Half of user reviews hate El Capitan—I blame the update procedures

Discussion in 'OS X El Capitan (10.11)' started by Dark Goob, Nov 16, 2015.

  1. Dark Goob macrumors regular

    Dark Goob

    Jun 6, 2007
    Portland, OR
    Let me preface this by saying I love El Capitan except that when I first updated, an old kext in my /System/Library made it where my system failed to boot after updating, and I had to manually delete it in single user mode. I'm an expert user, so this did not bother me that much; but most users (and I daresay, many Apple support staff) would never figure this out, and would say to do a clean install and then migrate the account in from a backup, at which point once again it would get hosed, etc.

    This is on the Mac App Store:
    There are an awful lot of bad reviews for El Capitan. Most of them center around user experiences during updates. A lot of others center around poor performance after updating.

    I remember that my girlfriend's iMac once got totally hosed by an old iPhoto-related Spotlight extension. If she launched iPhoto it would make her computer have disk errors in the console—literally, you would think the HDD was failing. Nope, it was just that this bad extension was blocking IO operations somehow, making the kernel think that there were disk errors.

    Personally I think a lot of people have weird old drivers and third party stuff, and OS X makes it incredibly difficult to root out and remove all this stuff. Doing a clean install doesn't really help, since if you migrate your account back over, it could put that stuff right back into your system. It could be a Spotlight extension or a Safari plug-in, who knows.

    In the old days of OS 9 (aka "Classic"), there was a control panel called Extensions Manager. It let you see everything in your system, categorized by who made it, and what package it belonged to. So if Microsoft Office put a bunch of crap in your system, you could easily see it there, and disable it if you wanted to. Same for Norton Utilities, etc. Everything had plain-english names. Generally, everything was either in a Control Panels folder, or the Extensions folder, within your system.

    However, now, on OS X there is a proliferation of places in your system that third-party stuff can be. There are multiple locations that system files could be, and distinguishing what is a third-party item from what is an official Apple item is nigh impossible sometimes. Most of Apple's system processes have cryptic names like "blued," "mds," "secd," etc. In the Activity Monitor there is no explanation what any of this crap is, who made it, what it is doing on your system, or why it is doing it.

    Why can't Apple be bothered to name things non-cryptically using plain English, in a user-friendly way? Why can't they put a little explanation alongside stuff to let you know what it is, and why it's doing that? Why is the Console log full of alarming-sounding errors, most of which are just lazily leftover debug code that they never bothered to take out, making it impossible for the user to tell what's worth being concerned about?

    I constantly see sandboxd denying launchctl mach-priv-task-port or file-read-access etc. etc. Why is sandboxd, an Apple process, sandboxing other Apple processes constantly? Is this how it's supposed to work? Really?

    Why is helpd constantly unable to find help for a bunch of applications that I never even asked it for help for? I don't understand. I keep seeing errors like these:

    11/16/15 8:03:45.000 PM kernel[0]: Sandbox: softwareupdated(465) deny(1) system-fsctl 682f
    11/16/15 8:03:22.295 PM sandboxd[150]: ([6428]) launchctl(6428) System Policy: deny mach-priv-task-port
    11/16/15 7:54:47.299 PM mdworker[6364]: code validation failed in the process of getting signing information: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67062 "(null)" UserInfo={SecCSArchitecture=i386}
    11/16/15 6:23:43.807 PM Safari[572]: tcp_connection_tls_session_error_callback_imp 462 __tcp_connection_tls_session_callback_write_block_invoke.434 error 22

    Of course, my system seems to be working fine, but for users whose systems stop working fine, going into the Console, the Activity Monitor, and the various Library folders to try to diagnose what's wrong and figure out how to fix their computer is a nightmarish task of confusion and turmoil. They enter into a world that is so poorly organized, so poorly described, so poorly documented, and so poorly labeled that it's a wonder anyone in the world knows WTF is going on in there.

    The Mac has become so complicated that it would be surprising if more than 10 or 20 people at Apple fully understand how the operating system works and what role every process and Library sub-folder plays.

    Furthermore, a lot of operations in OS X have increasingly been tied to the web, like Spotlight searches, and the entire system being sandboxed now makes more heavy use of background processes, virtual memory, disk operations, and CoreData databases that could get bloated and/or corrupted.

    I'm sure it does not take very much at all to make someone's system run like crap if they have 4GB of RAM and are trying to run El Capitan on a machine with a mostly-full, non-optimized 5400 RPM hard drive and a laggy internet connection with lots of old third-party stuff in their machine.

    The Solution

    I feel in many ways El Capitan was a step in the right direction of making Yosemite better, but Apple could do a lot more. Here are the top things I think Apple should do to make OS X user friendly again, and fix these installation problems people are having.

    (1) Make a System Manager that actually works, first of all.

    The "Extensions" preference pane that debuted in Yosemite is garbage. It does not show all third party extensions that are installed; I know for a fact because I have many third party extensions installed and nothing shows up here.

    The System Manager should show anything, whether form Apple or from a third party, that could possibly ever run with or without a user directly clicking on its icon, and that includes:
    1. Applications
    2. Audio drivers
    3. Audio plugins
    4. Input Methods
    5. Privileged Helper Tools
    6. CoreMediaIO Plugins
    7. ColorSync profiles/extensions
    8. Filesystems
    9. Frameworks & dylibs
    10. Fonts
    11. Image Units
    12. Image Capture tasks, tools, and TWAIN data sources
    13. Kernel extensions
    14. LaunchAgents
    15. LaunchDaemons
    16. MIDI Drivers
    17. MIDI Plugins
    18. PreferencePanes
    19. Printer drivers
    20. Scripting Additions
    21. Spotlight Extensions
    22. Startup Items
    23. Web plugins
    24. Widgets
    25. everything in /private/bin
    26. everything in /private/sbin
    27. everything in /usr/bin
    28. everything in /usr/sbin
    29. everything in /usr/lib
    30. everything in /usr/local/bin
    31. everything in /usr/local/sbin
    32. everything in /usr/local/lib
    33. everything in any other unix directory that could possibly execute or affect the system in some way
    The System Manager should, by default, hide all official Apple stuff (and stuff that is, by default, part of the OS X installation) from the displayed list unless their checksum indicates they have been modified in some way. However these things should be able to be made visible with a plain English name, verbose plain English explanation of its general purpose and origin, and a URL to a Wiki or other website where more can be learned about this item. (For example if I see "sed" in my /bin folder, I'd get a plain English name and description etc.)

    The System Manager should also show everything that is not part of the default system. Anything at all that's been added to or changed inside of the /Library, /Applications, or /private directory, or is an Application, or is a hidden unix file, should be able to be seen in the System Manager.

    The System Manager should let you see plain English names and descriptions of every single thing on your system, who made it, when it came out, what the version is, whether there's a new version available or not (or if this is not known, then just say "unknown"), what the latest known OS version is that's compatible with it.

    Everything should show the last time it ran, how often it runs on your system or is accessed by something running on your system, how much memory it is currently taking up in RAM and on disk, and have a general description in plain English of why it's being used and what it's for.

    Everything should have a button to temporarily disable it, and another button to permanently uninstall and delete it.

    Upon updating to a new major version of OS X, the installer should:
    • Check the System Manager first for any versions of anything that is not already certified to work on the new OS version, and notify the user about each of them. (The current behavior of just dumping certain old items into an "Incompatible Items" folder with no explanation as to whether an update is available or not, or what installation those things were a part of, is just rude and unacceptable, IMHO, although admittedly it's better than nothing.)
    • Give the user the option to temporarily disable all third party items prior to the update.
    • Monitor system performance after the update, and if it is determined to be slow, or if crashing is detected, boot into a third-party-disabled mode and walk the user through a procedure of enabling third party items sequentially until the problem item is found.
    • Monitor third-party processes for a period after updating to see which might be the cause of problems and make suggestions to the user based on this.
    • Gather diagnostic data from participating users' systems to build a global cloud database of system configuration data to determine which items are likely culprits in system problems, which items are parts of which installation packages etc.

    The System Manager should always allow the user to completely uninstall any third party application or system extension, based on any present system receipts. If multiple applications depend on the same files the system should already know this from the fact that multiple installation receipts point to a set group of files, and the system should therefore gracefully not uninstall files upon which certain other items also depend, if those other items are not being uninstalled at that time. (The current situation is that users have to depend on third-party uninstallers to get rid of things like Adobe CS or Microsoft Office, hideous bloatware packages that pollute the system with background processes and crap all over the place. Meanwhile Windows has an elegant "Add/Remove Software" control panel, and it pisses me off that Mac doesn't have an equivalent to this extremely user-friendly feature!!!)

    (2) Make all Apple software not pollute the Console with messages that are never going to be relevant to the user.

    The Console should not be polluted with tons of spam from Sandboxd, mds, etc. Each write to a log entry is a disk operation that takes time. Each irrelevant entry here obscures any relevant information that users should actually want to see if something is going wrong with their machine. Stop being lazy with your debug spam!

    (3) Give plain-English names and descriptions to everything in Activity Monitor.

    In keeping with the above strategy for System Manager, the Activity Monitor should display a useful icon and descriptive, plain-English name for each process (in addition to the unix process short-name; I know those aren't going away). There should also be a plain-English description available for each process—a few paragraphs written as if you were talking to a ninth-grader who knows a little bit about computers.

    (4) Never again break hardware drivers.

    I get it: you had to move to PowerPC chips. You had to move to USB. Then you had to move to Intel. Then you had to move to 64-bit. Then you had to move to SIP with sandboxing and signed kexts. BUT APPLE. ENOUGH IS FREAKING ENOUGH. STOP BREAKING OUR HARDWARE DRIVERS!!! There is nothing more annoying than updating to a new OS version or buying a new Mac only to discover that your prized:
    • audio interface
    • graphics tablet
    • scanner
    • camera
    • joystick
    • monitor
    ... or whatever... won't work anymore or won't work properly anymore because of yet another change to the OS or new port that breaks compatibility with the older drivers.

    I get it
    , since the '90s, we've been going through this rapid evolution of the technology and the platform. This stuff was bound to change. But now? Now Apple, you have enough money to not keep breaking our stuff. Because guess what? Not all of us have enough money to keep buying your phones, tablets, TV dongle, and watch every couple years... AND rebuy all our third-party hardware on top of that.

    Please return the Mac to being the computer where third party hardware "just works."

    When my Mac Pro was on Snow Leopard, my two Black-Lion-modded Digi 002 Racks worked perfectly. I was able to record two albums with this setup, and they sound great. I have no desire to upgrade Pro Tools or my hardware. However none of it works anymore... why? Because I made the mistake of upgrading my computer. Sigh. I don't even have this machine connected to the internet... I don't care about kext security. But the last compatible drivers, which I barely got to run under Mountain Lion, weren't compiled with kext signing. So they will straight up not work on 10.11.

    I get it, that we can't go back in time, and there are some things we'll have to just let go of, at this point. However... from here on out, for the love of God, there is no reason that every Mac that comes out in the next 10 years (at least) should not be backwards compatible to all current hardware peripherals without needing new driver updates.

    Frankly, I don't understand why you can't just find a way to run the old drivers inside of an emulation or virtualization environment. For that matter, I know if you wanted to, you could release an OS X version that was (quite literally) backwards compatible with every Mac ever made through clever use of emulation and virtualization technologies. You could have it able to run every piece of old software and talk to every piece of old Mac hardware, if you wanted to; you could issue made-to-order 3D-printed adapters and open-source certain old hardware designs for the community to make this stuff.

    You seem to want to make an impact on the recycling of old computer stuff. Protip: don't make things obsolete.

    OK there. /rant off
  2. leman macrumors G3

    Oct 14, 2008
    Well, your post kind of throws a lot of stuff together, some of which make sense and some of which doesn't, but one point that I agree with is that the update should be made more reliable and transparent and that the OS should offer a better overview of what is installed on your system. Incidentally, Apple has now laid a very solid groundwork for this with System Integrity protection and mandatory signing for drivers. If users can't mess with he base system, the upgrade is significantly simplified.
  3. Rodan52 macrumors regular


    Sep 21, 2013
    Melbourne, Australia and Bali, Indonesia
    It seems to me that Apple makes light of major upgrades in the App Store. Other than promoting the advantages/features of a New Operating System while there are no warnings or links provided to inform users of what to do prior to installation.
    Back in the dim dark ages I spent a days researching the implications of installing a new OS. Now it's as simple a clicking a button apparently. It's easy to find articles like http://www.macworld.com/article/2986158/operating-systems/how-to-install-os-x-el-capitan.html but how many people bother to look? Most of the Upgrade problems listed on this forum and others are user related errors and I blame Apple for making the process seem too easy. I cannot understand why a link could not be added to the Download button taking the OP to a page listing eg. "6 Things to do before downloading/installing OSX 10.11." Or "How to prepare your Mac for OSX 10.11."
  4. Shirasaki macrumors G3


    May 16, 2015
    Many of those things mentioned in here are what Windows now have or already have for quite a long time. For example, new task manager from Windows 8 provides a user friendly process tab showing almost all processes running on system, with plain English name. Plus, right click each process brings an option to "search online".

    Backward compatibility is also how Microsoft Windows is still so popular. To keep old applications running, Windows introduces virtual redirection to not let obsolete and old apps messing up system. It basically redirects file writing to certain system folder to a virtual store, including registry items. And then, system itself takes over all other stuff to let programs run as expected.

    Plus, now Windows break fewer hardware drivers than the time Windows vista was introduced.

    Talking about diagnosing, event viewer saves me a lot of time when troubleshooting system problems.

    Wait, seems that Microsoft Windows is doing the right thing this time?
  5. leman macrumors G3

    Oct 14, 2008
    Google for "Windows 10 broke" or "Windows 10 problems" and you will see that it is by no means faring better than El Capitan ;)
  6. Shirasaki macrumors G3


    May 16, 2015
    Yeah. No need to say second threshold Windows 10 update completely breaks wifi network stability and usability, on my PC. So there is no Apple stuff.

    All companies are beginning doing wrong things, in any form.
  7. happycadaver macrumors regular


    Sep 1, 2012
    Shirasaki's post was only directed at the task manager and in this point Microsoft has clearly the upper hand at the moment. Generalizations, the death of every fruitful discussion.
  8. navaira macrumors 68040


    May 28, 2015
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    I sort of understand why Windows is problematic. Microsoft and third party vendors have to make it compatible with pretty much infinite amount of combinations of motherboard + processor + GPU + whatever extension cards + printer +... Apple on the other hand doesn't have that excuse. I don't know how many Mac versions are compatible with El Capitan, but let's say 50. I do not see why there should be any problems testing 50 different Macs for compatibility.

    Also a lot of people have the "you don't like your software/hardware not working? tough, you shouldn't have updated" attitude. Which is correct if you assume that the user should adapt to the operating system. For me the opposite should be true. The operating system should adapt to the user and their needs. Personally I do not need to know what every process in Activity Monitor or Console does. I need my computer to Just Work so I can never bother looking at the Console. Currently Cubase (and from what I hear a lot of other music software) will not work with El Capitan and Steinberg seem completely at loss as to why that is. The Expired Certificategate wasn't fun either. Removing the option to download software people bought from MAS is not nice. Crippling Disk Utility and making it impossible to use the Yosemite one is not nice. Make the Disk Utility look like Ive's box of crayons, I don't care, as long as it bloody works. If I can't format a USB stick that has two dots in its name, but I can do it in Yosemite, something is very wrong with the "updated" system.
  9. Shirasaki macrumors G3


    May 16, 2015
    Just a really quick recap.
    My El Capitan restarts itself after keeping it on over four days. I don't know why but what I know is El Capitan is NOT capable to run quite a long time without restarting.
    I can easily keep Windows 10 running over a week without restarting. Same thing is easy when using Windows Server 2008 R2.
  10. matamoris macrumors regular

    Sep 3, 2011
  11. jeanlain macrumors 65816

    Mar 14, 2009
    Huh? o_O You can keep OS X running basically forever. Check your energy saver preferences (including the "schedule" section).
  12. Partron22 macrumors 68020


    Apr 13, 2011
    SIP screwed over a lot of people without warning.
    I'd've taken it better if they had warned me.
    As is, I've added that unpleasant surprise to my long list of ugly stunts pulled by Apple.
  13. Fishrrman macrumors P6


    Feb 20, 2009
    In the old days of the Mac OS, Apple offered a complete, "standalone" Mac OS installer -- without having to be signed in to any specific user account, without having to satisfy ANY conditions at all (other than having a Mac to install the OS onto).

    One just got ahold of the installer, from floppy discs or CD, or even downloading -- and ran it on your target disk, and...... voila! A working installation of the Mac OS.

    Not so any more.

    Today Apple makes one jump through hoops in order to obtain a Mac OS install app.
    Sign in to your Apple account, etc.

    NONE of this should be necessary.
    The Mac OS should be downloadable as a standalone installer app, not requiring one to have an Apple ID or ANY ID, for that matter.
    Just launch it, aim it at your target volume, and go.

    No additional downloading of software.

    If necessary to update firmware, a separate app for that should be provided so that it IS NOT part of the OS install (that begins once the installer is launched).
    Run these steps first in a standalone procedure to get them out of the way.

    Also -- provide at least a basic readme file describing what steps need to be taken, such as
    1. check firmware
    2. run firmware updater if needed
    3. install OS.

    None of this "your computer will restart in ".." minutes business.
    (And then it won't restart properly, or the software install fails, etc.)

    Apple should provide (for those who wish) a "paid option" to obtain a completely independently-bootable installer on a USB flash drive (as they did once previously).
    No need to get online to download additional items for the install.
    EVERYTHING NEEDED on the flash drive.

    Sell them for $15 or $20.
    Currently, to get a flash drive installer, uses must make these for themselves.
    This can be problematic, especially for less-Mac-savvy folks who might run into difficulty just trying to get ahold of the software beforehand.

    If Apple is going to offer the OS "for free", just post a freely-accessible download URL on a web page.
    No registration to get it -- if you can connect to the web page, just click to download.

    It's possible to download OS updates this way (if you know what to do), but I haven't yet discovered a URL that will download the complete OS installer.

    OK, rant over.
    It's just that I remember back to the early days of the Mac OS, when all you had to do to install it was copy the System folder onto a drive, bless the folder, and be ready-to-run.

    I realize that the modern Mac OS is far more complicated with tens of thousands more files and folders.
    But Apple seems to be making installing it ever-more-difficult, and more demanding.

    Apple, get back to the basics!
  14. Ebenezum macrumors 6502a

    Mar 31, 2015
    While I agree with most of the OP:s solutions I am not certain bad ratings are only because of installation issues.

    About half of the reviews mention real bugs in El Capitan such as Mail, Time Machine, Safari, Disk Utility, etc.

    I am in the same boat with Fishrrman, Apple should simplify installation, it's currently too complicated procedure without necessary instructions.

    In the future I hope Apple thinks long and hard before introducing new "improved" features into OS X without adequate instructions (SIP, Disk Utility, App Store, etc.).

    Maybe I am nostalgic but back in 10.6.8 things just worked, 10.9.5 mostly worked and afterwards there has been too many bugs. Especially in Spotlight and it's indexing which seems to be permanently broke in 10.10.5 and 10.11.1. Alternatively I may have been too naive to think that newer OS versions are supposed to better than older ones...
  15. fisherking macrumors 604


    Jul 16, 2010
    ny somewhere
    how did it screw over people? it's a security measure. most users don't install apps that 'tap' into the system (like bartender, or liteicon).
    and those that do, are usually the people who won't be afraid to go in the terminal, and disable SIP (actually, anyone can do it, it IS easy).
    how's this an ugly stunt? :rolleyes:

    meanwhile, how long has el capitan been out? not very. give it time...and we'll see how the review numbers look...
  16. navaira macrumors 68040


    May 28, 2015
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    The reviews for all Mac OSes were around 2.5-3 star range, no? (Can't check anymore – is there a way?)

    The problem with SIP is that it was presented as solution to all problems ever, and then it proceeded to break loads of software. I don't know whether all people who install XtraFinder or TotalFinder are terminal-savvy. Perhaps. Haven't done much research on that.
  17. KALLT, Nov 17, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2015

    KALLT macrumors 601

    Sep 23, 2008
    That's not entirely true. First, it is not SIP in itself that is the problem, but the migration to SIP. Everything that Apple doesn't want in system locations will be forcibly migrated, including some drivers, binaries and other stuff. Depending on how old your system is, there can be quite a lot in system locations that will just not work anymore as a result. I know better, but many users don't. Secondly, it's not about being afraid to disable SIP, but Apple makes it unnecessarily difficult and mentions it nowhere, not even warns users about this. There used to be a separate utility in Recovery which they removed in favour of an obscure Terminal command that doesn't even have a manual page to go with. This goes squarely against the easy upgrade routine they promote on the App Store. Apple doesn't want people to turn off SIP and accepts that El Capitan will break stuff. It's as simple as that and it is partly the reason why people have problems and reject this upgrade.

    I keep my system tidy and up to date and have had few problems with this upgrade. However, I know that many people are not so tidy and keep outdated software out of laziness, wariness or sheer ignorance.
  18. kazmac macrumors 604


    Mar 24, 2010
    Any place but here or there....
    I appreciate the OP's post, but for someone who understands hardware a lot more than Operating System software, a lot of those things went over my head. It used a much smoother process to upgrade and the upgrades never hurt my machine until Mavericks. Granted I could have a lot of wonky permissions and such floating around, having to run Verify permissions and repair permissions in Disk Utility frequently. To be fair, I am not a Terminal Saavy gal. And I've rewritten over the spinner HDD a few times (more recently than any other time since I've owned this machine.)

    My beefs with the last 3 OS (Mavbricks & Yoursh**tingme and now El C(r)a(p)itan*), they nearly killed my 2010 21.5" iMac 2x now and she's has fits and starts every so often. Yes, I know I have aging hardware inside (a spinner HDD etc.), but ever since Mavericks, I'm seeing beach balls like they are a normal thing. I saw them on rare occassions in Mountain Lion and earlier. I suspect some of this might be tied to the energy saving features Apple wrote into the OS for laptops (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.) *My experience with EC was limited to a a new iMac I returned because of hardware and software issues and I don't dare install it on my 2010.

    I have to laugh because I had several Apple Care advisors tell me the beach ball / spinning wheel is normal. Well it shouldn't be on a brand new, nearly top of the line 2015 27 iMac which was fitted with an ssd drive and 16gb of ram in addition to the second fastest CPU and GPU. Uh, huh... meanwhile there are all kinds of bugs being reported in EC.

    I miss Apple products that just work.
  19. KoolAid-Drink macrumors 65816

    Sep 18, 2013
    Don't think so. Lion, ML, Mavericks, and Yosemite are all removed from the App Store, so the ratings aren't available anymore. That is, unless someone had screenshots before all the OSes went "poof" from the App Store.

    For the general topic - I agree. OS X is getting pretty bloated. It used to be simple back in Tiger, but grew in Leopard, and only continued to do so at a speedy rate beginning with Lion.

    I do think Apple should have given better notification about SIP, changing disk volumes to Core Storage volumes in Yosemite, and kept the log capability built in the installer for El Cap. I really dislike how dumbed down the El Cap installer is - you can't even procure a log anymore from the installer like you could with Yosemite and earlier versions. What if something went wrong with the installation? How would we be able to determine what the issue is without seeing the log?

    Generally, I'm not fond of El Cap. For me, personally, it's much worse than Yosemite - much more buggy and erratic with OS operations. I see the spinning beachball more, Time Machine isn't working properly, and the OS just feels slow and a bit sluggish compared to Yosemite. It's funny how Apple advertised Mavericks and El Cap as the "optimization" versions of OS X, because my experience has been the opposite. ML and Yosemite both were much more rock solid. Let's see if 10.12 next year will follow this pattern and bring back some solidness to OS X like Tiger/SL/ML/Yosemite did. Leopard, Lion, Mavericks, and El Cap has all been "bust" versions of OS X for me.
  20. navaira macrumors 68040


    May 28, 2015
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Out of curiosity what is the problem with Time Machine? (I managed to format my main drive a few days ago – don't ask how, let's just say I'm dumber than a bag of iPad Pros – and Time Machine saved my ass...)

    Indeed El Cap was advertised as Snow Yosemite to justify the relative lack of new features. Personally I don't need new features, I need the current features to work. Which with El Cap is hit or miss. Can't wait for a third-party replacement for Disk Utility...
  21. Shirasaki macrumors G3


    May 16, 2015
    I have managed to let Mac OS X keep running all the time, and this time, after four days, without doing anything serious (just browsing), it restarts itself for apparently no reason.
  22. jeanlain macrumors 65816

    Mar 14, 2009
    Again, check the energy saver settings and have a look at the console logs.
  23. Partron22 macrumors 68020


    Apr 13, 2011
    Got any old menu bar additions? I've had a couple of these bring on random crashes. Check everything for possible updates, and not just thru the MacApp store.
  24. KALLT macrumors 601

    Sep 23, 2008
    You should download EtreCheck and perform a report. You can post it (with the code-tag) for others to have a look at (preferably in a new thread). Maybe there is something running that causes this. The only reason why I restart my Mac is to upgrade my system or reboot into another partition. I've never, in seven years, had the need to do it for any other reason. Macs can restart when there is a problem or when the hardware is not working correctly, e.g. overheating.
  25. Swissbird macrumors newbie


    Sep 28, 2010
    Texas Hill Country
    For me...so far....El Capitan is working on my 2012 MBP. However, I have disliked the way they store my photos. Let ME organized them the way I want....or at least let me move items around to new folders easily and without fear of losing them. I miss the old ways. Otherwise, I don't see much difference between EC and the previous OS, whatever it was named. Updates are just so that every other app has to comply, and eventually, nothing works unless you replace your perfectly good machine. I still run my workhorse 2008 MBP, but only offline (music, Quicken, etc). I can go on line and access most everything, but online mail programs show the warning that they no longer support me.

    Actually, I came here to mention that my 2008 MBP's cursor got stuck on the Finder page. I had to open my 2012 MPB to try to find a fix. Someone finally said "Put computer to sleep and wake it back up".....I closed the lid, reopened, and my gosh, that WORKED!

Share This Page

24 November 16, 2015