Which OSX was the most stable?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by macswitcha2, Jun 7, 2011.

  1. macswitcha2 macrumors 65816

    Oct 18, 2008
  2. maflynn Moderator


    Staff Member

    May 3, 2009
    They all are, I mean 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6 are all rock solid.
  3. macswitcha2 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Oct 18, 2008
    So you're indifferent.

    Some say that leopard was the best.
  4. Fishrrman macrumors G5


    Feb 20, 2009
    "They all are, I mean 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6 are all rock solid."

    In complete agreement here.

    I started with 10.3.2 on a PowerMac g4 tower (still using it, typing this message on it now), and "moved up" to 10.4.11 -- stable as a rock.

    I started on my iMac with 10.4.11 and moved up through 10.6 and am now experimenting with 10.7 as well. ALL have been rock-solid.

    Stability is less of an issue with the Mac OS, vis-a-vis which version of the system most fits your needs (example: someone who relies on Rosetta-based apps could probably stick with 10.6.x for the foreseeable future, without problems).
  5. Hansr macrumors 6502a

    Apr 1, 2007
    10.4.10, 10.4.11, 10.5.8, 10.6.6+ are versions I've never had any issues with that could pre traced back to the OS.
  6. Big-TDI-Guy macrumors 68030


    Jan 11, 2007
    OS wise, 10.4 treated me the best. 10.5 has hiccups - but all the freezes I can recall spawned from Parallels 19 times out of 20.

    10.6 actually ranks low in my eyes - as my Mini (shipped with 10.6) has crashed 5 or 6 times in a single month, and that thing has only been a media PC. Whether it's hardware or OS related, not sure - and don't particularly care, however it did stop me from moving to SL on my other Macs...
  7. RichardBeer macrumors regular


    Jul 11, 2009
    I've used 10.5 and 10.6 on a Macbook Pro and they were both equally as stable and solid. I've only had a few crashes on Leopard but it only crashed once or twice when using a notoriously poorly made app. I can't even recall having a crash with 10.6

    Although I can't speak from experience, I hear that 10.0-10.2 weren't perfect.
  8. iLucas macrumors 6502

    Feb 5, 2011
    I think it is 10.4.11

    Never had a problem with Tiger and i have it on several machines.
  9. joelovesapple macrumors 6502a


    Sep 25, 2006
    Snow Leopard by a MILE. I had massive problems with 10.4 but that could've been due to the fact that I was a n00b back then :p. No end of issues.

    Leopard was horrible, I couldn't stand it. I just found it sluggish and slow. Shouldn't have done an upgrade really but at the time, I didn't have an external hard drive and was worried about losing all my music.

    Then I bought Snow Leopard and was like 'Holy hell this is solid!' and that was on 10.6.1 (clean install as had got an external HD by then). All of these installs were done on a late 2006 2.16GHz White 24" iMac.

    When that died, I upgraded to the machine in my sig and have had never had a serious problem. *touch wood*.

    I guess it boils down to how you install.
  10. iLog.Genius macrumors 601


    Feb 24, 2009
    Toronto, Ontario
    Later 10.4 builds. 10.5 was a bit effy for me until 10.5.5 I think. But overall, 10.4 I think is the best OS.
  11. satcomer macrumors 603


    Feb 19, 2008
    The Finger Lakes Region
    For me 10.4.x was solid but 10.5 had weird networking problems until 10.5.5. 10.6. has been rock sold after I did a fresh install of 10.6.

    I just wish Apple would update their version of Samba. However I heard that 10.7 will not have Samba because of some GPL issues. I just sure hope Apple gets something rock solid in 10.7 speaking with Windows Domains because it will really help in getting Macs into companies.
  12. Nermal Moderator


    Staff Member

    Dec 7, 2002
    New Zealand
  13. gameface macrumors 6502

    Sep 11, 2010
    Boston, MA
    I've been using it from the get-go. Had a dual OS 9 / OS X boot on my 533 G4 tower. So going back from the beginning it has seemed to gain stability pretty much consistently. Sure there were some point releases along the way that kind of sucked, but all in all it is a stable OS.

    I have had very few complaints since OS X 10.4+

    Have been getting random kernel panics lately on my tower but that is happening in my Matrox audio driver while working in FCP and transferring TB's of data at the same time. I just stopped editing if I needed to transfer data and vise-versa. Other than that SL has been solid for me.
  14. rpaloalto macrumors 6502a


    Sep 19, 2005
    Palo Alto CA.
    I would also like to nominate 10.4.11 as the defending OSX release, with the fewest complaints or issues.
    You can also say 10.6.7 or if we get a 10.6.8 will be a very stable and refined version.
  15. kresh macrumors 6502a



    This was by far the most stable on all of our Macs.
  16. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604


    May 28, 2005
    10.6 just KP'd on be yesterday. I'd have to go with 10.3 or 10.5, as 10.4 wasn't sufficiently stable until after 10.5 came out... and 10.3 was rock solid, although perhaps not as feature-rich.
  17. Badrottie Suspended


    May 8, 2011
    Los Angeles
  18. maflynn Moderator


    Staff Member

    May 3, 2009
    You didn't ask which is the best but the most stable. All of them were very stable
  19. BR485 macrumors member


    Jan 11, 2011
    Junkie Town West

    I'm running 10.5.8 on a 24"/2.8ghz iMac 8,1 with 2GB of RAM and the Radeon 2600HD graphics card and I prefer Leopard over Snow Leopard.

    I had 10.6.7 installed for a while but found video performance and GPU intensive tasks were bogging the machine down. I did a test where I opened about six QT movies and had them playing simultaneously. Under 10.6.7 playback was erratic and "jerky", whereas under 10.5.8 playback was even and smooth. SL also raised temps by 5-10 degrees Celsius across the board.

    10.5.8 is optimal for a 2008 vintage machine and I won't be upgrading the OS until I purchase a new computer.

    I'm not too keen on 10.7 from what I've seen/heard/read so far. Seems like too much dumbing down and iOSification, and few real innovative and useful new features. Apple needs to overhaul and update its OS and keep iOS and OS X as separate entities if it wants to be taken seriously as a COMPUTER company.
  20. MisterMe macrumors G4


    Jul 17, 2002
    You need to watch the video of Apple's WWDC presentation then go through all of the material on Apple's Lion and iOS 5 webpages if you want to be taken seriously as a member of this forum.
  21. John T macrumors 68020

    John T

    Mar 18, 2006
    With respect, what a load of rubbish! You are completely missing the point of Apple's objectives.
  22. DSPalpatine macrumors member

    Nov 9, 2009
    In my experience, the most stable has been Tiger, from 10.4.6 onward. I never had a KP while on Tiger, and can't remember any programs crashing.

    10.5.8 was/is pretty stable. GETTING to 10.5.8 was an entirely other story. The update from 10.5.7 to 10.5.8 was a real PITA.
  23. Beavix macrumors 6502a


    Dec 1, 2010
    Same here.
  24. Phil A. Moderator

    Phil A.

    Staff Member

    Apr 2, 2006
    Shropshire, UK
    10.7 doesn't take anything away from Snow Leopard (it handles spaces differently, and in a way some people don't like, but they are still there) and adds some great new features that I find really useful. if you don't want to use them, then you don't have to and you can continue to use your Mac in pretty much exactly the same way as you do now, so I don't see how that is a "dumbing down" at all.

    Back on topic, I think pretty much all OS X version after and including 10.3 have been stable eventually, but some of them took a few point releases to get there!

    My first experience of OSX was (IIRC) 10.0.4 when it came included along with OS 9.1 on an iMac I bought in 2001. That was pretty unstable :)
  25. BR485 macrumors member


    Jan 11, 2011
    Junkie Town West
    Apple's primary objective is catering to the iOS/consumer market.

Share This Page