Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Seeds OS X 10.8.5 Build 12F17 to Developers

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.
 
fivedots said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/
 
star-affinity said:
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/
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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 (?)
 
beelzebubba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MikhailT said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
fivedots said:
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.
Click to expand...

Safari 7.0 with Mavericks does that.
 
katewes said:
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.
Click to expand...

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..................................................
 
Shutdown appears to be fixed

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.
 
Last edited:
ultraspiracle said:
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.
Click to expand...

Anyone want to back this up?
 
katewes said:
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.
Click to expand...

SSD!! 2 second shut down and 4 second boot (from apple logo)
 
dontpannic said:
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..................................................
Click to expand...

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.
 
katewes said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dontpannic said:
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.
Click to expand...



:) Have a great day. Sometimes we wake up on the wrong side of the bed.
 
ultraspiracle said:
I can truthfully say that in the second release of 10.8.5, the slow shutdown issue appears to actually be fixed.
Click to expand...
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?
 
katewes said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
crazycanucks said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back