My experience with the OS was extremely brief. I installed it on my machine, noticed that the startup time had increased at least 30 seconds - which seemed like an eternity given how spoiled I've become with an SSD - so I immediately went back to Sierra. I've never read any ATTEMPT at an explanation as to why even the startup time increased so much? Ars Technica doesn't even explain it - instead they published the glowing review that convinced me to try the update in the first place? This all just seems very weird? Sadly, I'm paranoid enough to think: "Shhh... don't tell anyone what's actually going on at Apple - they have WAY too much money these days! Seriously, they'll bury us!" You'd think that at LEAST Ars Technica would have grumbled at least a WEE tiny little bit - but no? All's well that's not even close to well - even for a completely non-technical person like me? Nope - their review screams "All aboard!" It's PERFECT! Awesome improvements under the hood! Do what now? I guess we can all hope for a Snow Sierra with the next outing - so we can just skip this whole mess? That sadly actually is my only plan? Well, other than fear that Apple will never release another decent OS for their lowly bothersome old computer division? I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks? And, if anyone would care to explain what's up with the ridiculously long startup time? Why is that? If you're running a late 2013 Retina MacBook Pro and NOT experiencing that issue, then I'd be very interested to understand how/why your machine is more special than mine? I thought they all came out of the same factory - which has always kinda been the whole point, right? The OS can be FINELY turned for our specific machines, allowing them to operate at their very BEST? Right? No? I seriously don't get this at all? I'm not committing heresy by complaining that the startup time is weird at best, right? There's apparently zero explanation for it, so... ? But, rather than getting berated for not lovingly towing the line and loving Apple as much as I should - Please at least just explain the startup time thingy? I don't get it? Does anyone? It seriously freaks me out that even Ars Technica refuses to even mention it - much less criticize it? Thanks for any feedback.