What I’d Like to See in Tiger: Part 4, A Self-Repairing OS

by Hadley Stern Mar 07, 2005

Every operating system has its quirks. OS 9 was marred by frequent crashes. A typical prevention regimen included running Norton Disc Doctor religiously (defragment, defragment, defragment). Other OS 9 fun included memorizing all your extensions and when you installed them. Looking back, Conflict Catcher, which would start up your Mac a bizzilion times with every conceivably combination of extensions turned on and off.

Thankfully we don’t have to worry about this in OS X. When you install an application you need not worry whether it will conflict with another application. This is welcome relief.

However, as I said every operating system has it’s quirks. And while OS X is a far superior operating system to OS 9 there are still troubleshooting issues that pop-up. These issues are inherently anti-user because they make no sense whatsoever. I appreciate that OS X is built on top of a rock-solid Unix foundation. But I don’t appreciate that I have to run fix disk permissions every couple of weeks or so. Why isn’t this function build into the operating system?

Permissions are one example, rebuilding the disk directory with third party tools in another. In 2005 you’d think we were beyond these issues. More than Dashboard users want a computer that does as much as possible to take care of itself. With Tiger, Apple should do everything it can to make the operating system more intelligent, and more able to take care of itself.

Comments

  • Couldn’t agree more.  The only problem is that you can’t sell that kind of improvement if it’s not bundled with 149 other improvments, some of which make you go “Oooh!” and “Aaah!”, like Dashboard or Expose.

    Hywel had this to say on Mar 07, 2005 Posts: 51
  • I think that would cause some folks in the marketing department to tear there hair out. Part of OS X appeal is its “rock solid stability” a feature that repairs the OS would make a lot of people wonder about that. I mean the average mac user knows nothing of repairing permissions.
    That said if they mixed it in a untrumpeted manner that would be pretty sweer. Note: I hadn’t reapired my permissions since August (at least) on the ibook, thanks for the reminder.

    chrisseibold had this to say on Mar 07, 2005 Posts: 48
  • I couldn’t agree more Hadley, and I don’t think there will be much contention on this one. smile

    As you mentioned, I would like the OS to repair it’s own permissions after installing OS components (although I understand why they have left this to the user) - better yet, an defaulted option to auto-repair the default system permissions after an installation would be nice.

    Secondly, I’d like to see a more intelligent implementation of the daily/weekly/monthly routines that the OS runs in the middle of the night.  Many people are not even aware of these, and if they shut down their system every night, they may be missing out on these auto-repair utilities - A notice from the OS that it hasn’t run one of these routines in a certain amount of time would be nice, giving the user the option to run them right away, or to CRON them for a specific time, etc.

    I would also like to see better conflict resolution with fonts.  I’ve had to spend way too much time moving fonts around, removing duplicates, and resolving duplicates - There should be a smart interface whereby the user can choose “Move all non-system fonts into User Library,” or the root Library, etc.  And, another to “Permanently remove all duplicate fonts” would be nice.  How about one that “Disable all Foreign fonts” so they don’t keep magically re-installing themselves. smile

    I’ve also had a few FireWire 800 problems as of late, when using a FW400 DV capture device and trying to write to a FW800 drive.  Every so often, a FW400 drive (that I’m not actually using at the time) will go totally AWOL, meaning it’s just not mountable, and Disk Util can’t rebuild it.  The only tool that seems to work is Disk Warrior, which always brings the drive back (after 30 minutes of profuse swearing).  I know this isn’t really an OS maintenance issue, but perhaps more intelligent monitoring of the disk access would prevent a directory corruption like this. smile

    -Mark

    Mark Lindsey had this to say on Mar 07, 2005 Posts: 20
  • Hadley, you can add my name to the chorus on this one—except that the self-diagnostics/repair I have long had in mind comes closer to StarTrek than it does to the year 2005 and any UNIX-oriented OS. Still, in concept I’m with you on this 100 percent; this has long been a bugaboo of mine.

    Also, contrary to the comments of a previous poster, I don’t think this would give the marketing department fits at all. First, this is the kind of thing which marketing is unlikely to advertise anyway, (after all, there are plenty of capabilities in OS X which are not promoted). Second, this doesn’t undermine the concept of rock solid stability at all—quite the contrary, it enhances it. To think otherwise is to think like the old-school executives of the American auto manufacturers who objected to seat belts (and later air bags) on grounds that it would send a signal that their cars were not safe, (when in fact all it would do is show the public they are that much safer STILL).

    Journaling is a move in this direction, and the auto-disk repair procedure done at start up is another, (you know, the old /sbin/fsck -y -f thing). But we need an OS which aggressively examines and tunes itself for optimal performance (based to some degree on user-defined parameters and priorities).

    I would like to see an integrity check of all system-related (and Finder-related) plist files. I would like to see automatic versioning built into the file system. I would like to see a robust system cloning and restore function as well—complete with an “instant-on” capability from flash ram or some such thing. The days of waiting for a machine to boot up should be long over by now.

    OS X is in desperate need of being able to back out of network time-outs. Too often the OS goes into la-la land while waiting from an ack from a remote network device. The Finder becomes immobilzed for an eternity. This should stop. Better multi-threading would be a good start and OS X needs better management of networking when the network resources it is counting on are NOT present. Apple also needs to fix—once and for all—the damned wake from sleep problems that in myriad permutations bedevil users of certain models and configs.

    But the StarTrek-level stuff requires AI technology. A truly self-diagnosing/repairing operating system would know that it failed to wake from sleep upon the last user attempt and it would then examine why this failure occurred. It would repair its own code with fixes on the spot.

    Meantime, it looks as though I shall be manually deleting cache files when they go corrupt, manually running the shell scripts when I don’t leave my computer on during the night, manually running Disk Utility from time to time (and how do file permissions get changed in the FIRST place—without authorization?), and manually updating the prebinding, etc.

    Let’s hope what you ask for is not too far away in the future.

    -Jeff

    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Mar 07, 2005 Posts: 74
  • Good idea Mark. Maybe at the same time we can ask Apple to �Self-Repair� OS X�s Finder Windows so that they �live-update� - like the old OS 9 ones did… after all they�ve only had five years to implement this basic function.

    Of course, when I worked in applications on the speedy OS 9 GUI my background Finder lists were INSTANTLY updated each time I saved or exported a document - a great way to keep an eye on work in progress, file orders etc.  Sadly, these days, Apple is so preoccupied with heaping every sort of inconsistent eye-candy onto its current GUI that the company seems to have overlooked including such an obvious, straightforward - and essential - feature.

    RESULT?
    Save a file… nothing
    Glance over at the Finder window 2 hours (and many Saves) later… nothing
    Click onto the Desktop… nothing
    Click into that Finder window… noth… oh wait a minute!
    Finder has a little think about it…
    Finder creates TWO identical icons of the saved file which sit there for a while (take your time boys, I�ve only got a deadline to meet)
    The whole directory shuffles around and reorganises itself…
    HEY! finally it�s updated.

    The consequence of this particularly sluggish aspect of the OS X GUI is that I frequently not only open the wrong files but also launch the wrong applications those wrong files were created in.  The problem being - I�m so used to working seamlessly with the immediate system-wide responses of OS 9, so this little �wait-and-see� cat and mouse game the OS X Finder likes to play always trips me up (and of course, throws yet another �X� spanner into my work routine). I suppose had it not been for OS 9 this (along with many other examples) could just be written off as a sort of limitation of Mac technology… something that Apple might one day improve.  But after all this time, I wonder if they can be bothered?

    slopes had this to say on Mar 07, 2005 Posts: 17
  • Slopes,

    You are so negative towards OSX, I’m wondering why you are using it at all?  Why don’t you go back to OS9 if it’s so superior, or get a Win box, then you can F5 all day long.

    Yes, I agree, the Finder update problem is a problem.  But why are you sitting around waiting for it?  If you simply click on another folder, then click back (in Column View at least), the list usually updates instantly.

    You say you’ve been working with OSX for over a year now, but you haven’t discovered simple work-arounds like this yet?  I’m starting to get the sense that you’re not really much of a power-user to begin with if these basic annoyances are such a problem for you, especially if you are habitually opening the wrong files and applications.

    I’m not trying to start a flame here, but can we get back to a positive vibe in the spirit of this article to talk about improvments we’d like to see in Tiger?

    -M

    Mark Lindsey had this to say on Mar 07, 2005 Posts: 20
  • Mark - The Finder is an indefensible application. There are so many things wrong with it, it is a waste of time to even make one excuse for it.

    A power user does not “click on another folder, then click back”. That kind of interaction makes even a power user a simpleton in the Finder.

    The design, performance, and ease-of-use in System 8-9 is something to laud - and hope that OS X one day can match.

    Nathan had this to say on Mar 07, 2005 Posts: 219
  • http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/finder.ars/1

    John Siracusa’s sharp as a razor description is also something to laud - reading thru the muck of the last articles comments reminded me that JS had described everything that is good and bad about the Mac OS X interface.

    Nathan had this to say on Mar 07, 2005 Posts: 219
  • Actually Nathan, it’s a waste of time bagging on it if you’re not interested in helping to fix the problem.  A power user will find work-arounds when confronted with inadequacies in any OS, not simply play dumb and wait for the OS to do something.  I won’t even touch your last comment - it’s not worth my time. wink

    Mark Lindsey had this to say on Mar 07, 2005 Posts: 20
  • I must agree with Slopes that Finder windows fail to update dynamically as well as they should. They DO auto-update but the implementation of this function is definitely short of the mark—no question about it. But I agree with Mark that to speak of sitting there indefinitely (up to two hours), waiting for the Finder window to update is either disingenuous or hyperbolic or indicative of a great lack of resourcefulness as a computer user (or all of the above).

    Mark is right—you can stimulate a refresh of the Finder window by simply clicking on an item in it. On occasion it may be necessary to arrow down or up to invoke a refresh—but it IS that simple. To sit there and wait is patently absurd and almost pathological.

    Now, again, the Finder DOES fall short in this regard and I agree with Slopes on another point he makes which is that Apple has had more than ample time to have cleared up this problem by now. But I’m very tired of his obsession with “eye candy” when I suspect he would be very hard pressed to give examples of it.

    OS 9 was gray—all gray. We can call it platinum or silver all we want, but it was gray. Title bars—gray. Scroll bars—gray. Window borders—gray. Menubars—gray. Menus themselves—gray. Dialog boxes—gray. Unless the user resorted to the Appearance Manager (or whatever it was called) or a fine product like Kaleidoscope), all was gray. And so Apple decides to add some very conservative color to the OS X interface and people like Slopes squawk, “Eye candy!” Apparently it’s either to be all gray or eye candy and there is no middle ground for these people.

    Time to be called to account. Give examples. What qualifies as eye candy in your view?

    I don’t hold with those who believe that an intuitive interface is over here while aesthetics and appearance is over there. I think these things go hand in hand. People stare at their computer screens a LONG time during the day and it only makes sense that they should see a bit of color to break the monotony. Again, I find the OS X GUI to be muted and conservative in its use of color. It’s not the least bit garish or over the top.

    Meantime, if Apple can’t improve the dynamic window updating of the Finder (while still keeping its cpu-usage low), then maybe it will have to bite the bullet and add a refresh command (a la Windows). But I do acknowledge that something must be done in this regard.

    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Mar 07, 2005 Posts: 74
  • I agree that the Finder needs major work.  It’s most annoying shortcoming to me is its inability to timely recover from a network failure (DSL down, local network down, whatever) that results in the Finder sitting there waiting indefinitely to timeout. 

    You should be able to get back to work immediately without your usual network resources if they are unavailable.  A simple notice in the background that your Mac cannot connect to network resource X at the moment should suffice as enough of a delay in your productivity.

    Dave Marsh had this to say on Mar 08, 2005 Posts: 44
  • Dave, I couldn’t agree with you more on this. It’s absurd that any UNIX-based application, (which is what the Finder is, after all) would go off into la-la land in this way. Even if Apple wanted the Finder to have generous time-out values, the app should be multi-threaded enough as to allow for mouse/keyboard interrupts. I should still be able to call up windows and manipulate files and folders even if a sub-process (or child process) is still waiting to hear from a remote network device that isn’t there.

    Apple needs to get some top engineers to fix this once and for all.

    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Mar 08, 2005 Posts: 74
  • Nathan - John Siracusa’s article is a very interesting one (which I am familiar with).  His lucid introductory overview of the Mac GUI is based very much on (or holds remarkable similarities to) the seminal work done in the 1940�s and 50�s by British psychologist D.W. Winnicott.  Winnicott developed a theory of �Object Relations� after closely observing young infants in an effort to discover the root process of ALL human interaction with its external environment. He was interested in what made these interactions successful - leading to stimulated child/adult who develops a capacity to fully organise, manipulate, and take responsibility for his own environment; or what makes the interactions fail - leading to despondency, frustration, and dependency on his environment.

    What Winnicott discovered is that all our objects must remain inert - meaning that they must be felt by the child to have no life of their own beyond that of what he invests in them through his own will and action - initially through the process of �play� which, if successful, carries on through into his adult �working� life (ie: organising, grouping, transforming, placing etc).  Winnicott found that one of the main obstacles to the success of this �project� is either a �not good enough� parent (unable to participate) or a �too good� parent (over participating).

    Of course for our discussion here -  as we debate how our virtual objects can best be used within the computing environment - we can replace the word �parent� with �Operating System� (after all both, in different areas of our life, represent authorities).  If Apple is going to insist on becoming the �over-participating parent’ by removing the dependable inert space we rely on to naturally interact with our objects, and if the company demands it takes control of (or interferes with) how we choose to arrange those objects… or even if we can meaningfully take the responsibility of arranging them at all…, then Apple (like an errant, do-gooding, and attention seeking (read: �eye-candy�) parent) is heading for real problems.

    slopes had this to say on Mar 08, 2005 Posts: 17
  • Mark -
    If Apple would hire me, then I could do something about it =) Or if someone like Pathfinder, or another Finder alternative wanted to have an interaction designer - I am all theirs.

    Altho there are others out there eminantly better than I to figure it all out.

    If you are referring to “workarounds” for my day to day interaction with the Finder - OF COURSE I have workarounds for the Finder’s failings, and I don’t just sit there with a slack jaw. haha.

    If I knew any better, me thinks I was just trolled by Mark with his last post. oh well.

    Nathan had this to say on Mar 08, 2005 Posts: 219
  • Hehe - No worries Nathan - Slopes is the only one trolling in here. smile  I was merely commenting on your statement that a power-user doesn’t use a work-around to avoid the Finder file list update problem.  What kind of a user would Slopes be considered if he sat and waited for 2 hours, as opposed to someone who clicked on another folder to get the job done?  Perhaps the same kind of user that in Windows, would wait for their system to crash and reboot to see a list update, rather than pressing the F5 key. wink

    Mark Lindsey had this to say on Mar 08, 2005 Posts: 20
  • Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >
You need log in, or register, in order to comment