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.
OS X 10.11 Wishlist
- Thread starter ButteryScrollin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hope OS X 10.11 will be what Mavericks was for Mountain Lion as well, at least for Retina users. The new UI makes the move from iOS over to OS X feel consistent and not like two different worlds like iOS 7 was compared to Mavericks.
OS X 10.11 will probably get a couple of new features, more iOS -> Mac bonding and hopefully a massive performance boost. Translucency is very demanding so I hope Apple's coding will make translucency less demanding but I don't want them to remove it. Like they said when they previewed iOS 7, translucency gives more personalization which I really feel it does.
But the thing I actually want Apple to bring most of all, is a revamped UI for Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro. They don't have to be bombarded with translucency, but something like Adobe did to Premiere Pro. Simple design, flat interface and maybe more efficient rendering? But if Apple does not reveal any future for those apps at all this year, I fear their demise
But the thing I actually want Apple to bring most of all, is a revamped UI for Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro. They don't have to be bombarded with translucency, but something like Adobe did to Premiere Pro. Simple design, flat interface and maybe more efficient rendering? But if Apple does not reveal any future for those apps at all this year, I fear their demise
Logic has just been updated to 10.1 in january and seems in very good shape. Besides they already flattened the UI compared to the very unfriendly and dated v9 interface.
If you can call this "flattened" then you need glasses sir.
Sure 10.1 made it somewhat less "Aqua" but I would not call this Yosemite-ready in terms of the UI. But when it comes to Final Cut and Logic Pro, I'm not in a must to have it in Yosemite's new design. They work and thats what matters. I'd rather stick with this than some UI updates that may bring bugs and stuff.
Attachments
I said compared to version 9. I didn't say "Yosemite flat". Edges are more subtle than before and do look a bit flatter. And my eyes are fine
I think that's because it's only those who are on either end of the love/hate spectrum who speak up about it. You're more likely to get people complaining about something than praising something, so you're going to see more people saying they dislike it, even if the majority don't.
I'd like to see the removal of the .DS_STORE files.. or at least moved to a single file at the root of a volume.
For me, enable HiDPI pseudo retina on the older iMacs (especially the 27") so that we can get less blocky scaled resolutions.
Be able to see details of windows that are running from the dock. In terms of seeing what is running, the dock is trounced by the ability of the MS windows task bar to see what is running by a glance rather than zooming out and back in in OS X
Be able to see details of windows that are running from the dock. In terms of seeing what is running, the dock is trounced by the ability of the MS windows task bar to see what is running by a glance rather than zooming out and back in in OS X
1. Speed.
2. Bug fixes.
3. NO new features.
4. New file system, HFS+ is almost obsolete. (Probably won't happen until 10.12)
5. Stop messing with user interface and design it to be usable with normal non retina screens. (Unlike Yosemite and its appalling lack of consistency in user interface.)
6. Stop releasing new OS X versions every year and release 10.11 only when its done and not a minute before!
2. Bug fixes.
3. NO new features.
4. New file system, HFS+ is almost obsolete. (Probably won't happen until 10.12)
5. Stop messing with user interface and design it to be usable with normal non retina screens. (Unlike Yosemite
and its appalling lack of consistency in user interface.)6. Stop releasing new OS X versions every year and release 10.11 only when its done and not a minute before!
I know, I would never upgrade on day 1. There are two problems with this solution:
1. Most of my clients didn't heed my warnings and upgraded on day 1 and run into all kinds of problems.
2. Newest Mac models will only support Yosemite which is still has problems, especially graphics drivers leave a lot do be desired.
Mac 10.11 Wishlist
I like the Yosemite GUI and I like the applications. I am looking for backend performance improvements. If you look at Phoronix, Mac OS X has terrible performance compared to Linux.
File system - The mac needs to move to a modern file system like ZFS. HFS+ is OLD.
OpenGL - The mac has consistently lagged everyone. When a new OS X is released it should support the latest OpenGL.
Gaming - The mac should improve game performance.
Speed - There is no reason the Mac should lag Linux so badly. The should be competitive.
Unix Application Management - Why doesn't the mac have better application management? All of the open source unix tools should be available through the store or something like apt-get/rpm.
All of these things should be relatively easy to implement and would make a HUGE difference.
I like the Yosemite GUI and I like the applications. I am looking for backend performance improvements. If you look at Phoronix, Mac OS X has terrible performance compared to Linux.
File system - The mac needs to move to a modern file system like ZFS. HFS+ is OLD.
OpenGL - The mac has consistently lagged everyone. When a new OS X is released it should support the latest OpenGL.
Gaming - The mac should improve game performance.
Speed - There is no reason the Mac should lag Linux so badly. The should be competitive.
Unix Application Management - Why doesn't the mac have better application management? All of the open source unix tools should be available through the store or something like apt-get/rpm.
All of these things should be relatively easy to implement and would make a HUGE difference.
I could care less about the UI...
#1 stability, security and performance
#2 a new file system... BtrFS* or something entirely new that is cross platform.
#3 I want native OS support for mounting could drives/shares (S3, Nearline, etc...) directly on my desktop. Cloud drives/shares that behave exactly the same as if they're local and can seamlessly tolerate going offline. For example I want to be able mount an S3 share on my desktop and assign it to Time Machine and tolerate unplugging my router in the middle of a backup.
* FWIW, I've worked ZFS and don't think it's very good for workstation use... or file server use for that matter, but it's too hard to grow/shrink/rebalance.
#1 stability, security and performance
#2 a new file system... BtrFS* or something entirely new that is cross platform.
#3 I want native OS support for mounting could drives/shares (S3, Nearline, etc...) directly on my desktop. Cloud drives/shares that behave exactly the same as if they're local and can seamlessly tolerate going offline. For example I want to be able mount an S3 share on my desktop and assign it to Time Machine and tolerate unplugging my router in the middle of a backup.
* FWIW, I've worked ZFS and don't think it's very good for workstation use... or file server use for that matter, but it's too hard to grow/shrink/rebalance.
Wishes and more
First and foremost, I wish:
As Sean Connery's wife said, "Never Say Never Again".
Reality check: those two bad things occurred in 2014. Someone at Apple, or some group at Apple, went nuts.
So, that's aggressive; ugly; aggressive; too bright; atrocious; headaches; disgusting; aggressive; eye strain and health.
Apple, if you're reading: that's an unhealthy combination. Where's the company's pride, when disgruntled customers must treat some of the people behind Yosemite as nutters? Do you have a snappy answer that does not involve numbers? Remember, "Um is not an answer"; neither is this the Jeremy Kyle show. There are many outlets for nutters, Apple should not be one of them.
Or, one might say: "aggressively pushed a UI/UX that can cause eye strain, headaches, crankiness and other frustrations.".
That's much more agreeable
OpenGL: I don't know enough to comment (it's not an area of interest for me).
I guess that Apple's priorities for 10.11 include its storage system (Core Storage) with expanded support for file systems. It's reasonable to assume that Apple already treats HFS (including HFS Plus) as legacy; see Storage and file systems, HFS and legacy, kSKDiskRoleLegacyMacData and kSKDiskTypeHFS.
System speed: Apple's current requirement to use HFS Plus, at least for booting the Mac, is a drag.
Readers, please bear in mind that Apple's Disk Utility is terribly limited, and there's much more to the content of a drive than the file system.
It took more than a decade for Apple to add, to fsck_hfs, basic device scanning (for I/O errors). That basic capability was first offered with Mavericks nearly thirty years after HFS was introduced. Neither Mavericks nor Yosemite allows Disk Utility to use the feature so in simple terms:
Please, don't underestimate the difficulties of implementing a file system for OS X. For me, https://twitter.com/DonJBrady/status/534765306552414208 is most telling; and then https://github.com/openzfsonosx/zfs/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+sort:created-asc reflects some of the work around OpenZFS on OS X; and so on. Recently: With O3X 1.3.1-RC5 for ~ (home directory), Spotlight in Mail fails for mailbox-specific searches · Issue #278 · openzfsonosx/zfs that's closed, and I can confirm that the fix is present in the 1.3.1 release, but it's not an isolated example; there's a broader problem of HFS-oriented peculiarities within some areas of the operating system.
Maybe of interest: OpenZFS Device Removal (2015-01-15). And I'm fairly sure that there's work in progress on balancing.
For many use cases, performance of Macs with OS X may be improved by changes around the storage system and file system(s).
Petition · OS X 10.9 - support OpenGL 4.3 and ZFS · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/apple-os-x-10-9-support-opengl-4-3-and-zfs closed with 3,831 supporters.
Apps that use Exchange Web Services should work with shared accounts.
I like the idea.
However, re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Specifications if zipping is a norm, then I have a hunch that it'll be a less than ideal fit with some of what Apple has in mind for Core Storage.
I don't imagine a single monolithic file.
A wild guess: there'll be novel use of attributes on directory files (folders).
Realistically, for compatibility, .DS_STORE files might remain in use long after there's a successor to HFS Plus.
10.11 for a successor to HFS Plus is not too optimistic.
There's plenty of engineering competence.
There's also a little evidence of sloppy engineering, but I believe that overall, there's more than enough competence to forgive the occasional sloppiness.
The more general problem: for as long as cultural/organisational issues within Apple are not properly addressed, customers can not expect to fully realise the benefits of Apple's competences.
Recall 'Farenheit 451'; the flames failed to destroy what people knew to be good.
Well, a Mac is not an iPhone; naturally there's some difference.
Different worlds? No. I use iOS 3.1.3 without a spacesuit. Air quality and gravity feel pretty much the same as with Mavericks.
Yay!
Oh, I love trash, I love it because it's trash!
But I can't love the looks of Yosemite, therefore I'm not a grouch
First and foremost, I wish:
- for titled content, a title bar that shows the title in the expected place within that bar
As Sean Connery's wife said, "Never Say Never Again".
Reality check: those two bad things occurred in 2014. Someone at Apple, or some group at Apple, went nuts.
So, that's aggressive; ugly; aggressive; too bright; atrocious; headaches; disgusting; aggressive; eye strain and health.
Apple, if you're reading: that's an unhealthy combination. Where's the company's pride, when disgruntled customers must treat some of the people behind Yosemite as nutters? Do you have a snappy answer that does not involve numbers? Remember, "Um is not an answer"; neither is this the Jeremy Kyle show. There are many outlets for nutters, Apple should not be one of them.
Apple, sort it.
that wasn't too aggressive, was it? ;-)
Or, one might say: "aggressively pushed a UI/UX that can cause eye strain, headaches, crankiness and other frustrations.".
That's much more agreeable
OpenGL: I don't know enough to comment (it's not an area of interest for me).
I guess that Apple's priorities for 10.11 include its storage system (Core Storage) with expanded support for file systems. It's reasonable to assume that Apple already treats HFS (including HFS Plus) as legacy; see Storage and file systems, HFS and legacy, kSKDiskRoleLegacyMacData and kSKDiskTypeHFS.
System speed: Apple's current requirement to use HFS Plus, at least for booting the Mac, is a drag.
Readers, please bear in mind that Apple's Disk Utility is terribly limited, and there's much more to the content of a drive than the file system.
It took more than a decade for Apple to add, to fsck_hfs, basic device scanning (for I/O errors). That basic capability was first offered with Mavericks nearly thirty years after HFS was introduced. Neither Mavericks nor Yosemite allows Disk Utility to use the feature so in simple terms:
- when Disk Utility reports that an HFS Plus file system appears to be OK, there might be troublesome corruption of data that Disk Utility simply could not detect.
Please, don't underestimate the difficulties of implementing a file system for OS X. For me, https://twitter.com/DonJBrady/status/534765306552414208 is most telling; and then https://github.com/openzfsonosx/zfs/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+sort:created-asc reflects some of the work around OpenZFS on OS X; and so on. Recently: With O3X 1.3.1-RC5 for ~ (home directory), Spotlight in Mail fails for mailbox-specific searches · Issue #278 · openzfsonosx/zfs that's closed, and I can confirm that the fix is present in the 1.3.1 release, but it's not an isolated example; there's a broader problem of HFS-oriented peculiarities within some areas of the operating system.
Maybe of interest: OpenZFS Device Removal (2015-01-15). And I'm fairly sure that there's work in progress on balancing.
For many use cases, performance of Macs with OS X may be improved by changes around the storage system and file system(s).
Petition · OS X 10.9 - support OpenGL 4.3 and ZFS · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/apple-os-x-10-9-support-opengl-4-3-and-zfs closed with 3,831 supporters.
Apps that use Exchange Web Services should work with shared accounts.
I like the idea.
However, re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Specifications if zipping is a norm, then I have a hunch that it'll be a less than ideal fit with some of what Apple has in mind for Core Storage.
I don't imagine a single monolithic file.
A wild guess: there'll be novel use of attributes on directory files (folders).
Realistically, for compatibility, .DS_STORE files might remain in use long after there's a successor to HFS Plus.
10.11 for a successor to HFS Plus is not too optimistic.
1. Speed.
4. New file system, HFS+ is almost obsolete. (Probably won't happen until 10.12)
5. Stop messing with user interface and design it to be usable with normal non retina screens. (Unlike Yosemite
There's plenty of engineering competence.
There's also a little evidence of sloppy engineering, but I believe that overall, there's more than enough competence to forgive the occasional sloppiness.
The more general problem: for as long as cultural/organisational issues within Apple are not properly addressed, customers can not expect to fully realise the benefits of Apple's competences.
Recall 'Farenheit 451'; the flames failed to destroy what people knew to be good.
Well, a Mac is not an iPhone; naturally there's some difference.
Different worlds? No. I use iOS 3.1.3 without a spacesuit. Air quality and gravity feel pretty much the same as with Mavericks.
Yay!
Oh, I love trash, I love it because it's trash!
But I can't love the looks of Yosemite, therefore I'm not a grouch
I like this idea for both OS X and iOS. I just wish that there was a way to remove the indicator on the app stores so that I don't have to see that glaring at me if I want to wait for 6 months.
----------
I have just one want. Let the dialer application on OS X be able to enter in numbers, i.e dtmf codes, on phone calls.
grahamperrin
OpenGL: I don't know enough to comment (it's not an area of interest for me).
You should care about OpenGL on Mac OS X, because it is integrated into multiple libraries in OS X and affects performance. Mac OS X consistently lags behind the standard and each revision brings performance improvements.
https://developer.apple.com/opengl/
I guess that Apple's priorities for 10.11 include its storage system (Core Storage) with expanded support for file systems. It's reasonable to assume that Apple already treats HFS (including HFS Plus) as legacy; see Storage and file systems, HFS and legacy, kSKDiskRoleLegacyMacData and kSKDiskTypeHFS.
I am hoping this becomes a priority.
System speed: Apple's current requirement to use HFS Plus, at least for booting the Mac, is a drag.
There are good file system alternatives that are better than HFS+ and have technical advantages. ZFS is used on FreeBSD and BRTFS is used on Linux. I realize Apple had trouble with ZFS, but if FreeBSD and Linux could do it, Apple could. I think Apple put it off as a lower priority.
OpenGL: I don't know enough to comment (it's not an area of interest for me).
You should care about OpenGL on Mac OS X, because it is integrated into multiple libraries in OS X and affects performance. Mac OS X consistently lags behind the standard and each revision brings performance improvements.
https://developer.apple.com/opengl/
I guess that Apple's priorities for 10.11 include its storage system (Core Storage) with expanded support for file systems. It's reasonable to assume that Apple already treats HFS (including HFS Plus) as legacy; see Storage and file systems, HFS and legacy, kSKDiskRoleLegacyMacData and kSKDiskTypeHFS.
I am hoping this becomes a priority.
System speed: Apple's current requirement to use HFS Plus, at least for booting the Mac, is a drag.
There are good file system alternatives that are better than HFS+ and have technical advantages. ZFS is used on FreeBSD and BRTFS is used on Linux. I realize Apple had trouble with ZFS, but if FreeBSD and Linux could do it, Apple could. I think Apple put it off as a lower priority.
Personally, aside from the obvious massive bug fix and optimisation that's necessary, a few requests:
Necessary:
Would be very nice:
There are probably quite a few more things, so I might come back and update this. But these are the main things that stick out to me. Sync reliability is the absolute must-fix thing for me, and it's a problem with OS X and iOS.
Necessary:
- Improved iCloud syncing. It winds me up so, so much. iCloud seems to sync whenever it feels like. Sometimes I'll find a file has been synced to iCloud when I'm out and about, other times I'll need to pull out my Mac when I'd rather use my iPad. Perhaps a *gasp* manual sync button in System Preferences -> iCloud would help? (Obviously, part of the problem is also on iOS's side)
- Vulkan support. This is 100% necessary. The next generation of games will be developed on both Vulkan and DirectX 12. Obviously DX12 isn't going to make it to the Mac. Therefore, Vulkan is a necessity.
- OpenGL update. There's no good reason OS X should be stuck to OpenGL 4.1, which is coming up to five years out of date.
Would be very nice:
- A new file system. Everyone has already given great explanations why HFS+ is old, outdated, and has no place being the file system for a modern OS like OS X.
- Automatic Dark Mode, with more applications having a Dark Mode UI mode.
- A migration to Swift-based APIs, rather than Objective-C APIs. Though, in reality, I suspect this will happen much, much later than 10.11.
There are probably quite a few more things, so I might come back and update this. But these are the main things that stick out to me. Sync reliability is the absolute must-fix thing for me, and it's a problem with OS X and iOS.
Except that with Jonathan Ive in charge of the design, we'll never see that design again.
Storage and graphics in OS X 10.11
Storage systems, file systems
HFS Plus: file system metadata structures, global locks reflects on the improved performance that I found when, just occasionally, I allowed my ZFS home directory to be not hampered by booting from HFS Plus on the same physical disk.
Long term, I'll probably shift my use of a MacBook Pro from Mavericks to PC-BSD, which makes great use of ZFS.
Agreed, and I did much testing and feedback (to Apple) to encourage that possibility, but I doubt that OS X will gain integrated support for ZFS. It'll remain third party, i.e. OpenZFS on OS X.
Despite being thrown off the scent, I still have another wish for OS X 10.11:
Amongst the things that give (to me) a scent of that improvement, from a topic about unexpected conversions to Core Storage:
If those automated conversions were to Core Storage with encryption, I'd assume that Yosemite was a step towards stronger privacy and security, by default, for notebooks (think: loss, theft and so on).
As things are: the automated conversions without encryption may be simply a cautious approach to encryption; don't proceed without the user's consent.
From the same topic about Core Storage: " Imagine a technology that reduces the need to weed. "; that's the type of 'carefree' that I have in mind. It's a relatively exotic wish, and of course I might be misinterpreting Apple's patent application but if Apple makes it reality (as an option) for customers, it might be a unique selling point.
That's an unselfish wish; I don't expect to benefit from it. (Even if Apple made its cloud storage free of charge for masses of data, I would not use an OS X that looks like Yosemite.)
Side note: I don't imagine ZFS being a good fit with the location independent files technology.
OpenGL and Metal
Yeah I'm aware of the lag, and I did frequently read comments to the Mavericks-related petition before it closed. It's just not a priority/focus area for me.
Neither do I plan to get on a learning curve about Metal it's new to me. Just at a basic level, I assume that an introduction of Metal to OS X would (at time of introduction) complement not immediately replace support for OpenGL
Storage systems, file systems
HFS Plus: file system metadata structures, global locks reflects on the improved performance that I found when, just occasionally, I allowed my ZFS home directory to be not hampered by booting from HFS Plus on the same physical disk.
Long term, I'll probably shift my use of a MacBook Pro from Mavericks to PC-BSD, which makes great use of ZFS.
Agreed, and I did much testing and feedback (to Apple) to encourage that possibility, but I doubt that OS X will gain integrated support for ZFS. It'll remain third party, i.e. OpenZFS on OS X.
Despite being thrown off the scent, I still have another wish for OS X 10.11:
- simplify storage for users of notebooks
Amongst the things that give (to me) a scent of that improvement, from a topic about unexpected conversions to Core Storage:
If those automated conversions were to Core Storage with encryption, I'd assume that Yosemite was a step towards stronger privacy and security, by default, for notebooks (think: loss, theft and so on).
As things are: the automated conversions without encryption may be simply a cautious approach to encryption; don't proceed without the user's consent.
From the same topic about Core Storage: " Imagine a technology that reduces the need to weed. "; that's the type of 'carefree' that I have in mind. It's a relatively exotic wish, and of course I might be misinterpreting Apple's patent application
but if Apple makes it reality (as an option) for customers, it might be a unique selling point. If, for example, a person is wealthy enough to purchase an Apple Watch Edition, then they'll probably not care about the cost to store masses of data in an Apple cloud. If the Mac has an Internet connection, then the user need not wonder whether the required data is local or remote a storage system should take care of all such things.
Clever storage system, carefree user.
Clever storage system, carefree user.
That's an unselfish wish; I don't expect to benefit from it. (Even if Apple made its cloud storage free of charge for masses of data, I would not use an OS X that looks like Yosemite.)
Side note: I don't imagine ZFS being a good fit with the location independent files technology.
OpenGL and Metal
Yeah I'm aware of the lag, and I did frequently read comments to the Mavericks-related petition before it closed. It's just not a priority/focus area for me.
Neither do I plan to get on a learning curve about Metal it's new to me. Just at a basic level, I assume that an introduction of Metal to OS X would (at time of introduction) complement not immediately replace support for OpenGL