10?
So isn't is redundant to say OSX 10.9???

I hope this has already been addressed.

VoiceOver reads OS X as OS Ten. Select my previous sentence, go to Edit -> Speech -> Start Speaking and hear for yourself. Saying the X out loud would make it sound like OS Sex.
post #167 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

Is it just me, or isn't the "X" in OSX stand for 10?  So wasn't it called origianlly Mac OS X, Operating System Version 10?
So isn't is redundant to say OSX 10.9???

I hope this has already been addressed.

Yes, but it's a non-issue since Apple doesn't advertise the numbers. Apple talks about OS X Mountain Lion as their current operating system.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #168 of 199
Hopefully this won't be the same crapgasm that 10.8 is. I have been holding off for 10.9 hoping that it would not be anything like 10.8. I decided to stay on 10.7.5 Thanks to the introduction of 10.8. I'm not interested in my desktop acting more and more like a tablet.
post #169 of 199
Wake me up when the focus is on stability and not trying to merge iOS...
post #170 of 199
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post
and let's just go there with the inconsistent "Red dot" functionality.

 

Probably because there's nothing inconsistent about it.

 

Applications with only ever one window will quit if you close said window. Applications that can have multiple windows remain open.


Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post
Wake me up when the focus is on stability and not trying to merge iOS...

 

What's unstable about either OS?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #171 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by krreagan View Post

OSX 10.10 is most certainly not the same as 10.1. The versions are just numbers separated by a period (not a decimal point) 10.4.11 does not look like a valid number does it... so why should 10.10?

 

Besides, it'll be 10.10.0, and, maybe eventually, 10.10.19

post #172 of 199
I've actually never understood the point in keeping windowless applications open, it simply does not make sense. If the application has no windows open, then it does not need to keep user data in memory because it's not processing any kind of user data, and the argument that they're simply keeping themselves in memory in order to open windows more quickly doesn't make sense either since the launching the application should not require more effort than resuming from backing store, and in cases where enough memory is available, the application itself is likely to already be cached as filesystem data. In fact, it may actually make applications slower because CPU and memory are a lot faster than disk, so initializing the application should be much quicker than simply restoring its memory from disk.
post #173 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Oh, yeah. I'm ridin' this crazy train to its terminus and right through the wall of the station. TOOT TO~OT! 🚂🚋🚋🚋🚋🚋

 

 

 

 

It's always nice to see that forum users here are being ridiculed by moderators for having an opinion.

 

But you're right; it's totally crazy to suggest that a company would get "inspired" by the marketing of another one.

post #174 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by VL-Tone View Post

It's always nice to see that forum users here are being ridiculed by moderators for having an opinion.

That's not how it works. They get ridiculed for posting ridiculous statements. Which makes it funny. And a place to go back to.
post #175 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

I've actually never understood the point in keeping windowless applications open, it simply does not make sense. If the application has no windows open, then it does not need to keep user data in memory because it's not processing any kind of user data, and the argument that they're simply keeping themselves in memory in order to open windows more quickly doesn't make sense either since the launching the application should not require more effort than resuming from backing store, and in cases where enough memory is available, the application itself is likely to already be cached as filesystem data. In fact, it may actually make applications slower because CPU and memory are a lot faster than disk, so initializing the application should be much quicker than simply restoring its memory from disk.

I don't think it's that big a deal one way or another - with modern SSDs and plenty of RAM, it's no longer the problem it once was. However, with my workflow, I'm often switching back and forth between a relatively small number of apps and having the app open all the time works for me.

Besides, I'm not sure that your claim is correct. If you quit the app, it has to be loaded from SSD into RAM and then run. If the app is already in RAM, you skip the 'load from SSD' step, so it ought to be faster. Granted, not a lot faster with SSDs as fast as they are, but still somewhat faster. Just for fun, I just did the experiment. Switching to an app (MS Word, in my test) with no windows open was essentially instantaneous (I have 8 GB in my system). Launching the same app took much longer (albeit still not very long on my i7 system with fast SSD.

So, even on fast systems, leaving the app open is still faster, as long as you're not relegating it to VM. On a slower system, the difference would be even greater.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #176 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I don't think it's that big a deal one way or another - with modern SSDs and plenty of RAM, it's no longer the problem it once was. However, with my workflow, I'm often switching back and forth between a relatively small number of apps and having the app open all the time works for me.

It's a big deal because it's not intuitive. The first time I realized that apps didn't actually close I found it odd and wasteful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Besides, I'm not sure that your claim is correct. If you quit the app, it has to be loaded from SSD into RAM and then run. If the app is already in RAM, you skip the 'load from SSD' step, so it ought to be faster. Granted, not a lot faster with SSDs as fast as they are, but still somewhat faster. Just for fun, I just did the experiment. Switching to an app (MS Word, in my test) with no windows open was essentially instantaneous (I have 8 GB in my system). Launching the same app took much longer (albeit still not very long on my i7 system with fast SSD.

I did address this point. Operating systems do keep a filesystem cache, so provided that there is enough memory, the application will be loaded from that cache, not from the disk. If there is no memory, the application will be in backing store either way, so swapping from backing store to the main memory will also count as loading from disk, except the entire application along with all the memory it has allocated will be in disk rather than just the application itself. Launching the application may take longer because the application has to initialize itself, an unnecessary step that it could avoid through serialization, just like iOS applications and hibernating systems do. By simply switching to MS Word you did not create a new document, for example; by reopening it you did, which demonstrates that the application itself has a design issue, not the system.

Essentially, the problem here is that you have applications using memory rather than letting the operating system do it, and the operating system is in a much better position to decide what to use memory for.
post #177 of 199
Originally Posted by VL-Tone View Post
It's always nice to see that forum users here are being ridiculed by moderators for having an opinion.

 

Hey, if I'm being sarcastic, I denote it as such.

 

I actually like this idea!

 

There's zero proof or hard evidence of it, but the events line up in such a way that makes it fun to believe, if only because it's in character.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #178 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Hey, if I'm being sarcastic, I denote it as such.

 

I actually like this idea!

 

There's zero proof or hard evidence of it, but the events line up in such a way that makes it fun to believe, if only because it's in character.

 

Ok I'm fine with this! Hopefully I didn't derail the thread :)

post #179 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Probably because there's nothing inconsistent about it.

Applications with only ever one window will quit if you close said window. Applications that can have multiple windows remain open.
.
The red button should quit only, not quit current session and leave app running in the background. I know I'm arguing a 10+ year old fight, but to me, that's inconsistent. If what you claim is true, why does iCal stay open when you close with the red button? Why does finder never fully quit? Forget that I know why it doesn't have the ability to quit fully, why have the dock light on an app that's not designed to quit? What about iTunes app? I can see the red button to close but leave open if there are already multiple window open, but when only one window is open it should quit. To me that's just creating a resource issue, and its not clear enough that is its intended function. Sure seasoned veterans are used to it, but if you're trying to convert the window crowd, keep it simple. Don't force me to splat-q or look to quit in a menu bar. That's a bit archaic if you ask me. Kind of like forcing us to delete in finder by dragging to trash rather than the simpler delete key or splat-x.

Some other UI features I'd like to see are the rubber band drag to refresh in iTunes, or even better in Safari. I'd love to see that in iOS Safari as well. Or even drag to refresh in mail. Or heck, if the mail function icons were a bit more intuitive to read.
post #180 of 199

Perhaps an overwhelmingly poor upgrade from the not confusing Windows 7 to the WTF Window 8 is what you're looking for? I'm fine with incremental. I don't have the time or patience to learn a whole new UI! Do you? Apple does "Revolutionary" with some product every few years or so, but after that it's "Evolutionary", just as it should be. A good example might be Adobe's Photoshop. I started with v2.5 in 1993. Learned it inside and out. Every version since then has been Evolutionary with some Revolutionary new features. As a result, I don't spend forever getting up to speed with the new versions as they emerge.

post #181 of 199
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post
The red button should quit only, not quit current session and leave app running in the background. I know I'm arguing a 10+ year old fight, but to me, that's inconsistent.

 

The red button is on a window, and as such it closes that window. If no other windows can be, the application quits to save those resources.


If what you claim is true, why does iCal stay open when you close with the red button?

 

Because it has multiple windows available.

 

 

Why does finder never fully quit? 

 

You're kidding, right? 


Forget that I know why it doesn't have the ability to quit fully…

 

Oh, it does. That's just not activated by default because it's the equivalent on a PC of "quitting" Explorer.


…why have the dock light on an app that's not designed to quit? 

 

Because it can officially quit and does crash, and this is an indicator thereof.


What about iTunes app?

 

Once again, multiple windows possible.


Don't force me to splat-q or look to quit in a menu bar. That's a bit archaic if you ask me. Kind of like forcing us to delete in finder by dragging to trash rather than the simpler delete key or splat-x.

 

So "don't force me to do this; that's like forcing me not to do this"…?


Some other UI features I'd like to see are the rubber band drag to refresh in iTunes, or even better in Safari. I'd love to see that in iOS Safari as well. Or even drag to refresh in mail. Or heck, if the mail function icons were a bit more intuitive to read.

 

In OS X, there's no "drag" yet. It's just "push", which doesn't lend itself as well to this. But you're right; once Apple's desktop OS goes fully multitouch, I'd love to see this.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #182 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

What about iTunes app? I can see the red button to close but leave open if there are already multiple window open, but when only one window is open it should quit. To me that's just creating a resource issue, and its not clear enough that is its intended function.

So every time I close the final window in iTunes the Apple TV will stop being able to read from my iTunes Library? That would not be a good move.

What annoys me with iTunes is that if I only have the video/album window open and I click the icon in the Dock it does nothing when I expect it to open up the Library window again. Instead I either have to close the video/album player then click the icon again (fastest) or go to the Menu Bar, click Window and then iTunes to get it to open up the library (doesn't close video).

Most of all I'd just love for iTunes's video player to work more like QTX.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/4/13 at 11:11am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #183 of 199
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Most of all I'd just love or iTunes's video player to work more like QTX.

 

Exploiting a bug in Huddler to show just how much I want this to happen.

 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #184 of 199

I have the same problem and opened a bug ticket for this.Try deleting all the passed wifi networks on settings app. May work.

post #185 of 199
Originally Posted by burak2102 View Post
I have the same problem and opened a bug ticket for this.Try deleting all the passed wifi networks on settings app. May work.

 

Hi, spambot.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #186 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post


.
The red button should quit only, not quit current session and leave app running in the background. I know I'm arguing a 10+ year old fight, but to me, that's inconsistent. If what you claim is true, why does iCal stay open when you close with the red button? Why does finder never fully quit? Forget that I know why it doesn't have the ability to quit fully, why have the dock light on an app that's not designed to quit? What about iTunes app? I can see the red button to close but leave open if there are already multiple window open, but when only one window is open it should quit. To me that's just creating a resource issue, and its not clear enough that is its intended function. Sure seasoned veterans are used to it, but if you're trying to convert the window crowd, keep it simple. Don't force me to splat-q or look to quit in a menu bar. That's a bit archaic if you ask me. Kind of like forcing us to delete in finder by dragging to trash rather than the simpler delete key or splat-x.

Some other UI features I'd like to see are the rubber band drag to refresh in iTunes, or even better in Safari. I'd love to see that in iOS Safari as well. Or even drag to refresh in mail. Or heck, if the mail function icons were a bit more intuitive to read.

There is a real neato, new fangled OS out there for you. It's called Windows. I know it's only at version 8, but I'm sure it will fulfill all of your computer fantasies you have listed above. Apple developed their human interface guidelines years (decades?) ago. Windows didn't have guidelines for a LOOOONG time and that is why many apps acted completely different back in the day. Holding MacOS to standards finalized by Microsoft is just foolish. BTW. You can trash a file any number of ways... Command+Delete being one of them.

post #187 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Why? No one knows what's in it, so how can you be looking forward to it?

From my perspective, since about 10.6, there's been little driving force for a change. I don't have anything that really needs to be changed (with one exception - Safari memory leaks), so I'm completely indifferent to a new OS.

That, of course, is balanced by the fact that upgrades are so easy and inexpensive that it's a matter of "might as well, even though I don't need it".

 

That's just plain ignorance of the insane amount of enhancements in Lion and Mountain Lion.

post #188 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Of course one can look forward to a future event, but looking forward to something that you have no knowledge of is silly.

If I have a dinner date with Taylor Swift, I can look forward to that dinner. But it's hard for me to look forward to dinner on June 19 when I have no idea who I'll be having dinner with or what I'll be eating or where I'll be.

You just keep on the ridiculousness. I have a pretty good idea of what Apple will include in 10.9 because LOGIC dictates it. All of that I'm looking forward to.

 

Pretending like we have no idea what it will be is, "silly".

post #189 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post


.
The red button should quit only, not quit current session and leave app running in the background. 

HA! Yeah ok. They have an OS for that, it's called Windows, and it's garbage.

post #190 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

yeah, like redundant widgets that replicate standard apps?

what about the piss-poor syncing between devices?  Especially podcasts.

What about auto-snaps for justifying windows for side-by-side...drag to edges for fullscreen or top/bottom stretch?  Just crazy you have to download an app to do this.

What about a OS X app for Maps, Find my friends/phones/etc., Trailers (the widget sucks)???

and let's just go there with the inconsistent "Red dot" functionality.

- What widgets?

- Piss poor syncing is slowly improving with iCloud. Pay attention and you'd know that.

- Auto snaps are awful. No one would want this.

- It's on its way.

-No.

post #191 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

The red button is on a window, and as such it closes that window. If no other windows can be, the application quits to save those resources.

Yes, this is the key point, the button is on a window so it closes the window, why would you think it had anything to do with the app lifecycle unless you learned it from Windows? 

 

I always thought of it as, the windows are just windows - the menu bar represents the app as a whole. That's why the only way to quit an app is with the Quit menu item, and closing all the windows will get you nowhere in terms of app lifecycle. And I think this was the original Mac OS X model (in the early versions), but in order to make Windows users more comfortable they made it so *some* apps quit when you close the last window. But they didn't do this for all apps, which is just confusing because now you don't know what will happen (except by learning the individual apps).

 

And now there is a third element, the iOS style app freeze-drying, which Calendar (for example) supports. If you close all the windows Calendar won't quit, until you click away to another app. At that point it will appear to quit (it's Dock light will go out), but if you look in Activity Monitor the process is still there (but I think with it's program counter frozen). But if you had originally quit it with the menu bar (instead of trying to close all the Windows) it would have quit fully and not been freeze dried and not still be in Activity Monitor.

post #192 of 199
We need OSXIII.37.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #193 of 199

Also, if they do OS X 10.10 "Chihuahua", they'll need OS X 10.11 "Paris Hilton"
 

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #194 of 199
All I want is facebook evnets to sync with OSX iCal. It does for iOS but not OS X!

I'm actually not sure what else they can add to OSX 10 that snow lion doesn't have. Unless it's big, like touch screen.
post #195 of 199
I wish that it's real update to the OS, not something like to add some apps and modify those and call them a new OS.
Also this new version should prove Apple's intention that Mac OS X is to be still core of their business. (not the sole one but one of them. )
post #196 of 199
My guess is Bear and Polar Bear are the next two OSX editions
post #197 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by blownsi View Post

My guess is Bear and Polar Bear are the next two OSX editions

In this Internet age, Clouded Leopard makes more sense
post #198 of 199

It will be called "Lynx"

post #199 of 199
The new name: Timber Wolf
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Traffic from Apple's unannounced OS X 10.9 continues to grow