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

Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 130 posts

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#101

Post by mey »

taude wrote: post #97
sneak wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most users don't use multiple displays. For the vast majority of users, nothing was broken. Also, the multiple-menubar thing illustrates that it's not exactly a simple or uncomplicated fix following the introduction of fullscreen app support.

I would think that Apple devs would use multiple monitors and would have coded the base functionality so that it made sense working.. Even Windows has had pretty decent multi-monitor support for about 5 years now. Anyway, I look forward to proper multi-monitor support without have to purchase an expensive 3rd party add on, or manually resizing my windows on different screens. I'm also hoping that like windows, OS-M w…

Windows has had excellent multi-mon support since at least the XP era, (when I started using dual monitors at work and home in, I think Win98 wasn't that bad either), and to make you feel old, realize that WinXP has been out for 11 years.

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#102

Post by bitwize »

sneak wrote: post #89
bitwize wrote: post #70

Guess they finally ran out of cats.

Technically they ran out some time ago, a mountain lion and a panther are the same animal.

A mountain lion (10.8) and a puma (10.1) are the same animal. A panther (10.3) is a subtype of leopard (10.5).

But even with these redundancies, they are running out of large cat names to use and would have to go with the likes of "jaguarundi", "serval", and "manul" to keep the theme going. These are cool animals, but have nowhere near the emotive power that "Jaguar" or "Lion" had.

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#103

Post by binarycrusader »

millstone wrote: post #100
binarycrusader wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With at least one questionable statement: OS X was the first operating system to ship as a single install that could boot into either a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel, either of which could run 32-bit and 64-bit applications at full native performance. OS X now exclusively uses a 64-bit kernel, but it continues to run both 32-bit and 64-bit applications. I believe Solaris was actually the first to do this: http://en.wikiped…

The key phrase is "either of which could run 32-bit and 64-bit applications." OS X supported 64-bit apps on a 32-bit kernel. This enabled users to run 64 bit apps, and use >4 GB address space, without any device driver incompatibilities. I think Solaris (and Windows and Linux) require a 64 bit kernel to run 64 bit apps. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Fair enough.

With that said, OS X's hack support for 64-bit applications on a 32-bit kernel certainly wasn't at the same performance level as a 64-bit kernel as they claim. It's a dubious achievement at best given the performance tradeoffs.

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#104

Post by asveikau »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #98
asveikau wrote: post #62

Not a lot of technical specificity around "memory compression". Edit: Ok, I stand corrected, somebody's done some research and found the code. Windows 8 does a similar-sounding trick. At some timer interrupts they de-dupe pages and make them copy-on-write when they are identical. I seem to recall also reading that some VM products (VMware?) do this - so if you have a few instances of the same OS, only unique pages en…

Google added this to the Linux kernel quite some time ago for Android. Basically, it inserts a step before the "move to swap" step where it compresses the page. This a) allows Linux to write a compressed page to swap which allows both faster writes but also faster reads, b) allows you to use more memory before hitting swap. Major distros are considering enabling this functionality in their kernels by default. What yo…

I guess what it costs you in CPU is easily regained by what it saves you in I/O.

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#106

Post by calinet6 »

joejohnson wrote: post #56

I am so happy to hear that OS X Mavericks will fix fullscreen apps across multiple displays!

And Spaces/Mission Control dragging of apps between multiple displays!

Basically they made someone actually use 2 monitors on Mountain Lion and said "Make a list of everything that sucks." Then they actually fixed it. Pretty simple.

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#107

Post by calinet6 »

asveikau wrote: post #104
DiabloD3 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google added this to the Linux kernel quite some time ago for Android. Basically, it inserts a step before the "move to swap" step where it compresses the page. This a) allows Linux to write a compressed page to swap which allows both faster writes but also faster reads, b) allows you to use more memory before hitting swap. Major distros are considering enabling this functionality in their kernels by default. What yo…

I guess what it costs you in CPU is easily regained by what it saves you in I/O.

Yes, it would seem to be more efficient all around. One of those "why didn't I think of that?" things that sounds really simple and nice in hindsight.

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#108

Post by narrator »

nlh wrote: post #30
czhiddy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm kind of surprised and amused that Ubuntu chose the name of a NBA expansion team (1980): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Mavericks

I'm kind of surprised and amused that the NBA expansion team chose the name of a surfing location in Northern California (1961): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavericks_(location) ;)

The Half Moon Bay review (the newspaper of the town next to Northern California's Mavericks surf spot) is positively tickled pink about all this: http://www.hmbreview.com/news/apple-taps-mavericks-for-new-p...

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#109

Post by millstone »

binarycrusader wrote: post #103
millstone wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key phrase is "either of which could run 32-bit and 64-bit applications." OS X supported 64-bit apps on a 32-bit kernel. This enabled users to run 64 bit apps, and use >4 GB address space, without any device driver incompatibilities. I think Solaris (and Windows and Linux) require a 64 bit kernel to run 64 bit apps. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Fair enough. With that said, OS X's hack support for 64-bit applications on a 32-bit kernel certainly wasn't at the same performance level as a 64-bit kernel as they claim. It's a dubious achievement at best given the performance tradeoffs.

It seems like you are casting aspersions. In what way was it a "hack" and what performance tradeoffs were there? Apple's claim is that 64 bit apps ran at native speeds, which is true, since they just used the native ISA.

Apple lists a few benefits of K64 at https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/MacOS... , specifically more efficient support for systems with lots of RAM, a larger buffer cache, and better support for multiple video cards with over 2 GB of RAM. These are pretty specialized, and I certainly don't remember my Mac getting a lot faster when it switched to K64. (I sure wish it had!)

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#110

Post by meepmorp »

nodata wrote: post #42
haxxorfreak wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the keychain is encrypted with your OS X user login password and only unlocked on login. I imagine this will still be the case as Apple mentioned AES256 encryption on their iCloud Keychain slide, though they could change it to use your Apple ID password if they plan on having mobile device support.

So let's see... in Firefox I have FIVE apple logins saved, because they can't decide on which url to use: * appleid.apple.com * daw.apple.com * id.apple.com * secure1.store.apple.com * secure2.store.apple.com If they have trouble getting something as simple as that right, I'd like them to stay away from my keychain.

I don't think Firefox saves logins in the OS X keychain, and mapping which credentials go with which urls is something that Firefox is responsible for, not Apple.
Post reply on HN