How is Snow Leopard so darn fast?

TechGod

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 25, 2014
3,163
840
New Zealand
I have a early 2011 MBP that I downgraded from Mavericks to 10.6 and it is so much faster and the UI is so colourful and great! Like boot up and opening apps has increased massively.
 

Eithanius

macrumors 65816
Nov 19, 2005
1,419
285
Because SL does not have the bloats that Mavericks carry, like those junk processes from iCloud...

I've been saying this for many times, but the bulk of the people here are only interested in those useless features Apple copied over from iOS and Windows.

Don't let those former Windows users intimidate you by saying how great OS X is compared to Windows, because they have never use SL before... They will never understand...
 

Fishrrman

macrumors P6
Feb 20, 2009
17,179
5,536
Here's one more post from a user that "moved up" to Mavericks and found that the experience wasn't......so [insanely] great....

I, too, prefer 10.6 on my 2010-vintage MacBook Pro and have no plans to upgrade. It "just runs fine" with the original OS.

Having said that, I've tested the MBPro with 10.8.5 and it runs fine with that, as well.

But the question persists -- why the "difference"?
In my estimation, it has to do with the total change as to how RAM is handled in Mavericks vs. how it was handled in OS's 10.8 and earlier.

Mavericks looks to be designed for "flash-based" storage, in that its paradigm for RAM loading and management seems to "weigh down" platter-based HDD drives.

Aside: if you haven't yet installed an SSD into the MBPro, it's time to think about it. The swap is easy, and the price point for decent-sized SSD's is downright reasonable right now...
 

TechGod

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 25, 2014
3,163
840
New Zealand
Here's one more post from a user that "moved up" to Mavericks and found that the experience wasn't......so [insanely] great....

I, too, prefer 10.6 on my 2010-vintage MacBook Pro and have no plans to upgrade. It "just runs fine" with the original OS.

Having said that, I've tested the MBPro with 10.8.5 and it runs fine with that, as well.

But the question persists -- why the "difference"?
In my estimation, it has to do with the total change as to how RAM is handled in Mavericks vs. how it was handled in OS's 10.8 and earlier.

Mavericks looks to be designed for "flash-based" storage, in that its paradigm for RAM loading and management seems to "weigh down" platter-based HDD drives.

Aside: if you haven't yet installed an SSD into the MBPro, it's time to think about it. The swap is easy, and the price point for decent-sized SSD's is downright reasonable right now...
I wish I had a need for an SSD in this, but I have a late 2013 rMBP as well running Yosemite super speedy and that's my main machine. I may get an SSD one day for fun though, for now, SL rocks on this HDD!
 

satcomer

macrumors 603
Feb 19, 2008
6,289
928
The Finger Lakes Region
I wish I had a need for an SSD in this, but I have a late 2013 rMBP as well running Yosemite super speedy and that's my main machine. I may get an SSD one day for fun though, for now, SL rocks on this HDD!
What 2013 MBR? That year's model came with a SSD standard unless you got the non-Retna 13?
 

motulist

macrumors 601
Dec 2, 2003
4,050
328
It's like the old sports car adage - to go faster, add lightness.

snow leopard was named a derivation of leopard because it didn't add many new features, it was an overhaul clean up of the code as feature after feature was added to OS X in all the previous releases. They trimmed the fat and tuned up all the gears. Since then OS X has gone on another long stretch of adding additional new features to doing new functions, but all of those functions require computer resources to do that job, so it can slow the computer down.

So if you downgrade to an older OS that does less stuff, and especially if you go back to one that was specifically designed to be an under-the-hood tune up release, then you're gonna see a big difference.
 

quackers82

macrumors 6502
Mar 13, 2014
340
168
My first Mac was a 2011 Air running 10.7 so until recently i never experienced 10.6. My mate got a used Macbook Pro running 10.6 off ebay , i must say i much prefer the look of 10.6, just little things like coloured icons in the sidebar of finder! Plus the dock looks more bright and glossy. I am half tempted to get a used Macbook Pro just so i can run 10.6 i liked the look so much. Plus is was nippy for a 2006 computer with no SSD.

Guessing there is no way to force 10.6 onto a 2012 Air?
 

theBostonian

Suspended
Apr 15, 2012
318
231
I read somewhere how SL had something like 30 or 60 daemons running in the background whereas Mavericks had something more like 200 or 300!

That's insane and I doubt most of them are essential. I miss Snow Leopard on my old 2011 MBP with its super fast boot, shut down and sleep times, not to mention that it always ran at around 35-40c whereas average temp on a 2012 MBP with Mavericks is 50.
 

Gav Mack

macrumors 68020
Jun 15, 2008
2,192
17
Sagittarius A*
The only problem with 10.6 is it's deprecated, Apple no longer provide updates and it really shouldn't be used on the internet. Fine for all the FCP7/Rosetta users who keep their machines offline but despite it's greatness in terms of being lovely and fast it's past it's sell by date thanks to Apple.

An SSD on 10.6.8 does rock, need trim enabler 2.2 to enable trim support.
 

SanJacinto

macrumors regular
Nov 3, 2011
235
61
Milky Way Galaxy
I read somewhere how SL had something like 30 or 60 daemons running in the background whereas Mavericks had something more like 200 or 300!
Yes, true. Mavericks has a lot of background processes and I don't know why. I am not using iCloud.

Here is a nice thread from Apple's own forum called Snow Leopard for Speed Freaks. Very interesting, SL can be improved:
https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-4941

Sadly, there is no tuning possible on Mavericks.
The ease of use is easier on Mavericks. The possibilities of the track pad are used, full screen apps, smaller traffic light buttons, ... Mavericks just looks more refined.

In a perfect world I'd like to have Maverick's look but with colours (for example in Finder) combined with Snow Leopard's lightness and speed!
 

wallaby

macrumors 6502
Jun 5, 2007
397
6
Iowa
The only problem with 10.6 is it's deprecated, Apple no longer provide updates and it really shouldn't be used on the internet. Fine for all the FCP7/Rosetta users who keep their machines offline but despite it's greatness in terms of being lovely and fast it's past it's sell by date thanks to Apple.
If you're running Firefox or Chrome, I wouldn't be too worried. OS X is still a small target for hackers. Best practice is to continue not clicking on links from strangers, not opening attachments from people you don't know, and not surfing on open Wi-Fi networks you're not familiar with.
 

macstatic

macrumors 65816
Oct 21, 2005
1,063
29
Norway
Interesting thread as I'm one of those still using 10.6.8 (on a 2010 Quad-core Mac Pro) and who's generally happy with it (having an SSD for OSX and my apps has made it even better), but app support is declining and I see myself needing to upgrade soon.
I also have a 2012 Macbook Pro (non-retina) which won't run SL, so that's not an option. I could run my Mavericks-only apps on the Macbook Pro, but since the Mac Pro is my everyday machine that would be inconvenient.

People mention that Mavericks runs lots more background processes than SL, and since I probably don't need them, are there ways to customize Mavericks so I can disable/remove stuff I know I'll never need?
 

SanJacinto

macrumors regular
Nov 3, 2011
235
61
Milky Way Galaxy
People mention that Mavericks runs lots more background processes than SL, and since I probably don't need them, are there ways to customize Mavericks so I can disable/remove stuff I know I'll never need?
That's a question I have, too.
There must be a way to decrease the number of background processes!
 

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,779
211
UK
Less bloat, less gimicky iOS inspired features, more focus on being an OS for desktops and laptops. Snow Leopard, for me, was the last decent version of OS X. Everything beyond has just added more stupid intrusive features I literally don't need.

Its a shame Apple's OS support is pretty much non-existent when they release a successor.
 

TechGod

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 25, 2014
3,163
840
New Zealand
Less bloat, less gimicky iOS inspired features, more focus on being an OS for desktops and laptops. Snow Leopard, for me, was the last decent version of OS X. Everything beyond has just added more stupid intrusive features I literally don't need.

Its a shame Apple's OS support is pretty much non-existent when they release a successor.
I must say, I felt that with L, ML and Mavericks but Yosemite? No Yosemite rocks. It really is vastly improved.
 

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,779
211
UK
I must say, I felt that with L, ML and Mavericks but Yosemite? No Yosemite rocks. It really is vastly improved.
Just a shame it's visuals are possibly the worst I've ever seen in an OS. I used to think XP looked horrible until I saw Yosemite. :(

But I digress. The features look great and I'm hoping it will run fantastic.
 

TechGod

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 25, 2014
3,163
840
New Zealand
Just a shame it's visuals are possibly the worst I've ever seen in an OS. I used to think XP looked horrible until I saw Yosemite. :(

But I digress. The features look great and I'm hoping it will run fantastic.
Really? Again, I LOVE the way Yosemite looks on this Retina display but I still won't be upgrading HDD Macs past 10.6:p