Please Advise - Upgrade Late 2007 MBP to Mavericks?

[CrashX]

I previously "upgraded" to Lion - when I did, my startup time literally bumped to 5 minutes. So I downgraded back to 10.6.8 - lesson learned.

I would now like to use CodeKit, Dash, and some other programs that (for whatever reason) require one of the bloated versions of X. It's getting to the point that finding workarounds is getting aggravating. The specs on my MBP are:

Mid/Late 2007, 2.2GHz

Since the Lion debacle, I have upgraded to 4GB of RAM and a 7200 RPM 500GB drive. Not sure if that will make any difference?

I view the versions of X past Snow Leopard as crippleware - my MBP runs everything as fast as I need, boots up very quickly, runs VERY well. I've read on the Apple forums that Mavericks might even literally "kill" my display - so apparently Apple has moved past the point of just making things slow (for no reason) to actually destroying old machines.

Like most people here, I used to love Apple. Now that they're on the top of the world, it seems like they're acting more like Microsoft.

Anyway - any advice on whether I can run Mavericks with little to no issues on my MBP would be extremely helpful. I bought the extra memory to test on Windows 7 via Fusion without kicking in the fans, which seems to have worked.

Also, I've installed the LESS compiler for Sublime - so maybe I don't need codekit. I'm trying to learn LESS and JS (particularly jquery) for creating sites with Bootstrap 3.

I'm also dirt poor - so buying a new Mac is out of the question.

Thanks again for any help or advice.

 

[Eithanius]

Stay on Snow Leopard...

I'm on a mid 2010 15" MBP as per my siggy, I find Mavericks to be ******... GUI choppy even on the beta 10.9.3 ****...



In b4 HenryDJP screams BLASPHEMY...!!!

 

[CrashX]

Man... well your machine has twice the RAM and running a SSD. So if Mavericks is ganking your MBP, guess that answers what it would likely do to mine.

I'm literally starting to fear Apple. At some point, I'll have to buy a new computer - I usually expect at least 5 years, guess I'm fortunate to still be running my 2007.

But what's the deal with bloating the OS, for apparently no other reason than to forcing us to buy new computers? I'm starting to think that my 2007 running Leopard is as fast as the newest MBP weighed down with the bloat of Mavericks.

Does anyone happen to know what the bloated X's have that Snow Leopard doesn't, causing developers to cut me off? Is there a hack to trick the software so it will run?

 

[Gochugogi]

I updated 4 Macs to 10.9.2: 2009 Mac Pro, 2013 Mini, 2013 iMac and 2007 iMac. Only the 2007 iMac experienced significant slowdowns and I suspect it was mainly because it only has 2GB of RAM. The Mac Pro only has 8GB but seemed a little faster and more nimble than ever, so 8GB may be the magic number.

As for the 5 minute startup, that happened to me with Lion as well. I restored the prior OS and reinstalled and the second time around startup was normal. Lion was actually very nimble on my 2007 iMac with only 2GB RAM.

 

[CrashX]

As for the 5 minute startup, that happened to me with Lion as well. I restored the prior OS and reinstalled and the second time around startup was normal. Lion was actually very nimble on my 2007 iMac with only 2GB RAM.

I can still try installing Lion again, which I think will allow me to run the programs that won't run on Snow Leopard. But there's just no way I'm gonna do a clean reinstall, going through the hassle of reinstalling every program, etc.

Just wondering if they may have ever made an update to Lion that made it stable? What machine are you running Lion on without any issues? Thanks again for your advice.

And - might as well ask - is there any way to do a "clean install" and then use a Time Machine backup to migrate all of my programs back over? When I screwed up with Lion the first time and had to downgrade, it took me a whole day. I wasn't a happy camper...

 

[maflynn]

For that machine, I'd look to Mountain Lion if you can run it, I think its better then Lion or stay on SL. The issue of course is staying on older operating systems mean you may not run the apps you want. The 4GB should help you with Mavericks but I've seen a number of threads here that the OS lilts under that amount of ram.

What are the odds of you upgrading your machine, at this point a 7 year old laptop really doesn't owe you anything and you'll be running into this issue more and more. I understand you're dirt poor and that precludes you buying a brand new machine but you may (if you have the budget) consider something newer on craigslist or ebay - just a thought.

 

[CrashX]

Hey Mike,

I definitely agree that my laptop has more than paid for itself - I've owned Apple machines since my Dad brought home an Apple ///. I recently dusted it off, and it still boots

I'm not used to being po - so it may be the first time I've actually looked at things quite the same way.

But my "old" MacBook Pro is just as lightening fast as ever.

Maybe one of you gurus can explain why Apple introduced an OS that hogs so many system resources. My friendgirl has a 2012 MacBook Pro - and she's constantly having me run Onyx because her system bogs down. And all she does is browse websites and run TextEdit. (No, I have no clue why she has a Pro either.)

I just don't get it. Wasn't it like Mac OS 7.6 that was the fastest OS of the PPC generation? And now we have Snow Leopard, followed by bloat bloat bloat...

If Apple's approach moving forward is just to bloat the OS to the point it makes old machines obsolete - it kinda scares me to invest in a new one.

It seems incredulous that the guy with the 2010 can't even run Mavericks.

I'm a huge Apple fan - but I'm seriously questioning what the point of the bloat is beyond making old machines sluggish to convince people to buy new ones.

So with a 2007, I guess I have no right to complain - even though Lion SUCKED. But what about the poor guy with the 2010 getting reamed?

And for exactly WHAT amazing features - what's the bloat even supposed to be doing? Makes no sense.

 

[maflynn]

And for exactly WHAT amazing features - what's the bloat even supposed to be doing? Makes no sense.

For the record, Mavericks is very efficient resource wise, I'd agree that Lion was a bit hefty, though I believe Mountain Lion was a bit of improvement but Mavericks is better especially for those machines that are tight on resources, given that it now compresses memory

 

[Alrescha]

It seems incredulous that the guy with the 2010 can't even run Mavericks.

It seems especially incredulous to me, as I am running it on a 2009 Mac mini (4GB/500MB) with no problems.

No, it is not the fastest computer in the world but I do not think it is reasonable to expect it to be. I use it for Handbrake, VMware, web browsing, email, etc. I use FileVault, so it has to deal with that overhead as well. It is a perfectly usable machine.

A.

 

[CrashX]

I'm honestly getting confused.

I remember the week I suffered through Lion. The Finder was loaded with a bunch of stuff I didn't need - it wasn't like Apple was even taking a Devon Think approach to it... It was just messy and annoying. My friendgirl is running Mountain Lion and it looks the same.

And then there was the stupid email "conversation" thing - I actually missed some emails because it was so stupid. I get that it's all just my own personal impression - but there was no way to tell the OS to "STOP IT!!!!"

So whatever features were added, I hated them. They didn't just bug me - combined with the 5 minute start-up, yeah... I really HATED Lion. I was so happy to get back to Snow Leopard, where apparently I had some control.

Anyway -

If Mavericks is a more efficient OS than, say, Snow Leopard - then why is it hogging so much memory that you need 4GB to even run it? Particularly if it compresses memory - you'd expect "Wow, my machine is just AMAZINGLY fast! So glad they worked out all of the problems with the Lions..."

You gurus actually understand all of this - so why for how come do it be that Mavericks, being more efficient, sucks all of the power out of machines that aren't even 5 years old?

If it's a better, more efficient OS - then shouldn't everyone who got screwed with one of the Lions be breathing a sigh of relief, cranking up their machines, surprised at the improvements?

What exactly is going on in the background in the Lions and Mavericks - that isn't going on in Snow Leopard - that enhances ANYTHING about running programs on top of an OS that sits in the background and just keeps things in order?

Seriously, if they released this as a Linux branch - with Snow Leopard still in the wild - what do you think the response would be?

Everyone hates Windows 8 - so Microsoft is forcing it on them anyway. Don't like it? Too bad for you. You'll learn to like it.

Apple seems to be taking the same position. Only they're giving it away for free - so you're "free" to degrade the responsiveness of your computer should you wish to be induced to buy a new one.

The only thing I can think is that Mavericks sucks on "older" computers because it's taking advantage of something that's only present in the new computers? If that's the case, cool - I get that the newer machines deserve an OS that can make the most efficient use of whatever technology is in them.

Anyway - I'm sure you gurus understand. And I'd like to NOT think that Apple is intentionally just intentionally bloating the OS to trick people into thinking their "older" computers are slow.

I'm running 10.6. It's extremely fast, extremely responsive. What feature of the bloated OS's are required in order for CodeKit to run?

I seriously don't get it. And I still need my computer to run fast - so hearing that faster machines are ganked to the point that they can only function as iPads (I have one of those) -

I was ticked off about Lion. I'm sure the 2010 MBP guy isn't thrilled with Mavericks.

If Apple is selling us disposable computers that they intend to cripple - then does anyone at least know the timeline on Apple's life expectancy for their top end models?

Also, if their focus these days is on their iDevices - can't they just resist not screwing us over? A MacBook Pro is not an iPhone or an iPad.

Times are tough - I don't think I need Apple kicking me off the reservation in 5-7 years because they need to sell me something new.

 

[maflynn]

I'm running Mavericks on a 2009 era Mini, though I have upgraded the ram to 8GB. Its fast and efficient.

Its fine that you hate the newer OS's but then you have to make some decisions by staying on the older legacy versions, which include the inability to run newer apps.

 

[CrashX]

I'm glad you're happy with it.

My next door neighbor was running an old Pro with Mac OS 9 on it until last year. I thought it was really odd - but he does freelance design for a living, and related that the Adobe apps still ran fine.

So I guess I should just be happy my 2007 does have Snow Leopard - and there are workarounds for pretty much all of the new Apple Store Apps. I think that's what's causing the cut off - guessing apps that run on Snow Leopard can't be on the App store?

Anyway, does me no good to whine about it. If nobody else cares that Pros are no longer considered Pros after 3 years, as far as Apple is concerned - then I know to just buy the cheapest one moving forward.

Hoping the MacBook Airs come out with retina next round. I can see paying a grand for a computer that's only supported for 3 or 4 years, just not $2500+

I must be getting old and grumpy. I really used to love shiny new things. Now I kinda treat them the same way I do Justin Bieber... all dem dere whippa snappas, dey buy anythin' what dey sellin' - nope nope, I's jes' fine an' content wit my 7 year ol' - she still spry, she sho is... Boy, don't you go pointin' yo retina at ME!!! An' get off mah porch wit dem skinny jeans - get on now!

 

[chrfr]

I'm typing this on a 2.4 GHz late 2007 Macbook Pro running 10.9.2 Mavericks, and it works just fine. I've got 4GB of RAM and a 320GB, 7200rpm disk in it. It works better than Mountain Lion did, thanks to the memory optimizations built in. Granted, on this computer, I'm only using it for browsing, etc. and nothing too challenging, but no complaints here.

 

[Jimmy James]

I have the same machine with identical upgrades. Runs quite nicely.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Apple seems to be taking the same position. Only they're giving it away for free - so you're "free" to degrade the responsiveness of your computer should you wish to be induced to buy a new one.

For someone who hasnt even installed Mavericks you sure do have a lot to say about it.

My late 2011 MBP came with Lion, which was the worst OS X release for a long time. Mountain Lion helped, but Mavericks has really sped things up a lot.

I also have Mavericks on a 2008 iMac. Mavericks runs very well - the only time I see any slowdown is stuttering in the mission control animation when too many windows are open.

----------

It seems incredulous that the guy with the 2010 can't even run Mavericks.

You're throwing this around because it supports your claim but you haven't installed Mavericks and you either haven't considered that this 2010 MBP has an issue, or you have ignored it because it doesn't support your point.

 

[53kyle]

If Mavericks is a more efficient OS than, say, Snow Leopard - then why is it hogging so much memory that you need 4GB to even run it? Particularly if it compresses memory - you'd expect "Wow, my machine is just AMAZINGLY fast! So glad they worked out all of the problems with the Lions..."

People on these forums are soooooo misleading sometimes. You don't "need" 4 GB. It just makes a better experience, but only depending on what you do. The thing is that lots of people don't even use that much, such as I with 8 GB and rarely hitting 2 GB. Fast is relative.

On newer machines like mine, Mavericks is faster and that is that. I tried going back to mountain lion when Mavericks was on beta 2 and it was way too slow on my computer. Still, Snow leopard on my old computer felt more responsive, therefore faster and I can assume Mavericks has the same effects on older machines as on new ones, but more dramatic, so I recommend sticking with Snow Leopard.

 

[Hepatical]

My 2007 late MBP runs Mavericks perfectly fine and smooth. I upgraded it with 6GB of RAM and an SSD but I can definitely imagine using it stock with 10.9.

 

[Morod]

Late 2007 iMac here, with 2.4GHz Intel, 4GB RAM.
I have no intention of moving to Mavericks. Snow Leopard does everything I need and does it well. I just hope I can keep this iMac running forever.

 

[CrashX]

My late 2011 MBP came with Lion, which was the worst OS X release for a long time. Mountain Lion helped, but Mavericks has really sped things up a lot.

I was thinking about doing a backup and trying out Mavericks this weekend, but ended up having other issues pop up.

And it was Lion that mauled my current machine. So if it was just a horrible POS, then maybe I can give Mavericks a shot. Lion's boot-up time was like 5 minutes and almost completely unresponsive (in comparison to Snow Leopard) when running.

I was in a fairly bad mood, having read a bunch of negative comments in the Apple support forum with people claiming Mavericks had killed their machine - but I was definitely LOOKING for that, because of my experience with Lion. I don't care to repeat that

Anyway, this old MBP has served me well. But she's been slowly roasting my wrists now for 7 years - so looking forward to whenever Apple announces the retina Air.

Thanks to everyone for their advice.

And if anyone is using Mavericks on a dated machine like mine as their "workhorse", let me know. I don't think I care to pull the trigger with just "not horrible" experiences on secondary machines. Thanks.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

And if anyone is using Mavericks on a dated machine like mine as their "workhorse", let me know. I don't think I care to pull the trigger with just "not horrible" experiences on secondary machines. Thanks.

I have Mavericks running on an early 2008 20" iMac. It has 4GB ram and only a slightly newer processor than what you have.

Its performance under Mavericks is significantly better than Lion and better than Mountain Lion. Performance is completely acceptable and most importantly - its stable.

Give Mavericks a go - if you have issues or don't like it all you need to do is restore from backup.

Please note the following things:

1. Make sure you do a clean install
2. Do not restore your old apps onto Mavericks
3. If you have any weird issues and you've restored your home directory from backup, create another user and test using that account.

 

[pubwvj]

Looks like a lot of worry and emotion here. I can understand as I am considering upgrading (I just got the little dialog box saying "You can upgrade to Mavericks for free!") but I don't want to lose my data or interrupt my work flow with wasted time. Thus I'm reading some threads before I consider this too much.

I have a 2008 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 6GB RAM 500MB HD running MacOSX 10.6.8 all up-to-date.

My HD is rather full (10GB free) so in addition to a full backup up I suspect I should free up space.

The only problem I'm having is that Safari eats RAM. If I restart, which I have to do every day or three, and run Safari for a while I end up with all the available RAM in use and things start slowing down terribly. I've heard of other people reporting this problem in 10.6.8. Has this been fixed in MacOSX 10.9.2?

I saw mention of a problem with email. I live by email and use POP3. It is a major work tool for me. What are the details on the problem? Is it merely a matter of rebuilding the index, a problem with importing my old emails, something else?

Are there any known software incompatibilities for Mavrics? A list somewhere perhaps. I use Adobe CS4 Illustrator/Photoshop, Fetch 5.6, OmniOutliner 3.10.5, BBEdit 6.1.2 and Excel/Word 2008. I can't afford to upgrade those.

I don't need iCloud - one of the things someone mentioned as a reason to upgrade. I think the fix for Safari would be the biggest benefit for me but not worth it if it breaks other things I need.

Any feedback on people's experiences is appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Cheers,

-Walter

 

[CrashX]

Well I've decided against it. I've found excellent workarounds for software I thought I needed.

You might notice that everyone suggesting Mav on an older Mac is running SSD.

My experience with Lion soured me on the bloated Xs. It literally crippled my system - which FLIES on 10.6.

I have no need for it, so patiently waiting to see what's next up for the retina Airs. Then I'll learn Mav on a system built to handle it

 

[Partron22]

Well I've decided against it. I've found excellent workarounds for software I thought I needed.

You might consider Mountain Lion. It's not nearly so long in the tooth as Snow Leopard. For example Apple still releases security updates for ML. It doesn't for 10.6.
I updated a 2007 mini (3gB) to ML, and it's running quite happily now. Unless you've got video card issues, your faster Mac should like it as well.

 

[chrfr]

You might notice that everyone suggesting Mav on an older Mac is running SSD.

No, I'm using it on an old 320GB 7200rpm disk. It really does work fine for me.

----------

You might consider Mountain Lion.

Mavericks works better than Mountain Lion for me. The memory compression features make usage more efficient.

 

[pubwvj]

No, I'm using it on an old 320GB 7200rpm disk. It really does work fine for me.

How about the bug I'm seeing in 10.6.8 of Safari gradually eating up all the available memory? Has this been fixed in Mavericks?

Thank you,

-Walter