Regarding this feature in general, I think people put files on their desktop because its instantly accessible, in two ways. The first way is that because it's on the desktop you don't have to drill down through folders. The second way is that it stays where you leave it so you can use muscle memory to remember that your expenses spreadsheet is always in the top right, your notes document is always in the bottom left, all your TODOs are roughly in the middle...
That is why I'm not sure this stacks feature will be generally popular, because while it looks very slick it sacrifices instant, muscle memory accessibility for the sake of tidiness, which is generally a bad trade. Unless you're someone who really, really values tidiness and is willing to hunt and peck each time in order to have that, in which case those people yes they will like it.
I've never cared for the Downloads folder that Apple added many years ago. I've always redirected my downloaded files, soon to be used files, and other limbo files to be saved to the Desktop. This is going back long before Mac OS X was available and yet I'm loving Stacks on my Desktop. It's not a feature I had ever considered—for which I'm mildly surprised—but I'm finding it incredibly useful because it does add an extra layer of organization and because it also means I don't have to move windows as more items can placed in the single, right-hand column which I usually leave open for quick access to the Desktop with my Dock placed on the right left side of the window. Verticle space is more important to me so I don't care for the Dock at the bottom.
Good point about window moving. What I do currently is have the top-right hot corner set to "Show desktop" so by moving the mouse there all the widows zoom out of the way and I can see the desktop, but a nice vertical column of stacks might be even faster.
I'm still a Hot Corners user, too. I wonder how common that is.
For me, (going clockwise) the upper-left is Dashboard (as an overlay), the lower-right is show Desktop, and the lower-left is Mission Control (which replaced Show All Windows), and the upper-right is the screensaver (which locks my Macs).
edit: It's probably easier to show in a screenshot:
Trying out the new dark theme I see! I just have the desktop hot corner and then mission control on the middle mouse button. I used to have screen saver on a corner, also for the purpose of locking, but 1 or 2 releases ago they added a lock screen menu item to the Apple menu and I have managed to retrain myself to use that.
By the way you were right about macOS staying a separate thing, Craig was clear on that. I thought they would add window/mouse support to iOS. So good call on your part.
1) Do you mean this from the '' symbol in the Menu Bar? If so, isn't that more time consuming that simply swiping the mouse cursor up to the corner? I use the trackpad on my MBP so I don't get any of the benefits you mentioned with a middle mouse button (as far as I know). 2) While I can't see macOS and iOS merging (only getting more unified underpinnings for easier development), I can see a future where iOS will be usable with a trackpad/mouse in a limited fashion. While there's no reason to ever make it a Windowed OS there are plenty of areas, like text fields, where having something like an iPad Pro on a stand, connected to a keyboard and mouse could be useful, but I wouldn't expect to see any Right/Option clicking for contextual menus to appear unless it mirrors what we already see with iOS long-pressing on text and I'd expect to appear in the exact same way, not as a list like we see with macOS.
Yep hot corner would still be quicker. But for me using screen saver to lock was always a roundabout way of doing it so when they added an explicit Lock command I thought better to use that. That way if Apple is collecting analytics to decide what features to keep and what not, they will see that people actually do want to lock, rather than concluding people just want to turn on their screen saver.
I agree that on a mouseified iOS menus are one of the things that would likely be different, contextual and global.
Segue… They've had the Apple Watch unlocking a Mac for years (which is something I wanted even before the Watch was announced), but I also want my Mac to auto-lock if my Watch gets too far away from my Mac (and iDevice), too, and that feature hasn't appeared yet so I'm giving up on that wish.
I'm also giving up on my wish for a "poison finger" trigger with Touch ID that would cause your device to not just lock, but require the full login password if ever invoked.
Auto lock when you walk away and auto unlock when you approach would def. be ideal. Maybe they could do Face ID every 5 seconds with the MBP camera at some point.
I think iOS 11 has got a duress code so don't give up, Mac might get it too!
Are you referring to the multiple clicks on the Home Button (or some combination like that? With macOS you already long-press the Power Button and it'll turn off, which on iOS I think only calls the slide to turn off unless you do a two-button combo.
Speaking of macOS desires (and this is a very minor request), I would love for the WiFi dropdown to not sure every SSID that exists in any area when you click on it. I'd like for it to only show the ones that you've previously connected to with the row at the bottom of that list with something like "Other WiFi Networks…" The list is just so long these days and SSIDs I've previously connected to aren't auto-displayed at the top but are often buried in a very long list.
PS: I tested out connecting to a previously unknown WiFi network via watchOS 5 today. Straightforward. Putting in the password was easy enough even with having to draw each letter for the password.
I have yet to test this with a protected WiFi network with a splash screen, but I'm hoping the inclusion of WebKit in watchOS 5 means this is possible. That said, I remember how slow companies were to respond with supporting WebKit and the 3.5" display of the highly popular iPhone which usually made authenticating at a hotel with your iPhone a chore and on rare occasions impossible. I'm assuming it'll be even worse for the Apple Watch in this regard.
I'd also like to see both VPN apps supported with the Apple Watch and the ability to tether to, say, a MBP if you have an Apple Watch with cellular, but these are probably a long time coming as I've seen no one else recommend those features but me.
One cool thing about the WiFi menu on the Mac that I only saw for the first time the other day was that when I had my iPhone down next to my Mac, the option of "4G Personal Hotspot" appeared at the top of that menu.
They've had that feature for 3(?) years now and it's what made me wonder why other SSIDs that I frequently connect to aren't doing the same thing, and then the subconscious thought of "why do I have to look at all these private and locked networks I'll never connect to every time I click on the WiFi symbol. A decade ago it wasn't a big deal but now it's pretty obnoxious. I can't even imagine what it's like living in an large apartment building. At this point I'd argue that's it's very un-Apple-like.
They may be able to take things one step further by also using the BSSID which could also help with security from potential spoofing of a WiFI hotspot. The BSSID can also be faked as it's just the digital representation of the MAC address, but I think faking both is considerably less likely than just renaming the SSID of a WiFI hotspot so they can funnel and capture all traffic through their system.
Perhaps a new protocol that would have a legitimate WiFi hotspot not only give you an IP address from its DHCP server but also a token in which to use next time as a way to authenticate for that particular router. However, this may problematic with mesh and extended routing systems so that there could be challenges there.
Speaking of WiFi and public hotspots. I really dislike that when I connect to public WiFi all my apps, especially Apple's apps all will instantly try to sync up before I have a chance to get my VPN connected. I really wish there was a way to pause all those action on certain networks until the VPN is active. I've tried to contort Little Snitch to do this for me but it's just not set up for that kind of protection.
PS: Another WiFi addition I'd like to see is making authentication splash screens with agreements less intrusive as well as readable at any time (not just when you're on the splash screen. My tentative vision on this works this way.
A company, say, a hotel uses their legal team to get their long and boring Terms & Conditions page which requires you to agree to before you can get to the Internet. Perfectly understandable. However, If I go to connect to that same hotel's WiFi I don't want to have to go through those steps again; I just want to be connected. Now if the document has been updated—like we've seen with all the GDPR stuff—then, fine, show it to me again and force me to hit agree to get access to the internet.
But how would this work? My idea is to have either a specifically named file like a PDF, TXT, or RTF either be named a certain way or have it's own unique file extension that ALL OSes will abide by. If you've never agreed to those terms and conditions before then display them. If you have, then you get pushed directly to the internet without the annoying splash screen. This also means that you can go into WiFi on any device and then read those Terms and Conditions (which is a small text file that won't take up any real room on your system).
The problem here is how do you keep your local system from tricking the WiFi network into thinking you've already read it. One basic method could be looking at the date of the file, but that could probably still be spoofed by, say, an Android device that changes all their dates to some some long distance timeframe. Another option could be to make sure the date is exact, but I think a better option would be for the router to generate a random hash for that new Terms and Conditions file which it then requests from each device requesting access. If there is no hash or it doesn't match then the splash screen appears with the legal document and option to agree to the terms, but if if does match it auto connects you tot the internet.
Great idea for those of us who use the desktop as a working space during the day. This will make filing away documents at the end of the day much easier.
My concern is that unless people watched the keynote, or read sites like this, they just won’t know this feature exists. I think Apple could do a better job of promoting useful features. I have friends and family who had no idea you could scroll up on the iOS Music Now Playing screen to access Lyrics and Up Next, and who didn’t know a thing about multiple desktops on macOS.
These features are useful, but often hidden. I’ve pointed out that Apple has tutorials on their Support site, but the average Joes I know hadn’t thought to look there for tutorials because ‘Support’ is associated with something going wrong. I only discovered that Apple has a Support app because I read about it on a geek site like this.
I think Apple could do with an ‘Instructions Manual’ app on each iOS and macOS device they sell, right there on the dock/home screen so people can easily find it. Support pages buried away somewhere on the internet are no replacement for good old fashioned instruction manuals.
Hopefully that will help discoverability for the great and helpful features that Apple puts into their software.
Regarding this feature in general, I think people put files on their desktop because its instantly accessible, in two ways. The first way is that because it's on the desktop you don't have to drill down through folders. The second way is that it stays where you leave it so you can use muscle memory to remember that your expenses spreadsheet is always in the top right, your notes document is always in the bottom left, all your TODOs are roughly in the middle...
That is why I'm not sure this stacks feature will be generally popular, because while it looks very slick it sacrifices instant, muscle memory accessibility for the sake of tidiness, which is generally a bad trade. Unless you're someone who really, really values tidiness and is willing to hunt and peck each time in order to have that, in which case those people yes they will like it.
I've never cared for the Downloads folder that Apple added many years ago. I've always redirected my downloaded files, soon to be used files, and other limbo files to be saved to the Desktop. This is going back long before Mac OS X was available and yet I'm loving Stacks on my Desktop. It's not a feature I had ever considered—for which I'm mildly surprised—but I'm finding it incredibly useful because it does add an extra layer of organization and because it also means I don't have to move windows as more items can placed in the single, right-hand column which I usually leave open for quick access to the Desktop with my Dock placed on the right left side of the window. Verticle space is more important to me so I don't care for the Dock at the bottom.
Good point about window moving. What I do currently is have the top-right hot corner set to "Show desktop" so by moving the mouse there all the widows zoom out of the way and I can see the desktop, but a nice vertical column of stacks might be even faster.
I'm still a Hot Corners user, too. I wonder how common that is.
For me, (going clockwise) the upper-left is Dashboard (as an overlay), the lower-right is show Desktop, and the lower-left is Mission Control (which replaced Show All Windows), and the upper-right is the screensaver (which locks my Macs).
edit: It's probably easier to show in a screenshot:
Trying out the new dark theme I see! I just have the desktop hot corner and then mission control on the middle mouse button. I used to have screen saver on a corner, also for the purpose of locking, but 1 or 2 releases ago they added a lock screen menu item to the Apple menu and I have managed to retrain myself to use that.
By the way you were right about macOS staying a separate thing, Craig was clear on that. I thought they would add window/mouse support to iOS. So good call on your part.
1) Do you mean this from the '' symbol in the Menu Bar? If so, isn't that more time consuming that simply swiping the mouse cursor up to the corner? I use the trackpad on my MBP so I don't get any of the benefits you mentioned with a middle mouse button (as far as I know). 2) While I can't see macOS and iOS merging (only getting more unified underpinnings for easier development), I can see a future where iOS will be usable with a trackpad/mouse in a limited fashion. While there's no reason to ever make it a Windowed OS there are plenty of areas, like text fields, where having something like an iPad Pro on a stand, connected to a keyboard and mouse could be useful, but I wouldn't expect to see any Right/Option clicking for contextual menus to appear unless it mirrors what we already see with iOS long-pressing on text and I'd expect to appear in the exact same way, not as a list like we see with macOS.
Yep hot corner would still be quicker. But for me using screen saver to lock was always a roundabout way of doing it so when they added an explicit Lock command I thought better to use that. That way if Apple is collecting analytics to decide what features to keep and what not, they will see that people actually do want to lock, rather than concluding people just want to turn on their screen saver.
I agree that on a mouseified iOS menus are one of the things that would likely be different, contextual and global.
Segue… They've had the Apple Watch unlocking a Mac for years (which is something I wanted even before the Watch was announced), but I also want my Mac to auto-lock if my Watch gets too far away from my Mac (and iDevice), too, and that feature hasn't appeared yet so I'm giving up on that wish.
I'm also giving up on my wish for a "poison finger" trigger with Touch ID that would cause your device to not just lock, but require the full login password if ever invoked.
Auto lock when you walk away and auto unlock when you approach would def. be ideal. Maybe they could do Face ID every 5 seconds with the MBP camera at some point.
I think iOS 11 has got a duress code so don't give up, Mac might get it too!
Are you referring to the multiple clicks on the Home Button (or some combination like that? With macOS you already long-press the Power Button and it'll turn off, which on iOS I think only calls the slide to turn off unless you do a two-button combo.
Speaking of macOS desires (and this is a very minor request), I would love for the WiFi dropdown to not sure every SSID that exists in any area when you click on it. I'd like for it to only show the ones that you've previously connected to with the row at the bottom of that list with something like "Other WiFi Networks…" The list is just so long these days and SSIDs I've previously connected to aren't auto-displayed at the top but are often buried in a very long list.
PS: I tested out connecting to a previously unknown WiFi network via watchOS 5 today. Straightforward. Putting in the password was easy enough even with having to draw each letter for the password.
I have yet to test this with a protected WiFi network with a splash screen, but I'm hoping the inclusion of WebKit in watchOS 5 means this is possible. That said, I remember how slow companies were to respond with supporting WebKit and the 3.5" display of the highly popular iPhone which usually made authenticating at a hotel with your iPhone a chore and on rare occasions impossible. I'm assuming it'll be even worse for the Apple Watch in this regard.
I'd also like to see both VPN apps supported with the Apple Watch and the ability to tether to, say, a MBP if you have an Apple Watch with cellular, but these are probably a long time coming as I've seen no one else recommend those features but me.
One cool thing about the WiFi menu on the Mac that I only saw for the first time the other day was that when I had my iPhone down next to my Mac, the option of "4G Personal Hotspot" appeared at the top of that menu.
They've had that feature for 3(?) years now and it's what made me wonder why other SSIDs that I frequently connect to aren't doing the same thing, and then the subconscious thought of "why do I have to look at all these private and locked networks I'll never connect to every time I click on the WiFi symbol. A decade ago it wasn't a big deal but now it's pretty obnoxious. I can't even imagine what it's like living in an large apartment building. At this point I'd argue that's it's very un-Apple-like.
They may be able to take things one step further by also using the BSSID which could also help with security from potential spoofing of a WiFI hotspot. The BSSID can also be faked as it's just the digital representation of the MAC address, but I think faking both is considerably less likely than just renaming the SSID of a WiFI hotspot so they can funnel and capture all traffic through their system.
Perhaps a new protocol that would have a legitimate WiFi hotspot not only give you an IP address from its DHCP server but also a token in which to use next time as a way to authenticate for that particular router. However, this may problematic with mesh and extended routing systems so that there could be challenges there.
Speaking of WiFi and public hotspots. I really dislike that when I connect to public WiFi all my apps, especially Apple's apps all will instantly try to sync up before I have a chance to get my VPN connected. I really wish there was a way to pause all those action on certain networks until the VPN is active. I've tried to contort Little Snitch to do this for me but it's just not set up for that kind of protection.
PS: Another WiFi addition I'd like to see is making authentication splash screens with agreements less intrusive as well as readable at any time (not just when you're on the splash screen. My tentative vision on this works this way.
A company, say, a hotel uses their legal team to get their long and boring Terms & Conditions page which requires you to agree to before you can get to the Internet. Perfectly understandable. However, If I go to connect to that same hotel's WiFi I don't want to have to go through those steps again; I just want to be connected. Now if the document has been updated—like we've seen with all the GDPR stuff—then, fine, show it to me again and force me to hit agree to get access to the internet.
But how would this work? My idea is to have either a specifically named file like a PDF, TXT, or RTF either be named a certain way or have it's own unique file extension that ALL OSes will abide by. If you've never agreed to those terms and conditions before then display them. If you have, then you get pushed directly to the internet without the annoying splash screen. This also means that you can go into WiFi on any device and then read those Terms and Conditions (which is a small text file that won't take up any real room on your system).
The problem here is how do you keep your local system from tricking the WiFi network into thinking you've already read it. One basic method could be looking at the date of the file, but that could probably still be spoofed by, say, an Android device that changes all their dates to some some long distance timeframe. Another option could be to make sure the date is exact, but I think a better option would be for the router to generate a random hash for that new Terms and Conditions file which it then requests from each device requesting access. If there is no hash or it doesn't match then the splash screen appears with the legal document and option to agree to the terms, but if if does match it auto connects you tot the internet.
What you said about public hotspots and auth tokens could indeed work, in fact that's how the new TLS 1.3 works with web servers. Once you've done a full handshake you get an auth token that allows you to reconnect later with a 0-round trip (0-RTT) handshake.
Yep, requiring devices to provide a hash of the T&C before allowing Internet access would certainly prove they had downloaded it. The only risk would be that you could put your NIC in monitor mode and wait for another device on the same router to send the hash and capture a copy of it for yourself. But that could be solved by requiring that the hash be not just of the T&C document but of the document + something unique to you (such as your MAC address). Honestly any improvement to the way hotel WiFi works would be great. Seems like a business opportunity to make and market a better WiFi system for hotels just because so many of them are horrid.
There are two interface features I want and have wanted for years:
1) Send to Back... When you click on a window and bring it to the front, it covers everything. Send to Back on click (middle click for instance) would push the window to the back, and you can cycle through layers of windows easily.
2) Named Desktops/Spaces... I have multiple desktops open and want to give them names. Sometimes, I make an image with a name and set it as the background. Apple's multiple desktop support is very lacking and I wish they would improve it. Even things such as placing all windows in the correct desktop on login as they were on logout.
It pretty much looks to me like a renamed version of “piles”, which Apple tried to introduce with Mac Os Panther...
Don't remember if it was called 'piles' but I do remember an early OSX had files which sprang out into a curved snake, perhaps that was from the sidebar, either way this looks like that again.
I've never understood the whole icons on the desktop thing, I have, and have always had, nothing there at all and I get a little peeved when installing something puts an icon on the desktop. I usually find it about 3 months later and indeed that makes the desktop to me seem like the worst place to keep anything you want to get to because it's always covered by multiple windows. I use the launcher (for which I have a hot corner) and that's it.
Seems useful to me and it fixes one the biggest "issues" that I've had with macOS since 10.5 or something. At that time, if you had an icon on the desktop and double clicked to open it, the file/folder will open, but the icon itself will still remain highlighted. I really hate that so much, so after I open the file, I would click the desktop each and every time to unhighlight that icon! Windows doesn't continue to highlight the icon and this way doesn't either. As someone noted above, it is similar to Piles in OS X Panther, but never came to fruition.
How will stacks affect memory usage. I have been told not to keep a lot of files on the desktop because it is a memory hog.
Yes I remember this from back in the days of 10.1 and 10.2. The early versions of Mac OS X weren't designed to have icons on the desktop, so as a workaround, every time you dropped an icon on the desktop they created a little transparent borderless window to hold it, so if you had 100 icons on your desktop you effectively permanently had 100 windows open, which used a lot of memory. But that hasn't been the case for many versions.
Regarding this feature in general, I think people put files on their desktop because its instantly accessible, in two ways. The first way is that because it's on the desktop you don't have to drill down through folders. The second way is that it stays where you leave it so you can use muscle memory to remember that your expenses spreadsheet is always in the top right, your notes document is always in the bottom left, all your TODOs are roughly in the middle...
That is why I'm not sure this stacks feature will be generally popular, because while it looks very slick it sacrifices instant, muscle memory accessibility for the sake of tidiness, which is generally a bad trade. Unless you're someone who really, really values tidiness and is willing to hunt and peck each time in order to have that, in which case those people yes they will like it.
You wrote exactly what I was thinking. People have their desktops covered with files for a reason. They remember where things are like this in the real world (piles of seemingly random things that are only important to them). This is HOW they organize. I think Apple is trying to solve something that isn’t a problem (for those who think this way).
How will stacks affect memory usage. I have been told not to keep a lot of files on the desktop because it is a memory hog.
Yes I remember this from back in the days of 10.1 and 10.2. The early versions of Mac OS X weren't designed to have icons on the desktop, so as a workaround, every time you dropped an icon on the desktop they created a little transparent borderless window to hold it, so if you had 100 icons on your desktop you effectively permanently had 100 windows open, which used a lot of memory. But that hasn't been the case for many versions.
Regarding this feature in general, I think people put files on their desktop because its instantly accessible, in two ways. The first way is that because it's on the desktop you don't have to drill down through folders. The second way is that it stays where you leave it so you can use muscle memory to remember that your expenses spreadsheet is always in the top right, your notes document is always in the bottom left, all your TODOs are roughly in the middle...
That is why I'm not sure this stacks feature will be generally popular, because while it looks very slick it sacrifices instant, muscle memory accessibility for the sake of tidiness, which is generally a bad trade. Unless you're someone who really, really values tidiness and is willing to hunt and peck each time in order to have that, in which case those people yes they will like it.
You wrote exactly what I was thinking. People have their desktops covered with files for a reason. They remember where things are like this in the real world (piles of seemingly random things that are only important to them). This is HOW they organize. I think Apple is trying to solve something that isn’t a problem (for those who think this way).
If Stacks doesn't work into your system, then there's no requirement to use them, but for me they've already been a huge help in under a week. I'm more organized and I can access files even faster now because of Stacks, as previously stated.
How will stacks affect memory usage. I have been told not to keep a lot of files on the desktop because it is a memory hog.
Yes I remember this from back in the days of 10.1 and 10.2. The early versions of Mac OS X weren't designed to have icons on the desktop, so as a workaround, every time you dropped an icon on the desktop they created a little transparent borderless window to hold it, so if you had 100 icons on your desktop you effectively permanently had 100 windows open, which used a lot of memory. But that hasn't been the case for many versions.
Regarding this feature in general, I think people put files on their desktop because its instantly accessible, in two ways. The first way is that because it's on the desktop you don't have to drill down through folders. The second way is that it stays where you leave it so you can use muscle memory to remember that your expenses spreadsheet is always in the top right, your notes document is always in the bottom left, all your TODOs are roughly in the middle...
That is why I'm not sure this stacks feature will be generally popular, because while it looks very slick it sacrifices instant, muscle memory accessibility for the sake of tidiness, which is generally a bad trade. Unless you're someone who really, really values tidiness and is willing to hunt and peck each time in order to have that, in which case those people yes they will like it.
Your observations about spatial location/layout familiarity and muscle memory are very true. In fact, complexity is in the eye of the beholder and greatly tempered by training and familiarity. When a layperson looks at the controls and indicators for a commercial airliner, or the cockpit of a fighter jet, or the steering "wheel" of a Formula 1 race car it is inconceivable how any one could ever make sense of the controls, much less accurately control and monitor the vehicle in real time under stressful conditions. But those who are intimately familiar with the spatial layouts, groupings, context, and modality of the controls know exactly what to do with little forethought because muscle memory guides them. At an abstract but fundamental level the human brain is amazingly adept at using spatial references, and especially spatial references coupled with narratives/modalities for memory retention. The Memory Palace technique of memorization confirms this innate ability.
Stacks does nothing to reinforce spatial clues to help users find what they are looking for. Spaces is like your Mom cleaning your room or your spouse "organizing" your office for you and deciding how to organize your things for you. It's a decluttering tool that some people will love and other people will hate. It doesn't change the desktop/folder/file paradigm at all and it breaks the spatial familiarity model that some people rely on. I'm a "tidy desktop" person but only because I haven't found a way other than the file system to organize content the way I want it, which is typically based on "projects" or "tasks" rather than file types or application specific artifacts (e.g., Pages files). Underneath my project oriented model I have many file types and additional folders for sub-elements and project related artifacts. The last thing I would ever want is to have artifacts from several projects commingled into the same stack because they happen to have the same file extension. If I need to find a specific file across several projects I can use Spotlight or perform a query.
Long story short, the underlying processing that Stacks uses to remove some of the tedium of storing and retrieving files is promising. However, it doesn't change anything for those of us who are dependent on organizational models that aren't simply based on file types or those who rely on spatial familiarity. The spatial familiarity need is an area that AI and/or ML may offer some new problem solving approaches by dynamically adapting to how a user is actually organizing content rather than making the user conform to one of the built-in organization models. At the very least, simply being able to do a Save As... (or better - Save To...) and designate a user defined "space" or "place" rather than drilling down through the file system structure would be an improvement for me.
Regarding this feature in general, I think people put files on their desktop because its instantly accessible, in two ways. The first way is that because it's on the desktop you don't have to drill down through folders. The second way is that it stays where you leave it so you can use muscle memory to remember that your expenses spreadsheet is always in the top right, your notes document is always in the bottom left, all your TODOs are roughly in the middle...
That is why I'm not sure this stacks feature will be generally popular, because while it looks very slick it sacrifices instant, muscle memory accessibility for the sake of tidiness, which is generally a bad trade. Unless you're someone who really, really values tidiness and is willing to hunt and peck each time in order to have that, in which case those people yes they will like it.
I've never cared for the Downloads folder that Apple added many years ago. I've always redirected my downloaded files, soon to be used files, and other limbo files to be saved to the Desktop. This is going back long before Mac OS X was available and yet I'm loving Stacks on my Desktop. It's not a feature I had ever considered—for which I'm mildly surprised—but I'm finding it incredibly useful because it does add an extra layer of organization and because it also means I don't have to move windows as more items can placed in the single, right-hand column which I usually leave open for quick access to the Desktop with my Dock placed on the right left side of the window. Verticle space is more important to me so I don't care for the Dock at the bottom.
Good point about window moving. What I do currently is have the top-right hot corner set to "Show desktop" so by moving the mouse there all the widows zoom out of the way and I can see the desktop, but a nice vertical column of stacks might be even faster.
I'm still a Hot Corners user, too. I wonder how common that is.
For me, (going clockwise) the upper-left is Dashboard (as an overlay), the lower-right is show Desktop, and the lower-left is Mission Control (which replaced Show All Windows), and the upper-right is the screensaver (which locks my Macs).
edit: It's probably easier to show in a screenshot:
Trying out the new dark theme I see! I just have the desktop hot corner and then mission control on the middle mouse button. I used to have screen saver on a corner, also for the purpose of locking, but 1 or 2 releases ago they added a lock screen menu item to the Apple menu and I have managed to retrain myself to use that.
By the way you were right about macOS staying a separate thing, Craig was clear on that. I thought they would add window/mouse support to iOS. So good call on your part.
1) Do you mean this from the '' symbol in the Menu Bar? If so, isn't that more time consuming that simply swiping the mouse cursor up to the corner? I use the trackpad on my MBP so I don't get any of the benefits you mentioned with a middle mouse button (as far as I know). 2) While I can't see macOS and iOS merging (only getting more unified underpinnings for easier development), I can see a future where iOS will be usable with a trackpad/mouse in a limited fashion. While there's no reason to ever make it a Windowed OS there are plenty of areas, like text fields, where having something like an iPad Pro on a stand, connected to a keyboard and mouse could be useful, but I wouldn't expect to see any Right/Option clicking for contextual menus to appear unless it mirrors what we already see with iOS long-pressing on text and I'd expect to appear in the exact same way, not as a list like we see with macOS.
Yep hot corner would still be quicker. But for me using screen saver to lock was always a roundabout way of doing it so when they added an explicit Lock command I thought better to use that. That way if Apple is collecting analytics to decide what features to keep and what not, they will see that people actually do want to lock, rather than concluding people just want to turn on their screen saver.
I agree that on a mouseified iOS menus are one of the things that would likely be different, contextual and global.
Segue… They've had the Apple Watch unlocking a Mac for years (which is something I wanted even before the Watch was announced), but I also want my Mac to auto-lock if my Watch gets too far away from my Mac (and iDevice), too, and that feature hasn't appeared yet so I'm giving up on that wish.
I'm also giving up on my wish for a "poison finger" trigger with Touch ID that would cause your device to not just lock, but require the full login password if ever invoked.
Auto lock when you walk away and auto unlock when you approach would def. be ideal. Maybe they could do Face ID every 5 seconds with the MBP camera at some point.
I think iOS 11 has got a duress code so don't give up, Mac might get it too!
Speaking of macOS desires (and this is a very minor request), I would love for the WiFi dropdown to not sure every SSID that exists in any area when you click on it. I'd like for it to only show the ones that you've previously connected to with the row at the bottom of that list with something like "Other WiFi Networks…" The list is just so long these days and SSIDs I've previously connected to aren't auto-displayed at the top but are often buried in a very long list.
This behavior bugs me, too. It would be nice if there was a way to “Forget this network” like there is on iOS (maybe there is and I just haven’t found it). That’s a nice way to handle it as my iPhone/iPad won’t connect automatically to networks I have “forgotten” but they still show as available. My Mac will sometimes, inexplicably connect to one of those open xfinitywifi networks that must be nearby. Finding my network is a slight PITA but worse is there is no indication that it switched away from my network until I check.
Speaking of macOS desires (and this is a very minor request), I would love for the WiFi dropdown to not sure every SSID that exists in any area when you click on it. I'd like for it to only show the ones that you've previously connected to with the row at the bottom of that list with something like "Other WiFi Networks…" The list is just so long these days and SSIDs I've previously connected to aren't auto-displayed at the top but are often buried in a very long list.
This behavior bugs me, too. It would be nice if there was a way to “Forget this network” like there is on iOS (maybe there is and I just haven’t found it). That’s a nice way to handle it as my iPhone/iPad won’t connect automatically to networks I have “forgotten” but they still show as available. My Mac will sometimes, inexplicably connect to one of those open xfinitywifi networks that must be nearby. Finding my network is a slight PITA but worse is there is no indication that it switched away from my network until I check.
There is the option to forgot networks in which you've previously connected, as well as re-order which ones you wish to connect first under System Preferences » Network pane » Advanced » Wi-Fi tab.
How will stacks affect memory usage. I have been told not to keep a lot of files on the desktop because it is a memory hog.
Yes I remember this from back in the days of 10.1 and 10.2. The early versions of Mac OS X weren't designed to have icons on the desktop, so as a workaround, every time you dropped an icon on the desktop they created a little transparent borderless window to hold it, so if you had 100 icons on your desktop you effectively permanently had 100 windows open, which used a lot of memory. But that hasn't been the case for many versions.
Regarding this feature in general, I think people put files on their desktop because its instantly accessible, in two ways. The first way is that because it's on the desktop you don't have to drill down through folders. The second way is that it stays where you leave it so you can use muscle memory to remember that your expenses spreadsheet is always in the top right, your notes document is always in the bottom left, all your TODOs are roughly in the middle...
That is why I'm not sure this stacks feature will be generally popular, because while it looks very slick it sacrifices instant, muscle memory accessibility for the sake of tidiness, which is generally a bad trade. Unless you're someone who really, really values tidiness and is willing to hunt and peck each time in order to have that, in which case those people yes they will like it.
Your observations about spatial location/layout familiarity and muscle memory are very true. In fact, complexity is in the eye of the beholder and greatly tempered by training and familiarity. When a layperson looks at the controls and indicators for a commercial airliner, or the cockpit of a fighter jet, or the steering "wheel" of a Formula 1 race car it is inconceivable how any one could ever make sense of the controls, much less accurately control and monitor the vehicle in real time under stressful conditions. But those who are intimately familiar with the spatial layouts, groupings, context, and modality of the controls know exactly what to do with little forethought because muscle memory guides them. At an abstract but fundamental level the human brain is amazingly adept at using spatial references, and especially spatial references coupled with narratives/modalities for memory retention. The Memory Palace technique of memorization confirms this innate ability.
Stacks does nothing to reinforce spatial clues to help users find what they are looking for. Spaces is like your Mom cleaning your room or your spouse "organizing" your office for you and deciding how to organize your things for you. It's a decluttering tool that some people will love and other people will hate. It doesn't change the desktop/folder/file paradigm at all and it breaks the spatial familiarity model that some people rely on. I'm a "tidy desktop" person but only because I haven't found a way other than the file system to organize content the way I want it, which is typically based on "projects" or "tasks" rather than file types or application specific artifacts (e.g., Pages files). Underneath my project oriented model I have many file types and additional folders for sub-elements and project related artifacts. The last thing I would ever want is to have artifacts from several projects commingled into the same stack because they happen to have the same file extension. If I need to find a specific file across several projects I can use Spotlight or perform a query.
Long story short, the underlying processing that Stacks uses to remove some of the tedium of storing and retrieving files is promising. However, it doesn't change anything for those of us who are dependent on organizational models that aren't simply based on file types or those who rely on spatial familiarity. The spatial familiarity need is an area that AI and/or ML may offer some new problem solving approaches by dynamically adapting to how a user is actually organizing content rather than making the user conform to one of the built-in organization models. At the very least, simply being able to do a Save As... (or better - Save To...) and designate a user defined "space" or "place" rather than drilling down through the file system structure would be an improvement for me.
I also arrange files by project rather than type. I think you could do project stacks by renaming the Red, Orange, Yellow etc. tags in Finder to have project names instead of colour names, and then assigning the same tag to all the files in a given project, and then sorting stacks by tag. But yeah still doesn't solve the muscle memory problem. I'll have to look up what the Memory Palace is. I'll have to look up what the Memory Palace is (joke).
Not a new idea. We had stack in old Mac OS X and then it disappeared few years back,. This seems only improvement of original idea returning to desktop now.
I was hoping for a stacks-like feature based around versions of a file and it didn’t need to be confined to the desktop - it would have been equally useful as a visual paradigm in folder views too. Unfortunately I think Apple has missed an opportunity here.
The concept goes like this. I create multiple versions of a doc over its lifespan file v0.1, file v0.2, file v1.0 (they don’t need to be named as such - this is just an example). My folders are littered with such examples. Anyway, having stacks group these together by associated file and show them as a single entity would have been extremely useful. I don’t know how this would be achieved - it couldn’t be based on names only but it would be independent of tags - tags are useful for other things. I appreciate time machine keeps old copies but it’s not quite the same.
Out of interest a long time ago Macs used the desktop as a working space and had a ‘Put Away’ command. You could drag files there from their folders and then by selecting them you could Cmd-Y ‘Put Away’ and the files would be put back where they came from.
Regarding this feature in general, I think people put files on their desktop because its instantly accessible, in two ways. The first way is that because it's on the desktop you don't have to drill down through folders. The second way is that it stays where you leave it so you can use muscle memory to remember that your expenses spreadsheet is always in the top right, your notes document is always in the bottom left, all your TODOs are roughly in the middle...
That is why I'm not sure this stacks feature will be generally popular, because while it looks very slick it sacrifices instant, muscle memory accessibility for the sake of tidiness, which is generally a bad trade. Unless you're someone who really, really values tidiness and is willing to hunt and peck each time in order to have that, in which case those people yes they will like it.
I've never cared for the Downloads folder that Apple added many years ago. I've always redirected my downloaded files, soon to be used files, and other limbo files to be saved to the Desktop. This is going back long before Mac OS X was available and yet I'm loving Stacks on my Desktop. It's not a feature I had ever considered—for which I'm mildly surprised—but I'm finding it incredibly useful because it does add an extra layer of organization and because it also means I don't have to move windows as more items can placed in the single, right-hand column which I usually leave open for quick access to the Desktop with my Dock placed on the right left side of the window. Verticle space is more important to me so I don't care for the Dock at the bottom.
Good point about window moving. What I do currently is have the top-right hot corner set to "Show desktop" so by moving the mouse there all the widows zoom out of the way and I can see the desktop, but a nice vertical column of stacks might be even faster.
I'm still a Hot Corners user, too. I wonder how common that is.
For me, (going clockwise) the upper-left is Dashboard (as an overlay), the lower-right is show Desktop, and the lower-left is Mission Control (which replaced Show All Windows), and the upper-right is the screensaver (which locks my Macs).
edit: It's probably easier to show in a screenshot:
Similar to my hot corners, but MC is in the upper right. I see Dashboard is still alive! I keep wondering when they might kill that. I stopped using it a few versions ago.
There are two interface features I want and have wanted for years:
2) Named Desktops/Spaces... I have multiple desktops open and want to give them names. Sometimes, I make an image with a name and set it as the background. Apple's multiple desktop support is very lacking and I wish they would improve it. Even things such as placing all windows in the correct desktop on login as they were on logout.
Yes please! I keep different projects/clients in separate Spaces and can’t always tell in Mission Control which is which easily. Would love to be able to name them.
Not a new idea. We had stack in old Mac OS X and then it disappeared few years back,. This seems only improvement of original idea returning to desktop now.
Regarding this feature in general, I think people put files on their desktop because its instantly accessible, in two ways. The first way is that because it's on the desktop you don't have to drill down through folders. The second way is that it stays where you leave it so you can use muscle memory to remember that your expenses spreadsheet is always in the top right, your notes document is always in the bottom left, all your TODOs are roughly in the middle...
That is why I'm not sure this stacks feature will be generally popular, because while it looks very slick it sacrifices instant, muscle memory accessibility for the sake of tidiness, which is generally a bad trade. Unless you're someone who really, really values tidiness and is willing to hunt and peck each time in order to have that, in which case those people yes they will like it.
I've never cared for the Downloads folder that Apple added many years ago. I've always redirected my downloaded files, soon to be used files, and other limbo files to be saved to the Desktop. This is going back long before Mac OS X was available and yet I'm loving Stacks on my Desktop. It's not a feature I had ever considered—for which I'm mildly surprised—but I'm finding it incredibly useful because it does add an extra layer of organization and because it also means I don't have to move windows as more items can placed in the single, right-hand column which I usually leave open for quick access to the Desktop with my Dock placed on the right left side of the window. Verticle space is more important to me so I don't care for the Dock at the bottom.
Good point about window moving. What I do currently is have the top-right hot corner set to "Show desktop" so by moving the mouse there all the widows zoom out of the way and I can see the desktop, but a nice vertical column of stacks might be even faster.
I'm still a Hot Corners user, too. I wonder how common that is.
For me, (going clockwise) the upper-left is Dashboard (as an overlay), the lower-right is show Desktop, and the lower-left is Mission Control (which replaced Show All Windows), and the upper-right is the screensaver (which locks my Macs).
edit: It's probably easier to show in a screenshot:
Similar to my hot corners, but MC is in the upper right. I see Dashboard is still alive! I keep wondering when they might kill that. I stopped using it a few versions ago.
I’m expecting it to go every year, but I still use it daily. I’ve purchased the Deliveries app for macOS (and iOS), but still prefer to use their Dashboard widget. I also have a half dozen of the measurements widgets on the Dashboard set to different types of measurements. For both widget types it’s just faster for me to move the mouse to a hot corner, but my world won’t crumble if it’s removed.
Not a new idea. We had stack in old Mac OS X and then it disappeared few years back,. This seems only improvement of original idea returning to desktop now.
It still exists in the Dock.
I thought it only ever existed in the Dock? I don't remember it ever being a Desktop feature.
Comments
They may be able to take things one step further by also using the BSSID which could also help with security from potential spoofing of a WiFI hotspot. The BSSID can also be faked as it's just the digital representation of the MAC address, but I think faking both is considerably less likely than just renaming the SSID of a WiFI hotspot so they can funnel and capture all traffic through their system.
Perhaps a new protocol that would have a legitimate WiFi hotspot not only give you an IP address from its DHCP server but also a token in which to use next time as a way to authenticate for that particular router. However, this may problematic with mesh and extended routing systems so that there could be challenges there.
Speaking of WiFi and public hotspots. I really dislike that when I connect to public WiFi all my apps, especially Apple's apps all will instantly try to sync up before I have a chance to get my VPN connected. I really wish there was a way to pause all those action on certain networks until the VPN is active. I've tried to contort Little Snitch to do this for me but it's just not set up for that kind of protection.
PS: Another WiFi addition I'd like to see is making authentication splash screens with agreements less intrusive as well as readable at any time (not just when you're on the splash screen. My tentative vision on this works this way.
A company, say, a hotel uses their legal team to get their long and boring Terms & Conditions page which requires you to agree to before you can get to the Internet. Perfectly understandable. However, If I go to connect to that same hotel's WiFi I don't want to have to go through those steps again; I just want to be connected. Now if the document has been updated—like we've seen with all the GDPR stuff—then, fine, show it to me again and force me to hit agree to get access to the internet.
But how would this work? My idea is to have either a specifically named file like a PDF, TXT, or RTF either be named a certain way or have it's own unique file extension that ALL OSes will abide by. If you've never agreed to those terms and conditions before then display them. If you have, then you get pushed directly to the internet without the annoying splash screen. This also means that you can go into WiFi on any device and then read those Terms and Conditions (which is a small text file that won't take up any real room on your system).
The problem here is how do you keep your local system from tricking the WiFi network into thinking you've already read it. One basic method could be looking at the date of the file, but that could probably still be spoofed by, say, an Android device that changes all their dates to some some long distance timeframe. Another option could be to make sure the date is exact, but I think a better option would be for the router to generate a random hash for that new Terms and Conditions file which it then requests from each device requesting access. If there is no hash or it doesn't match then the splash screen appears with the legal document and option to agree to the terms, but if if does match it auto connects you tot the internet.
My concern is that unless people watched the keynote, or read sites like this, they just won’t know this feature exists. I think Apple could do a better job of promoting useful features. I have friends and family who had no idea you could scroll up on the iOS Music Now Playing screen to access Lyrics and Up Next, and who didn’t know a thing about multiple desktops on macOS.
These features are useful, but often hidden. I’ve pointed out that Apple has tutorials on their Support site, but the average Joes I know hadn’t thought to look there for tutorials because ‘Support’ is associated with something going wrong. I only discovered that Apple has a Support app because I read about it on a geek site like this.
I think Apple could do with an ‘Instructions Manual’ app on each iOS and macOS device they sell, right there on the dock/home screen so people can easily find it. Support pages buried away somewhere on the internet are no replacement for good old fashioned instruction manuals.
Hopefully that will help discoverability for the great and helpful features that Apple puts into their software.
1) Send to Back... When you click on a window and bring it to the front, it covers everything. Send to Back on click (middle click for instance) would push the window to the back, and you can cycle through layers of windows easily.
2) Named Desktops/Spaces... I have multiple desktops open and want to give them names. Sometimes, I make an image with a name and set it as the background. Apple's multiple desktop support is very lacking and I wish they would improve it. Even things such as placing all windows in the correct desktop on login as they were on logout.
I've never understood the whole icons on the desktop thing, I have, and have always had, nothing there at all and I get a little peeved when installing something puts an icon on the desktop. I usually find it about 3 months later and indeed that makes the desktop to me seem like the worst place to keep anything you want to get to because it's always covered by multiple windows. I use the launcher (for which I have a hot corner) and that's it.
Stacks does nothing to reinforce spatial clues to help users find what they are looking for. Spaces is like your Mom cleaning your room or your spouse "organizing" your office for you and deciding how to organize your things for you. It's a decluttering tool that some people will love and other people will hate. It doesn't change the desktop/folder/file paradigm at all and it breaks the spatial familiarity model that some people rely on. I'm a "tidy desktop" person but only because I haven't found a way other than the file system to organize content the way I want it, which is typically based on "projects" or "tasks" rather than file types or application specific artifacts (e.g., Pages files). Underneath my project oriented model I have many file types and additional folders for sub-elements and project related artifacts. The last thing I would ever want is to have artifacts from several projects commingled into the same stack because they happen to have the same file extension. If I need to find a specific file across several projects I can use Spotlight or perform a query.
Long story short, the underlying processing that Stacks uses to remove some of the tedium of storing and retrieving files is promising. However, it doesn't change anything for those of us who are dependent on organizational models that aren't simply based on file types or those who rely on spatial familiarity. The spatial familiarity need is an area that AI and/or ML may offer some new problem solving approaches by dynamically adapting to how a user is actually organizing content rather than making the user conform to one of the built-in organization models. At the very least, simply being able to do a Save As... (or better - Save To...) and designate a user defined "space" or "place" rather than drilling down through the file system structure would be an improvement for me.
The concept goes like this. I create multiple versions of a doc over its lifespan file v0.1, file v0.2, file v1.0 (they don’t need to be named as such - this is just an example). My folders are littered with such examples. Anyway, having stacks group these together by associated file and show them as a single entity would have been extremely useful. I don’t know how this would be achieved - it couldn’t be based on names only but it would be independent of tags - tags are useful for other things. I appreciate time machine keeps old copies but it’s not quite the same.
Out of interest a long time ago Macs used the desktop as a working space and had a ‘Put Away’ command. You could drag files there from their folders and then by selecting them you could Cmd-Y ‘Put Away’ and the files would be put back where they came from.