Personally, I hope they go back to releasing a new OS X every 2 years again.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Seeds First OS X 10.11.6 El Capitan Beta to Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thumbs up for the suggestion that might help other people having this issue.
But no local networking here at all, except for Internet over WiFi..
I have a 2015 MBP and don't see this at all. The same goes for my 2012 one as well.
IMHO, this is going to be a really hard problem to track down let alone fix.
For a year or so, Apple turned out security updates on a ~monthly cadence. They're not releasing security updates by name for the current OS anymore, but that doesn't mean there aren't critical fixes.
Also, security updates were never seeded externally and never got any living-on internally, so they were very risky for being essentially invisible. By bundling security fixes into the mainstream public betas, that risk drops dramatically. And this is particularly true right now when nearly everyone internally is living on the latest Fuji builds. Nobody is paying any attention to 10.11.x changes, so the more of us that are living on them, the less the chance of another 9.3.2 iPad Pro-style ****up.
Windows 10 looks like Windows 3.x. I find OS X to strike a good balance, though I find it a little bland.
Hmm you've raised a good point. 10.7 discontinued coverage for many computers, but 10.8 also removed a few computers as well. 10.9 and onwards held the exact same requirements/supported computers. If so, I wonder what the cut off year would be? I have a 2011 MBP, so I'm hoping at least 2011 will be the cut off. Wouldn't be surprised to see 2012 being the minimum, though, kinda anyway.
I think the statistics say otherwise. https://www.netmarketshare.com/oper...spx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0&qpob=ColumnName+DESC - I've used those figures to calculate share figures for each platform separately.
Among other things, you'll see that El Capitan has the largest share of OS X, more than three times the share of Mavericks. Yosemite has double the share of Mavericks. That works out to 41% for El Capitan, 26% for Yosemite (67% combined), 13% for Mavericks, 6% for Mountain Lion, 7% for Lion, 4% for Snow Leopard, 0.5% for Leopard, and 0.2% for Tiger.
Meantime, over at Microsoft, Win 7 (54%) still has three times the share of Win 10 (17%), and Win 10 has less than 50% more share than XP, which was released in 2001 (17% to 12%)!
81% of Mac users are on the three most recent versions of the OS, while just 32% of Windows users are on the three most recent versions. Snow Leopard and Windows 7 were both released in 2009. Win 7 is in use on 54% of Windows machines, Snow Leopard is in use on 4% of Macs.
Personally, I never pay attention to user ratings of OSes - they're never better than middling, because so many people hate change. As with most Internet polling, people with negative opinions are far more likely to vote than those who are satisfied.
New-version adoption rates have gone through the roof since Apple moved to the free update model with Mavericks. I don't recall there being hordes of Mac users running out to buy the latest OS X DVDs. They had to pay, after all! If I was to judge by postings here at MacRumors, nobody paid to upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion or from there to Mountain Lion (although the numbers say otherwise). It was all, "Don't upgrade, Snow Leopard is perfect!" (Well, you see that with every new OS release.) Among other things, free distribution was designed to bring all those "stragglers" along, and it seems to have worked pretty well. Large numbers upgraded directly from Snow Leopard to Mavericks.
It can be a mistake to project your particular preferences upon the rest of the public.
I'm sure you're quite aware that nearly every version of OS X is considered "the best" by a particular constituency. I find it particularly interesting that many of the negative comments in this thread have had to do with the appearance of the OS, rather than the technology. Some people care more for appearances than others - I'll take tech/features over appearance every day of the year.
I still don't understand what "flat" really means, but I'm not a graphic artist, so I'm not dialed into that particular lingo. Everywhere I look, I see drop shadows, translucence, and other features that add a greater sense of depth. The Apple icons on the dock aren't monolithic blocks of color, there are gradients everywhere.
Glad to see the OS X update made it to the main page.Interesting Apple is releasing updates so close to WWDC.
Probably not many fixes, but for new hardware (MacBook Pro, etc.)
Bingo.
Glad to see the OS X update made it to the main page.
Why? I'm guessing OS X 10.12 won't come out till late September, early October, alongside iOS 10, like it has for the past few years. They'll show off a few features from the next OS X and iOS, but still plenty of time till the actual release date to get another patch or two in.
Your arguments are rather predictable and they don't bring any new insights. Since Yosemite, OS X has been buggy like hell and nothing is being fixed even after two years. Please don't cite the upgrade statistics as Craig Federighi does. Most of the time people like me has to upgrade because Apple refuses to patch some critical security flaws in the old OS X, so you have no choice. Some long standing bugs are only promised to be fixed in a new version of OS X. Let Apple make El Capitan bug free and patch up all the critical security flaws for next two or three years then we will see how many people have jumped to new OS X. Being free does play a part in upgrade statistics but mostly for new Mac users or for casual users who do very little on there computer. Anyone who does serious stuff on their Mac they know how it has become a mess in last two years.
Not necessarily. Apple has a vested interest in keeping everyone on the current ecosystem. Since PC hardware hasn't been evolving all that rapidly (especially in CPU architecture), there doesn't seem to be an impending all-or-nothing cliff for people to fall off of. I think the most likely change is bumping the RAM minimum up to 4GB. Every Mac currently capable of running El Capitan is capable of carrying 4GB.
Off the top of my head, only Bluetooth has seen the kind of changes that lead to "you can't use this feature" incompatibilities. Therefore, older Macs aren't able to use every Bluetooth-reliant feature. But it's a handful of features, none of which are make-or-break to use of the OS. Every Mac that can run El Capitan has USB 2.0 - going to USB 3.0-minimum would knock out every Mac made before 2012 - not something likely to happen, for many reasons.
I simply don't know if there are yet-untapped capabilities in the Core i3/i5/i7 processors that are not present in the Core 2 series processors - but that's seems the most likely the next line in the sand. The dividing line between Core Duo and i3/i5/i7 is 2010/2011, depending on Mac model. Perhaps if the Core Duos don't have the power to support Siri... but would they deprecate every Mac made between 2007/2008 and 2010/2011 in one fell swoop? Seems more likely to be, "No Siri for you!" than "No 10.12 for you!"
Improvements for Haswell and newer processors and bug fixes. For example "libcompression":
Drôle! In El Capitan it certainly is a pig without lipstick.
Laughing aside, tomorrow I'll have an opportunity to review that security vulnerability that I reported to Apple months ago, mumbled about in here …
I took a look at one of the packages to tell whether there's a newer version of
Maybe keep an eye on sites such as Pike's Universum.
Thanks, I couldn't see that until I viewed the screenshot alone and saw 'libcompression_apple_internal.png'
In the firmware package, at a glance: no.
An ill-fitting one-size-fits all mentality in parts of the organisation. The more I use other desktop environments, the stranger I find the DEs of Yosemite and El Capitan.
Like, that poor contrast in parts of the GUI in the previous post. That dark button with similarly dark text. Kin bonkers.
Way too soon to guess.
OS X 10.12: Everything We Know | MacRumors
– and there's a topic somewhere with a wish list.
Last edited:
Since every software release since the beginning of time has been "buggy" to those who do have issues, I'd like some hard numbers on that, too (not that we're going to get them from Apple). Since my experience with Yosemite and El Capitan is anything but "buggy as hell," what is it about my situation and yours that is different? Which of us is having the typical user experience, which may be an outlier?
How often is, "Buggy as hell" an assessment of personal experience, and how often is it, "I have one bug, somebody else on the internet reported a different bug, yet another person on the internet reported yet another bug..." And among all those "bug reports," how many of them are actual code faults, and how many can be traced to something like a corrupted plist file in user data, an outdated third-party kext, a Preferences checkbox, etc.? (I had a "bug" the other day - my system was certainly not following a particular preference that had been checked off - I toggled the preference, and everything worked as expected after that - apparently, there was something wrong with the plist - was it due to a code bug, a read/write error, an app or system crash... since I didn't fully diagnose the situation I'll never know, and I'm not about to pin blame.)
All this "patch my version as well as the new version" stuff doesn't work for me. It takes more resources, not fewer, to patch multiple versions. If you think Apple can't keep up with current quality control, how would they manage with that many more versions under revision?
The update is free, it runs on your system. Nobody's trying to extort money from you by withholding the patch. The "extortion" has to do with Apple's interest in embedding everyone in the current version of the ecosystem and embracing the multi-Apple-product lifestyle. But the updates are free whether or not you buy other Apple products, or use the new features.
Together with the rumour of Siri "being released before the new OS", I think it is time for them to move forward and neglect some 2007-2009 Macs.
It just like the way 10.6.6 coming up with AppStore and 10.7.5 coming up with iCloud support. 10.5.8 and 10.4.11 also gives PPCs' some modern support. They always leave some new features for the old models at their last gasp.
(Do not blame me for supporting old models to go away! My current main machine is a iMac 2007 20" base model, which is one of the oldest machine one can legitimately update to post-ML...)
@Mr. Retrofire FYI https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Performance/Reference/Compression/ mentions a libcompression library – that's not Apple internal but last year https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/5813 (2015-07-20) mentioned libcompression.tbd, which I guess was to be discussed. A lazy guess that doesn't fit with the correct answer in that topic :-/
Based on my personal experience, Yosemite was pretty solid.
I suspect, El Capitan works well with certain models like MacBook Pros. But systems built in smaller numbers like the Mac Pro have a difficult time. My cMP 5,1 is seeing a lot of issues. I file the bugs and they are closed as duplicates. I suspect, smaller volume models do not get the care and feeding in development and QA as higher runners.
I do think that something has changed. Team allocation, size of teams, people on the job, or something. You cannot QA away deeper problems in the way the software is produced.
I used to run for days without reboot. Now Mail, Contacts, Calendar hang together and just force quitting is not enough, I have to reboot. Spotlight indexing keeps crashing in the back. And because of all of this, TimeMachine ends up with corrupted volumes and has to start over. What a mess.
I suspect, El Capitan works well with certain models like MacBook Pros. But systems built in smaller numbers like the Mac Pro have a difficult time. My cMP 5,1 is seeing a lot of issues. I file the bugs and they are closed as duplicates. I suspect, smaller volume models do not get the care and feeding in development and QA as higher runners.
I do think that something has changed. Team allocation, size of teams, people on the job, or something. You cannot QA away deeper problems in the way the software is produced.
I used to run for days without reboot. Now Mail, Contacts, Calendar hang together and just force quitting is not enough, I have to reboot. Spotlight indexing keeps crashing in the back. And because of all of this, TimeMachine ends up with corrupted volumes and has to start over. What a mess.
4 GB ram? The RAM on the MBA is soldered! Even a 2011 comes with 2GB default.
They will probably release a final version of El Capitan that consists Siri function like they have done with 10.6.6 and 10.7.5.
If they are planning to do this, I think the minimum requirements will be Nehalem 27" iMacs and Mac Pros from 2009, Westmere/Arrandale 21.5" iMac, MBP 15/17 from 2010 and the rest of Sandybridge machines from 2011.
Reason being: Hyperthreading, QPI/DMI and Turbo Boost.
So after that they can deal with at least 4 threads for better multitasking.
OpenCL enabled graphic cards as well...
One should never let facts get into the way of a great story.
Release date / last update / time between / time before next major version
- OS X 10.7 Lion, Jul 2011 / Sep 2012 / 14 months / - 2 months
- OS X 10.8 Mt. Lion, Jul 2012 / Oct 2013 / 15 months / 0 months
- OS X 10.9 Mavericks, Oct 2013 / Sep 2014 / 11 months / 1 month
- OS X 10.10 Yosemite, Oct 2014 / Aug 2015 / 10 months / 1 month
- OS X 10.11 El Capitan, Sep 2015 / June 2016 / 9 months / 3 months
- OS X 10.7 Lion: 0.36 upm (updates per month)
- OS X 10.8 Mt. Lion: 0.35 upm
- OS X 10.9 Mavericks: 0.45 upm
- OS X 10.10 Yosemite: 0.5 upm
- OS X 10.11 El Capitan: 0.63 upm
- OS X 10.0 Cheetah: 1.3 upm
- OS X 10.1 Puma: 0.6 upm
- OX X 10.2 Jaguar: 0.6 upm
- OS X 10.3 Panther: 0.5 upm
- OS X 10.4 Tiger: 0.45 upm
- OS X 10.5 Leopard: 0.38 upm
- OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: 0.35 upm
[doublepost=1464044573][/doublepost]
10.7 dropped the PowerPC, not having to develop two binaries certainly made things easier which probably justified a more severe cut of older Macs than usual.