Rolling Back to 1.9 from 1.9.2 [MBA 2013]

DrAlexMv

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Mar 30, 2014
2
0
I am having infinite problems with a graphics driver update in 1.9.2 targetting the MBA's Intel HD 5000 that were not happening in earlier versions. I would like to rollback to 1.9 as I am not able to accomplish some graphics work that I have.

Is it possible to do this?
 

scaredpoet

macrumors 604
Apr 6, 2007
6,626
342
I am having infinite problems with a graphics driver update in 1.9.2 targetting the MBA's Intel HD 5000 that were not happening in earlier versions. I would like to rollback to 1.9 as I am not able to accomplish some graphics work that I have.

Is it possible to do this?
If you have a time machine backup that dates to a point before you upgraded, then yes. You'll need to go into Recovery Mode and restore from your Time Machine Backup.
 

DrAlexMv

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Mar 30, 2014
2
0
If you have a time machine backup that dates to a point before you upgraded, then yes. You'll need to go into Recovery Mode and restore from your Time Machine Backup.
What if I do not? Can I just wipe and reinstall? All my stuff is backed up on Dropbox or version control. I need a quick solution.
 

scaredpoet

macrumors 604
Apr 6, 2007
6,626
342
A wipe and restore wouldn't hurt things, though you're going to end up getting 10.9.2. But, given that no other 2013 MBA users are complaining about glitches on 10.9.2, there's likely something specific to your installation, or the hardware. So a wipe and restore might fix it anyway.

If that doesn't work, the only way then would be to find someone with a disk image of 10.9.1 or 10.9.0 and install that fresh. If you download a copy now from the App store, it's going to be the latest release.

If you're having GPU problems though that the wipe and restore doesn't fix, you should probably bring that MBA in to a Genius bar or get a hold of Apple. The glitches were fixed for most 2013 MBA users a long time before 10.9.2, so if yours is showing problems, then something's wrong.