Why is OS X slower now than it was at the beginning?

[Hog Milanese]

Just as a caveat: I'm the ultimate Apple/Mac fanboy, and have been since my days in college. I'm about as loyal as they get.

That being said, I sometimes watch old WWDC or Macworld keynotes (for humor's sake, if nothing else), and I was shocked by how smooth and "snappy" the OS X Beta was before it even shipped to consumers. While Steve is demoing a variety of tasks (on a G4 Cube), I thought: "Boy, I wish Yosemite was that snappy."

So my question is this: Has OS X gotten slower?

How? Why?

Or is it all in my head?

Was switching to @2x displays two steps back before graphics and other processor advances had made two steps forward? (Intel has seemed to be up against a brick wall since 2012 or so.)

 

[Troy2000]

It is most definitely not in your head. The slowdown which you are experiencing is a result of several factors, not least of which is OS X's increasingly poor optimisation following Apple's move to a 12-month development cycle.

The crux of the issue is that we expect far more of a PC running Yosemite in 2015 than we did of one running Cheetah in 2001. Despite Cheetah's responsiveness and numerous pretty UI animations, a simple modern Flash video would quickly bring the entire system to a standstill.

OS X evolves at a similar rate to the hardware on which it is running and as the number of APIs and features grows, so does the operating system's use of system resources. What this means for the user is that while the capabilities of the operating system improve considerably over time, performance usually either improves gradually or shows no appreciable change.

If you are seeking better performance under OS X, I would suggest downgrading to Mountain Lion. That is the most recent well optimised revision of the operating system.

 

[Fishrrman]

Question:
"Why is OS X slower now than it was at the beginning?"

Answer:
Tons and TONS of more "junk" attached to it while it's running...

 

[Hog Milanese]

I just hope they really double-down on efficiency and streamlining in the next release.

 

[grahamperrin]

Some reasons

More features.

Typically, more user data and with those data sets: larger multimedia files, and so on.

HFS Plus is no longer ideal.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

...a simple modern Flash video would quickly bring the entire system to a standstill.

Simple and modern!? Flash?

@grahamperrin:
It has nothing to do with HFS+.

 

[GGJstudios]

If you're having performance issues, this may help:

Performance Tips For Mac OS X​

 

[Hog Milanese]

If you're having performance issues, this may help:

Performance Tips For Mac OS X​

I'm not so much having performance issues as being disappointed at how often I notice lag, jitters, and mild hangups while doing various multi-tasking tasks.

I don't have an old machine, by any means, and it isn't like what I'm attempting to do is that taxing on a modern processor ... or is it?

You'd think Apple, with full control over both software and hardware, could optimize the heck out of these machines on Yosemite.

 

[Troy2000]

Simple and modern!? Flash?

@grahamperrin:
It has nothing to do with HFS+.

Comparatively, silly.

 

[grahamperrin]

HFS Plus metadata structures

… nothing to do with HFS+.

Re: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7/12/#hfs-problems (and elsewhere) please understand the effect of global locking.

 

[xSinghx]

So my question is this: Has OS X gotten slower?

How? Why?

The short answer has to do with Apple thinking its value these days is in creating new markets by selling people overpriced toys like the Apple watch rather than fortifying existing products by maintaining a rock solid, highly optimized OS (formerly a source of pride for them as I recall).

Paying more for a mac use to mean a better overall aesthetic and technical experience than the competition. Increasingly their aesthetic either stagnates or imitates (phablet 6) and sometimes lives in it's own i/o phantasy land (macbook). Meanwhile on the software side (in addition to the slowdowns you've mentioned) it's 2015 and we still get to see the music on our phones through iTunes as excel spreadsheets (instead of cover art - like the rest of what your library probably looks like) and you still have to use syncing to move photos around instead of drag and drop (you know like your music).

But hey I'm sure 12month OS cycles to needlessly make your 2month old machine feel like it needs an upgrade or shuffling UI buttons around on iTunes makes for awesome improvements I'm just too dull to see.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Re: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7/12/#hfs-problems (and elsewhere) please understand the effect of global locking.

HFS+ does not slow down OS X. That's a fact. Proof? Sure:
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/05/21/15-inch-retina-macbook-pro-2gbps-throughput/

and

From:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-i...rity.com#CF71BE2D.15126%mllaguno@coverity.com

“...In almost every metric (with
the exception of the Non-Sync¹d 8k8 writes), OSX Mavericks 10.9.2 using
HFS+ out-performed my Ubuntu servers. While the SSDs come from different
manufacturers, both use the SandForce SF-2281 controllers.”

And btw, John Siracusa is not a file system engineer. He is...

From:
http://arstechnica.com/author/john-siracusa/

“...a professional web developer and freelance technology writer...”

 

[grahamperrin]

… Proof? …

I used PostgreSQL on Mac OS X in the past, but the question is not about PostgreSQL.

Neither is the question about solid state storage.

(If Mac OS X 10.0 could run on hardware comparable to the most recent MacBook Pro, with that fast an interface to the SSD, then I would expect 10.0 as a whole to run (not necessarily boot) faster than 10.10.3.)

The question, with added emphasis:

Why is OS X slower now than it was at the beginning?​

----

… John Siracusa is not a file system engineer. …

Nothing that I learnt (privately) from a file system architect suggested that Siracusa was misinformed in that area.

Also, in my own experience, from https://openzfsonosx.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4883#p4883 (but not relating to that implementation of ZFS):

"… For the reduced performance when working with the faster drive alone, I should not treat the global locking (HFS Plus) as the sole cause. Still, it's worth noting."​