10.8 GM Build out...

[blow45]

I disagreed with ONE point you made about OS X requiring a new filesystem. I tried to produce a logical and reasonable response as to why I believed this was unnecessary.

Your only response to this was start with the insults. So you know nothing about me, I have no history here because I'm new but I disagree with one statement you've made and you label me an "Apple zealot". I'm clearly not.

Everyone here is wrong and you're right? Just like with your girlfriend.. your failures are the fault of others right? The world is against you...

You called everyone who thought apple needed a new file system, a "user with half a brain", you said what do you and any user with half a brain want anyway? That was your first response to me. That's as far as insults go.

You claimed that the no. 1 priority of system makers like apple is to ensure user data with reliability against corruption and non exposure of data. You were rebutted with facts that both third party zfs has had zero reliability and corruption problems, and that exposure of users data did on the other hand occur (all 500,000 of them) due to the flashback trojan in os x.

You continue to be personally aggressive because I have clearly replied and rebutted your points. Somehow you have also gained company in your arguments, in that "everyone" believes your opinion. Sadly for you they don't, just before someone answers you to the point of what they want from an fs and it's missing.

Apple zealots might rationalize every omission of apple's in their favour, and predictably attack others, normal computer users don't, they just see apple's considerable shortcomings in developing os x for what they are.

Your attitude that YOU are the sole proprietor of value and use for a system with millions of users, the majority of who are happily computing away, that YOU alone know what a multi-billion dollar company should do, YOUR opinion and needs are better than anyone else, and your overall viewpoint that something that works great for a vast majority of its users is somehow irreparably broken simply because YOU disagree with decisions, those would all be reasons I doubt humanity. You're sadly indicative of a philosophy by many that the world revolves around them and they're issues are more important than someone else's.

no buddy, your problem is that you feel apple is some deity and no one should pass criticism on them and you feel compelled to get into attack other mode when someone does, this is the real problem of humanity if you want to take the discussion that way, attachment to totems, even if they are as silly as a half bitten apple on a machine. You are a religious zealot and it's unfathomable to you how could any number of people criticize apple since apple knows best, always, and all the time. If someone is actually making a well founded case for their criticism based on real computing issues, this is even more intolerable to you. I hate to break it to you but the vast majority of power users of os x, consider it's recent development very, very poor indeed. I don't think your attacking them is going to change their opinion, do you?

 

[Senseotech]

You called everyone who thought apple needed a new file system, a "user with half a brain", you said what do you and any user with half a brain want anyway? That was your first response to me. That's as far as insults go.

You claimed that the no. 1 priority of system makers like apple is to ensure user data with reliability against corruption and non exposure of data. You were rebutted with facts that both third party zfs has had zero reliability and corruption problems, and that exposure of users data did on the other hand occur (all 500,000 of them) due to the flashback trojan in os x.

You continue to be personally aggressive because I have clearly replied and rebutted your points. Somehow you have also gained company in your arguments, in that "everyone" believes your opinion. Sadly for you they don't, just before someone answers you to the point of what they want from an fs and it's missing.

Apple zealots might rationalize every omission of apple's in their favour, and predictably attack others, normal computer users don't, they just see apple's considerable shortcomings in developing os x for what they are.



no buddy, your problem is that you feel apple is some deity and no one should pass criticism on them and you feel compelled to get into attack other mode when someone does, this is the real problem of humanity if you want to take the discussion that way, attachment to totems, even if they are as silly as a half bitten apple on a machine. You are a religious zealot and it's unfathomable to you how could any number of people criticize apple since apple knows best, always, and all the time. If someone is actually making a well founded case for their criticism based on real computing issues, this is even more intolerable to you. I hate to break it to you but the vast majority of power users of os x, consider it's recent development very, very poor indeed. I don't think your attacking them is going to change their opinion, do you?

You're just a petty troll. At the end of the day, anything you say is meaningless, because no one else can remotely be right. I typed out EXACTLY why you're a problem to me, and even then you know better than everyone else. You somehow think you're even remotely qualified to tell me what my viewpoint is? You're an idiot who apparently thinks they know me better than I do? Really now, just hush up and let the big boys talk, go to your troll-baiting elsewhere and let the rational, intelligent among us have meaningful discussions where people are actually taken at the word and not told that they don't even know what they're feeling.

 

[xgman]

I don't think I've run "repair permissions" since OS X 10.5, maybe 10.4. I'm sure things can still get mucked up, but it doesn't seem like something user's generally have to worry about anymore.

you might want to run it and see what you get. You might be surprised.

 

[astrorider]

you might want to run it and see what you get. You might be surprised.

I've learned to stop worrying and looking for potential problems. If something starts acting wonky on my Mac, my first course of action is usually a Google search. 99 times out of a 100 someone else has had that problem and there's a fix, or it's known a fix doesn't currently exist in which case nothing I can do is likely to help. Now, that 1 time out 100 that those two don't apply and the problem may actually be unique to my machine, I can always move into maintenance mode and start repairing permissions and running OS X maintenance scripts, but I guess I haven't had that be the case since the 10.4/10.5 days.

The "it just works" philosophy kind of falls apart for me if you have to constantly manually run maintenance programs. The one thing I will say I still do is if my mac freezes and I'm forced to hold the power button then when I restart I run fsck -fy until there are no more problems reported. I could probably stop doing that too and may be fine, but I still suspect directory damage can happen slowly over time and by the time something did go wrong the damage could be too severe for fsck to work, so I give the old HFS+ a sporting chance.

 

[3282868]

It has already been pointed out that this list of "known issues" wasn't included with the GM candidate release. Nobody really knows where that list came from but likely a mistake on somebody's part.

It came right off the OS X GM release notes on the ADC page; at the time those are still known issue when Apple released the GM build. So yes, it came from Apple and yes it relates to this build.

GM doesn't always been final release as Apple has known to make last minute changes on some GM releases before launch. If not, a .1 update will be released.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

File corruption without the OS having any way to detect or even manually check for it.
...
HFS has been around for a long time, but that "maturity" doesn't translate into stability.

Why couldn't this be implemented in HFS+?

What stability issues have there been with HFS+? I'm new to Macs.

Finally, Google "ZFS overhead", everything has a price.

 

[milo]

Why couldn't this be implemented in HFS+?

What stability issues have there been with HFS+? I'm new to Macs.

Finally, Google "ZFS overhead", everything has a price.

Maybe it could be implemented on HFS. But it hasn't.

HFS+ doesn't have any sort of checksumming or error detection/correction. Obviously data stored on a drive can get corrupted with any formatting scheme, the problem with HFS that more advanced ones don't have is that the corruption isn't discovered - when backups are run, either the corrupted data is backed up or the corruption is finally discovered with a message that a file couldn't be copied.

You're right, everything has a price. And I'd love to have the OS natively support it so I have the choice to pay that price - at least on some drives I'd be extremely happy to give up a bit of performance in exchange for less risk of losing the files that matter most to me.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Maybe it could be implemented on HFS. But it hasn't.

HFS+ doesn't have any sort of checksumming or error detection/correction. Obviously data stored on a drive can get corrupted with any formatting scheme, the problem with HFS that more advanced ones don't have is that the corruption isn't discovered
...
You're right, everything has a price. And I'd love to have the OS natively support it so I have the choice to pay that price - at least on some drives

Thanks for the extra info.

It looks like there are a number of projects to bring ZFS to OS X but none of them allow you to use ZFS on a boot partition...yet.

Interesting articles:
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/3...ourtesy-of-apples-former-chief-zfs-architect/

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/03/how-zfs-is-slowly-making-its-way-to-mac-os-x/

Another project:
http://code.google.com/p/maczfs/

 

[nuckinfutz]

Thanks for the extra info.

It looks like there are a number of projects to bring ZFS to OS X but none of them allow you to use ZFS on a boot partition...yet.

Interesting articles:
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/3...ourtesy-of-apples-former-chief-zfs-architect/

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/03/how-zfs-is-slowly-making-its-way-to-mac-os-x/

Another project:
http://code.google.com/p/maczfs/

Some of the ex Apple engineers working on the failed ZFS project left to create Tens Complement and will hopefully be shipping ZEVO this year.

http://tenscomplement.com/

The way I see it coming down is that Apple will announce a next generation HFS+ replacement but it'll be optional. Geeks and Power Users will turn it on and for a year or two Apple will get to beta test it and fix any issues before rolling it out as the default fs in a future version of OS X

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Some of the ex Apple engineers working on the failed ZFS project

Those articles make it sound like Apple killed it due to licensing/political issues rather than technical issues though right?

 

[nuckinfutz]

Those articles make it sound like Apple killed it due to licensing/political issues rather than technical issues though right?

Yes I thought about "failed" being the wrong term. Cancelled would have been a better term.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Yes I thought about "failed" being the wrong term. Cancelled would have been a better term.

It's all good. I understand what you mean!

 

[bushido]

maybe it has been mentioned before but the 3finger gesture for the notification center does no longer work for me on the GM. it just bumps back right in when i do it

 

[roosta]

a couple of problems i've noticed (hopefully these haven't been mentioned in the previous 27 pages)

when mac goes to sleep, wifi shuts off. when mac is woken attempts to restart wifi is met with the beachball, as are all the icons on the right side of the menu bar. only fix is a restart.

when mac goes to sleep, raid shuts down.

no activity window in safari, and downgrading to earlier versions of safari is met with a 'this only works in mac os 10.7'. for me this is a huge fail as the activity window allows the user to download streaming videos etc for viewing later. any chance someone out there has a workaround?

launchpad icons are much bigger (35 on screen instead of 40), useful if you're eyesight is not so good, but annoying nonetheless.

 

[CyBeRino]

File corruption without the OS having any way to detect or even manually check for it. I'd kill for ZFS or something with that same functionality and stability.

HFS has been around for a long time, but that "maturity" doesn't translate into stability.

Nonsense. HFS+ is as stable an FS as you can find. Stick a current (non-encrypted, of course) HFS+ disk in an OS9 machine (if you can find one that'll accept SATA disks) and it will work. And vice versa.

You're treating not having ZFS-style checksums in the FS as a shortcoming of HFS+, and handily forgetting that actually no other filesystem in general usage has those checksums. ZFS is the only one.

ZFS is awesome, it can't be denied, but its awesomeness doesn't mean all the other things out there are flawed. ZFS is also incredibly new compared to HFS and NTFS.

 

[nastymrx]

I have had a couple crashes in safari, Reader crashed on first start after upgrading but have run fine since, other problems not seen.

 

[Donka]

A small cosmetic bug for me - when Airplay sharing is enabled, the icon will appear in the menu bar even if there are no possible airplay targets found. If you open display preferences and disable AirPlay then enable it again, the icon disappears as expected but will appear on the next reboot.

 

[milo]

HFS+ is as stable an FS as you can find. Stick a current (non-encrypted, of course) HFS+ disk in an OS9 machine (if you can find one that'll accept SATA disks) and it will work. And vice versa.

You're treating not having ZFS-style checksums in the FS as a shortcoming of HFS+, and handily forgetting that actually no other filesystem in general usage has those checksums. ZFS is the only one.

ZFS is awesome, it can't be denied, but its awesomeness doesn't mean all the other things out there are flawed. ZFS is also incredibly new compared to HFS and NTFS.

I'm not forgetting anything and you seem to be agreeing with me that ZFS is superior. It seems like you're quibbling over the semantics of words like "stable" (I didn't say HFS was "flawed").

Maybe "stability" wasn't the right term, I'm specifically talking about data corruption on the media, compatibility with OS9 has nothing to do with it. With HFS the corruption won't be caught until you try to actually use the file, in some cases files will fail to copy and in others it will copy, corrupted bits and all. Just because other filesystems don't have checksumming like ZFS doesn't make their absence a shortcoming. So let me rephrase - HFS has been around for a long time, but that "maturity" doesn't change the fact that ZFS has a better chance of catching data corruption. And it doesn't have to be ZFS, if apple wants to create their own that has those features that would be an improvement as well.

And sure it's new. So add support as a beta with the option hidden away somewhere so bleeding edge users can start trying it out, then roll it out to everyone else down the road when it's ready for that.

 

[50548]

I'm not forgetting anything and you seem to be agreeing with me that ZFS is superior. It seems like you're quibbling over the semantics of words like "stable" (I didn't say HFS was "flawed").

Maybe "stability" wasn't the right term, I'm specifically talking about data corruption on the media, compatibility with OS9 has nothing to do with it. With HFS the corruption won't be caught until you try to actually use the file, in some cases files will fail to copy and in others it will copy, corrupted bits and all. Just because other filesystems don't have checksumming like ZFS doesn't make their absence a shortcoming. So let me rephrase - HFS has been around for a long time, but that "maturity" doesn't change the fact that ZFS has a better chance of catching data corruption. And it doesn't have to be ZFS, if apple wants to create their own that has those features that would be an improvement as well.

And sure it's new. So add support as a beta with the option hidden away somewhere so bleeding edge users can start trying it out, then roll it out to everyone else down the road when it's ready for that.

Exactly. Problem is: Apple doesn't seem to prioritize resources for OS X anymore...so the "innovation" we are supposed to see is in the form of existing iOS features and nothing else...long gone are the days when the next OS X version presented something REALLY exciting.

 

[Soundflunky]

maybe it has been mentioned before but the 3finger gesture for the notification center does no longer work for me on the GM. it just bumps back right in when i do it

Three fingers? It's two fingers from the right side of the pad.

 

[astrorider]

Exactly. Problem is: Apple doesn't seem to prioritize resources for OS X anymore...so the "innovation" we are supposed to see is in the form of existing iOS features and nothing else...long gone are the days when the next OS X version presented something REALLY exciting.

I'm curious, what was the last OS X feature that you got you really excited? For me, the only thing I consider a major change in Lion was FileVault 2, and OS level support for full disk encryption was worth the $29 price alone...the other stuff I like was just gravy.

Personally, as long as the operating system gets out of the way and lets me get work done in a productive manner, I'm good...I'm not crazy about change for the sake of change. At the same time, I'm not anti-change and quite enjoying learning a new, ultimately more productive way of doing things. And with a $20 price tag, I don't really expect that much, but looking at this list I can find plenty to justify the price:
http://www.apple.com/osx/whats-new/features.html

 

[50548]

I'm curious, what was the last OS X feature that you got you really excited? For me, the only thing I consider a major change in Lion was FileVault 2, and OS level support for full disk encryption was worth the $29 price alone...the other stuff I like was just gravy.

Personally, as long as the operating system gets out of the way and lets me get work done in a productive manner, I'm good...I'm not crazy about change for the sake of change. At the same time, I'm not anti-change and quite enjoying learning a new, ultimately more productive way of doing things. And with a $20 price tag, I don't really expect that much, but looking at this list I can find plenty to justify the price:
http://www.apple.com/osx/whats-new/features.html

Just repeating what I said above:

- the pathetic Airport Utility (the availability of version 5.6 notwithstanding);
- the even more pathetic OS X Server (or what remains of it);
- the less-than-ideal implementation and performance of OpenGL/GPU drivers;
- lack of built-in video codecs for Safari and QuickTime (why do I have to install the now-dead Perian for that?);
- lack of possibilities to tweak settings such as mouse polling rates (so as to avoid jumpy cursors in third-party mouses);
- resolution-independence options as referred to above - I mean, Apple has ALWAYS been at the forefront of handicapped people's needs - but now even Windows makes it easier to maximize UI elements as a whole;
- 64-bit awareness and multithreading across the board (I have EIGHT cores waiting to be used and only HandBrake or a handful of pro apps employ them!);
- basic Blu-Ray support (not that I care either, but why not?);
- dual/triple monitor unified desktop support;
- Safari memory leaks (not that I personally care with 16GB of RAM);
- iMessages' disk space bug (which ends up consuming all RAM plus all available space in the startup disk);
- better WebDAV and so on;
- a growing disregard for Apple UI standards across the board.

In other words, absolutely nothing relevant apart from iOS and Cloud-driven tweaks. No Finder revamp, no iTunes streamlining, no new file system, no expanded codec media support, no consistent UI, no new server tools. Sad to know. As for speed, Lion is already blazing fast on my iMac...so it seems to me ML should be a free upgrade.

As for major/exciting features from previous OS X versions (source Wiki):

Panther - In addition to providing much improved performance, it also incorporated the most extensive update yet to the user interface. Panther included as many or more new features as Jaguar had the year before, including an updated Finder, incorporating a brushed-metal interface, Fast user switching, Exposé (Window manager), FileVault, Safari, iChat AV (which added videoconferencing features to iChat), improved Portable Document Format (PDF) rendering and much greater Microsoft Windows interoperability;

Tiger - Among the new features, Tiger introduced Spotlight, Dashboard, Smart Folders, updated Mail program with Smart Mailboxes, QuickTime 7, Safari 2, Automator, VoiceOver, Core Image and Core Video;

Leopard - New features include a new look, an updated Finder, Time Machine, Spaces, Boot Camp pre-installed, full support for 64-bit applications (including graphical applications), new features in Mail and iChat, and a number of new security features.

Snow Leopard - Mainly performance improvements, so I won't go into that;

NOW let's look at Lion and the dismal set of new features:

Lion - It brought developments made in Apple's iOS, such as an easily-navigable display of installed applications (Launchpad) and (a greater use of) multi-touch gestures, to the Mac. This release removed Rosetta, making it incapable of running PowerPC applications...auto-hiding scrollbars that only appear when they are being used, and Mission Control, which unifies Exposé, Spaces, Dashboard, and full-screen applications within a single interface. Plus resume and versions.

ML - More iOS crap; Gatekeeper (merely sandboxing improved); Reminders, Notifications, iMessages. What else? More iOS crap.

Now look again above and check Panther and Tiger's set of features against Lion and ML's pathetic changes. Do I really need to continue?

 

[astrorider]

Just repeating what I said above:
<snip>

The wiki entry your citing is quite incomplete. I already mentioned to you that Filevault 2 was a major change in Lion for me, and it's not even mentioned.

Also, it didn't really answer the question, which was what was the last change that got you really excited, since you said the days of those were long gone. Instead you listed a bunch of stuff from previous releases that I'm sure you yourself wouldn't think were big changes, like "new features in Mail and iChat". Finally, when comparing releases it might be worth mentioning when one costs $20-29 (10.6-10.8) and the others costs $129 (<=10.5).

BTW, I'm not disagreeing with you. Apple priorities, as a company, have certainly changed. I'm just not sure it's because they're so busy focusing on iOS, or that OS X is just more mature now so it's understandable that the feature changes from one OS to another would change from large foundational changes to refinements and productivity additions...like I mentioned, there are lots of changes in Mountain Lion's feature list many, myself included, look forward to.

 

[dcorban]

I'd be surprised if you could find a single person who doesn't feel Leopard was a huge upgrade from Tiger. Personally, Leopard was the jump that was large enough to get me to finally switch from Windows.

 

[Killaz045]

Notification ISSUES

im not getting any notifications is this a know issue or is anybody else facing this problem..

not getting twitter feed or unread messages coming through