And what makes you think they hadn't already done that since earlier versions of OS X - when they were doing beta's of Tiger, they're already started developing the next set of major features on Leopard..? The point here is not only about how and when they started it with new features, but also how long it took them to meticulously iron out problems and polish the OS with sufficient maintenance releases for an overall stable and efficient performance. The START and the END matters. At this point since Lion, it is only about the START but not the END.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do you like that OS X now has yearly releases?
- Thread starter colonel179
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And what makes you think they hadn't already done that since earlier versions of OS X - when they were doing beta's of Tiger, they're already started developing the next set of major features on Leopard..? The point here is not only about how and when they started it with new features, but also how long it took them to meticulously iron out problems and polish the OS with sufficient maintenance releases for an overall stable and efficient performance. The START and the END matters. At this point since Lion, it is only about the START but not the END.
^This. Plus HFS+ is long in the tooth.
As an OS X developer since day 1, I preferred Apple spending their time on bi-weekly beta releases that required a DVD image burn and clean install over a 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 year timeframe. A clean install on a secondary partition ensured that no third party app's and plugin's would carry over from beta updates as to not interfere with Apple's own debugging.
Since Federighi took over OS X from Serlet during 10.7, the yearly release cycle seems rushed, half baked, and still has unresolved bugs going as far back at 10.7. Instead of rushing it, take their time, get it right, require clean installs for updates to isolate OS X related bugs, revamp Finder/HFS+, improve OpenGL/CL support (still behind with 2/13 supported for 4.2, and sadly that's impressive for Apple given its past), less focus on social media integration, more focus on Pro-App's, stability, memory management, robust core app's (I'm looking at you Mail, Calendar and Contacts), etc. 10.10 development was underway when 10.9.3 was still in testing, that's ridiculous.
Something to think about: before iOS and the iPhone, Apple had more engineers on OS X. That changed as in-house engineers were placed into 1) developing an OS X or other variant 2) After Forstall won for iOS. Before 2007, Apple slowly developed more iOS engineering yet a good deal was still focused on OS X.
Last edited:
Only thing I hate is they need to get together with 3rd party and make their apps ready when releasing the new OS. Every once in awhile there is an APP that won't work and you have to play the waiting game.
1) OS X makes better use of hardware than Windows does. That is fact. So while for gaming (this isn't all a GPU is used for) it is subpar, for everything else, it is not. I run Adobe CS on both Mac and PC. I routinely get better overall performance on Macs with Intel graphics while PCs with low-end discrete just chockes up and lags.
2) QuickTime works fine on my Macs. Quick Look does too. I also have VLC installed and it works fine with Quick Look. Please be specific. I always do clean installs versus upgrade which may or may not make a difference.
3) That has never happened to me. The only way to open preferences for any program is to have that program be in the foreground. If iTunes is in the foreground, you're telling me preferences would open in monitor #1? Instead of the foreground which is monitor #2? I have triple monitors. While multi-monitor support was kind of broken (only for fullscreen apps) in past OS X versions, it has been fixed as of Mavericks. Everything is straight forward.
Also, these are bug fixes. My OP said that the fundamental parts of OSes are pretty much mature. There will always be obscure bugs. No software exists that has zero bugs. But some software, like word processors or spreadsheets are pretty much mature. There isn't much of a difference between the last few versions in terms of function. The UI may be difference, cloud integration may be added/improved and such.
I agree. They should even be optional. I personally don't use any of those services so it's just wasted space for me. But then it would be confusing to the end user, they would have to download it and keep track of piece of software. It's better (overall) to make just one version with zero add-ons. OS X Server breaks this rule but due to the nature of it, it's made for more advanced users anyway.
Fast iterations breaking apps is not that bad anymore. Take iOS for example. Most apps on iOS 7 run fine on iOS 8. Sure, there may be performance improvements, new APIs and features to take advantage of and so forth, but the app works in its original form. I don't think OS X apps break from version to version anymore. Majority of apps work fine. Some have some slight issues. But for the most part, it's compatible and will run. But there are new APIs and features of the new OS X version to take advantage of. Or in this case, a brand new UI look.
I hate these yearly updates to OSX.
However, I learned my lesson. People speak of Snow Leopard 10.6 as being the best, rock-solid OSX -- but they have short memories. They forget that Snow Leopard was a mess at release, and needed several updates to get to the ultra stable state it eventually achieved. Same for Leopard 10.5. In my personal experience, I firsthand saw the bugginess mostly in the Mail app because that's where I spend most of my work time. For me, Mail didn't really iron out its bugs in Leopard and Snow Leopard until the .4, .5 or .6 iteration -- which seems similar to the current Mail mess in Mavericks.
That's just Mail. The other software that fouls up with every OSX release, now yearly, is my VMWare. That is so temperamental. Moreover I have to spend money on each yearly VMWare upgrade to keep it compatible with the latest OSX.
I have sincerely learned my lesson. Now, I only ever upgrade when the new OSX gets to about the .4 iteration preferably .5. It get considerable entertainment watching everyone tear their hair out fighting with the bugs in the early iterations of each OSX. Then I come in at .5 and experience relatively smooth sailing. The only time I was forced to come in earlier was when I bought a new MacBook Air, and had no choice but to come in at the .2 iteration, and that was trouble.
This would be ok if the new features meant anything to be, but Mavericks had no interest for me at all.
Why?
Why can't Apple offer apps as standalone pieces of software. i.e. Mail app as a standalone software, like all other Mac email clients. Why can't it offer Apple Maps on OSX like a standalone maps software like every other software developer has to?
I'm not silly. The reason is that it locks people into having to upgrade OSX each time they need a software upgrade -- which forces them to buy new hardware once their Mac gets too old. I realise it's a grab for more money by Apple, but it stinks nonetheless.
All those message features that Apple added in Mavericks - surely that could have been added in as a standalone app. No need to integrate with the OSX.
I object to this because it causes havoc with so many third party software. It forces those small developers to have to update their software every year, not adding features, but just to keep it compatible with the latest OSX.
And just this week, I purchased Capture One 8 by Phase One, and discovered it is Mavericks-only. That means I now have to buy a new version of VMWare Fusion before I can upgrade to Mavericks.
Progress is good -- but if the progress can be achieved by Apple creating these features as standalone pieces of software -- then the Department of Justice ought to come after Apple, like it did with Microsoft, for integrating these features into the OS just to lock us in.
Look! This iCloud Drive could easily be a standalone software -- just like Dropbox, Google Drive, etc -- so there's no reason to integrate it into the OS. Why does Apple do it? It sells more hardware.
The DOJ needs to get on Apple's case. It's just that with 10% of the market, compared to Microsoft's massive monopoly, it doesn't seem as big -- but Apple are no less monopolistic as Microsoft and Bill Gates were at their dirtiest.
However, I learned my lesson. People speak of Snow Leopard 10.6 as being the best, rock-solid OSX -- but they have short memories. They forget that Snow Leopard was a mess at release, and needed several updates to get to the ultra stable state it eventually achieved. Same for Leopard 10.5. In my personal experience, I firsthand saw the bugginess mostly in the Mail app because that's where I spend most of my work time. For me, Mail didn't really iron out its bugs in Leopard and Snow Leopard until the .4, .5 or .6 iteration -- which seems similar to the current Mail mess in Mavericks.
That's just Mail. The other software that fouls up with every OSX release, now yearly, is my VMWare. That is so temperamental. Moreover I have to spend money on each yearly VMWare upgrade to keep it compatible with the latest OSX.
I have sincerely learned my lesson. Now, I only ever upgrade when the new OSX gets to about the .4 iteration preferably .5. It get considerable entertainment watching everyone tear their hair out fighting with the bugs in the early iterations of each OSX. Then I come in at .5 and experience relatively smooth sailing. The only time I was forced to come in earlier was when I bought a new MacBook Air, and had no choice but to come in at the .2 iteration, and that was trouble.
This would be ok if the new features meant anything to be, but Mavericks had no interest for me at all.
Why?
Why can't Apple offer apps as standalone pieces of software. i.e. Mail app as a standalone software, like all other Mac email clients. Why can't it offer Apple Maps on OSX like a standalone maps software like every other software developer has to?
I'm not silly. The reason is that it locks people into having to upgrade OSX each time they need a software upgrade -- which forces them to buy new hardware once their Mac gets too old. I realise it's a grab for more money by Apple, but it stinks nonetheless.
All those message features that Apple added in Mavericks - surely that could have been added in as a standalone app. No need to integrate with the OSX.
I object to this because it causes havoc with so many third party software. It forces those small developers to have to update their software every year, not adding features, but just to keep it compatible with the latest OSX.
And just this week, I purchased Capture One 8 by Phase One, and discovered it is Mavericks-only. That means I now have to buy a new version of VMWare Fusion before I can upgrade to Mavericks.
Progress is good -- but if the progress can be achieved by Apple creating these features as standalone pieces of software -- then the Department of Justice ought to come after Apple, like it did with Microsoft, for integrating these features into the OS just to lock us in.
Look! This iCloud Drive could easily be a standalone software -- just like Dropbox, Google Drive, etc -- so there's no reason to integrate it into the OS. Why does Apple do it? It sells more hardware.
The DOJ needs to get on Apple's case. It's just that with 10% of the market, compared to Microsoft's massive monopoly, it doesn't seem as big -- but Apple are no less monopolistic as Microsoft and Bill Gates were at their dirtiest.
Microsoft is planning to move to a monthly release cycle, so, Apple's yearly release cycle will soon start to feel ancient.
It happens when you use OS X's fullscreen mode. The preference window will be opened on one of your regular desktop spaces. That means it auto-switches away from you fullscreen app. It is indeed very annoying and obviously not well thought through.
This is a "bug" that will obviously never get fixed in Mavericks. Maybe it will be fixed in Yosemite. So if I really want that bug fix I will be forced to upgrade. But that upgrade will bring me other new bugs. So it's an endless circle.
So yeah: yearly upgrades are definitely too much. You will never be able to reach a state where you run a stable, bug free OS.
You can always argue you'll never run a stable, bug free OS. No piece of software is completely stable and/or bug free.
Also, I still cannot replicate this bug. I'm running a triple monitor setup. Mavericks. I usually have many apps in fullscreen mode, iTunes being one of them. Even so, how many times do you change preferences for this to be a significant bug? I mean it sucks that it happens to you, but it's definitely not something that makes a significant impact on your workflow?
----------
Ah I think I confused the low prices as free.
That is of course true but: in three years you can find and fix many more bugs than you can in one year.
It's a general problem with apps that open multiple windows (Scilab, Matlab for example). But: I love having spaces nonetheless
That is of course true but: in three years you can find and fix many more bugs than you can in one year.
It's a general problem with apps that open multiple windows (Scilab, Matlab for example). But: I love having spaces nonetheless
Ah that might explain why I can't seem to replicate it. I use Matlab but not fullscreen. If it were to work properly, where would you want preferences to open? For example, Matlab has 2 windows, both fullscreen. The current one in the foreground or the "main" Matlab window?
Whether or not you like it, it is almost essential if OSX is to accommodate iOS. What they need the most is not to slow down, but to further align iOS and OSX releases. iCloud keychain and airDrop last year and particularly iCloud Drive this year make things pretty confusing.
Actually, I don't use it fullscreen either (not an option in r2011). To be honest, maybe the window has been on a different space all along. And once it gets updated (e.g. new plot) it switches to that space. I have not tried so far to replicate this issue. But it's there and annoying. Another example are hidden file transfer information windows when using Finder full screen.
Anyway I think windows like pref pane etc. should open in the same space and just float in front of the main window.
Oh that reminds me of another bug: I click something (open app etc.) and the OS needs some time to load. Meanwhile I switch to a different space and get immediately switched back because the OS finished loading my app. Really annoying.
I have experienced that last one. It's more of a judgement call than a bug. Imagine if you opened app X and switched to app Y. You can either let app X open in the background or switch it to the foreground; in which case what you see will change to wherever app X opened up. Some people might forget that they launched app X and thus it sits using system resources but not utilized. Or you can make app X appear in the foreground, switching the user's focus to it and making them aware it's open. On SSD-based machines (like my nMP), opening apps are split second so it's not like I could get much done in the time it takes to load.
I agree with you about where the preferences pane should open. But honestly, I don't bring it up often enough to say that this is a major bug (if it even is one from Apple's POV).
Hidden windows are a pain, I get them sometimes. Usually it works out and I can access it without any kind of workaround, but sometimes it's buried and that is no good.
First word: HFS.
Second word: legacy.
I'll refrain from sharing personal experience. Instead …
I imagine unexpected difficulties in the ongoing transition from a closed, secretive environment to one that's more open.
From closed and secretive with excellent products (truly the best); to relatively open with products that are debatably not the best? Food for thought …
This, so much. I get apps opening up on the wrong monitor constantly. Probably because I use "Displays have separate Spaces" in Mission Control prefs and Apple expects me to use their dumb way instead, so it probably gets little testing coverage. Been that way since Mavericks and it's still like that in Yosemite. The whole "let's put a menubar on every display" idea has just been a really awkward and frustrating experience.
Apple is in a hard place. OS X is not just OS X anymore. It's a partner with iOS, and iOS is under constant competitive threat with Android. Features like Continuity, Handoff, and iCloud integration (when it works) are a competitive advantage over Android. So OS X in some sense has been forced into lockstep with iOS advancement. That has been beneficial in some ways, but it's led to features and UX which just didn't have enough time in the oven. Creating product elegance is not a straightforward process. They're tackling hard problems, and hard problems require hard thinking, patience, and time. Things Apple engineers and designers don't have much of these days.