I would pay for 10.2 if...
1. If gave us a significantly faster finder.
&
2. It has an SMB browser.
&
3. It has a KDE style multiple desktop.
&
4. Preferences are functional in the print centre.
It's only a small list but these fixes would be really worth having.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: JW Pepper ]</p>
&
2. It has an SMB browser.
&
3. It has a KDE style multiple desktop.
&
4. Preferences are functional in the print centre.
It's only a small list but these fixes would be really worth having.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: JW Pepper ]</p>
Comments
An option to turn off eyecandy, like translucency?
Better finder threading?
Instantaneous, well-threaded iDisk access?
Journalling filesystem? Support for XFS or Reiserfs, because HFS+ sucks?
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>
It's holding X back.
to see what we're missing.
Scroll down to the part that says "XFS design" and read from there.
It's pretty much the most advanced filesystem, made by SGI, and it's free and open source. So basically, laziness is the only thing stopping Apple from including support in the kernel.
HFS+ is actually very fast compared to UFS, and would probably be faster than journalled FS, as there is overhead involved in a journalled FS.
Lack of XFS is not laziness on Apple's part--try legacy apps running in Classic and carbon support. Though if you can figure it out, I'm sure that apple will be grateful.
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
[QB]Facts straight please. HFS+ has supported long files names since OS9 I believe, may be earlier. Just no support in the Finder, and many OSX carbon ports.<hr></blockquote>
Ooops.
[quote]HFS+ is actually very fast compared to UFS,<hr></blockquote>
But it's still slow. Mulitple simulataneous read/writes is slow. Even when it is fast, it's slow. It works, and provides legacy compatibility, but it's far from optimal.
[quote]and would probably be faster than journalled FS, as there is overhead involved in a journalled FS.[QUOTE]
Actually, no. Besides which, XFS is an advanced architecture, journalling is one of several advanced features. Guaranteed Throughput, phenomenal multiple read/write performance, lack of fragmentation, high throughput, excellent threading, endian-correct (like PPC), and others.
Side by side w/ a HFS+ machine, it would blow it out of the water in every category.
[QUOTE]Lack of XFS is not laziness on Apple's part--try legacy apps running in Classic and carbon support. Though if you can figure it out, I'm sure that apple will be grateful.<hr></blockquote>
True, but if Apple implements a VFS layer (assuming they already don't, which I believe is incorrect), it isn't impossible. All the R&D has been done. There are no costs. I'd really like to see Apple implement this.
They're slowly getting into high end media production, and in that arena, HFS+ will not cut, even with a journal system bolted on.
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>
but i would like to see an option in Internet Connect to open a web browser upon connection, and the ability to connect when opening internet connect that does not slow down the startup procces
1. iDisk moved quicker than a dead snail
2. Many more drivers went OS X native, including my Canon scanner and supporting software
3. The sleep problem my machine has is fixed (won't sleep or won't wake up)
4. That annoying "commmunication error" that my Epson printer always seems to have is resolved (this has something to do with the OS 9 to OS X transition according to Epson
5. Apple actually included useful users manuals with the software they ship.
* Browsing networks and especially iDisk is as fast as using Goliath.
* My SCSI CD-R which Finder and iTunes and Apple System Profiler claim to support actually works and does not produce coasters when using Apple's software (it works fine in Toast). Either make it work or don't lead me to believe it does, making me waste several disks trying to "fix" it.
* My computer will sleep properly!! Why can it deep sleep in OS9 but not OSX? Apple blames my SCSI card (which they put in there). Yet, as I said before, deep sleep works perfectly fine in OS9.
* Disk Writer supports "packet writing" so CDR's can be used like floppy disks. PCs have been able to do this for a long time.
* Keyboard navigation in Carbon open/save dialogs work properly.
* The Carbon click-drag bug is gone. If you haven't experienced this, consider yourself lucky.
* Carbon and Cocoa HIToolbox redraw bugs are squashed (namely the ones I've pointed out a hundred times when making my themes).
* Sherlock is gutted and totally reworked. It is AWFUL in its current state. I used to only use the Terminal to "find" things, but now I use EasyFind which works as Apple's Sherlock should work.
* Finder: thread it! Optimize it for speed! Do whatever the hell has so be done so it doesn't stall and give the spinning cursor! Users should never get that cursor in Apple's main app. If a Finder window is waiting on something, it should take advantage of that chasing arrow animation in the status bar.
* Finder toolbar uses a sheet when customizing instead of that other weird trick.
* Classic supports double-buffering. Andrew Welch got it to work a while back it it was a godsend!! Unfortunately, Apple did something in the next build to break it. The sad truth is that there are many older apps that will simply never be carbonized. Apple should make it as comforting as possible for users of those older apps. Now that so many developers are flocking to OSX, I don't think Apple should be afraid of making Classic work well.
* QuickTime 6 is included.
* SLF is properly implemented.
* Labels return. SNAX has shown that is *is* possible.
* There are signs of Apple adopting a new file system. I don't expect it to already be fully implemented, but it'd be nice to know we aren't stuck with just HFS+ and UFS.
* Probably other stuff I can't think of right now...
The majority of the above (less so towards the end) should be considered "bug fixes" IMO. All I know is that I will not be paying for the upgrade if it is just 10.1 with CUPS, some fancy minimized window features, an "open with" contextual menu, "white on black", and Disk Copy.app features that most people will never see. I paid for Public Beta 1 and 2 but would have no qualms about "acquiring" this new version if it doesn't offer some major improvements. Have the Finder team and various others been sitting on their hands for the past year?
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
?The finder was entirely stable, as fast and responsive as OS 9's finder on my 400 MHz G4 system, and better threaded.
?Aqua was accelerated by my Radeon video card (or Quartz was so fast that it didn't need GPU acceleration.
?OS X had full feature parity with OS 9. That means spring loaded folders, USB printer sharing, software basestation for Airport, and little details like the ability to change the desktop picture's presentation format.
?A new "killa feature", like a new iApp for instance...one that was made for audio editing. Or something entirely new and different. Anything, but it needs to be an entirely new feature.
?SB Live was supported in 10.2 (yeah, right!). Not that this is Apple's responsibility, it isn't, and of course Apple will not write Creative's drivers for them. But it would be cool if Jobs would go over to Creative and bitch-slap a few executives. I'd pay for 10.2 if it came with an MPEG clip of Jobs bitching out a few Creative losers.
All moot points, since Apple is not going to charge for the Jaguar update. They would be crazy to, it would spark a Mac user rebellion...and most people would simply pirate the new OS.
But implementing a different filesystem, while not necessarily EASY, isn't that hard either. It's all in the kernel, plus a few user space utilities already written by SGI.
It would be nice to see 'hooks' for XFS, it doesn't have to ship as the default FS or anything.
Or conversely, if Apple reverse-engineered all of it's features and called it something else.
Keep in mind SGI boxes (not x86 ones) ship w/ XFS, and OSX has many Gnu tools already.
BTW, Have any of you (Starfleet?) OSX cats tried recompiling the Mach kernel? Is recompiling a microkernel even worth doing?
...they charge for it.
Ok, so Im an update junkie. Id like to see a free update, but if they charge an update fee, then I will most likely suck it up. Sad but true.
What would make me feel good about spending the $$:
-Fix the annoying trend of making 'dummy' folders if you move an app
-SPEED!!
-Dock Improvements
-SMB browsing
-include drivers for the original iBook video
-Fix all those little things about OSX that are holding it back.
[edit]- make docked folders more responsive (pop-up menus)
[ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: Keda ]</p>
Yay!
<strong>Don't pay.... get 10.2 from my favorite store... Carracho!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Need I say more?