Recommended Posts

Has it been officially changed to a yearly release now?

Lion & Mountain Lion were released a year apart, so, from what I've heard from Apple pundits, it is commonly believed that they're on a yearly release cycle just like iOS, but that's only going based on two releases though.
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1144368-os-x-109/#findComment-595605614
Share on other sites

Has it been officially changed to a yearly release now?

Yeah, on Daring Fireball the site owner John Gruber had a one on one (part of a larger media event) where OS X was announced to have moved to a yearly release. The big question really is whether their eventual aim is to move to a yearly free upgrade much like iOS devices.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1144368-os-x-109/#findComment-595605784
Share on other sites

Now that I'm a full OS X convert (gotten rid of all my Windows systems), I have to ask this: I've seen a lot of people complain about the shortcomings of HFS/HFS+, and years ago I remember seeing talk of ZFS becoming a successor. Obviously that didn't, or hasn't happened yet, so what do you all think will happen with the filesystem? Anything major in 10.9 (obviously based purely on speculation), or will we have to continue to wait?

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1144368-os-x-109/#findComment-595606146
Share on other sites

Now that I'm a full OS X convert (gotten rid of all my Windows systems), I have to ask this: I've seen a lot of people complain about the shortcomings of HFS/HFS+, and years ago I remember seeing talk of ZFS becoming a successor. Obviously that didn't, or hasn't happened yet, so what do you all think will happen with the filesystem? Anything major in 10.9 (obviously based purely on speculation), or will we have to continue to wait?

When it comes to HFS+ they're doing what Microsoft is doing with NTFS/ReFS - they're keeping the same 'front end' and working on the backend code so that the under pinnings are updated and improved but to the applications sitting on top everything is great. As for ZFS - believe me you don't want it even if there were the licensing issues that ended up stopping the project. I used to use Solaris with ZFS and unless you have gigabytes of memory the whole thing is a memory hog. The design of ZFS is based on running a server with huge amounts of memory thus it is totally impractical from an end user workstation perspective hence I'd sooner Apple keep on the path that they're on rather than attempting to turn ZFS into something that it isn't - a file system for desktops, laptops and workstations.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1144368-os-x-109/#findComment-595606522
Share on other sites

I hope it'll do something file-system wise. Having 3 OS's here (windows, mac and linux) is a right pain in the arse to get files from one to the other. The only truely universal FS supported on all 3 is FAT32 and it's limited to 4GB files, NTFS is read only on mac, HFS+ is read only on bootcamp windows or unreadable on normal windows and none of the linux FS's are supported on windows or mac.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1144368-os-x-109/#findComment-595606536
Share on other sites

I hope it'll do something file-system wise. Having 3 OS's here (windows, mac and linux) is a right pain in the arse to get files from one to the other. The only truely universal FS supported on all 3 is FAT32 and it's limited to 4GB files, NTFS is read only on mac, HFS+ is read only on bootcamp windows or unreadable on normal windows and none of the linux FS's are supported on windows or mac.

There is exFAT but I'm unsure as to how well it is supported on Linux though but I've heard there is progress and there are third parties who sell exFAT support if you need it. Mac OS X and Windows both support exFAT which is basically FAT 64bit with a whole heap of improvements.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1144368-os-x-109/#findComment-595606562
Share on other sites

I hope it'll do something file-system wise. Having 3 OS's here (windows, mac and linux) is a right pain in the arse to get files from one to the other. The only truely universal FS supported on all 3 is FAT32 and it's limited to 4GB files, NTFS is read only on mac, HFS+ is read only on bootcamp windows or unreadable on normal windows and none of the linux FS's are supported on windows or mac.

Not sure what the support is like on Linux, but I use ExFAT for all the drives I have to read/write using OSX and Windows.
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1144368-os-x-109/#findComment-595606566
Share on other sites

I have two annoyances with OS X Mountain Lion: the skeuomorphic design of Contacts and Calendar + annoying Finder bug where the sidebar sometimes collapses its width when opening /Applications.

At this point Apple pretty much perfected OS X for me and I honestly have no idea what really needs to change. Above anything else I really want some real updates to iLife and iWork. I can't get over the fact this hasn't happened yet.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1144368-os-x-109/#findComment-595608594
Share on other sites

Honestly a lot of the bugs you all mention aside from UI changes can be fixed with a system update to 10.8. OS X at this point is well matured and pretty much perfected. Anything else at this point is going to be very slight UI adjustments, finder could be that however I wonder though if they are starting to look past OS X into OS 11

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1144368-os-x-109/#findComment-595610062
Share on other sites

I would like to see a complete revamp of Finder. I find file management a hassle compared to Explorer.

Maybe my file management is pretty basic but I'd love to know what is missing beyond the features that experts use (batch renaming etc.)?

Btw, I feel as though I'm the only one left on planet earth who likes to drag and drop files to copy them from one location to another - or is this just a force of habit given my background in using UI's that conform to the spartial way of doing things?

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1144368-os-x-109/#findComment-595610438
Share on other sites

Maybe my file management is pretty basic but I'd love to know what is missing beyond the features that experts use (batch renaming etc.)?

Btw, I feel as though I'm the only one left on planet earth who likes to drag and drop files to copy them from one location to another - or is this just a force of habit given my background in using UI's that conform to the spartial way of doing things?

I find moving around in folders quite annoying. The sidebar, address bar and basic controls are much better in Explorer.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1144368-os-x-109/#findComment-595610506
Share on other sites

Maybe my file management is pretty basic but I'd love to know what is missing beyond the features that experts use (batch renaming etc.)?

Btw, I feel as though I'm the only one left on planet earth who likes to drag and drop files to copy them from one location to another - or is this just a force of habit given my background in using UI's that conform to the spartial way of doing things?

There's something painfully vague about dragging and dropping things, especially if you don't quite select everything you intended to move.

I'd like to see better screen management, like screen snapping. Expose is pretty good, but keyboard (or trackpad) shortcuts to push windows into specific areas would be great.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1144368-os-x-109/#findComment-595610524
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!