PDA

View Full Version : Apple Seeds OS X 10.8.5 Build 12F17 to Developers




MacRumors
Jul 3, 2013, 03:07 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/03/apple-seeds-os-x-10-8-5-build-12f17-to-developers/)


Apple today seeded build 12F17 of OS X 10.8.5 to developers, offering a third version of the next Mac operating system update for testing. The release comes one week after the appearance of the previous beta (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/26/apple-seeds-build-12f13-of-os-x-beta-10-8-5-to-developers/) of OS X 10.8.5, build 12F13.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/07/12f17.jpg
As with previous betas, the update comes with no known issues and can be downloaded via Apple's Developer Page (https://developer.apple.com/) or through the software update tool in the Mac App Store.

Testing on OS X 10.8.5 comes as Apple is also continuing work on its next major version of OS X, Mavericks. Apple has already seeded two developer previews (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/24/apple-releases-os-x-mavericks-developer-preview-2/) of OS X Mavericks and has announced that it will launch the new operating system to the public this fall.

Article Link: Apple Seeds OS X 10.8.5 Build 12F17 to Developers (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/03/apple-seeds-os-x-10-8-5-build-12f17-to-developers/)



LorenzMeir
Jul 3, 2013, 03:14 PM
Can any one explain to me why they are still doing this instead of putting extra work in Mavericks? Not that it bothers me, just asking

WildCowboy
Jul 3, 2013, 03:17 PM
Can any one explain to me why they are still doing this instead of putting extra work in Mavericks? Not that it bothers me, just asking

Mavericks isn't coming for months, and there are things in Mountain Lion that need fixing.

laflores
Jul 3, 2013, 03:19 PM
Can any one explain to me why they are still doing this instead of putting extra work in Mavericks? Not that it bothers me, just asking

Because otherwise, people would start crying because "apple doesn't care about mountain lion any more" and some people will complain that mavericks is a piece of **** and they rather stay with snow leopard...

beelzebubba
Jul 3, 2013, 03:21 PM
Can any one explain to me why they are still doing this instead of putting extra work in Mavericks? Not that it bothers me, just asking

Because many people still run ML and will even after Mavericks comes out. ML will likely be the end of the line for some older Macs and Apple has done fairly well in supporting legacy machines even past the five year end of life.

macs4nw
Jul 3, 2013, 03:25 PM
Good to hear those developer seeds coming out with regularity. Reassuring to know APPLE is on the ball with this.

rdlink
Jul 3, 2013, 03:37 PM
Gonna miss those cats when they're gone.

ogee
Jul 3, 2013, 03:43 PM
Because otherwise, people would start crying because "apple doesn't care about mountain lion any more" and some people will complain that mavericks is a piece of **** and they rather stay with snow leopard...

Snow leopard...and what is wrong with Panther ????

:D

darkknight14
Jul 3, 2013, 04:00 PM
Gonna miss those cats when they're gone.

Me too, every time I look at that new wave background it makes me want to go for a p***

Mr. Retrofire
Jul 3, 2013, 04:16 PM
...and what is wrong with Panther?
He ate my socks. Holy, sock eating panther!

mstrshikadance
Jul 3, 2013, 04:30 PM
(not trolling)

first time that safari has ever been snappier for me....running rMBP.....but it might also just be because safari in mavs is horrible

iBug2
Jul 3, 2013, 05:13 PM
(not trolling)

first time that safari has ever been snappier for me....running rMBP.....but it might also just be because safari in mavs is horrible

Are you kidding me? Safari 7.0 finally solves the memory issue which was introduced in 5.1 where when you open many tabs, web process just crashes. 7.0 does not have that, the single most annoying Safari bug in 2 years being solved finally.

rdlink
Jul 3, 2013, 05:14 PM
Tiny update. Took about 30 seconds to install over the last seed.

vindictum
Jul 3, 2013, 05:16 PM
(not trolling)

first time that safari has ever been snappier for me....running rMBP.....but it might also just be because safari in mavs is horrible

Well, I have rMBP too, and Safari is much much better in Mavericks.... nearly butter-smooth :)

MikhailT
Jul 3, 2013, 09:22 PM
Because many people still run ML and will even after Mavericks comes out. ML will likely be the end of the line for some older Macs and Apple has done fairly well in supporting legacy machines even past the five year end of life.

You do know that Mavs will run any Macs that also run ML, right? ML isn't the end of the line for anything.

beelzebubba
Jul 4, 2013, 02:37 AM
You do know that Mavs will run any Macs that also run ML, right? ML isn't the end of the line for anything.

A compatibility matrix hasn't been released yet though there is an understanding that most machines that will run ML will run Mavericks. Requirement of the "advanced GPU" could be one of the determining factors. There has been no official word that everything that runs ML will run Mavericks.

The post that somehow the resources devoted to 10.8.5 impede Mavericks is specious from the get go. Throwing resources or developers at a release doesn't automatically mean it will develop quicker. The 10.8.4 machines still have issues that need to be resolved. If one looks at the release history, particularly when there is a large upgrade they would find a pattern similar to the release pattern currently in use. The release schedule shouldn't be news to anyone that's been developing for or even following the platform for any length of time.

katewes
Jul 4, 2013, 02:41 AM
For the latest beta seed, can someone, who has used it, find it within themselves to just stated the speed of shutdown in seconds, with no further comment, either positive or negative. i.e. no comments such as, "Why are people upset with slow shutdown times". Just empirically state the shutdown time, in seconds, period. Full stop. No comment.

----------

Well, I have rMBP too, and Safari is much much better in Mavericks.... nearly butter-smooth :)

As a Chrome user, it'll have to be snappier than Chrome to tempt me away.

M5RahuL
Jul 4, 2013, 03:43 AM
For the latest beta seed, can someone, who has used it, find it within themselves to just stated the speed of shutdown in seconds, with no further comment, either positive or negative. i.e. no comments such as, "Why are people upset with slow shutdown times". Just empirically state the shutdown time, in seconds, period. Full stop. No comment.

No change in 10.8.5 and 10.9 DP 2

Kariya
Jul 4, 2013, 06:57 AM
Is Aperture broken for anyone else in this seed?

ValSalva
Jul 4, 2013, 07:23 AM
So far I haven't noticed any changes with this build. Yet.

vindictum
Jul 4, 2013, 07:35 AM
For the latest beta seed, can someone, who has used it, find it within themselves to just stated the speed of shutdown in seconds, with no further comment, either positive or negative. i.e. no comments such as, "Why are people upset with slow shutdown times". Just empirically state the shutdown time, in seconds, period. Full stop. No comment.

----------



As a Chrome user, it'll have to be snappier than Chrome to tempt me away.

How about your curiosity? :-P Use it and see for yourself :)

iBug2
Jul 4, 2013, 08:16 AM
As a Chrome user, it'll have to be snappier than Chrome to tempt me away.

Chrome on Mac is never as snappy as Safari. Safari is the best coded browser on Mac in terms of speed.

DJJAZZYJET
Jul 4, 2013, 09:17 AM
Chrome on Mac is never as snappy as Safari. Safari is the best coded browser on Mac in terms of speed.

+1,

I love safari for Mac. I love google chrome for windows.

fivedots
Jul 4, 2013, 12:40 PM
Chrome on Mac is never as snappy as Safari. Safari is the best coded browser on Mac in terms of speed.

+1,

I love safari for Mac. I love google chrome for windows.

Chrome remains terrible for me on my 15" rMBP; the scrolling is nowhere near smooth, whereas Safari is excellent.

There are couple little things I do miss from Chrome, notably favicons on the tabs for easy identification and the tiny fact that when closing a lot of tabs, chrome doesn't resize them until you mouse away from the tab area so the targets you may be trying to click aren't moving.

gwang73
Jul 4, 2013, 12:57 PM
Is Aperture broken for anyone else in this seed?

Aperture v3.4.5 is working fine for me. What's broken for you?

skirmisser
Jul 4, 2013, 01:10 PM
Running an rMBP 15" with 10.8.4 and just want to also confirm that Safari is much smoother than the latest Chrome. It is not even close. For Windows yes Chrome pretty much rules, but for OS X on an rMBP they are on a different level of performance.

Kariya
Jul 4, 2013, 03:50 PM
Aperture v3.4.5 is working fine for me. What's broken for you?

Thanks. I've realised it was user error. All good now.

star-affinity
Jul 4, 2013, 05:55 PM
Chrome remains terrible for me on my 15" rMBP; the scrolling is nowhere near smooth, whereas Safari is excellent.

There are couple little things I do miss from Chrome, notably favicons on the tabs for easy identification and the tiny fact that when closing a lot of tabs, chrome doesn't resize them until you mouse away from the tab area so the targets you may be trying to click aren't moving.

Maybe the scrolling is different on a rMBP, but I think rendering speed overall is a little bit quicker in Chrome.

Anyway, you can add favicons in tabs to Safari with Glims: http://www.machangout.com/

fivedots
Jul 4, 2013, 06:20 PM
Maybe the scrolling is different on a rMBP, but I think rendering speed overall is a little bit quicker in Chrome.

Anyway, you can add favicons in tabs to Safari with Glims: http://www.machangout.com/

I would agree the on 10.8.4 at least, Chrome is a little quicker to render, but I just can't get over the choppy scrolling on my rMBP. Hooked up to an external monitor it's fine.

I'll check out Glims. I've heard of it before but didn't realize it was still an active product.

EDIT: Okay, wow, Glims rocks. Tab Favicons + closing tabs with middle mouse button are my favorite enhancements.

katewes
Jul 4, 2013, 11:48 PM
To be honest, ever since, many months ago - when I discovered that Chrome, back then, was faster than Safari - I have deleted Safari from the dock and never used it again. It's similar to mindshare - once a company has lost it, it's harder to get it back.

All your comments have prompted me to try Safari again, and it seems Mavericks Safari is even better (?)

MikhailT
Jul 5, 2013, 12:58 AM
A compatibility matrix hasn't been released yet though there is an understanding that most machines that will run ML will run Mavericks. Requirement of the "advanced GPU" could be one of the determining factors. There has been no official word that everything that runs ML will run Mavericks.

Until Apple says otherwise, your statement is still inaccurate. Apple usually mentions the Mac compatibility matrix in the seed notes (so, that devs don't bother testing and filing pointless reports) and so far from what we've seen here, they did not mention any expected incompatibility issues.

beelzebubba
Jul 5, 2013, 02:14 AM
Until Apple says otherwise, your statement is still inaccurate. Apple usually mentions the Mac compatibility matrix in the seed notes (so, that devs don't bother testing and filing pointless reports) and so far from what we've seen here, they did not mention any expected incompatibility issues.


Are you a developer in a professional environment? The list is basically the Lion EOL list. What means is that according to basic specs those machine families should be supported by Mavericks. As in all migrations (I've been doing them since System 6) it's best to wait until there's an RTM version to be certain. I'd look first at some of the older iMac, Mini and Mac Book that have less memory and primitive (by today's standards) graphics to be the prime candidates to have issues with Mavericks. Getting it to boot is one thing. Having a functional computer that is not overly burdened by the OS is another.

Four oF NINE
Jul 5, 2013, 08:37 AM
Chrome remains terrible for me on my 15" rMBP; the scrolling is nowhere near smooth, whereas Safari is excellent.

There are couple little things I do miss from Chrome, notably favicons on the tabs for easy identification and the tiny fact that when closing a lot of tabs, chrome doesn't resize them until you mouse away from the tab area so the targets you may be trying to click aren't moving.

Safari 7.0 with Mavericks does that.

fivedots
Jul 5, 2013, 08:50 AM
Safari 7.0 with Mavericks does that.

That's fantastic news. Thanks.

dontpannic
Jul 5, 2013, 09:35 AM
For the latest beta seed, can someone, who has used it, find it within themselves to just stated the speed of shutdown in seconds, with no further comment, either positive or negative. i.e. no comments such as, "Why are people upset with slow shutdown times". Just empirically state the shutdown time, in seconds, period. Full stop. No comment.

Doesn't that solely depend on what's running, what you have installed, how much data you have, health of your hard disk, how much RAM you have, what hard disk you have, how much disk space is available..................................................

ultraspiracle
Jul 5, 2013, 06:22 PM
I can truthfully say that in the second release of 10.8.5, the slow shutdown issue appears to actually be fixed. Takes less than 5 seconds to quit on an SSD machine. Thanks, Apple for paying attention to this. Note that with the small exception of 1 year, this minor annoyance was fixed rather quickly.

dastinger
Jul 5, 2013, 07:45 PM
Safari 7.0 with Mavericks does that.
Sorry for OT but does it enable favicons on the bookmarks bar?

Risco
Jul 6, 2013, 08:01 PM
I can truthfully say that in the second release of 10.8.5, the slow shutdown issue appears to actually be fixed. Takes less than 5 seconds to quit on my SSD machine. Thanks, Apple for paying attention to this. Note that with the small exception of 1 year, this minor annoyance was fixed rather quickly.

Anyone want to back this up?

iDuel
Jul 7, 2013, 01:49 PM
Glad to see continued progress on Mountain Lion!

star-affinity
Jul 7, 2013, 05:33 PM
EDIT: Okay, wow, Glims rocks. Tab Favicons + closing tabs with middle mouse button are my favorite enhancements.

That's great! :)

BlaqkAudio
Jul 7, 2013, 06:41 PM
Anyone want to back this up?
I haven't tried a shutdown yet, but I just tried a restart; it took 3-4 seconds after pressing restart for me to hear the boot chime.

zoomos
Jul 7, 2013, 07:10 PM
For the latest beta seed, can someone, who has used it, find it within themselves to just stated the speed of shutdown in seconds, with no further comment, either positive or negative. i.e. no comments such as, "Why are people upset with slow shutdown times". Just empirically state the shutdown time, in seconds, period. Full stop. No comment.

----------



As a Chrome user, it'll have to be snappier than Chrome to tempt me away.

SSD!! 2 second shut down and 4 second boot (from apple logo)

katewes
Jul 8, 2013, 06:02 AM
Doesn't that solely depend on what's running, what you have installed, how much data you have, health of your hard disk, how much RAM you have, what hard disk you have, how much disk space is available..................................................

Your comment was so smug that I realised it would do you a disservice in life if someone didn't respond to your post, so that you wouldn't end up harming yourself with that same smug attitude.

So, to answer your question, yes, it does depend on so many factors.

For any hardware/software configuration -- RAM, processor speed, health of the OS and hardware, storage capacity etc. -- there's often a window of performance that doesn't vary too much, until you start abusing or overloading the system or where the computer gets sick. If you read hundreds and hundreds of posts on Mac forums, the ability to discuss issues is achieved by everyone, without prompting, focusing their discussions on the hypothetical, relatively healthy computer that is not excessively overloaded.

So when someone says, how are you finding Mavericks compared to Mountain Lion, the unspoken assumption is that the other person shares their experiences on a relatively healthy system that is not overloaded to the point of imminent death.

Therefore if I ask how fast is Mavericks' shutdown time, a reasonable person -- and there are un-reasonable people out there -- would answer the question based on a typical healthy install, and not even consider the scenario of a Mac whose HD or SSD was crammed leaving only a few K's of storage space left.

The trick in life is that un-reasonable people, by definition, don't realise that they are un-reasonable.

There's a reason why I am taking such valuable time to explain something so straightforward to you, because I am fearful that that attitude - when carried over to other relational areas in your life - could spell disaster. Maybe there's no one else in your life, except an irritated blogger here, who cares enough for you to point out the elephant in the room. I hope you have a great life, and don't pay too much of a cost-penalty for what might ostensibly be regarded as lost opportunities, but others can see the glaring faults, but didn't want to tell you, lest you be offended.

Anyway, gotta get off the work.

dontpannic
Jul 8, 2013, 08:17 AM
Your comment was so smug that I realised it would do you a disservice in life if someone didn't respond to your post, so that you wouldn't end up harming yourself with that same smug attitude.

So, to answer your question, yes, it does depend on so many factors.

For any hardware/software configuration -- RAM, processor speed, health of the OS and hardware, storage capacity etc. -- there's often a window of performance that doesn't vary too much, until you start abusing or overloading the system or where the computer gets sick. If you read hundreds and hundreds of posts on Mac forums, the ability to discuss issues is achieved by everyone, without prompting, focusing their discussions on the hypothetical, relatively healthy computer that is not excessively overloaded.

So when someone says, how are you finding Mavericks compared to Mountain Lion, the unspoken assumption is that the other person shares their experiences on a relatively healthy system that is not overloaded to the point of imminent death.

Therefore if I ask how fast is Mavericks' shutdown time, a reasonable person -- and there are un-reasonable people out there -- would answer the question based on a typical healthy install, and not even consider the scenario of a Mac whose HD or SSD was crammed leaving only a few K's of storage space left.

The trick in life is that un-reasonable people, by definition, don't realise that they are un-reasonable.

There's a reason why I am taking such valuable time to explain something so straightforward to you, because I am fearful that that attitude - when carried over to other relational areas in your life - could spell disaster. Maybe there's no one else in your life, except an irritated blogger here, who cares enough for you to point out the elephant in the room. I hope you have a great life, and don't pay too much of a cost-penalty for what might ostensibly be regarded as lost opportunities, but others can see the glaring faults, but didn't want to tell you, lest you be offended.

Anyway, gotta get off the work.

Thanks for the reply - it's not strictly required, but it's out there anyway.

The reason for my post - someone, I'm not sure if it was you or somebody else - asked for exact times "to the second" of how long it takes to shut down a Mac running Mavericks B2. I merely pointed out that it is totally impossible to give an exact time as the procedure has so many variables.

A reasonably healthy system - yes - but would that be a 2008 plastic MacBook, or a 2013 Retina MBP?

I appreciate the hint that I have the social skills of a potato, quite how that conclusion can come from one post on a forum is beyond me.

katewes
Jul 8, 2013, 11:18 AM
Thanks for the reply - it's not strictly required, but it's out there anyway.

The reason for my post - someone, I'm not sure if it was you or somebody else - asked for exact times "to the second" of how long it takes to shut down a Mac running Mavericks B2. I merely pointed out that it is totally impossible to give an exact time as the procedure has so many variables.

A reasonably healthy system - yes - but would that be a 2008 plastic MacBook, or a 2013 Retina MBP?

I appreciate the hint that I have the social skills of a potato, quite how that conclusion can come from one post on a forum is beyond me.



:) Have a great day. Sometimes we wake up on the wrong side of the bed.

dontpannic
Jul 8, 2013, 03:28 PM
:) Have a great day. Sometimes we wake up on the wrong side of the bed.

:)

Krazy Bill
Jul 8, 2013, 08:06 PM
I can truthfully say that in the second release of 10.8.5, the slow shutdown issue appears to actually be fixed.We've heard this for every new release since 10.8.2 and nothing ever changes.

Instead of going by "feel"... why not check your console logs to see if the 22 second timeout culprits are there?

crazycanucks
Jul 9, 2013, 12:43 AM
Your comment was so smug that I realised it would do you a disservice in life if someone didn't respond to your post, so that you wouldn't end up harming yourself with that same smug attitude.

So, to answer your question, yes, it does depend on so many factors.

For any hardware/software configuration -- RAM, processor speed, health of the OS and hardware, storage capacity etc. -- there's often a window of performance that doesn't vary too much, until you start abusing or overloading the system or where the computer gets sick. If you read hundreds and hundreds of posts on Mac forums, the ability to discuss issues is achieved by everyone, without prompting, focusing their discussions on the hypothetical, relatively healthy computer that is not excessively overloaded.

So when someone says, how are you finding Mavericks compared to Mountain Lion, the unspoken assumption is that the other person shares their experiences on a relatively healthy system that is not overloaded to the point of imminent death.

Therefore if I ask how fast is Mavericks' shutdown time, a reasonable person -- and there are un-reasonable people out there -- would answer the question based on a typical healthy install, and not even consider the scenario of a Mac whose HD or SSD was crammed leaving only a few K's of storage space left.

The trick in life is that un-reasonable people, by definition, don't realise that they are un-reasonable.

There's a reason why I am taking such valuable time to explain something so straightforward to you, because I am fearful that that attitude - when carried over to other relational areas in your life - could spell disaster. Maybe there's no one else in your life, except an irritated blogger here, who cares enough for you to point out the elephant in the room. I hope you have a great life, and don't pay too much of a cost-penalty for what might ostensibly be regarded as lost opportunities, but others can see the glaring faults, but didn't want to tell you, lest you be offended.

Anyway, gotta get off the work.

This post is so full of smugness.
And why is the issue of a few seconds of shutdown time such an issue for people? Trying to understand that, but I cant. 22 seconds is NOT that long

M5RahuL
Jul 9, 2013, 01:14 AM
Shutdown times [ 10.8.5 ] are better than 10.8.4, but not consistent.

However, more often than not under 10.8.5, the shut down is pretty quick now.

katewes
Jul 9, 2013, 02:49 AM
This post is so full of smugness.
And why is the issue of a few seconds of shutdown time such an issue for people? Trying to understand that, but I cant. 22 seconds is NOT that long

It had to be seen in the context that one smug response provoked a reply in a similar ilk. I don't provoke. I only retaliate.

Kar98
Jul 9, 2013, 09:15 PM
Snow leopard...and what is wrong with Panther ????

:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Panther

ultraspiracle
Aug 13, 2013, 09:28 PM
We've heard this for every new release since 10.8.2 and nothing ever changes.

Instead of going by "feel"... why not check your console logs to see if the 22 second timeout culprits are there?

KB - They were not there in 12d17, *on my system*. Others did not have such great luck with that release. However, in the next beta release (whatever it was) they came back and are still there in 12f33 !