Mac OS X: Classic or Dud?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
i've been having mixed feelings about it as of late.

geeta, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

for now: dud. certainly not classick. no outlook express, right? which sux.

nathalie, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

its awful cute

bc, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

what abour windows XP?, I think it is strange.

jel --, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

I like it aesthetically, but it's slow on my machine, and the Apple Mail application truly sucks. This is meant to be a multi-tasking OS, and the new Macs are meant to be as powerful as super-computers. So how come when Mail quits, its compression routines can take as long as four minutes, and during that time nothing else can be done on the computer?

Momus, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

i am relieved to hear complaints about OSX. jel - my impressions of XP are also mixed. I've come to have a lot of strange goings on related to my internet connection, it gets dropped a lot and even when it's disconnected the comp often mistakenly thinks something's using the modem. Also I recently had Restore dump all of my old restore points for no reason ?!!??!?!? I'm curious about just wiping the HD and reinstalling the OS and software anew, but with the nazi-XP licensing would this be a problem?? shit, I don't know enough to even confirm that any of this are XP-specific problems

Ron, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

well it's too slow on my machine. It should run on a computer with 512mb ram. the only application I'm running on it is hyperupic based on xenakis' upic app. so I can't really judge the way this cute system works.

francesco, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

I think your machine needs to be pretty decked out in terms of processor speed and RAM to have it work smoothly. I installed the original public build on my first-generation iBook, and it was pretty slow. Technically my laptop is at the ground floor spec-wise for OSX minumum requirements, but it obviously didn't cut it. The people that I know that are running it on later, faster machines with more RAM seem to have no problem. Also, on the limited screen real estate of the iBook, the Dock took up too much screen space (yes, I know it can be minimized).

Part of what hurts about growing past the original OS for me is that at home I'm by no means a power user, and find no limitations with OS9. I do think that the updates to the GUI are pretty, if a bit distracting, and I guess Apple has done a good job to modernize a well-loved set of conventions.

Sean, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

I don't think MacOS X is perfect (It runs... alright on my PowerBook G4/400 640MB), but I rebooted into MacOS 9 the other day and it was horrible, and not because of the missing eye candy.

Graham, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

Why was it horrible? That's a strong word. If OS9 was really at the level of being called horrible, why did you buy a Mac to begin with?

Sean, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

Archaic and outdated, I suppose (although I don't mean it that strongly). OS 7.5 works really well on my 1992 Duo, but there's something icky about using pretty much the same thing on a much newer computer with much newer programs - I think the way people use computers has changed a lot, and the changes in MacOS X seem to reflect this.

Graham, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

You're right, of course; I was basically just calling you on the use of the word horrible.

Sean, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

it runs quite well. how do you mean it takes four minutes to finish mail? heh? it shuts down immediately when i quit. what does suck is that you can't have more than one reply address with the same settings. fire is great though: it collects AIM, yahoo messenger, msn and jabber (????) and IRC. and hell you can run OS 9 within OS X. i guess it's an improvement cuz with OS 9 my ibook froze quite often. this hasn't happened on my comp (yet).

nathalie, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

I don't know what the mail problem is. Must be something specific to my machine. But OS9 runs a lot faster on my 192MB RAM machine.

My grouses:

Sherlock. In OSX it takes forever to load up (and oh the little bouncing icon in the dock loses its appeal when you just want a small, simple program to open straight away!) and it takes forever to search, and if you type your search term before Sherlock opens, it doesn't remember it by the time the search box appears, as it does in OS9. (Having OS9 running with OSX doesn't help, you need to boot in OS9 to get this sort of advantage).

The Mac Text-to-Speech Voices have become seriously inferior in OSX. My favourite, Bruce High Quality, is not even there any more. All the voices now have the same monotonous falling intonation, which makes them impossible to listen to for any period of time.

File open boxes. In OS9 I could see really clear previews of photos. In OSX I can't, they're all bitmapped and low-res. In OS9 I could arrange my file open dialog box to see files by date, size, etc. In OSX I can only see them by name.

These are fairly minor gripes, though. There are lots of excellent things about OSX, and I have no desire to go back to 9.2, which I obviously could at any time.

Momus, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

OS9 runs faster because whatever app is in the foreground has the lion's share of your CPU's processing time. I did notice a performance hit when I went to OS X, but I figured it was the price I had to pay for pre-emptive multitasking. I had been used to W*ndows until quite recently anyway, so I didn't notice it as much. OS X seems as responsive as Windows 2000 to me, so I can live with that. Whenever I've booted into OS 9, I've been amazed at how quick it is, although it is less stable than OS X.

If you upgrade the RAM in your machine to 512MB, you should see quite an improvement.

Sherlock: Whenever you step away from your machine, open up Sherlock and let it index your files. This should make searching a bit faster. I don't like Sherlock much, I have to say. I use xLocate (http://homepage.mac.com/incomingsw/products/xlocate.html) instead. Much faster.

Text-to-speech: Don't know much about this, but I'm desperate to find an OS X-native app that I can feed text files to and have them spat out as mp3s so I can have my iPod read them to me. Anyone?

File-open boxes/Image previews: I had trouble with this as well, and I wish I could remember exactly how I solved it.. I think the key was Graphic Converter (http://lemkesoft.com/us_gcabout.html), which you may already have a copy of. I *think* I did a batch open/save on all my pictures, and the previews were fine and dandy after that. Any image files that were created under OS 9 will look blocky in preview until you open them up and save them again under OS X. I think.

clotion, Sunday, 14 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

The biggest problem I have is that I cant use my webcam in OS X. I have to restart my imac using OS 9.2. Could be that it refuses to take pics of me ugly face. heh.

nathalie, Monday, 15 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

This might help, Nath.

Graham, Monday, 15 April 2002 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

five months pass...
I used to have some problems with the OS X and OS 9 coexistence. But downloading the security updates and OS 10.1.5 upgrade from the Apple site seemed to fix that. It stopped booting me off IE and crashing.

Jaguar (OS 10.2) is pretty! thanks, rosemary :)

felicity (felicity), Monday, 23 September 2002 17:11 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

hint for OS X users --> Mozilla 1.2 kicks IE's ass from here to.... somewhere very far away

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 23 September 2002 17:35 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

oop - that should be v 1.1 actually; though a visit to the site shows that some pre-release version of 1.2 is actually out.

1.1 is quite stable and has all sorts of nifty things you can do with it. "Tabbed browsing" is my new favorite thing.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 23 September 2002 17:37 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I've got no real complaints with it. I have 256MB RAM. OS9 does seem old and fiddly. I'd rather use Windows than OS9. It's just a shame there isn't more software for OSX.

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 23 September 2002 18:43 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I like how the folders boing open now in 10.2. Tho it's still unbelievable to me that you can't hit a letter in the Mail app to make it jump straight to the person's name, or subject, or however you've sorted it. You know what I mean. Ooh and I like the "badges" that appear on minimized windows so that you can see the logo of the program each one belongs to. I still wish clicking on one of these brought ALL that program's windows forward, at least as an option.... * witters into a bottomless echoey cavern *

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 25 September 2002 04:30 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

i switched back to os9 for almost all my needs (FTP downloads and uploads = the one major exception)

mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 25 September 2002 07:09 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

without it, how would i rm -fr everything, so classic, obv

Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 25 September 2002 08:47 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

four weeks pass...
Switch

felicity (felicity), Thursday, 24 October 2002 06:05 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

four months pass...
OS X Sucks....Apple is doomed.

X hater, Friday, 21 March 2003 05:01 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

How can I have not posted on this thread.

Classic (or rather not classic at all, no space for classic on my machine)

I love how fast and stable it is, clotion a lot of RAM is required to make OSX really speed. Its brought new life to my ageing computer. What I really loveis bein able to do all of my ansys work on my own computer, rather than having to use one of the NT boxes at the university.

RAMis the key to making it sing. I'd see 512Mb as a practical minimum, all of those cool things need a lot of memory, and memory is so cheap right now. I have 640Mb on a 500Mhz G3 and I have no gripes about speed.

Ed (dali), Friday, 21 March 2003 08:50 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Got a G4 1.42 Ghz dual processor (at work) and I have the hard drive partitioned for OSX and OS9. And I have a lot of RAM. No complaints so far.
At home, I have a shitty old Mac.

Bruce Urquhart (Bruce Urquhart), Friday, 21 March 2003 09:18 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I like it well enough. I also use Safari instead of IE.

Nordicskillz (Nordicskillz), Friday, 21 March 2003 09:53 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

three years pass...
is there some anticipation for Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard)in here?

In springtime I think I'll buy a mac laptop with it preinstalled. Anyone heard about running it side by side with other os like vista or ubuntu, like some sort of virtual machine? I think a setup like that would be good for me.

SÆbästìên (immortalist), Thursday, 1 February 2007 15:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I am anticipatory.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 1 February 2007 15:55 (twelve years ago) Permalink

heyyy is that Sebastien Chikara?

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 1 February 2007 16:35 (twelve years ago) Permalink

thats right ! here's my current entrance music , interpreted by a lipsyncher http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5faLh14q1AU

SÆbästìên (immortalist), Thursday, 1 February 2007 16:40 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i'm so frustrated with their bullshit jungle cat os and constant $$ upgrades, i'm actually considering switching to linux omg.

bell labs (bell_labs), Thursday, 1 February 2007 16:46 (twelve years ago) Permalink

download cracked version > burn dvd > yay!

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 1 February 2007 16:51 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i've been playing with the developer releases a bit. "Spaces" is pretty cool.

pabs (Pablo A), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:04 (twelve years ago) Permalink

mac users seem to talk about software compatibility problems often enough, i guess it might get annoying not being able to use every little programs that I come across on the net . like it's viable but bit of a hassle, like being allergic to peanuts or something, (like).

SÆbästìên (immortalist), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:10 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I switched *FROM* Linux and trust me, you DO NOT WANT.

UART variations (ex machina), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:11 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Sebastien, there's very little that I've been unable to do other than play shitty games.

UART variations (ex machina), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:12 (twelve years ago) Permalink

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/60/204150932_e2de94c3a7.jpg?v=0

When is Leopard coming out WWDC?

UART variations (ex machina), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:19 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I am greatly anticipating Leopard

IF THEY FUCKING FIX IPHOTO SO IT DOESN'T TAKE 10 SECONDS TO DUPLICATE A PHOTO.

Hopefully Leopard will also improve porn speed. Because, as everyone knows, porn leads new technology like no other.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:30 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Sebastien, there's very little that I've been unable to do other than play shitty games.

hey that's good to know from u. I was imagining some (possibly hypotetic) shitty scenario like no mac version of soulseek in its early days. some softwares,for some time , get to be important in how I use my time. by the way is Mac Virtual Machine difficult to use? that might be why I hear some complaints here and there.

SÆbästìên (immortalist), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:39 (twelve years ago) Permalink

don - try iview media pro. much better.

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:41 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i love iview but my trial expired and i can't justify dropping $200 on a license. i am cheap.

Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:43 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Hopefully Leopard will also improve porn speed. Because, as everyone knows, porn leads new technology like no other.

So a vote for them to include fullscreen in quicktime, then?

UART variations (ex machina), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:44 (twelve years ago) Permalink

by the way is Mac Virtual Machine difficult to use?

parallels?

UART variations (ex machina), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

james - http://www.serialz.to/serialbox.html

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:50 (twelve years ago) Permalink

how many large jungle cats are left?

Lion, Puma, Mountain Lion,

will they move to medium cats?

Ocelot, Bobcat, Lynx?

Tabby? Maine Coon?

Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Thursday, 1 February 2007 17:55 (twelve years ago) Permalink

kitty

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Thursday, 1 February 2007 18:01 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I wonder when they're going to make OS 11.

UART variations (ex machina), Thursday, 1 February 2007 18:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Question, and I don't want to ask on the I Hate thread: Is it wrong of me to feel deep within my soul that installing Symantec Norton Anti-Everything on my Mac at work is a stupid fucking thing to do? Am I wrong to suspect that this is another instance of our clueless IT department not understanding that this isn't Windows XP? Am I a bad person if I actually feel a bit insulted?

kenan, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 15:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

it was only 198MB for me but that is still pretty hoofing.

Ed, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 15:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

Is it wrong of me to feel deep within my soul that installing Symantec Norton Anti-Everything on my Mac at work is a stupid fucking thing to do?

no, it is a fucking stupid thing to do

DG, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 15:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

I wouldn't install norton anti-everything. There was a good article on Ars a while back on the good open source alternatives to stuff like that for Windows, Linux and OS X. An AV-tool is a good thing if only because it'll stop you passing through any windows nasties.

Ed, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 15:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah because I spend sooo much time forwarding ppt files with pictures of Jesus to my grandma. Fuck this, I'm not an idiot.

kenan, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 15:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ran the update and haven't noticed any problems so far, at least.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 15:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

The only problem I've had -- and this happened with the 5.2 update as well -- is that after the update, Time Machine will try to back up the whole system again, and that's dandy, but for some reason if your machine goes to sleep during that first big backup, Time Machine will get stuck and never stop "preparing" to update. Solution: turn off the energy saver and "put hard drive to sleep" features for a while.

kenan, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 15:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was mere suggesting that there might be something that would satisfy your support team and not add a layer of software that will treat you as a moron.

Ed, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 15:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

my brother - who's just got a macbook, his first mac - installed the last update and it somehow messed with his safari, so he's getting 'unable to load nib file' errors every time he tries to open it. And then expecting me to know what to do to fix it. urk.

permanent resolution, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 15:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

xpost Yeah, I know -- there's a nice beardo smart guy that comes around, and I'll ask him what we should use instead. Something lightweight will be fine. There's just no reason for us to be installing this giant suite of "parental controls" and the like -- uh... the OS already does that, but Gee Thanks Symantec!

kenan, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 15:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

here's a similar question: any reason to install antivirus software in a virtualized environment (say, a VMware install of Windows XP)? If I got something I can just wipe that virtual OS out by deleting it and resintall, right? I only have this for browser checks and slsk (which isn't working very well) anyway.

akm, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 16:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yes you can but that is a pain. See the above Ars article for open source windows de crapping tools.

Ed, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 16:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

VMware or Parallels?

DG, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 16:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

Changes week by week almost as they add new features. Parallels, I think has the edge right now being able to interleave windows apps into os x.

Also on the windows wiping thing, if your xp is legit then you will come up against the windows activation limit if you reinstall from scratch every time.

Ed, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 16:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

good point. I ran/run AVG for antivirus stuff on windows, has worked fine for me in the past.

akm, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 16:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

I try really hard to not be biased toward or against Macs but there's one thing I can't for the life of me understand.

The hardware looks like this:
http://techpaedia.com/apple/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/MacBook.png
which is slick and stylish but fairly conserrvative white goods design.

But the OS looks like this:
http://www.cnet.com.au/story_media/339283264/leopard-osx_1.jpg

Which looks like it was designed by a well meaning 14 year old star trek nut with no self control.

It's got fake 3D icons with several inconsistent perspectives, those cliched semi-transparent reflections that are now laughed at when used on the web, the style of the strip across the top of the screen clashes with the strip on the bottom, and the background image is the sort of abstract tosh knocked up in a 1000 photoshop tutorials mixed with an old school 8bit starfield and it's mostly PURPLE.

Okay, a lot people might like the budget sci-fi look, but why are the hardware and the software so, so inconsistent?

mei, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 22:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

i feel your pain

DG, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 22:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

because it's a computer

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 22:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah the stock desktop with leopard (that purple thing) is atrocious. it still comes up when I'm logged out, have to find some way for it to disappear. it looks like a bad video game

akm, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 22:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

"because it's a computer" Huh?

mei, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 22:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

That black laptop and it's black themed aero fit, as does the speccy and it's RYGC stripe (but I have to point out (as a COMPLETE NERD) that the screen shot isn't from that computer! It's from a later 128k spectrum).

mei, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 22:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

it's not even from that, it's from some emulator

google image search is gay

DG, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 22:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

but i know what you mean, you'd think the mac desktop would look more like this

http://server.ericsbinaryworld.com/images/blog/21oct_fluxbox.png

DG, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 23:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol linux

DG, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 23:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

but lol Linux can look like almost literally anything, both the box and the interface.

http://www.dvc.uk.com/acatalog/hp4300.jpg

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/fluxion23/Screenshot1_sm.jpghttp://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/fluxion23/Screenshot2_sm.jpg

kenan, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 00:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

mei, replace this file:

/System/Library/CoreServices/DefaultDesktop.jpg

then repair permissions with disk utility

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 00:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Which looks like it was designed by a well meaning 14 year old star trek nut with no self control.

Yup. Got outta hand, didn't they? But it is customizable, more all the time. Possibly the worse it looks, the harder people try to make it easy to customize.

kenan, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 00:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

This is much more like it should look to match the hardware!

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/desktop/empty/macosx102.png

mei, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 08:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

okay so I have to backup 350GB of data from my hard drive to our xraid; I'm guessing making a disc image is the best way to deal with this issue. How long is that going to take? I started doing it and it was taking forever so I cancelled; but we were also having some connection problems to the raid (maybe these were my fault for trying to shove this much data onto it during work hours, who knows).

akm, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 17:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

Best to use something like RsyncX to create the image, it will make recovery a whole heap easier.

Ed, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 17:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

mei otm. 10.3 was the last I liked, and even it wasn't that great.

stet, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 17:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah it seems that making that image the raid is overloading our server; you'd think it would be able to handle something like that. I'm inclined to just copy directories over one by one; it's going to take all day but at least they'll be in smaller chunks.

akm, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 17:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

purple itunes? gay!

DG, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 17:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

one year passes...

Your search - "snow lolpard" - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:
* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.

Did you mean to search for: "snow leopard"

I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Monday, 24 August 2009 17:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

two years pass...

Bet you didn't know that OS X keeps a separate list of all files you have downloaded. Now you do.

Elvis Telecom, Saturday, 14 July 2012 22:50 (six years ago) Permalink

one year passes...

is there a way to set the finder's 'find…' to search by name (or any other preference setting), so that it sticks as the default?

j., Friday, 14 February 2014 21:38 (five years ago) Permalink

four years pass...

I was doing some cleanup and maintenance on my mother's mid-2010 iMac and discovered that it won't run Mojave, but it will run operating systems up through High Sierra. It's currently running 10.8 Mountain Lion and the machine has 4GB of RAM. What's the best/speediest OS for this machine?

ILX Moderator: It's Like a Pressure Wash for Your Insides (WmC), Saturday, 9 February 2019 16:48 (two months ago) Permalink

Aside from security concerns, it’s generally best to leave the OS alone because of the tendency for older applications to not work with updates. That said, if you’re willing to deal with whatever application headaches, you’ll probably be OK with whatever latest OS the machine can handle.

Philip Nunez, Saturday, 9 February 2019 17:08 (two months ago) Permalink

All she needs is a browser, Mail and a jigsaw puzzle app as far as that goes. I was just wondering if any of the range from 10.8 to 10.13 are markedly better than the others.

ILX Moderator: It's Like a Pressure Wash for Your Insides (WmC), Saturday, 9 February 2019 17:27 (two months ago) Permalink

i would stay away from apfs if at all possible. if she's having issues with safari you may be able to just switch her to firefox without a full os upgrade.

dynamicinterface, Saturday, 9 February 2019 17:46 (two months ago) Permalink

As features go, there’s not a very compelling case to upgrade even from snow leopard for most people — it’s really the security fixes that are a major reason to consider it.
I guess that and integration with iPhone, airdrop etc...

Philip Nunez, Saturday, 9 February 2019 18:17 (two months ago) Permalink

I have a 2015 Macbook Pro running High Sierra, and this is my first Mac, ever, that has given me regular, serious problems.

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 9 February 2019 19:09 (two months ago) Permalink

it was preinstalled on my 2017 air when i bought it this past summer. i thought it was quite nice! no noticeable problems. a real step up from the snow leopard or whatever i was running before. my understanding was that i had lucked into running the most refined and tweaked version of a series of recent major os versions that had left people disappointed, and that others also thought it had fixed a lot of those issues for them.

aren't the main issues machine-specific bugginess, and machine capacity?

i don't know about the former for the 2010 imacs, but on the latter it seems (from the internet) that people with machines from that era have generally been pleased with performance boosts from high sierra, even ones who had previously been running sierra. but a caveat is that when their machines run HDDs instead of SSDs (which wm's mom's does, i think?), the boost is modest at best because of heavy disk use.

most of the testimonials i have read also seem to be upgrading from twice as much ram as wm's mom's machine. for a rough comparison, my mb air running the newest mojave has 8 gb ram and is currently using ~5 with a handful of routine things open, 3.46 for apps and 1.35 wired (can't be compressed or paged out to disk). apple says 2 is enough for high sierra. for low-impact use on a machine like wm's mom's i would expect a fair bit of drive paging to make that work?

i usually check in on macintouch for old discussions of things like this, if that helps.

j., Saturday, 9 February 2019 19:37 (two months ago) Permalink

Speed isn't hugely affected by the OS updates, it's the third-party apps breaking, as said above. If that doesn't matter just go with the latest one it can handle for the security patches, and the changes in App Store/iTunes/whatever often being required for your iOS devices.

Nhex, Saturday, 9 February 2019 19:38 (two months ago) Permalink

"Tabbed browsing" is my new favorite thing.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 23 September 2002 18:37 (sixteen years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

:o

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 10 February 2019 15:46 (two months ago) Permalink

aw 17 years together as Trabs

21st savagery fox (m bison), Sunday, 10 February 2019 17:37 (two months ago) Permalink

I remember talking to an early Safari engineer who was passionately opposed to adding tab support...

fajita seas, Sunday, 10 February 2019 21:38 (two months ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.