Apple Seeds Third OS X 10.10.5 Yosemite Beta to Developers

[Keirasplace]

It's ironic that now that Yosemite is finally smooth and relatively bug free, here comes El Cap with a good deal of to be expected bugs. Not sure that is really going to be progress. Seems like they have to break things in order to move forward all the time. Don't quite get why...

This is no irony unless irony has been redefined. An old OS, with staid features will be more stable than a new one with new features, lots of new code.

Irony would be people staying on El Cap because they dread the new ones stability a negative impact on their productivity and it turns out the new one is much more and stable and boosts productivity immensely. Probably not happening... So, No Irony .

 

[jezbd1997]

No, it's well documented. Old GPUs simply can't use Metal.

So that just means Apple has recoded how older computers render while you're using Mission Control for example...

 

[jezbd1997]

What ever happened with 10.10.4's supposed fix for wifi? My wifi still randomly doesn't work sometimes.

Try this, I've had this work work well.
In Wi-Fi settings remove all the preferred networks, turn Wi-Fi off and back on, then reconnect your network/s.
This will hopefully clear all the previous settings and it should work properly

 

[Shirasaki]

Talking about all of such, I suddenly wonder: if all binary codes generated on all hardware are exactly the same? And if all logic boards are printed with exact same circuit?

All in all, do everyone uses the exact same computer when they buy the exact same model, with exact same components? Such as even resistor, conductor.

If the answer is yes, and there are still many bugs, then we can count on software issue. Otherwise, no need? Developers need to add more and more "fixes", which means alternative ways to do the same function, validate if the code runs as expected, or change some fixed parameters of some variables. Do we run the exact same copy of OS X?

I know this is totally pointless. I just want to point it out.

 

[loby]

I agree with you. It is a ridiculous cycle of broken, year later fixed, broken, year later fixed.

The reality is that they put out each year new features due to users demands for those that "want now and can't wait". These people are the ones who drive their business.

This is the younger (millennials) crowd who usually spend and buy more frequently then others (as the guy who said "kid who lives in the basement" comment tried to express. LOL, but understand why someone might be offended - both come from the other side of the cube on their view points and should be able to express them without all of the flack. Of course, a wise crack comment - though possibly true...probably deserves some flack (joking, come on people - lighten up).

Anyway, That is Apple's target market currently and why we see what we see. Nothing wrong with this of course though I too disagree being one who desires a stable OS X over all the fluff, bells and whistles approach. If enough people desire a more stable and less frequent OS X release, then Apple will comply, but it is difficult because people keep buying, this includes iOS as well. Remember that Apple is a business to make money and not to save humanity as some would like for them to do or think that this is what they do. If they make their money on those that demand "new" "new" "new", why would they not in their mind, given Apples current philosophy of life?

Demand is what motivates them. Stats show that the younger crowd spends and is who buys the most Apple stuff, so why cater to those who want a stable OS X and will use it for a few years (or more) and not buy anything for a few years..?

But...I see that Apple still has some ethics in their OS X cycles, that is why the continue to stabilize the previous OS X. First to cater to those who want "new and latest" and buy when the latest new thing comes out, then stabilized the last version for those who will buy in the future and who will use/keep it so they can make some money to buy later (or give money to their kids who will continue to buy, buy, buy in the yearly cycle. Keeps the machine going.

Or..maybe the reason why they work on stabilizing their previous OS X when another comes out is because in-house they HAVE too use a stable reliable OS X. Would you want them to convert all of their in-house systems to a new buggy OS X each year and have all of your apps, iCloud, mail, etc. constantly be vulnerable to bugs and break? I for one do not want Apple to update their in-house systems every year to the "latest and greatest" and have the possibility of my data and iCloud stuff getting messed up.

 

[jessejarvi]

Because working professionals and IT departments should be a little more wary of major OS upgrades. Not everyone lives in their parents' basement kid.

At our company, we've already enrolled El Ten Eleven / El Capitan for a test pool of 60 users. They love it. It's stable. (And Safari is snappier too.) Even if there were problems, these users know that they're using unreleased software and don't come raging to us. And when 10.11 gets into GM, we deploy it and everything works as it should.

 

[iDuel]

Or..maybe the reason why they work on stabilizing their previous OS X when another comes out is because in-house they HAVE too use a stable reliable OS X. Would you want them to convert all of their in-house systems to a new buggy OS X each year and have all of your apps, iCloud, mail, etc. constantly be vulnerable to bugs and break? I for one do not want Apple to update their in-house systems every year to the "latest and greatest" and have the possibility of my data and iCloud stuff getting messed up.

If you're talking about iCloud data, do you mean their in-house servers? If so, most of Apple's iCloud servers (ie. The servers holding your data) are actually hosted by Amazon or Microsoft Azure and don't run OS X at all.

 

[Shirasaki]

If you're talking about iCloud data, do you mean their in-house servers? If so, most of Apple's iCloud servers (ie. The servers holding your data) are actually hosted by Amazon or Microsoft Azure and don't run OS X at all.

How could you say this? Is there any clue or proof about this statement?

 

[Maxwill]

Isn't that El Capitan coming? Why they still update yosemite?

 

[CaTOAGU]

Isn't that El Capitan coming? Why they still update yosemite?

Because they're exploits in Yosemite that can't wait until El Capitan's release to be patched

 

[RednBlue]

I can only speak for myself and with my setup and use of apps Yosemite 10.10.5 (14F25a) is rock solid, no lag whatsoever, none of the problems some experience.

El Cap latest PB on the other hand... You really feel it's a beta. I'll enjoy El Cap when it's released, at the moment I'm very happy with 10.10.5.

Agree with this - Never had a single problem with Yosemite since the earliest Betas and works like a dream. El Capitan on the other hand has given me nothing but problems so has been consigned to the bin until full release.

 

[TheTissot11]

Isn't that El Capitan coming? Why they still update yosemite?

You might have read some posts in this discussion thread before, and yet you manage to write this. Some people never learn...

 

[navaira]

I took the plunge with Yosemite at 10.10.2 and I kinda regretted not having waited further. Similar with iTunes 12.2 -- I installed it on the day of release and I wish I haven't. While I enjoy trying out the El Cappy betas on an external drive, I don't think I'll be installing it on my main drive unless final 10.11.0 works PERFECTLY on my external drive. Which I expect it will not. Therefore Yosemite 10.10.5 is very interesting to me. I hardly have any bugs in 10.10.4, but security updates are of vital importance.

People who ask "Why they still update yosemite?" strike me as possibly not needing their computer for work at all. I need a computer that runs Creative Cloud and Reason 100% smoothly. It doesn't matter how shiny El Ten Eleven (love this name) is, if I can't start up Reason and Photoshop quits all of a sudden, I don't want it.

 

[SMIDG3T]

I'm pretty happy with El Capitan (and iOS 9 for that matter) but perhaps Apple should focus on delivering major updates every other year so they have much more time to fix things. It'll never happen but...

 

[navaira]

Agreed. I don't understand why they have to push yearly OS updates, especially as the OS is free, so it's not like the shareholders are pushing for more bucks...

 

[n-evo]

I do not think apple should roll out new versions of os x every year. they should stay focused on stability and quality. only release software when it is stable and ready. this drive to come up with new things to put into os x every year is going to complicate the mac experience.

I get your sentiment but the past has clearly demonstrated it really doesn't matter in what frequency Mac OS X releases are put out. Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard were both on a two roughly two-year cycle and had issues. Mac OS X Tiger had a record eleven major updates (10.4.1 through 10.4.11) to fix its problems.

Windows Vista, 7, 8 and 10 all had/have their issues when they were first released. It's just something you have to deal with when immediately upgrading to a new OS.

 

[loby]

If you're talking about iCloud data, do you mean their in-house servers? If so, most of Apple's iCloud servers (ie. The servers holding your data) are actually hosted by Amazon or Microsoft Azure and don't run OS X at all.

Really? that is interesting. Yes, I am wondering what Apple really uses and what they consider "old reliable" so they themselves can work without having the headaches that we have, plus safeguarding that nothing crashes concerning the millions of data and iCloud servers etc. Being that Apple likes to keep things within their own control, I am amazed that they use Amazon or Microsoft's servers. They built a huge service center, why then would they use Amazon and others? In-house would have been my guess for them...

 

[loby]

Agree with this - Never had a single problem with Yosemite since the earliest Betas and works like a dream. El Capitan on the other hand has given me nothing but problems so has been consigned to the bin until full release.

Unfortunately I agree also. I had to nuke my system and load OS X Yosemite again. Wanted to beta test on my systems with every day things to see if everything will work, but there were still too many bugs for me to continue. I wrote too many "feedback" emails with the issues to Apple and took away too much time trying to do work arounds.

El Capitan when it is ready will be a good update, but we might have to wait another year for it to be stable...just in time for the next OS X (Vernal Falls or Tuwami Meadows) to come out... Just like what is happening to OS X Yosemite now, OS X Yosemite is now stable enough and runs well...

 

[5aga]

I agree with you. It is a ridiculous cycle of broken, year later fixed, broken, year later fixed.

I think it's because Apple has too much on their plate. But now that the watch has finally launched they can allocate proper resources to development and QC

 

[deviant]

Agreed. I don't understand why they have to push yearly OS updates, especially as the OS is free, so it's not like the shareholders are pushing for more bucks...

Unfortunately I agree also. I had to nuke my system and load OS X Yosemite again. Wanted to beta test on my systems with every day things to see if everything will work, but there were still too many bugs for me to continue. I wrote too many "feedback" emails with the issues to Apple and took away too much time trying to do work arounds.

El Capitan when it is ready will be a good update, but we might have to wait another year for it to be stable...just in time for the next OS X (Vernal Falls or Tuwami Meadows) to come out... Just like what is happening to OS X Yosemite now, OS X Yosemite is now stable enough and runs well...

what problems did you have?

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Isn't that El Capitan coming? Why they still update yosemite?

Not everyone will upgrade until El Cap has several stability and bug fix updates

 

[CFreymarc]

The "Discoveryd" created a huge mess for environments with Multiple Macs, Apple TV and BTMM. Why Apple insisted on pushing that garbage code to users is beyond me.

The Discoveryd fiasco is a good example of purging good code in an attempt to make a self promoting reputation and failing.

The original Mac OS X discovery code was written by a very experienced developer whom knew the TCP/IP stack down to the bit order of packets and how the weight of 1's and 0s of a specific stream can affect antenna impedance while still managing the stack performance.

They knew all the inferred performance rules of the TCP/IP standards and the bizarre WLAN rules dealing with wireless impedance issues. It was also written in straight C with almost all the code size and logic path optimization turned off so the compiler would not remove the intentional round about logic needed to handle these wireless TCP/IP timing issues. He was that damn good.

Here comes a new college graduate (with very little hardware knowledge) following academic coding fads and trends into their dream job. Concepts such a object-oriented design, code reuse, automated logic path optimization and so forth is preached to make the code more "efficient."

New systems development manager took the pitch. Discoveryd was green lighted to replace some of the most rock solid Mac OS X code going back to the NeXT days. This new code was not written in C but a higher level language that abstracted the final binary where, unless reviewed intently, the developer was not aware of all their permutations of logic automatically applied for such a heavily called piece of system code. Thus "inefficient" code was removed without knowing it's real intent.

Typically code like this is stopped from public release by a good internal QA check. For whatever scheduling or management issue, this bad code got out. The new college graduate took a reputation hit and the original code is incompatible with an new internal scheme of OS X networking.

This teaches a hard lesson. If an old technology is kept in use, it has survived years if not generations of change where the "new" stuff did not deliver or was misapplied.

At least they are still avoiding writing any system code in Swift letting that academic post doc project stay in the third party realm. Been told most of the OS Swift calls are just wrappers around Objective-C or straight C functions doing the heavy lifting.

 

[zorinlynx]

The Discoveryd fiasco is a good example of purging good code in an attempt to make a self promoting reputation and failing.

There seems to be a prevailing attitude these days that old code is inherently "bad" because it's old. The thing is, it's the OPPOSITE which is true; old code that works well is inherently GOOD because it's been around a long time to get all the bugs worked out and optimizations in.

I hate the attitude of "out with the old, in with the new" when it's applied to things that already do their job perfectly.

 

[unattributed]

I do not think apple should roll out new versions of os x every year. they should stay focused on stability and quality. only release software when it is stable and ready. this drive to come up with new things to put into os x every year is going to complicate the mac experience.

This!! Same applies for iOS. They should just make hardware and software releases independent from each other. It's not like their software is going to be available for only one or two devices. So, while they're at it, they should take their time and make software run efficiently and bug free for all devices the software is going to be running on and only launch it then. No need to release a new software for each new hardware's yearly release. There's now a plenitude of different devices running the same software version. One year for new ideas, coding, new hardware, crafting and finding errors for three different OS's just isn't enough. Wasn't even enough in the last years for two OS's. Quality should always strike over quantity. Especially at Apple. Just do away with that self imposed yearly deadline!

 

[Sinjun]

They rolled out El Ten Eleven super quickly because Yosemite is laggy as **** even on 2015 MBP's.