Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My in-depth OS X 10.9 wishlist

joshparnham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: My in-depth OS X 10.9 wishlist

#51

Post by Maci »

Kilimanjaro wrote: post #42

My only request: - Add a wheelbarrow icon to the menu bar. What for? To drag and drop stuff so I can move them around. * More explicit: to easily move/copy files from one folder to another. From one app to another. Drag files to the wheelbarrow icon, a red circle shows how many files you're holding. Open an app or a finder instance, then drag from the wheelbarrow to the folder. No need to hold the command key while w…

Draw wheelbarrow icon on your command / apple key. Hold down said key, drag menu bar icons to desired position.

Re: My in-depth OS X 10.9 wishlist

#52

Post by adrianN »

cpr wrote: post #5
adrianN wrote: post #2

I would already be happy if they allowed me to cut-and-paste in Finder and allowed to turn off my MacBooks internal display when an external display is attached.

Just keep your MacBook closed when plugging in the external display (or wake it up with an external mouse or keyboard), and the internal display will stay off when you open it later (if you need to use the internal keyboard).

This doesn't work anymore under Lion. I now have to use a small magnet to trick the lid-closed sensor.

Re: My in-depth OS X 10.9 wishlist

#53

Post by eli »

batista wrote: post #24
eli wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a list of feature requestes; none of this is necessary . But ZFS would be very nice to have.

Why? Do you have half a SSD to spare for checksums and additional metadata? Or does the common OS X user have several disks that he wants to see as a logical volume, while also understanding the risks after one of the dies? Do they even have the storage redundancy needed?

Do I want the option to trade disk space for greatly increased reliability? You betcha. Also, snapshotting.

Re: My in-depth OS X 10.9 wishlist

#54

Post by [deleted] »

batista wrote: post #24
eli wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a list of feature requestes; none of this is necessary . But ZFS would be very nice to have.

Why? Do you have half a SSD to spare for checksums and additional metadata? Or does the common OS X user have several disks that he wants to see as a logical volume, while also understanding the risks after one of the dies? Do they even have the storage redundancy needed?

[deleted]

Re: My in-depth OS X 10.9 wishlist

#55

Post by assafs »

mirashii wrote: post #50
sjwright wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has generally been pretty good on this front. For example, the last PowerPC mac was discontinued August 2006, and the first incompatible OS (10.6) was introduced August 2009. That's three years. Similarly, the last 32 bit x86 Mac was discontinued August 2007 (Mac mini) and the first incompatible OS (10.7) was introduced October 2010. And that's the most pessimistic view possible. Looking at typical purchaser li…

Three to four years is an absolutely terrible window. Applecare lasts 3 years and they're introducing OS updates that make the devices obsolete just outside of that window? Compared to both Windows and Linux, Apple is the absolute worst on this front. They break backwards compatibility and leave old devices in the dust all the time. It gives them the advantage of almost forcing upgrades upon people, and allows them t…

What's wrong with it? It keeps system with less cruft, allows the vendor to focus on current attack surface only, and makes everyone stay more-or-less up to date.

Just look at how quickly, relatively, the whole Flashback outbreak simply... died out.

Apple issued critical updates going back as far as Tiger, which is ANCIENT, and barely has 1% of the market.

A 2008 MacBook would easily run 10.6 and 10.7, both of which receive updates just fine.

Re: My in-depth OS X 10.9 wishlist

#56

Post by batista »

eli wrote: post #53
batista wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Do you have half a SSD to spare for checksums and additional metadata? Or does the common OS X user have several disks that he wants to see as a logical volume, while also understanding the risks after one of the dies? Do they even have the storage redundancy needed?

Do I want the option to trade disk space for greatly increased reliability? You betcha. Also, snapshotting.

Single drive reliability means nothing. In a SSD, doubly so.

ZFS won't kill the need for external backups, even in the least.

Re: My in-depth OS X 10.9 wishlist

#57

Post by andyzweb »

the_mat wrote: post #38

Can you imagine the pain caused by transitioning away from HFS+? Is there something so fundamentally wrong with it to justify all the compatibility headaches of a new filesystem? Under the hood, there's some low-hanging fruit that I'm surprised Apple hasn't gone for yet: * Turn off the writing of ALL memory to disk every time a laptop is put to sleep. Got an SSD MacBook Pro with 16GB? Every time you close the lid, si…

atime is on by default to ensure POSIX conformance. you can disable it by setting noatime which I believe is supported by HFS+ in both it's case and non-case sensitive variants

Re: My in-depth OS X 10.9 wishlist

#58

Post by eli »

batista wrote: post #56
eli wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I want the option to trade disk space for greatly increased reliability? You betcha. Also, snapshotting.

Single drive reliability means nothing. In a SSD, doubly so. ZFS won't kill the need for external backups, even in the least.

Who said anything about replacing external backups?

Re: My in-depth OS X 10.9 wishlist

#59

Post by batista »

eli wrote: post #58
batista wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single drive reliability means nothing. In a SSD, doubly so. ZFS won't kill the need for external backups, even in the least.

Who said anything about replacing external backups?

You wrote about "greatly increased reliability".

Which you don't get at all out of your 1-disk laptop/iMac with ZFS.

For this use case, both filesystems as just as (un)reliable: a simple disk failure and you're out. So, all reliability comes, as before, from backups, not from anything fs inherent.

You only get to see the ZFS advantage in a much larger, multi-disk setup.

Re: My in-depth OS X 10.9 wishlist

#60

Post by batista »

mirashii wrote: post #50
sjwright wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has generally been pretty good on this front. For example, the last PowerPC mac was discontinued August 2006, and the first incompatible OS (10.6) was introduced August 2009. That's three years. Similarly, the last 32 bit x86 Mac was discontinued August 2007 (Mac mini) and the first incompatible OS (10.7) was introduced October 2010. And that's the most pessimistic view possible. Looking at typical purchaser li…

Three to four years is an absolutely terrible window. Applecare lasts 3 years and they're introducing OS updates that make the devices obsolete just outside of that window? Compared to both Windows and Linux, Apple is the absolute worst on this front. They break backwards compatibility and leave old devices in the dust all the time. It gives them the advantage of almost forcing upgrades upon people, and allows them t…

>Compared to both Windows and Linux, Apple is the absolute worst on this front. They break backwards compatibility and leave old devices in the dust all the time.

Better than having millions of people using Windows XP in 2012, and keeping everybody back.

But it's not like Apple specifically goes for it. They made some major changes that necessitated that: the move to Intel, for one, and the move to 64-bit. I doubt transitions of that scale will happen again soon.

>It comes at the cost of early 2008 macbooks with no problems becoming significantly less valuable since they will not longer receive software updates.

Well, as for resale value, Apple's stuff is among the best of the industry anyway, if not _the_ best. So it's OK some 4 year old laptops getting a resale value hit once in a while.

Plus, they DO receive software updates for security and such, just no major versions.

Post reply on HN