Hands down there is nothing more exciting about this OS X update than being able to use multiple monitors again. They can keep their fancy power management and their new apps, because nothing will compare to that feeling when I boot into my shiny new surf-speckled desktop, fullscreen a video on my second monitor, and my main screen isn't covered in useless grey cloth. For the first time in I don't know how many years, I won't have to repress the urge to knock my monitor off my desk and install Ubuntu. I will just gaze at the waves off Half Moon Bay, a satisfied smile on my lips, and feel nothing but pure calm.
Short explanation: You can use multiple monitors just fine in extended Desktop mode.
However, there are two issues that drive people crazy:
1) When you go enable full screen mode for an app, the app fills one display and all other displays are blanked with a gray linnen texture. That's may be useful if you are watching a movie and don't want other displays to annoy you, but it's really annoying if you just want eg. Mail full screen on a secondary monitor.
2) Mac OS Lion also added a feature named "Spaces" (I think this is called virtual desktops or so on other platforms). The problem is that when you switch between spaces, both screens switch simultaneously. Now let's assume you use your secondary monitor to show an IM client, or to show some live error log, or similar, it's really annoying if that disappears when you switch between spaces on your main display.
So OS X 10.9 finally makes two features introduced in 10.7 (Full screen mode, spaces) usable for people with multiple monitors.
Today was my first experience with 2 monitors on OSX (10.8), knowing nothing about how it was going to work, and your description of my feelings this morning is absolutely perfect.
> 2) Mac OS Lion also added a feature named "Spaces" (I think this is called virtual desktops or so on other platforms). The problem is that when you switch between spaces, both screens switch simultaneously. Now let's assume you use your secondary monitor to show an IM client, or to show some live error log, or similar, it's really annoying if that disappears when you switch between spaces on your main display.
Can you explain how is this fixed? Are the spaces on each monitor independent or is there a method to "always show" certain windows? Because I really hate the former method.
You can either have independent spaces (switch screen 1 to a different space while screen 2 remains unchanged) or you can have them linked (when switching screen 1, screen 2 also changes).
This argument is a bit of a red herring. Ever since the dawn of OS X Apple changed nothing at all about how multiple monitors work with the OS. If you don’t use (the much later added) fullscreen function in some apps or (the much later added) Spaces there is no problem at all. That’s why all the arguments about multiple monitors being unusable are honestly a bit ridiculous and over the top.
The problem was always how those two features interact with multiple monitors, nothing more. And, honestly, I think the fullscreen functionality was never intended to be used on larger screens. That’s for the MacBook Air, not anything larger.
But, yeah, Apple changes how the fullscreen functionality and Spaces interact with multiple monitors. (And personally I cannot understand why anyone would use apps in fullscreen mode at all. It just such a waste of space.)
So your argument is "basically nothing is wrong (first two paragraphs), and if it is, it's because you are using it wrong (fullscreen = waste of space)"?
That's a special point of view, and sort of the contrary of what jakobe and others are saying.
Anyway, for an example of how fullscreen makes sense I suggest you look at video or audio editing software. You just need all the space you can get there.
That's a special interpretation. The parent comment is correct that they didn't actually break anything, they just didn't implement the new features thoughtfully. You could still maximise windows just like previous versions.
How multiple monitors interact with Spaces and apps in fullscreen mode sucks and Apple very much screwed that up. No argument there. But to conflate that with “Apple finally brings multiple monitor support with Mavericks” is wildly misleading.
Also, you could give apps the full screen to work with since forever in OS X. You do not need a special mode for that. Apple’s fullscreen mode is most definitely not in any way equal to Windows’ maximize function. I think that’s what many people fail to notice.
The specific problem arises when you full-screen an app in 10.7 and 10.8. Your second monitor won't provide useable space--it'll just have the stupid dark linen texture.
OS X Mavericks will have a feature I always wanted in Linux: Independent spaces for each monitor!
In Gnome (at least when I left it, but I don't think it has changed) and previously in OS X, switching to a new virtual space will update both monitors. With this update you choose virtual space independently for each monitor, and let one stay at — say — the logs window, while you change the space on the other monitor.
I don't remember the specific setup (or what it's called), but you can have that in Linux. The problem is that then you can't drag windows from one monitor to the other, though that may also be something that can be configured. Because of that I never liked independent desktops in Linux, but I like how they implemented it in Mavericks.
This changed in Gnome. The last time I used it a year or two ago, the default is to keep one monitor constant and switch desktops on the second monitor as you wish.
I've never had multiple screens. But I'm in love with teleport. I've got two laptops and an iMac. KVM style screen spanning and input sharing is awesome.
Me and my Air are just gonna give you a sad look from our perch on a footbridge across a beautiful ravine full of trees, and lie back in the sun for another few hours.
07:00 — Honolulu, Hawaii
10:00 — San Francisco, California
13:00 — New York, New York
14:00 — São Paulo, Brazil
18:00 — London, England
19:00 — Rome, Italy
20:00 — Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
21:00 — Moscow, Russia
22:30 — New Delhi, India
01:00 — Shanghai, China (October 23)
02:00 — Tokyo, Japan (October 23)
03:00 — Sydney, Australia (October 23)
I'm a big fan of http://time.is. You can go to http://time.is/compare to generate a similar comparison, or just add the times you want to know to the front page.
Ok so it's that time of the year again. I am on windows and have chrome, firefox, ie 11, VLC, flash. Is there any way for me to watch this stream? Heck will this work even if I get quicktime?
Edit:
* So they updated the page to say it will work for quicktime if you are on windows.
* But I am on win 8 and they use js to hide that part. So for now I am assuming it's because quicktime on it's download page only says it is supported upto win 7. So they must be hiding it for people with windows 8.
* I am downloading quicktime anyways and if regular install doesn't work then compatibility mode will almost certainly work for people with windows 8.
* Apart from that you might also need to spoof your UA to safari's. They only allow safari to load the stream. And safari is officially discontinued for windows. WTF apple.
And even then it's not guaranteed to work.
Edit 2: They seem to be showing a html5 video element for a spoofed chrome on windows with quicktime disabled. So maybe they decided to give up after all.
Apple uses HTTP Live Streaming protocol. VLC should be able to play it just fine. You will probably need a custom URL to feed VLC though. I'll paste the URL here once it's available.
Last time VLC on WinXP would crash after a few seconds trying to play the official apple stream. Check reddit.com/r/apple and someone will post up a list of "pirate streams". One of them worked great for me in Firefox on XP last time.
> Live Streaming video requires Safari 4 or later on OS X v10.6 or later; Safari on iOS 4.2 or later. Streaming via Apple TV requires second- or third-generation Apple TV with software 5.0.2 or later.
So, no, unless someone posts a link to a live stream you can watch with VLC, this won't work on any non-Apple device (even with QuickTime).
That's why Apple is succeeding. People are moaning about how they cannot view the live stream of an Apple event on their Windows/Linux platform, like we're landing on the moon or something. Amazing.
Sorry if this is always brought up (i haven't seen an Apple stream since the iPhone 4 event), but we /still/ need Quicktime to stream this? What the hell?
Google wants their own protocol to succeed, Mozilla wants a different video codec to succeed[1], Microsoft probably wants to own both. It's very easy to cache HLS, which makes distributing high definition to a large number of people much cheaper. Is Apple supposed to spend more money on lower quality steaming just because their competitors don't want to play nicely?
VLC is capable of playing HLS if you can get it the correct URL. Some other browsers can play it, but the web has an unfortunately long history of browser detection.
I don’t think this is about wanting protocols to succeed, or at least not primarily. Every iOS or OS X device Apple sells (so pretty much any of their products) can play this. No need to install anything. Why should Apple do any special extra work to make it work elsewhere without a bit of hassle?
Also, it’s just a fucking PR event. Why do people want to watch it? That’s just weird.
I've just spent this morning setting up an Apple HTTP Live Stream to other platforms with a flash player. It's not too difficult to do, so I assume the reason for not doing it is Apple's unwillingness to use 3rd party technology.
In their defence, the technology is open, and the only reason Mozilla/Google etc aren't implementing support for HLS is that they are betting on their own technology instead of using HLS, which is currently far ahead.
> In their defence, the technology is open, and the only reason Mozilla/Google etc aren't implementing support for HLS...
Android, for one example, does support http live streaming (since Honeycomb). Try it: Apple's own demonstration sample HLS stream[1] plays fine on Android. (I think VLC does too now, etc.)
Of course, Android users are still blocked from this event, the page won't show you the stream unless it detects you're using an Apple product, even if you could play it fine. This was a deliberate restriction by Apple, not a technical limitation.
I presume they're using their HTTP Live Streaming (hack with chunked video for variable framerate). It's supported by VLC and a few other players, but not natively in browsers yet.
It's a live stream of a marketing event of a company. In an ideal world, no one besides die hard apple fans should be interested in watching it live as it happens.
I don't remember the iPod with Windows video event being streamed live as well but yet, as you say, it was a success.
The video is almost always immediately available for everyone after the event. What does anyone gain by watching (or providing) what is widely speculated to be an announcement of a new iteration of an existing product live ?
I don't know that this lesson applies now. Apple occupied a tiny niche at the time the iPod gained Windows compatibility. Now there are the better part of a billion Apple devices out in the world that can view this stream.
That's live coverage, not the event itself. Last time I saw one of these they were shambling trying to get video from people's iphones inside the hall and a couple of their guys got caught and were asked to leave.
He said Lion and up, not sure if there will be a paid option at all. I've got a feeling that it won't support hardware that didn't come with an earlier model (he mentioned the hardware that it supports but I haven't cross referenced the default OS for those).
They have been pretty crappy about people emulating it so I wouldn't be surprised if this is an easy way for them to make that even more difficult.
8.1 is a smaller update than Mavericks, which is itself a smaller update than Win8 or Win7 (in terms of release schedule and scope, not judging quality or quantity of engineering). Apples and oranges, so to speak.
Unless you're interested in Metro (nobody), is there anything remotely interesting about 8.1? Mavericks has some impressive battery and performance improvements that anyone will be able to use.
I'd be mad if I had to pay for 8.1. I would've happily paid for Mavericks.
Apple keynotes, like Apple itself, get more insufferable over time.
The only thing more tiring than hearing Steve Jobs describe every single thing they release as "magical" or "revolutionary" is hearing Phil Schiller blather on about hardware specs. Isn't Apple supposed to be the company that abstracts away hardware features to instead describe their products in terms of real-life benefits?
I remember a time when I truly looked forward to watching these keynotes and being inspired about the future. Now, though, every one feels like incremental changes wrapped in hyperbole. Instead of thinking "hey, that's actually pretty cool," I come away thinking "STOP SAYING EVERY DAMN THING YOU TOUCH IS 'MAGICAL' - GET OVER YOURSELVES AND LET ME DECIDE IF I'M AMAZED!"
Yeah, what could possibly be nerve-wracking about public speaking to hundreds of thousands of people, where a single mis-step can be remembered and mocked until the end of his days?
Is this working for anyone? Can't watch it in Chrome, and on Safari I'm prompted to install Quicktime. I'm on a Mac. On the Quicktime download page it just warns that I already have QT installed. Very confusing.
