Apple may not release OS X Mavericks until late October

If you are using a Mac and have been waiting patiently for Apple to officially launch OS X 10.9, it looks like you will have to wait a few more weeks. A new report from 9to5Mac claims, via unnamed sources, that OS X 10.9, also known by its code name Mavericks, won't be ready for its launch until sometime in late October.

Apple released the current version of OS X, Mountain Lion, in July 2012, so launching the next version of the Mac operating system in late October represents a delay in Apple's usual strategy. However, 9to5Mac claims that the reason for the Mavericks hold up is so that Apple can put all of its efforts in releasing iOS 7 later this month at the same time the company launches new iPhone products.

Apple first announced Mavericks in June as part of their WWDC event and is supposed to have a number of new features and improvements, including adding new native iBooks and Map apps, a way to store passwords called iCloud Keychain, better support for multiple monitors and more. Apple is also expected to release a number of new Mac models this fall alongside the Mavericks launch.

Source: 9to5Mac | Image via Apple

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft releases OneNote update for iOS devices

Next Story

A small Windows 8.1 tablet from Aava Mobile revealed

43 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

It's funny how iOS 7 is said to still be kind of unstable (especially on non-iPhone 5's and tablets), yet likely to be released as GM in three days, while OS X Mavericks is considered pretty stable indeed, and getting this release schedule...

No iOS7 instability here, I have been running it since Beta 1 on my iPhone 5 and using it all day every day as my personal phone.

Still from what I've read about OS X Mavericks, it's far more advanced underneath the covers compared to Windows 8.

Timer coalescing, which enhances energy efficiency by reducing CPU usage by up to 72 percent.[17][18]
App Nap, which sleeps apps that are not currently visible.[17][18]
Compressed Memory, which automatically compresses data from inactive apps when approaching maximum memory capacity.[17][18][19]

CygnusOrion said,
Still from what I've read about OS X Mavericks, it's far more advanced underneath the covers compared to Windows 8.

Timer coalescing, which enhances energy efficiency by reducing CPU usage by up to 72 percent.[17][18]
App Nap, which sleeps apps that are not currently visible.[17][18]
Compressed Memory, which automatically compresses data from inactive apps when approaching maximum memory capacity.[17][18][19]


Windows has had variable CPU frequency scaling for years as has linux, nothing new.
Applications on windows and linux can enter sleep mode too, it's up to the programmer if and how they implement it, again, nothing new.
Compressed memory, well there you have it, beaten windows but still lagging behind linux. About time for that, I find every application on my mac uses a hell of a lot more memory then the same programs on windows and linux, so maybe now they'll use roughly the same.

Um, I'm not sure what you're reading Cygnus, but Windows 8 already does all those things.

In fact, Windows 8 goes one step further and does memory deduplication, loading components into RAM once instead of one time for each app. This is especially useful for VMs.

IIRC, Mavericks still contains the embarrassment known as HFS+, which needs to go ASAP. It's nice living in the future on Windows, where we have NTFS and ReFS - I trust my data far more with a NTFS and/or ReFS filesystem - it's miles ahead of HFS+ when it comes to reliability, resiliency, and robustness. OS X was going to move to ZFS, but sadly that didn't work out.

virtorio said,

Based on what?

I don't think many people would be too surprised if Apple dropped their focus on the desktop market and concentrated on the mobile one almost exclusively; that's where all the money is, after all.

Expect OSX releases to drop to 2 yearly or something in the future.

FloatingFatMan said,

I don't think many people would be too surprised if Apple dropped their focus on the desktop market and concentrated on the mobile one almost exclusively; that's where all the money is, after all.

Expect OSX releases to drop to 2 yearly or something in the future.

I don't think so. They've recently been investing more into "Pro" apps, they have a new Mac Pro coming out, they sell a ton of MacBooks and iMacs, and all their iOS development tools require OSX.

virtorio said,
I don't think so. They've recently been investing more into "Pro" apps, they have a new Mac Pro coming out, they sell a ton of MacBooks and iMacs, and all their iOS development tools require OSX.

I saw the new Mac Pro. I had to be convinced that it was actually a computer.

A behavior I never saw on Linux and OS X but ALWAYS on Windows is that file cache seems to aggressively force application memory to be swapped to disk. I see Windows servers with decent amounts of RAM (32 or 64gb) that despite that much RAM never being used at once still end up with time using the swap file. Same on my Windows workstations I never turn off, I use visual studio for a couple of days and then the swap file starts filling up. Windows would really need an overhaul of the virtual memory system just like Apple did, or at least some improvements to superfetch to have it giving priority to unswapping applications first: it's unbelievable I still have to disable the swap file in 2013.

Writing out idle pages when I/O usage is low is an approach used by all modern kernels as far as I know. The page stays in memory and won't require a read from disk to use, but if memory is required for something else it can be overwritten without waiting for a disk write.

CygnusOrion said,
Still from what I've read about OS X Mavericks, it's far more advanced underneath the covers compared to Windows 8.

Timer coalescing, which enhances energy efficiency by reducing CPU usage by up to 72 percent.[17][18]
App Nap, which sleeps apps that are not currently visible.[17][18]
Compressed Memory, which automatically compresses data from inactive apps when approaching maximum memory capacity.[17][18][19]


those are new features? Of course they look like new features if you read them over at Apple.com.

Spicoli said,
Writing out idle pages when I/O usage is low is an approach used by all modern kernels as far as I know. The page stays in memory and won't require a read from disk to use, but if memory is required for something else it can be overwritten without waiting for a disk write.

The problem is that with time the memory is freed to leave space for more file cache hence all the annoying reads from disk when you try to use something that hasn't been used in days since it all ends up swapped only to disk. It's absurd how even the 100-200mb used by the kernel, drivers or explorer has less priority than far more useless file cache even on systems with more than reasonable amounts of RAM. With operating systems cutting on resource consumptions and SSDs that both reduce the need of huge file caches and suffer from swap file usage that behavior no longer makes sense.

francescob said,

The problem is that with time the memory is freed to leave space for more file cache hence all the annoying reads from disk when you try to use something that hasn't been used in days since it all ends up swapped only to disk. It's absurd how even the 100-200mb used by the kernel, drivers or explorer has less priority than far more useless file cache even on systems with more than reasonable amounts of RAM. With operating systems cutting on resource consumptions and SSDs that both reduce the need of huge file caches and suffer from swap file usage that behavior no longer makes sense.

The file cache is probably the most important performance feature for a server. Disk reads are millions of times slower.

Spicoli said,

The file cache is probably the most important performance feature for a server. Disk reads are millions of times slower.


It certainly is but too much file cache is just harmful since it forces part of the applications to disk making the whole application hang when that part is required. Applications should have the priority over file cache since they generally use only small part of the RAM. On workstations this behavior is even more annoying because not only you have lower amounts of memory but because they aren't used only for the same functions every day so with time you always run into programs having to read their swapped parts from disk. This also carries on if you simply don't turn off your computer but use standby or hibernation, after days it becomes an huge swapping nightmare.

If file cache was really so important every application would be optimized to sacrifice performance for memory. I don't know in detail what Windows does differently but I never had that issue on Linux or OS X and I don't seem to recall anybody about issues with the reduced space for file cache, I don't really think those couple of hundred megabytes of RAM would really make that much difference to justify trashing an SSD and ruining the user experience for some extra file cache.

Edited by francescob, Sep 7 2013, 3:01pm :

Good lord, the amount of misinformation:

1) Dynamic frequency for CPU/GPU has been around for years in Linux, Windows and Mac - that has nothing to do with timer coalescing.

2) Time coalescing appeared in Windows 7 along with trigger based services (hence it is stupid to see people here manually disable services as they're ignorant as to the nature of how Windows 7 onwards behaves).

3) ZFS is a memory hungry beast - anyone who has used Solaris with ZFS will know what I mean. ZFS has its place but it sure as heck isn't on desktops, laptops or even workstations.

4) HFS+ is being upgraded in very much the same way that HTFS is to ReFS - Apple is pushing the functionality down into their Core Storage and HFS+ will merely be a personality sitting on top as to maintain compatibility.

5) De-duplication and compression are two different things addressing two different needs - de-duplication is a uniquely Windows solution to a uniquely Windows problem and more importantly isn't able to be applied to everything loaded into memory. When it comes to OS X you'll find that designs decisions made around Objective-C where as Microsoft tends to be geared towards C and C++ - here is a good article that outlines the differences and the flow on effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...een_Objective-C_and_C.2B.2B

IMHO if a good framework and language means that it makes the programmers life easier to produce great applications with fewer bugs and quicker to market then I'm happy to throw 20MB extra their way when running one of their applications.

6) Looking at System Monitor let alone Task Manager is a horrible way to find out how much memory a particular application uses as there are many components not taken account such as shared resources, whether it includes memory that is allocated yet unused or whether freed up memory is still allocated to a particular application.

ACTIONpack said,
OSX is no longer Apple focus anymore!

Then why did they move the release of OS X from once every two years to once a year?

n_K said,

Windows has had variable CPU frequency scaling for years as has linux, nothing new.

That's not what timer coalescing is. Macs do CPU frequency scaling as part of the Intel hardware itself since a long time ago, too. Timer coalescing is already showing major battery life improvements for identical CPU load as before, for those who have trialled Mavericks. Especially for users with weaker batteries. Talking of extending life with half an hour or so.

Applications on windows and linux can enter sleep mode too, it's up to the programmer if and how they implement it, again, nothing new.

That's not what the Mavericks sleep mode is. This feature activates regardless if the software developer even know what it is, or not, much less have something implemented.

Compressed memory, well there you have it, beaten windows but still lagging behind linux.

OK, so there we go.

Northgrove said,

That's not what timer coalescing is. Macs do CPU frequency scaling as part of the Intel hardware itself since a long time ago, too. Timer coalescing is already showing major battery life improvements for identical CPU load as before, for those who have trialled Mavericks. Especially for users with weaker batteries. Talking of extending life with half an hour or so.

Windows has been doing it since W7, read other post.

Northgrove said,

That's not what the Mavericks sleep mode is. This feature activates regardless if the software developer even know what it is, or not, much less have something implemented.

Not really, it's only going to work if it's designed properly, just like WP8 apps going into sleep mode. If you design an app to run like a service, it will keep running without entering sleep mode, and unless the program is processing data, it should basically be idle anyway, pretty sure it's only going to benefit people that don't have a clue how to code.

Northgrove said,

OK, so there we go.

Actually I was wrong, this is in windows too, so once again, absolutely nothing 'brand new not done before' from apple.

I hear Apple OS X Mavericks has Fusion Kore, which is a new invention of being able to launch an application using computer generated code bit integers into a GUI database.

still can't change the dock to other monitor and the wwdc demo isn't explicit. didn't show press what just talk. Mavericks DP 6 didn't fix it...crap

Master of Earth said,
still can't change the dock to other monitor and the wwdc demo isn't explicit. didn't show press what just talk. Mavericks DP 6 didn't fix it...crap

For the benefit of the forum may we get the English translation?

Moving the Dock to other screens has worked for me since DP1 - the method is just a bit hidden.

Move the mouse cursor to the bottom of the screen you want the Dock on and keep going down off the edge of the screen - the dock will then shift over.

The dock does not actually move, its more like you have a copy of the dock on each screen. You only see the dock on the active screen. To reveal the dock on another screen take the mouse to that screen and move the mouse pointer off the bottom of the screen, the dock will pop up, its quick, its easy and its simple.

derekaw said,
. . . its quick, its easy and its simple.
But it's still a somewhat hidden "feature," with no clear indication on its existence. There is also no customizability to be had here. In Windows, we have numerous options for appearance and visibility of the taskbar on the primary and/or extraneous monitors.

True, you need to know about it and true, in typical Mac OS X fashion there is no customisation. Many things on a Mac have no or little customisation.

Absolute correct. No company should release a major product until it is truly ready and fully tested. Contrast that with the Microsoft Windows-8 debacle.

TsarNikky said,
Absolute correct. No company should release a major product until it is truly ready and fully tested. Contrast that with the Microsoft Windows-8 debacle.
Lol iOS 1: Apps didn't exist.

Pluto is a Planet said,
Lol iOS 1: Apps didn't exist.

iOS 1 Steve Jobs said there is no need for native apps... everyone can be made in HTML and JavaScript as a pinnable widget app remember? ugh so stupid