Mac OSX 10.11 El Capitan - Boot time

Retromac2008

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 9, 2015
187
33
My boot time is 37 sec (very old SSD PATA)


Is it normal ?

What s yours ? (and what os you re using)



Edit:

some pple wrote w10 is faster on their mac, so i was curious


Comparison Windows 10 vs El Capitan (clean install - 100% empty computer)
 
Last edited:

Shirasaki

macrumors G3
May 16, 2015
9,660
3,632
El Capitan.
11.10.1 beta 5
About 26 seconds.
If I count all apps started with system, it would be over 5 minutes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Retromac2008

Retromac2008

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 9, 2015
187
33
tried windows 10 too, on mine it took the same time.

I recorded it for comparison ---- > going to update 1st post

edit:



Comparison Windows 10 vs El Capitan (clean install - 100% empty computer)

on my mac

Windows 10 : 40 sec
OSX 10.11 El Capitan : 37 sec
 
Last edited:

ctg7w6

macrumors 6502
Oct 23, 2014
338
529
The only thing I can really think of is to find some benchmarking software (I don't know of any for Mac, but I am sure they are out there), and test the speeds of your hard drive. If it isn't a hardware problem, then maybe do a clean install after completely formatting the entire hard drive?
 

redheeler

macrumors 604
Oct 17, 2014
7,631
7,364
From hitting the power button till the desktop is loaded on my 2009 MBA 80GB HDD is a brutal 2:02.
My late 2008 MacBook Air had the stock 4200 RPM HDD when I first got it. Almost unbearably slow running 10.9 or 10.10.

With the SSD upgrade I get a more reasonable 34 seconds from chime to the 10.11 login screen.
man, i want to believe, but it s hard :)
It's true, on a modern Mac with PCIe SSD the boot time is almost negligible. New Macs have some of the fastest SSDs available, which makes it an even bigger shame that lower-end iMacs and Mac minis are still being sold without them.
 

MacRobert10

macrumors 6502
Nov 24, 2012
287
46
Nothing being reported is abnormal. Older systems are slower. The newer systems with PCI based SSDs are that much faster. If you're really using a PATA instead of a SATA drive, the interface itself will be the bottleneck, not the SSD.
 

hindmost

macrumors regular
Jan 14, 2009
190
68
MacBook Pro 13, early 2015, OS X 10.11.2 beta

10 seconds flat for boot up for OS X and 4 seconds flat for Windows 10 boot up via Parallels Desktop 10.3
 

flowrider

macrumors 603
Nov 23, 2012
5,940
2,231
On my 2012 MBA with a USB HDD attached, I'm up in 16 seconds from button push. Much quicker, of course, than my 2012 modified cMP that boots up in about 37 Seconds.

Lou
 

allen-uk

macrumors newbie
Jan 8, 2015
8
0
London
Mac Mini, 10.11.4, but with an SSD fitted in place of original fusion drive...

Button to booted, 8 seconds.

SSD is the way to go.

SuperDuper: full back up, SSD to 500Gb external SSD, approx 3.5 minutes. Hits 1500 mb/s (I look for smoke coming out of drive, but can't see any).

A.
 

G4DPII

macrumors 6502
Jun 8, 2015
267
321
Mac Pro - 5400 spiner El Cap is 57 seconds, Windows 10 seperate 5400 is 37 seconds.

Acer W10 Laptop 32 seconds. (Also spinner).

All spinners to be upgraded to SSD is when they fail - if machines are still working.
 

G4DPII

macrumors 6502
Jun 8, 2015
267
321
El Cap. is hopeless on 5400RPM drives - So slow. Windows 10 on the same machines is a lot faster.
Not had any issues with it, it's a danmn site faster than Goose or Jelly Stone ever were. Just a shame they made so many stupid and pointlss changes to the OS. As downgrading is now such a faff, i'll be stuck with it till the drive fails.
 

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,537
25,262
El Cap. is hopeless on 5400RPM drives - So slow. Windows 10 on the same machines is a lot faster.
Agreed, and even a modest 32GB Fusion Drive setup on the Mac Minis would make a massive difference.

Back in 2012, I was convinced that Apple would be pure-SSD by 2016. If you told me then that we'd have MacBook Pro SSDs at 2GB/s throughput, whilst shipping a 2.5" 5400RPM drive in a 4K iMac by standard, I'd be wicked confused.

Fusion Drives were introduced to begin the transition to pure SSD. This was in 2012. Currently, there is absolutely no reason (other than money) why any Mac computer has anything less than Fusion.

Regardless, it's more frustrating for the people who have to deal with the fallout. Cook saves a few pennies here and there in the short-term. But the poor Apple advisor, either on the phone or in person, has to explain to the angry consumer why their £1000+ iMac seems to performs worse than a 5 year old MacBook Air.

I would really love Cook to personally deal with support calls such as these. But then he's not an engineer, so he hasn't the foggiest about the impact a simple drive can have. Jobs once said that you need to begin with the customer experience, and work backwards from there. SSDs are the easiest and most effective way to do this.
 
Last edited:

oldmacs

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2010
4,460
6,117
Australia
Fusion Drives were introduced to begin the transition to pure SSD. This was in 2012. Currently, there is absolutely no reason (other than money) why any Mac computer has anything less than Fusion.
I've thought this also - I thought that the 2012 machines should have been the last with 5400RPM drives - incidentally I felt Mountain Lion was IMHO the last one to run well on HDDs. The 2013 machines should have all had fusion drives - so the Non Retina Pro, the Mac Mini and the iMac. Macs are not $300-$400 computers and such should have specs that reflect that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: keysofanxiety

Similar threads

Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.