3. I preemptively agree with some of them you might say.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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'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 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.
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.
Comments
Deleted (double posting)
Originally Posted by VL-Tone
Mac OS X Leopard retail box, released October 26 2007.
Oh, yeah. I'm ridin' this crazy train to its terminus and right through the wall of the station. TOOT TO~OT! ????????????????????????
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScrittoreSabino
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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".
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.
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.
Originally Posted by antkm1
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
Wake me up when the focus is on stability and not trying to merge iOS...
What's unstable about either OS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by krreagan
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
That's not how it works. They get ridiculed for posting ridiculous statements. Which makes it funny. And a place to go back to.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by VL-Tone
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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