For a developer preview this runs surprisingly well. I expected this early a release to be slower then Yosemite but it's about the same. Window management is working nicely too. This should be a great update by the time the GM is ready.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OS X 10.11 El Capitan Runs on All Macs Capable of Running Yosemite
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I got it when Craig was talking about how they came about it. The California naming thing threw many people off, but then again, Apple is in California and they were out of cats. So when they reach 10.99 Beverly Hills, maybe they will decide to go to the other coast and we will have XI Empire.
Lion wasn't as bad as stupid Mavericks. Mavericks actually promised to perform better and across the 5 computers in my household it was an absolute disaster that corrupted hard drives.
Lion was slower but stable to an extent. Mavericks was slower and unstable (and with dreadful battery life).
Snow Leopard actually delivered on performance improvements. Lets hope 10.11 does.
Metal doesn't seem to be utilising both graphics cards in my Mac Pro 
Oh well, it's still much faster than Yosemite.
Oh well, it's still much faster than Yosemite.
2009 Flashed Westmere Upgraded Mac Pros live to see another year!
autrefois
macrumors 65816
2009 MacBook Pro C2D that is getting some extra longevity. After I put in an SSD and 8gb ram and with this OS update it's proving to be just as useful and productive as the day I got it! As much as I'd love a new MacBook, mostly for the Retina screen, I can see myself keeping this one as long as they keep supporting it.
Most features of Disk Utility are now pointless so they just removed them. Read the release notes
Thank you! Mavericks made everything I tried unusable without an SSD. And then it's as responsive on an SSD as SL is on an HDD, plus it hogs the CPU and RAM more. Meh, now I'm stuck with Mavericks and Yosemite for development. Being an update that was supposed to help performance, it was the biggest disappointment since Windows Vista... and then everyone here was saying it was faster.
I'm only half-surprised to find so few comments following the keynote. Phrases such as annual upgrade cycle and diluted come to mind.
Maybe discussions are busier in Apple Support Communities. Or maybe not, if there's the tradition of not offering a public place to discuss the prerelease.
Maybe discussions are busier in Apple Support Communities. Or maybe not, if there's the tradition of not offering a public place to discuss the prerelease.
It is sourced from openGL, but now is being developed as a different API, very slimmed, that works closer to the hardware, hence offering better performance.
So in other words, virtually every desktop Mac comes with an HDD unless you upgrade or get an upgraded model.
I'd say that's a lot of Macs.
As much as I agree that El Capitan is a bit of a silly name (I say it every time with a faux Spanish accent) Yosemite is even worse to be honest. I've heard many non Americans pronounce it phonetically (yo see mite)
Well we can be happy knowing that It will be replaced in 365 days. I can barely remember what a 'Mavericks' is ...
I think I've watched The Fast Show (a British show that according to Wikipedia was called Brilliant in the US) a little too much, but I think I'll be calling it El Presidente.
What does that say of Dell's, HP's, Lenovo's, and Samsung's insistence on selling spinning HDD-equipped machines? Could it be that SSD costs are not yet low enough to make it into the entry-level product line? Arguably, Apple is a lot closer to having an all-SSD product line than any of the other top competitors, since they aren't bottom-fishing.
OS X's performance improvements will certainly make new entry-level Macs more attractive, but Apple's primary goal with this is to keep existing Mac owners within the ecosystem. They'll be happier with their new iOS devices if their Macs are capable of delivering most or all of the "integration" features.
Glad to hear older iMacs can run El Cap. Thanks, Apple!
But let's see if it lives up to expectations.
But let's see if it lives up to expectations.
Pronounciation? El Capitan is quite easy to pronounce and why should it be confusing? It's spanish for' The Captain'. Yosemite is much worse for non english native speaker. First time i read it as "Yosemeit". I felt dumb after realizing its real pronunciation. I was lucky to not speak it out loud in the first place...
Windows OEMs always do a race to the bottom. Always skimping on quality and performance. HP and Lenovo are one of the absolute worst for this.
The lower-cost 1.4 iMac/Mac Mini, with worse performance than the equivalent model 3 years ago, says otherwise.
Can't argue with this.
The fact is that Apple market themselves as better than HP and Dell. Heck, they market themselves as better than most religions. They have an incredible capital, where they can quite easily make their entire line purely Flash-based, at the absolute least. If they exclusively made products they'd 'use themselves' and were obsessive about the absolute best quality/performing products, without a care in the world for profits, they wouldn't have made some of the recent decisions that they have done.
Apple's marketing is closer to a cult. With some recent decisions that they've made, I'd argue that they're actively misinforming consumers. People drink the Kool-Aid, buy into the lie that Apple wouldn't release something sub-par, and then wonder why their brand-new £900 iMac is running like a bag of crap. The baseline computers don't run as a Mac should. Fact. They do not use the baseline computers themselves. Fact.
That's what's so upsetting to me. They have the opportunity to be the absolute best, beyond question; they have more money than a small country, and yet they make decisions (lower performing computers than previous gens), which just smacks as more profit-oriented and conflicting against the vision they claim to stand for.
The higher-end products are stunning. The lower end products still cost a lot and aren't performing right. If they can't make quality along the line at that price point, then don't make products for that price point.
It's pretty amazing apple supports 8 year old computers. I might keep my MacBook around for another 3 years at least if this trend continues.