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

OS X Mavericks adoption pushing past 7% in under 24 hours

gosquared.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: OS X Mavericks adoption pushing past 7% in under 24 hours

#51

Post by mitchty »

chm wrote: post #50
mathieuh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that could be to do with some apps not being optimised yet or something. If I browse using Safari on my 15" Retina, I get ~8 hours of browsing, if I use chrome that falls massively down to ~3.5.

Ouch. But I can hardly see why that could reduce battery life so much. The new power-saving features in Mavericks shouldn't, in theory, lower the battery life. The OS should act like it did under SL unless lots of RAM is needed (I'm at 50%). I'll let the computer go through a couple of power cycles, maybe that'll fix it.

The reason is in chrome the background tabs don't get frozen and stop executing etc...

Safari has had a huge makeover to improve the amount of energy use for things like background tabs/etc.... Or even not running when occluded by another window. Small things like that add up overall.

I think this is the way forward for improving the efficiency of our software in general. I'm glad someone is bringing power use to light alongside cpu/memory/disk/network.

As for the os level stuff, have you tested the actual time under use or just looked at the estimates?

Re: OS X Mavericks adoption pushing past 7% in under 24 hours

#52

Post by mitchty »

tlrobinson wrote: post #31
micampe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don’t get the fuss about multi-monitor support. Mavericks doesn’t add multi-monitor support, it’s always been there. What Mavericks does is fix multi-monitor behavior for fullscreen applications, which I personally would never use on a display larger than 13" anyway, non-fullscreen behavior hardly changed, so I really don’t understand the big deal.

Fixing multi-monitor fullscreen support was my only desired "feature" since they broke it about 4 years ago.

I thought it only broke for fullscreened applications?

I never had any issues with regular multi-monitor setups with any of the recent os upgrades as far as non fullscreen use goes. What was broke there?

Re: OS X Mavericks adoption pushing past 7% in under 24 hours

#53

Post by reginaldjcooper »

teaneedz wrote: post #48
reginaldjcooper wrote: post #12

That's because it's a free upgrade that improves speed, battery life, adds multi-monitor support, and removes the dumb leather interfaces. This is the first time since Snow Leopard that I felt new OS X was an upgrade; not a downgrade just to continue using Xcode.

Spartan (or leather) have a place. User Experience is what matters and flat design often increases the cognitive load as we try to figure things out. There's a lot of figuring out in Mavericks's UI, but I believe those things will get fixed over time. Maverick's is not flat (yet) but as long as it's not, I'm a user.

If they figure out how to visually separate the buttons and text inputs from the text, I'm all in. I prefer the flat UI.

Re: OS X Mavericks adoption pushing past 7% in under 24 hours

#54

Post by tlrobinson »

mitchty wrote: post #52
tlrobinson wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fixing multi-monitor fullscreen support was my only desired "feature" since they broke it about 4 years ago.

I thought it only broke for fullscreened applications? I never had any issues with regular multi-monitor setups with any of the recent os upgrades as far as non fullscreen use goes. What was broke there?

Yes, I said fullscreen.

Re: OS X Mavericks adoption pushing past 7% in under 24 hours

#56

Post by chm »

mitchty wrote: post #51
chm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ouch. But I can hardly see why that could reduce battery life so much. The new power-saving features in Mavericks shouldn't, in theory, lower the battery life. The OS should act like it did under SL unless lots of RAM is needed (I'm at 50%). I'll let the computer go through a couple of power cycles, maybe that'll fix it.

The reason is in chrome the background tabs don't get frozen and stop executing etc... Safari has had a huge makeover to improve the amount of energy use for things like background tabs/etc.... Or even not running when occluded by another window. Small things like that add up overall. I think this is the way forward for improving the efficiency of our software in general. I'm glad someone is bringing power use to lig…

I got 4:56 minutes out of my battery today. I switched from FF to Safari when I wrote the previous comment. It did make a difference.

Re: OS X Mavericks adoption pushing past 7% in under 24 hours

#57

Post by mitchty »

tlrobinson wrote: post #54
mitchty wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it only broke for fullscreened applications? I never had any issues with regular multi-monitor setups with any of the recent os upgrades as far as non fullscreen use goes. What was broke there?

Yes, I said fullscreen.

Just making sure I didn't miss anything, thanks!

Re: OS X Mavericks adoption pushing past 7% in under 24 hours

#58

Post by mitchty »

chm wrote: post #56
mitchty wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is in chrome the background tabs don't get frozen and stop executing etc... Safari has had a huge makeover to improve the amount of energy use for things like background tabs/etc.... Or even not running when occluded by another window. Small things like that add up overall. I think this is the way forward for improving the efficiency of our software in general. I'm glad someone is bringing power use to lig…

I got 4:56 minutes out of my battery today. I switched from FF to Safari when I wrote the previous comment. It did make a difference.

I'm noticing the same as well with my retina actually.

The power drain differences are significant enough for me to swap back to safari.

I was getting ~7 hoursish (hard to tell I tend to compile/browse/etc) before and now it looks more like 5. Which is disappointing to be honest. Though using non "best for retina" seems to kick in the discreet gpu more often now.

Post reply on HN