Here's why it took so long: Not enough people really wanted it. Otherwise Apple would have done it.
The people clamoring for tabs were a minuscule minority, is all.
Well what ever the reason is I'm happy they added it. I constantly have multiple Finder windows opened, when I'm on my Air I have to resort to using a Terminal app with multiple tabs to do my evil bidding. I work with a lot of servers.
I got around to watching the keynote shortly after I read this. It's funny that the *first* new feature they discussed with 10.9 was Finder Tabs. I realize the keynote is for developers, but the show is available for anyone to watch. That raises the question, if it's a niche feature, why'd they start off with it? I'd think they'd start with a bang and put the weaker features in the middle of the presentation.
Well I have wanted this feature for 10 years now and I know everyone that I know who uses OSX wanted it to as well.
I strongly believe that it was solely because they wanted for us to no longer depend on finder to manage our files but wanted the apps to manage their own file system like iOS but since everyone still preferred to use the finder they were forced to improve it.
Sorry, this article makes almost no sense, at least when paired with the headline. Overall, the answer is most likely "because the powers that be deemed other features more worthwhile" and/or a lot of steps had to be taken to get to the feature.
I find it extremely hard to believe that tabbed finder windows were contingent upon multiple display support being improved. Because I'm pretty sure tabbed browsing works fantastically on single display devices.
I strongly believe that it was solely because they wanted for us to no longer depend on finder to manage our files but wanted the apps to manage their own file system like iOS but since everyone still preferred to use the finder they were forced to improve it.
The one thing I absolutely hate about iOS. The day OSX starts using this model will be day I stop using it, oh I shudder to even think about it.
Can we please, please, please, all just agree among ourselves to refer to the new OS as simply 10.9? OS X Mavericks is completely ridiculous. Worst name ever. Every time I see OS X Mavericks, I do a mental substitution for 10.9.
Of all places to choose from California, the name sounds too hard like it is trying to be cool. Honestly, I wished Apple would have opted for a dog naming theme instead. Imagine it... OS X Fennec. OS X Swift Fox. OS X Dire Wolf.
While I thought the article was interesting and well written, I am not so sure about the comments.. LOL
To the people who want software Operating systems to just do all kinds of things and hate it when they do not but yet are not willing to learn enough about the operating system to see why, I have to just wonder.
Its like complaining that we do not have flying cars yet but never care why. To them, I have to say that things happen for a reason. Like it or not.
And thanks to Daniel for taking the time to explain in a simple fashion why the long wait.
"Can anyone remember being able to park Finder windows at the bottom of the screen in OS9?"
I can.
I loved the 'sounds' of tiks and of sound fx that OS 8-9 intro'd. Shame they got killed later. Scroll...tik...tik...tik...etc. Like a squeaky door that needed oiling. :P
Missed them when they went.
10.9 looks like a 'getting back down to some serious business' release...perfectly timed with the release of the new Mac Pro.
Amen.
OsX 10.9 is shaping up to a brilliant release. A refinement of Lion/Mountain (love Mountain, running it on my flagship iMac...) and it's great.
Don't care how long it took (in the past nothing can be done about that now) just freaking geeked to be getting it.
Spaces and Tab Finder have been the top 2 items on my wish list since the early versions of OS X.
Third on my list was independent displays (No Primary Monitor).
This is actually a huge frustration for me, in fact fixing monitor usage is number one on my list. I'm hoping this includes blanking one display when a movie is playing on another. Currently Mac OS just feels crude when it comes to handling multiple monitors.
I think I can be very happy with 10.8 for a long while.
I hope Mr. Jobs got a chance to see 10.8 because his NeXT OS rocks.
This is the way Linux should have always been, Yeah I Talking To You REDHAT!
As a long time RedHat then Fedora user I know exactly what you mean. Mac OS is light years ahead in usability and stability. Further UNIX is just a terminal away.
I got around to watching the keynote shortly after I read this. It's funny that the *first* new feature they discussed with 10.9 was Finder Tabs. I realize the keynote is for developers, but the show is available for anyone to watch. That raises the question, if it's a niche feature, why'd they start off with it? I'd think they'd start with a bang and put the weaker features in the middle of the presentation.
It isn't a niche feature as it is something that has been often asked for.
On a side note I've been slowly going through the WWDC videos and have to say Mavericks will be fantastic if it lives up to its billing. Finder is an important element of the OS for many of us users and its improvements combined with other improvements in Mavericks ought to lead significant improvements to usability.
Can we please, please, please, all just agree among ourselves to refer to the new OS as simply 10.9? OS X Mavericks is completely ridiculous. Worst name ever. Every time I see OS X Mavericks, I do a mental substitution for 10.9.
It is a place name, nothing wrong at all. I suggest you stop acting like a 13 year old and get on with it.
Here's why it took so long: Not enough people really wanted it. Otherwise Apple would have done it.
The people clamoring for tabs were a minuscule minority, is all.
I don't really buy this one. I just don't think it was a priority. Think about how long it took them to move to Cocoa, it really looks like they had bigger fish to fry.
Except for the fact that the statement is speculation and the author has no way to know what Steve thought about the issue.
OS X is a consumer operating system and as such it doesn't (or didn't) need geeky features like Finder tabs. Now iOS is the "consumer" OS, it finally makes sense to geek out a bit more on OS X.
There is nothing geek about tabs. If consumers didn't understand tabs they wouldn't be put to user in many of the common apps found on computers.
This whole release comes across to me as an attempt to ameliorate the criticism they have been getting from so-called "pro" users that OS X is no longer serious enough by adding in a few long held "wants" form that crowd. If OS X was designed the way you wanted it years ago, it would never have taken off as a consumer OS and would have remained something similar to NeXT with a tiny niche market of Unix geeks.
Have you spent any time actually researching what is coming in Mavericks? It addresses many issues including support for long asked for consumer features. As it is the features that Pros tend to want have zero impact on consumer usage, so your statement is pure baloney.
The sad thing to me is that everything about OS X 10.9 and iOS 7.0 seems targeted towards ameliorating criticism of one kind of another. AT least this year, Apple has seemingly shifted away from doing what they think is right, towards "fixing" what their critics think is wrong. IMO this is bad news if it continues.
Huh? Where did this bull crap come from? I mean honestly tell us what is it about either coming OS release that you find so offensive. Fixing up Finder isn't something to be dismissed. The same goes for fixing the screwed up multiple screen handling. I could go on but really what is your problem(s) with these releases. Just because something can remain broken for years doesn't mean that it should remain that way forever.
I thought the improvements to OS X were superb and better than the mismatch of changes in iOS.
I haven't been tracking iOS that much so really haven't focused on the changes. This is mainly due to completely different ways in which I use my iOS devices. Mac OS is used in a more traditional way and frankly everything I've seen so far looks to be very positive.
Number 1 thing on my wish list that hasn't been dealt with? ZFS. This was rumoured some time ago then disappeared when Oracle bought Sun.
My understanding is that there where legal issues that sunk this. I would imagine Apple is working on their own advanced file system unless Oracle wants to support them in a way that Sun wouldn't.
They will need to do something fairly quick, the new Mac Pro will be able to attach vast amounts of data, easily and will require new ways to manage that data
Number 2: better Finder copying controls. Years ago under System 7 there was a Finder replacement called Speedy Finder which allowed you to serialise copies (ie start multiple copies running at the same time but get them to queue so only one copy was done at a time and when that one finished, the next one started), reorder them and pause them. Also, I'd love to see much smarter merging, replacing, conditional skipping, etc when copying files where there are duplicate names. Tools like rsync are great but having some of these options in the Finder would be far better than the other GUI 3rd party tools currently available.
Interesting but maybe not wise anymore, at least not serializing copies by default. Why? Because of the ability of modern hardware to easily attach multiple devices across independent I/O channels. Finder should be able to manage multiple copies, in parallel, to multiple devices. Serializing I/O might have been beneficial in the old days but it can be a negative these days.
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
It is a place name, nothing wrong at all. I suggest you stop acting like a 13 year old and get on with it.
I am still getting used to the name, it is referred in Mac OS 10.9 or mavericks no problems with that, and I am actually literary a 13 year old.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Here's why it took so long: Not enough people really wanted it. Otherwise Apple would have done it.
The people clamoring for tabs were a minuscule minority, is all.
Well what ever the reason is I'm happy they added it. I constantly have multiple Finder windows opened, when I'm on my Air I have to resort to using a Terminal app with multiple tabs to do my evil bidding. I work with a lot of servers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I got around to watching the keynote shortly after I read this. It's funny that the *first* new feature they discussed with 10.9 was Finder Tabs. I realize the keynote is for developers, but the show is available for anyone to watch. That raises the question, if it's a niche feature, why'd they start off with it? I'd think they'd start with a bang and put the weaker features in the middle of the presentation.
Well I have wanted this feature for 10 years now and I know everyone that I know who uses OSX wanted it to as well.
I find it extremely hard to believe that tabbed finder windows were contingent upon multiple display support being improved. Because I'm pretty sure tabbed browsing works fantastically on single display devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcxm360
I strongly believe that it was solely because they wanted for us to no longer depend on finder to manage our files but wanted the apps to manage their own file system like iOS but since everyone still preferred to use the finder they were forced to improve it.
The one thing I absolutely hate about iOS. The day OSX starts using this model will be day I stop using it, oh I shudder to even think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by initiator
Can we please, please, please, all just agree among ourselves to refer to the new OS as simply 10.9? OS X Mavericks is completely ridiculous. Worst name ever. Every time I see OS X Mavericks, I do a mental substitution for 10.9.
Of all places to choose from California, the name sounds too hard like it is trying to be cool. Honestly, I wished Apple would have opted for a dog naming theme instead. Imagine it... OS X Fennec. OS X Swift Fox. OS X Dire Wolf.
To the people who want software Operating systems to just do all kinds of things and hate it when they do not but yet are not willing to learn enough about the operating system to see why, I have to just wonder.
Its like complaining that we do not have flying cars yet but never care why. To them, I have to say that things happen for a reason. Like it or not.
And thanks to Daniel for taking the time to explain in a simple fashion why the long wait.
en
That's the problem, he really didn't explain anything. It's a long piece of tautological fluff.
I can.
I loved the 'sounds' of tiks and of sound fx that OS 8-9 intro'd. Shame they got killed later. Scroll...tik...tik...tik...etc. Like a squeaky door that needed oiling. :P
Missed them when they went.
10.9 looks like a 'getting back down to some serious business' release...perfectly timed with the release of the new Mac Pro.
Amen.
OsX 10.9 is shaping up to a brilliant release. A refinement of Lion/Mountain (love Mountain, running it on my flagship iMac...) and it's great.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Or maybe it was introduced years ago because it's a feature that makes sense regardless of the stupidity of the product doing it?
As a long time RedHat then Fedora user I know exactly what you mean. Mac OS is light years ahead in usability and stability. Further UNIX is just a terminal away.
It isn't a niche feature as it is something that has been often asked for.
On a side note I've been slowly going through the WWDC videos and have to say Mavericks will be fantastic if it lives up to its billing. Finder is an important element of the OS for many of us users and its improvements combined with other improvements in Mavericks ought to lead significant improvements to usability.
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
OS X Mavericks
It is a place name, nothing wrong at all. I suggest you stop acting like a 13 year old and get on with it.
I don't really buy this one. I just don't think it was a priority. Think about how long it took them to move to Cocoa, it really looks like they had bigger fish to fry.
They will need to do something fairly quick, the new Mac Pro will be able to attach vast amounts of data, easily and will require new ways to manage that data Interesting but maybe not wise anymore, at least not serializing copies by default. Why? Because of the ability of modern hardware to easily attach multiple devices across independent I/O channels. Finder should be able to manage multiple copies, in parallel, to multiple devices. Serializing I/O might have been beneficial in the old days but it can be a negative these days.