PDA

View Full Version : OS X El Capitan



chscag
06-08-2015, 03:26 PM
Well, what do you think of the name of the next version of OS X? I was a bit surprised at the name of "El Capitan".

And for our friends around the world... El Capitan is located in Yosemite National Park, California.

El Capitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Capitan)

Looks like we're still in Yosemite. :P

pm-r
06-08-2015, 03:33 PM
I was waiting for him to finish a punch line but it never came. :(

How profound — "…from within…". Pretty lame personally… :Sleeping:

pigoo3
06-08-2015, 03:48 PM
I can see what Apple is trying to do with the new OS naming scheme (environment focus, being green, "outdoorsy", physical fitness, California, etc.). But to be honest…Apple should have stuck with the well established "Cat Names".:)

Seems to me someone at Apple (ahem…possibly Tim Cook);)…is trying to make their mark on how newer OS versions are named (in a post Steve Jobs world)!;)

Just my crazy personal opinion of course!;)

- Nick

dtravis7
06-08-2015, 03:51 PM
Here in California we have no water so no more green! :D

pigoo3
06-08-2015, 04:00 PM
Here in California we have no water so no more green! :D

Saving water is supposed to be "green"…even though nothing will look "green"!;)

- Nick

dtravis7
06-08-2015, 04:01 PM
Hahahahhaha!


Not sure what I think of the new OSX yet. I have this feeling though that every Mac I own will no longer run it! Time will tell.

Sawday
06-08-2015, 04:09 PM
Sorry, but to us older Brits this sounds too much like the Goon's Bluebottle's exclamation "I heard you call me, my Capitaine"

vansmith
06-08-2015, 04:16 PM
The name makes sense if it's meant to be a refinement of Yosemite. The way I see it, El Capitan is a part of Yosemite as Snow Leopard is part of the Leopard family.

Nothing there was hugely exciting except for the fact that Apple has realized that public transit support is important.

Slydude
06-08-2015, 04:30 PM
Lots of the features in the new OS look interesting. Though for the most part they are refinements of existing features. Several of the window management changes are cool, needed, and overdue but seem to be adaptations of third party software

I didn't see any discussion of system requirements. Hope my current Mac holds up.

pm-r
06-08-2015, 04:33 PM
It seems that they're actually attempting to get the OS X improved as they did with Snow Leopard, but maybe, except possibly exempting some programmers, they should just drop any naming convention and stick to the OS X version number.

Quick, who can recite all the OS X names in their release order and no hesitation or pausing allowed… ;) :P

pigoo3
06-08-2015, 05:06 PM
To be honest…I hope that the new OS (El Capitan) does have some stiffer system requirements (even if some or all of my day to day Mac's don't meet the requirements). Apple has tried for too long to make the newest OS versions backward compatible with too many older models.

By doing this…the OS really doesn't "move forward"…because the new OS version is "dumbed-down" so much so that older (less powerful) hardware can run it. New OS versions that have REALLY offered REAL advances…almost always require more "horsepower". Sure of course. A new OS version should be backwards compatible with at least a few years worth of computer models. But I think that it's getting out of hand when the latest OS version in 2015 (Yosemite) is still compatible with computer models all the way back to 2007!

If someone at Apple said…"Let's design a newer more revolutionary version of the Mac OS that requires the computing horsepower of computers from 2011 and newer." If this were done…I bet that we would see some REALLY COOL stuff!!!:)

For me as a long time Mac User. These sort-of annual OS releases…and lackluster improvements...have taken a lot of the excitement out of upgrading to a new OS version. The last OS version release that I found even "semi-exciting"…was going from OS 10.5 to 10.6. Most of the excitement of this OS release was that it would took up about half the HD space as 10.5…and it was the first OS version to get rid of all the PPC code…thus it would run better & faster on Intel based Mac's. Probably other features too.

For me. OS releases 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, and 10.10 have all been "lackluster". To be honest…OS 10.7 & 10.8 could have been updates to Snow Leopard. And had OS version numbers of 10.6.9 and 10.6.10. Mavericks & Yosemite have made some forward progress..and these could have been versions of 10.7. And thus the upcoming OS release (El Capitan)…could be OS 10.8.

Apple is just trying to make the backward compatibility of new OS versions go too far back.

Sure…free is nice.:) But at some point we need to move forward…take more advantage of abilities/horsepower of newer computer models…and give us something to REALLY get excited about!:)

- Nick

dtravis7
06-08-2015, 05:31 PM
For PM-R

Developer Preview
Public Beta "Kodiak"
Cheetah
Puma
Jaguar
Panther
Tiger
Leopard
Snow Leopard
Lion
Mountain Lion
Mavericks
Yosemite

pm-r
06-08-2015, 05:36 PM
Thanks Dennis,
But I just mentioned naming the OS X in order as a tongue-in-cheek remark. ;)

But you did well, and some may be interested and probably many others never knew.

Patrick
-----------

dtravis7
06-08-2015, 05:39 PM
Thanks Dennis,
But I just mentioned naming the OS X in order as a tongue-in-cheek remark. ;)

But you did well, and some may be interested and probably many others never knew.

Patrick
-----------

Knew that but like you said felt it might help others in the future with that question. :D

XJ-linux
06-08-2015, 05:40 PM
I preferred cat names personally. I'm still at 10.9.5 and will hang out here for a bit anyhow. As with any operating system it will interesting to see how much of the new OS is stuff I would like to have, how much fixes what is needed, how much removes what I like, and how much is stuff I don't care about.

harryb2448
06-08-2015, 06:45 PM
I wanted to go back to the big cats and Cougar but Hollywood stitched that one up and OS X version have each had names.

TattooedMac
06-08-2015, 08:56 PM
Well to me, its just another piece of BIG Rock !! lol ;P

Lifeisabeach
06-08-2015, 09:09 PM
Lots of the features in the new OS look interesting. Though for the most part they are refinements of existing features. Several of the window management changes are cool, needed, and overdue but seem to be adaptations of third party software

I didn't see any discussion of system requirements. Hope my current Mac holds up.

If it can run Yosemite, it can run El Capitan. Geez... I just can't type that with a straight face.

If your Mac or iThing runs Yosemite or iOS 8, it can run El Capitan and iOS 9 | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/06/if-your-mac-or-ithing-runs-yosemite-or-ios-8-it-can-run-el-capitan-and-ios-9/)

chas_m
06-08-2015, 09:19 PM
I can see what Apple is trying to do with the new OS naming scheme (environment focus, being green, "outdoorsy", physical fitness, California, etc.). But to be honest…Apple should have stuck with the well established "Cat Names".:)

Nick, you must know that Apple was OUT of viable big cat names! There really wasn't an option when you're only down to to OS X Ocelot.

TattooedMac
06-08-2015, 09:21 PM
If someone at Apple said…"Let's design a newer more revolutionary version of the Mac OS that requires the computing horsepower of computers from 2011 and newer." If this were done…I bet that we would see some REALLY COOL stuff!!!:)

For me as a long time Mac User. These sort-of annual OS releases…and lackluster improvements...have taken a lot of the excitement out of upgrading to a new OS version. The last OS version release that I found even "semi-exciting"…was going from OS 10.5 to 10.6. Most of the excitement of this OS release was that it would took up about half the HD space as 10.5…and it was the first OS version to get rid of all the PPC code…thus it would run better & faster on Intel based Mac's. Probably other features too.

For me. OS releases 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, and 10.10 have all been "lackluster". To be honest…OS 10.7 & 10.8 could have been updates to Snow Leopard. And had OS version numbers of 10.6.9 and 10.6.10. Mavericks & Yosemite have made some forward progress..and these could have been versions of 10.7. And thus the upcoming OS release (El Capitan)…could be OS 10.8.

Apple is just trying to make the backward compatibility of new OS versions go too far back.

Sure…free is nice.:) But at some point we need to move forward…take more advantage of abilities/horsepower of newer computer models…and give us something to REALLY get excited about!:)

- Nick

I tend to agree Nick. There really wasnt much about h hmmmm "El Capitan" that i was WOW about. I thought to myself, sitting up at 1am, this is crap, why the heck did i wait up for this. Sure there is some new Features, but still there was nothing groundbreaking, (though I am 100% sure vansmith would be happy to here about Transit ~ long time coming) and they spent little to no time on, Performance and making sure that the System is stable, espicially iCloud.

This is what i wanted to see, and would have gotten excited about. If Tim had of said, this is a incremental update, to Stabilise OS X and make icloud work ALL the time, i would have been excited.
Now iOS was a different Story, and its about time that they made iOS a true Mulittasker.

What i saw, was a Business more worried about how many people took up the newer OS X and iOS, with the simple graphicals, and even the dig at Windows and Android. This says to me, they are more concerned with Numbers than bringing anything BIG to us.
Granted, as we move further into the future, is going to be the Hardware that will need improving, for them to bring the Software side of it into the 22nd Century. Meaning, ATM I think they are in a lull, where they cant really make huge improvements or bring new features to the PC, until the Hardware catches up . . .

But to me, Tim was talking Numbers, and this pissed me off to be honest.

dtravis7
06-08-2015, 09:26 PM
At least this is some good news!

If your Mac or iThing runs Yosemite or iOS 8, it can run El Capitan and iOS 9 | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/06/if-your-mac-or-ithing-runs-yosemite-or-ios-8-it-can-run-el-capitan-and-ios-9/)

chas_m
06-08-2015, 09:35 PM
For me as a long time Mac User. These sort-of annual OS releases…and lackluster improvements...have taken a lot of the excitement out of upgrading to a new OS version. The last OS version release that I found even "semi-exciting"…was going from OS 10.5 to 10.6.

Now that's funny ... here I thought the purpose of an OS upgrade was to add capability, fix bugs and refine existing features ... when in fact, you seem to think its to entertain and "excite" you!

Call me old, but a release that makes everything I have run better is plenty entertaining/exciting for me ...

I think the real "issue" you might be facing is the simple fact that OS X is fairly well mature and isn't going to offer any "jaw-dropping, OMG" features after more than 15 years of development. What I've found for the most part is that most OS X releases just improve on, and build on, what came before ... with the occasional new feature and the occasional misstep. Reminds me of life. :)

XJ-linux
06-08-2015, 09:47 PM
Bobcat, Caracal, Serval, Saber Tooth, etc...

dtravis7
06-08-2015, 09:49 PM
I found Mountain Lion a very impressive upgrade. Lion was interesting but with ML they to me really brought it all home.

Snow Leopard was another that blew me away as was Tiger and Leopard.

Even old Jaguar impressed the socks off me! :D

Mavericks left me cold at first but now with Yosemite 10.10.3 and soon .4 it's a very nice and mature OS.

TattooedMac
06-08-2015, 09:55 PM
Now that's funny ... here I thought the purpose of an OS upgrade was to add capability, fix bugs and refine existing features ... when in fact, you seem to think its to entertain and "excite" you!

Yet, it excites you ?? ;)


Call me old, but a release that makes everything I have run better is plenty entertaining/exciting for me ...

chas_m
06-08-2015, 10:03 PM
Bobcat, Caracal, Serval, Saber Tooth, etc...

Apart from one of them being extinct, the other problem, of course, is that not a one of these are big cats (well, living big cats). Bobcat, Ocelot, Lynx Caracel, Serval and others are SMALL wild cats, not BIG cats. The official list of big cats (variations, such as clouded leopard, omitted):

•Leopard
•Cheetah
•Lion
•Cougar
•Jaguar
•Mountain Lion
•Panther
•Puma
•Snow Leopard (included only because Apple used it -- not an official subspecies of leopard, but closely related)
•Tiger

And I think you'll find that these were all used in various releases of OS X.

pigoo3
06-08-2015, 10:08 PM
...you seem to think its to entertain and "excite" you!

Sorry chas...you're wrong! You chose to define the word "exite" for me...when I myself did not exactly define it. So the chances of you correctly defining what I mean by "excite" of course was very low.

And of course you chose to not "pay attention to detail". If you read my post carefully...I said that probably the last OS release that I found contained any real excitement for me was 10.6. And what were the two tings I mentioned about 10.6:

- That 10.6 only took about 50% of the hard drive space that 10.5 did.
- That 10.6 stripped out all of the PPC code that was in 10.5 (so 10.6 was an "Intel Only" OS).

These two things are clearly not OS details that are "entertaining"!

- Nick

chas_m
06-08-2015, 10:14 PM
I made no attempt to define exciting ... you're the one who mentioned that recent releases don't "excite" you. I simply said that the purpose of OS X releases isn't to "excite" you, it's to make the OS better.

I fear you are the one who's chose to "define" what you think I "meant" rather than what I actually said ...

chscag
06-08-2015, 10:19 PM
I can see that this thread is becoming more exciting by the minute! O:) :P

chas_m
06-08-2015, 10:20 PM
I think you mean "entertaining." :D

pigoo3
06-08-2015, 10:22 PM
Nick, you must know that Apple was OUT of viable big cat names! There really wasn't an option when you're only down to to OS X Ocelot.

I'm not going to say that you're totally out in left feild on this one. But I bet the "creative juices" in Cupertino could have come up with somehting if they really wanted to.:)

And if we really wanted to get technical. Cougar, Puma, and Mountain Lion are actually synonymous terms (same cat).:)

- Nick

XJ-linux
06-08-2015, 10:27 PM
Apart from one of them being extinct, the other problem, of course, is that not a one of these are big cats (well, living big cats). Bobcat, Ocelot, Lynx Caracel, Serval and others are SMALL wild cats, not BIG cats.

Meh, they are all wild cats. Personally, I'd take wild cats over places in California. Makes more sense to me at any rate. And, who cares if one is extinct?

pigoo3
06-08-2015, 10:34 PM
I made no attempt to define exciting ...

Of course you did. You said this in your earlier post:


... when in fact, you seem to think its to entertain and "excite" you!

You clearly said in that post that for me..."excite" = "entertain".

Let me just say this chas. You stepped over the line. It's not your place to critique or attack what other folks find exciting. Or attempt to define it for them. What you & I find exciting can and probably are completely different!

Keep the conversation positive..and state how YOU FEEL. WITHOUT feeling the need to tear down other folks thoughts!!! There's not a right or wrong answer on this topic.

You REALLY don't need to critique things for correctness...when there's really NOT a correct answer!!!

- Nick

pigoo3
06-08-2015, 10:41 PM
I tend to agree Nick. There really wasnt much about h hmmmm "El Capitan" that i was WOW about.

I guess to be 100% fair to Apple. "El Capitan" would be the 3rd OS name (Mavericks, Yosemite, El Capitan) since we've had the cat names.

Maybe back in 2002 when the 3rd "cat name" came out (Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar)...and if we were having this same conversation. Maybe a lot of us wouldn't be all that crazy about the cat names either.

So "El Capitan" may not seem all that exciting. Maybe Apple has a plan with these names...and we'll have to see where they go with it!;)

- Nick

chas_m
06-08-2015, 10:41 PM
Oooookaaaaaay ... you don't think "exciting" things are "entertaining ..." interesting.

I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about the unique way your mind works, good sir. Here's to diversity!

pigoo3
06-08-2015, 10:50 PM
Oooookaaaaaay ... you don't think "exciting" things are "entertaining ..." interesting.


Now that's funny ... here I thought the purpose of an OS upgrade was to add capability, fix bugs and refine existing features ... when in fact, you seem to think its to entertain and "excite" you!


The problem chas is the SNARKY, unfriendly, unkind way you phrase thing's!!! Both quotes above not exactly in line with the Mac-Forums Community Guidelines.:(

No one attacked you prior to your first post in this thread...so why do you feel the need to come out punching as if you've been attacked??? Keep things friendly!

Now just call it quits...and let it go.

- Nick

TattooedMac
06-08-2015, 10:52 PM
I guess to be 100% fair to Apple. "El Capitan" would be the 3rd OS name (Mavericks, Yosemite, El Capitan) since we've had the cat names.

Maybe back in 2002 when the 3rd "cat name" came out (Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar)...and if we were having this same conversation. Maybe a lot of us wouldn't be all that crazy about the cat names either.

So "El Capitan" may not seem all that exciting. Maybe Apple has a plan with these names...and we'll have to see where they go with it!;)

- Nick

In all fairness, I was talking more of the OS than a name. My post earlier, referenced the name, as being "just another bloody big rock to me" ;)

pigoo3
06-08-2015, 10:57 PM
In all fairness, I was talking more of the OS than a name. My post earlier, referenced the name, as being "just another bloody big rock to me" ;)

Ohh ok...I guess I got confused. I thought we were discussing "name excitement".;)

I'm holding off judgment on the actual merits of "El Capitan" until I actually get to play with it.:)

- Nick

vansmith
06-08-2015, 11:43 PM
(though I am 100% sure vansmith would be happy to here about Transit ~ long time coming)You bet I am! And, it was nice to see Toronto on the small list of 10 non-Chinese cities getting support on day one.


What i saw, was a Business more worried about how many people took up the newer OS X and iOS, with the simple graphicals, and even the dig at Windows and Android.This is getting really tiresome especially since much of the functionality noted today came from elsewhere (let's not pretend that multitasking on tablets and Apple's version of Aero Snap are original innovations here). You want to poke fun at other platforms inadequacies when it comes to adoption? Fine but then be prepared to defend why it is that you copy the functionality that different platforms have had for years. This sniping at other platforms and the problems that come with it apply elsewhere as well (I'm looking at you Microsoft and Google).


I think the real "issue" you might be facing is the simple fact that OS X is fairly well mature and isn't going to offer any "jaw-dropping, OMG" features after more than 15 years of development.You better tell that to their marketing team who seem to think that everything they produce is the most exciting thing ever. And, let's not forget a post I made a few weeks back noting how excited you get by just about everything Apple does. ;)

Lifeisabeach
06-09-2015, 01:41 AM
Meh, they are all wild cats. Personally, I'd take wild cats over places in California. Makes more sense to me at any rate. And, who cares if one is extinct?

Howsabout instead of places in California, they started using wildlife native to California. Better yet... species native only to California.

OS X Tule Elk
OS X Clapper Rail
OS X San Francisco Garter Snake
OS X California Newt

etc etc...
6 Cool Animals That Live Only in California | Guides | Rewild | KCET (http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/guides/6-cool-animals-that-live-only-in-california.html)

McBie
06-09-2015, 02:49 PM
I preferred the cat names.

" OS X Garfield " would have been my favourite :-)

Cheers ... McBie

pm-r
06-09-2015, 03:06 PM
I preferred the cat names.

" OS X Garfield " would have been my favourite :-)

Cheers ... McBie



+1.

That would definitely have been a keeper name. And fitting description as well. ;)

cradom
06-09-2015, 03:21 PM
For some reason the name makes me think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHyJNm-aGN0
Will wait on judgement til it actually comes out.

Lifeisabeach
06-09-2015, 08:44 PM
I preferred the cat names.

" OS X Garfield " would have been my favourite :-)

http://a0.img.mobypicture.com/9433a37292d1f3b5418481a1eca591f9_view.jpg

TattooedMac
06-09-2015, 09:02 PM
http://a0.img.mobypicture.com/9433a37292d1f3b5418481a1eca591f9_view.jpg

HAHA You got a LOL from me !!! :D

XJ-linux
06-10-2015, 09:51 AM
http://a0.img.mobypicture.com/9433a37292d1f3b5418481a1eca591f9_view.jpg

Well, I'm seeing this on the internet, so it's probably true. I'm in. When is the release date and will it run on my Mac?

Lifeisabeach
06-10-2015, 11:57 AM
Well, I'm seeing this on the internet, so it's probably true. I'm in. When is the release date and will it run on my Mac?

When they get to it. And your Mac isn't worthy anyway.:|

toMACsh
06-10-2015, 01:50 PM
Garfield
Cheshire
Grumpy
Nashville...

cwa107
06-10-2015, 02:05 PM
To be honest…I hope that the new OS (El Capitan) does have some stiffer system requirements (even if some or all of my day to day Mac's don't meet the requirements). Apple has tried for too long to make the newest OS versions backward compatible with too many older models.

By doing this…the OS really doesn't "move forward"…because the new OS version is "dumbed-down" so much so that older (less powerful) hardware can run it. New OS versions that have REALLY offered REAL advances…almost always require more "horsepower". Sure of course. A new OS version should be backwards compatible with at least a few years worth of computer models. But I think that it's getting out of hand when the latest OS version in 2015 (Yosemite) is still compatible with computer models all the way back to 2007!

If someone at Apple said…"Let's design a newer more revolutionary version of the Mac OS that requires the computing horsepower of computers from 2011 and newer." If this were done…I bet that we would see some REALLY COOL stuff!!!:)

For me as a long time Mac User. These sort-of annual OS releases…and lackluster improvements...have taken a lot of the excitement out of upgrading to a new OS version. The last OS version release that I found even "semi-exciting"…was going from OS 10.5 to 10.6. Most of the excitement of this OS release was that it would took up about half the HD space as 10.5…and it was the first OS version to get rid of all the PPC code…thus it would run better & faster on Intel based Mac's. Probably other features too.

For me. OS releases 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, and 10.10 have all been "lackluster". To be honest…OS 10.7 & 10.8 could have been updates to Snow Leopard. And had OS version numbers of 10.6.9 and 10.6.10. Mavericks & Yosemite have made some forward progress..and these could have been versions of 10.7. And thus the upcoming OS release (El Capitan)…could be OS 10.8.

Apple is just trying to make the backward compatibility of new OS versions go too far back.

Sure…free is nice.:) But at some point we need to move forward…take more advantage of abilities/horsepower of newer computer models…and give us something to REALLY get excited about!:)

- Nick

Call me crazy, but I'm of the opinion that an Operating System shouldn't tax your hardware at all. An OS should primarily be a springboard for your applications, that DO tax the hardware. It was Microsoft that started the trend of the BIG OS that eats resources for breakfast.

Beyond that, most of the changes with Mac hardware since the advent of purely 64-bit CPUs have been incremental speed bumps. So, your supposition that the OS is hobbled by catering to older hardware is dubious at best. 4GB of RAM is pretty much the standard RAM allocation across the board (except for the Mac Pro) and has been for quite some time. More cores that are unused (for the most part) really aren't a game changer. And 3D effects and other graphical gimmicks have been whittled down since the UI change, so GPU isn't really much of a factor.

I guess you could argue Retina display resolutions and Force Touch trackpads, but then, not all new Macs have those either.

I dunno... I kinda like Apple taking a time out on features and focusing on performance and stability. It did wonders for Snow Leopard (making it one of the most popular releases ever), I think 10.11 will do the same for the much maligned Yosemite release.

Lifeisabeach
06-10-2015, 02:26 PM
I dunno... I kinda like Apple taking a time out on features and focusing on performance and stability. It did wonders for Snow Leopard (making it one of the most popular releases ever), I think 10.11 will do the same for the much maligned Yosemite release.

Ditto, though the name El Capitan.... yeesh! If 10.12 will be a further refinement for performance and stability, they gonna call it OS X Horsetail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsetail_Fall_(Yosemite))?

pigoo3
06-10-2015, 02:53 PM
Call me crazy, but I'm of the opinion that an Operating System shouldn't tax your hardware at all. An OS should primarily be a springboard for your applications, that DO tax the hardware.

I don't think that you're crazy at all for desiring this.:) I just don't think that it's ever been achieved. Sure...the newer the computer the less the OS will tax the system. But the newest OS on older hardware will certainly be more taxing.

Yosemite (for example) running on a 2007 Mac is certainly going to be slower than on a 2015 Mac.


Beyond that, most of the changes with Mac hardware since the advent of purely 64-bit CPUs have been incremental speed bumps. So, your supposition that the OS is hobbled by catering to older hardware is dubious at best.

I thought someone might bring this up;)...and here are the numbers:

- A 2007 15" MacBook Pro with a 2.2ghz core 2 duo CPU has a Geekbench 3 score of 2054.
- A 2015 13" MacBook Pro with a 3.1ghz core i7 CPU (2 cores) has a Geekbench 3 score of 7470.

That's easily a 350+% increase in performance. I purposely didn't include a quad-core model to be fair.:) This doesn't exactly fit "Moore's Law"...but it's still a nice increase.:)

We also know that the OS has become more & more demanding on the GPU (that's one of the reasons why I believe Apple officially does not support Yosemite on some older Intel Mac model's.)


I dunno... I kinda like Apple taking a time out on features and focusing on performance and stability.

I totally agree! Give me the choice between a stable OS...and a buggy feature-filled OS...and I'll take the stable OS every time!:) But in a consumer driven business world...the average user almost expects stability...but demands "bells & whistles". It's both OS stability & OS "bells & whistles" that sell computer's. That's why both Microsoft & Apple add new features to the OS with each release.

My main point is...I don't think that at any time in the history of Apple computers...that the most recent version of the Mac OS was compatible with so many Mac models (and number of years). Right now this covers almost 8 years (2007-2015). This can be a good thing or a bad thing.

- Good Thing = The latest OS is compatible with more models.
- Bad Thing = The latest OS is compatible with more models.

The reason why this is a good thing & and bad thing is. Some folks running Yosemite on a 2007 computer may not mind a decrease in performance running the latest OS...other folks will. So freedom of choice.:)

But the bad thing (to me is)...with Yosemite compatible with so many Mac models (2007-2015). In order to continue to allow the latest OS to run on older 2007 computers...Apple is being careful what they add to the OS in terms of features. Since new features would almost certainly slow down performance on older models even more.

Newer features could be what's needed to breathe some new life into the Mac OS. The cumulative OS improvements from OS 10.7-10.10 (to me)...in total...aren't so revolutionary. These improvements could have all been packaged in maybe 1-2 OS releases instead of 4.

At some point Apple needs to drop "latest OS support" on older models...so that the OS can move forward...and take advantage of the CPU and GPU performance of newer models. Never in the history of Apple has 8 years of Apple computer models been compatible with the latest OS.

- Nick

cwa107
06-10-2015, 04:09 PM
Nick, we probably aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this one, but I think your assessment misses the big picture that I was trying to explain. The current OS X release doesn't tax the CPU (at all), so a 350% improvement in performance (or a 2000% improvement, for that matter) doesn't mean squat. Features generally consume resources like RAM and disk space (which, as I mentioned, have remained fairly stagnant on base Mac models for quite a few years now). Most 64-bit CPUs are seldom ever tasked by something as mundane as an OS. By and large, the biggest bottleneck in a modern PC is the hard disk, and those are being quickly phased out by SSDs - and that may be the kind of distinction you're looking for to justify phasing out older machines.

pigoo3
06-10-2015, 04:48 PM
Nick, we probably aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this one, but I think your assessment misses the big picture that I was trying to explain. The current OS X release doesn't tax the CPU (at all)...

Chris…maybe we're looking at things from different angles.:) Maybe the way each of us is defining "OS Demand" is different.

- Nick

RavingMac
06-10-2015, 11:07 PM
Put me on the list for when the Beta for Grumpy Cat comes out . . . :)

Dysfunction
06-11-2015, 03:48 AM
Nick, we probably aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this one, but I think your assessment misses the big picture that I was trying to explain. The current OS X release doesn't tax the CPU (at all), so a 350% improvement in performance (or a 2000% improvement, for that matter) doesn't mean squat. Features generally consume resources like RAM and disk space (which, as I mentioned, have remained fairly stagnant on base Mac models for quite a few years now). Most 64-bit CPUs are seldom ever tasked by something as mundane as an OS. By and large, the biggest bottleneck in a modern PC is the hard disk, and those are being quickly phased out by SSDs - and that may be the kind of distinction you're looking for to justify phasing out older machines.

Things like memory and power management can still be improved. It's not horrible, or even really bad, but both can be improved and would make a noticeable difference to the end user. Especially as we get smaller, lighter form factors.

leedslad
06-11-2015, 04:07 AM
Put me on the list for when the Beta for Grumpy Cat comes out . . . :)


I'll be downloading Grumpy Cat too!

John. :Cool:

dbm
06-11-2015, 06:58 AM
Personally I appreciate the longer support life Apple gives it's computers. My Dad has a four year old PC tower which is on it's knees and is badly in need of upgrade. Contrast with my wife's Air (2011, 256GB but no other upgrades) which is cruising along fine. I was anticipating upgrading her laptop this year after the new OS release, but now I don't think it will be necessary.

To quote Tim - 'only Apple can do this' and on a practical level it is the tight integration between hardware and OS that makes it possible in my opinion. It certainly knocks the 'Macs are expensive' argument out of the park when you consider the whole-life costs.

I do agree that the marketing hype gets a bit tiring, however! I guess they are victims of their own previous success in this regard - people expect 'wow' moments every year when a flatter, squarer widget is in reality no big deal. MS by comparison only launch new OS editions every few years (and may even move away from that to only incremental releases if the press are right) so every new MS OS is significantly different.

cwa107
06-11-2015, 08:26 AM
Things like memory and power management can still be improved. It's not horrible, or even really bad, but both can be improved and would make a noticeable difference to the end user. Especially as we get smaller, lighter form factors.

Totally agree. There is always room for improvement. I just don't think extending support to older machines hinders that in any way, shape, or form.

toMACsh
06-17-2015, 01:55 PM
Sorry if this was asked and answered above; short lunch break, not enough time to read all the posts.

When will new Macs be sold with El Capitan installed?

pigoo3
06-17-2015, 02:03 PM
When will new Macs be sold with El Capitan installed?

If history is a good example…usually almost right away. Sometimes the computers that are already in the distribution system may still have the former OS version.

But since recent OS releases have been free. And assuming El Capitan will alo be free...El Capitan would be an easy download & install if a new computer came with Yosemite (after El Capitan was released).

Of course El Capitan needs to be released first. Sounds like El Capitan is expected to be released Fall 2015.

- Nick

Tygrz
06-17-2015, 02:29 PM
Garfield
Cheshire
Grumpy
Nashville...

"Tony", "Tigger", "Sylvester"...

Slydude
06-17-2015, 03:11 PM
"Tony", "Tigger", "Sylvester"...

I've been saying since the cat series came out that they should have named one of them Sylvester. I would have even volunteered to be the spokesman for free. Now if they wanted to give me a few products or demo products to test in exchange well I couldn't very well turn that down now could I?

chas_m
06-18-2015, 01:15 AM
Yosemite runs great on this 2012 MacBook Pro, and will run El Capitan just fine as well. The reason it runs very well is because this model has a decent graphics card (HD 4000) and lots of RAM (16GB).

Nick tends to look at Macs through a strict lens of CPU-dom, which isn't always the whole story. Over the last few years at least, Apple has been shifting a lot of the "work" the CPU used to do to the graphics card, so in fact the statement that OS doesn't tax the CPU much is completely true -- and can be verified by opening Activity Monitor and adding up the percentage of CPU being used during typical operations (time-saving hint: if you have a decent graphics chipset or card in your machine, it will be low).

This is also one of the reasons Apple is able to continue offering compatibility to Macs that normally would have all support for them dropped for age -- in no other area does Apple offer support for a 2008 machine, since the company would be sure that the experience would be poor, and they are obsessed with the idea that users have a good experience.

Obviously, the improvements made to CPUs since 2008 are very significant, and will help greatly in tasks that require the CPU, but what taxes the CPU these days isn't much -- this is why the 1.2GHz MacBook (2015) can handle most of what typical users throw at it. A decade or so ago, Apple realised that GPUs were incredibly good at math, and devised a way for the OS to "throw" a lot of that work to the GPU.

In short, this 2012 MacBook Pro -- which is essentially the same model still being sold as the low-end MacBook Pro today -- could easily be *surpass* the current low-end MacBook Pro if I put an SSD in it (the current 13-inch non-Retina MBP comes with just 4MB RAM and a 5400rpm 500GB HD) for most everyday tasks. Unfair, you might say, but true. And this machine has the USB 3 and Bluetooth 4.0 so vital for iOS connections and fast storage needs. It lacks Thunderbolt 2 -- but nobody has that yet, so that's not a factor (and I can still connect Firewire peripherals).

Bottom line: the "load" on the CPU has changed a *lot* over the past few years, and that's why we get tremendously better performance out of CPUs that are rated very similarly in GHz to chips from years ago.

pigoo3
06-18-2015, 02:22 AM
I did quote some CPU benchmark numbers in a couple of my earlier posts in this thread. Simply because comparable CPU benchmark numbers are MUCH easier to come by than comparable GPU numbers.

As we all know...GPU abilities have increased dramatically from 2007 thru 2015. Problem is...no one that I know of...maintains a nice neat Macintosh database of GPU benchmarks for comparison (like there is for Mac CPU's).

In my earlier posts I wasn't JUST talking CPU...I also mentioned GPU's...and I mentioned "computing horsepower" (which is a combination of both CPU and GPU performance).

I still stand by my earlier statements. That Apple is trying too hard to maintain OS compatibility with too many computer models (going back to 2007 at this point). We also know specificially...that the reason why some older model Mac's are NOT compatible with the latest OS is due to a "weak" GPU.

With Apple putting more OS processing burden on the GPU...this still supports my point that GPU's in 2007 computers are far less powerful than the GPU's in 2015 computers. And by maintaining latest OS compatability with computer models going all the way back to 2007...Apple is holding back the the developement of the OS.

If Apple decided...let's really do some fantastic things with the Mac OS. And to do this (for example) the perfomance of a GPU in 2011 or newer Mac's is required. Then Apple would have more freedom to do some cool stuff...whatever that might be.:)

As I mentioned earlier. Never in Apple history have so many models & model years been compatible with the latest Mac OS. Never have 8 years of Mac models been compatible with the latest Mac OS. This is because in previous years...Apple DID REQUIRE greater computing power for the latest OS. Simply because Apple did improve the OS in ways that required more computing power.:)

- Nick

dtravis7
06-18-2015, 02:27 AM
Every Proper review by people who really know what they are talking about says the $1300 Macbook is under powered for the price. Anyone who says different really needs to learn more about value and performance and benchmarking. I will not drink Apples Cool aid and state a lie.

I do agree with Nick except right now since I can NOT afford any new Mac, that apple still lets Yosemite run on my 2008 iMac!!!

Lifeisabeach
06-18-2015, 10:57 AM
If Apple decided...let's really do some fantastic things with the Mac OS. And to do this (for example) the perfomance of a GPU in 2011 or newer Mac's is required. Then Apple would have more freedom to do some cool stuff...whatever that might be.:)

Ah yes, that last part is the key... "whatever that might be". If you don't have any ideas, then maybe they too are out of ideas for how to push the limits of what the hardware can do. Or perhaps better said... they have no GOOD ideas on how to do so. Take this 3D Desktop replacement:
ThinkInBytes - Innovative software for Windows (http://www.thinkinbytes.com/en/products/cubedesktop)

This is 3D for 3D's sake. It's not going to be more productive than the existing GUI and will unnecessarily tax the hardware. I've seen a handful of other 3D GUIs like this over the years and they all suck. Some take skeumorphism to extreme levels, like putting your photos in a virtual album sitting on a virtual shelf, and documents sitting in a stack on a virtual desktop (that looks like a desk). Insanity!

I don't think Apple should hold back OS X to support older hardware, but change for change's sake isn't going to score them brownie points either. It's certainly a good thing that people can get more use out of their Macs and not get left behind after 5 years.

vansmith
06-18-2015, 11:26 AM
I've seen a handful of other 3D GUIs like this over the years and they all suck. Some take skeumorphism to extreme levels, like putting your photos in a virtual album sitting on a virtual shelf, and documents sitting in a stack on a virtual desktop (that looks like a desk). Insanity!You don't need fancy 3D desktops to take skeuomorphism to new levels. ;)


I don't think Apple should hold back OS X to support older hardware, but change for change's sake isn't going to score them brownie points either. It's certainly a good thing that people can get more use out of their Macs and not get left behind after 5 years.I think the key thing to know, which we can't, is what the thought process is at Apple. If Apple is self-imposing hardware requirement limits on their design from the outset, that could be restraining what they're willing to explore. If, however, they aren't doing that and implementing what they want before optimizing it, then it might note be such an issue. The key issue, therefore, is at what stage of planning and development are they ensuring compatibility with older hardware.

pigoo3
06-18-2015, 12:00 PM
Ah yes, that last part is the key... "whatever that might be". If you don't have any ideas, then maybe they too are out of ideas for how to push the limits of what the hardware can do.

This is why they get paid the big bucks!;)


This is 3D for 3D's sake. It's not going to be more productive than the existing GUI and will unnecessarily tax the hardware. I've seen a handful of other 3D GUIs like this over the years and they all suck. Some take skeumorphism to extreme levels, like putting your photos in a virtual album sitting on a virtual shelf, and documents sitting in a stack on a virtual desktop (that looks like a desk). Insanity!

I don't think Apple should hold back OS X to support older hardware, but change for change's sake isn't going to score them brownie points either. It's certainly a good thing that people can get more use out of their Macs and not get left behind after 5 years.

Please don't take this the wrong way…but this is the "Don't Move My Cheese" thought process.;) Many folks don't like change.

Let's turn the clock back 10 years…and think of some of the major things/products/ideas that have been introduced. Remembering that before they were introduced…no one thought of them or thought they would need/use them:

- Smartphones
- iPad's
- iWatch
- backlit keyboards
- Intel based Macintosh computers
- SSD storage devices
- download only OS's
- free OS releases
- Recovery Partitions on storage devices
- etc. etc.

It's possible that evolutions or revolutions of the OS can happen as well. And before those useful evolutions happened…everyone was yelling…"Don't Move My Cheese!";)

Of course I agree. Don't add something to the OS if it's really only going to burden the hardware…and not add any value.

There are so many features & convenience features that Apple has built into the Mac OS X over the years. These features in 2015 are taken for granted so much…that we don't even realize that at one time…those features DID NOT EXIST. Go back to Mac OS 10.0 or 10.1…and compare it to OS 10.10. AHH YES…a lot of good stuff has been added!:)

If everyone screamed…"Don't move my cheese." The Mac OS would not look like it does today.:)

- Nick

bPro
10-22-2015, 01:20 AM
Just to add to the meaningless drivel! I think it's a great photograph - so that's a good thing. I can't stop saying "O Capitan! My Capitan!" which has nothing whatsoever to do with W. Whitman's poem meant to parallel Lincoln and the Civil War.

The best part is my psychosocial/cultural knowledge experiment (n=~20 times I've said "O Capitan... instead of El Capitan). Times I've received the "Huh?" look = 10, times I've received no comment ~10

Insights:
1. Either my friends don't listen to what I say or care what I say
2. Get that it is Walt Whitman but it is a tool comment
3. I have friends who aren't versed in the classics

Most likely... All three.

RavingMac
10-22-2015, 11:21 AM
Just to add to the meaningless drivel! I think it's a great photograph - so that's a good thing. I can't stop saying "O Capitan! My Capitan!" which has nothing whatsoever to do with W. Whitman's poem meant to parallel Lincoln and the Civil War.

The best part is my psychosocial/cultural knowledge experiment (n=~20 times I've said "O Capitan... instead of El Capitan). Times I've received the "Huh?" look = 10, times I've received no comment ~10

Insights:
1. Either my friends don't listen to what I say or care what I say
2. Get that it is Walt Whitman but it is a tool comment
3. I have friends who aren't versed in the classics

Most likely... All three.

Lol
:D

magaretz
10-26-2015, 07:00 AM
I guess to be 100% fair to Apple. "El Capitan" would be the 3rd OS name (Mavericks, Yosemite, El Capitan) since we've had the cat names.

Maybe back in 2002 when the 3rd "cat name" came out (Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar)...and if we were having this same conversation. Maybe a lot of us wouldn't be all that crazy about the cat names either.

HalfDemon
10-27-2015, 08:43 PM
To be honest, I had no idea El Capitan was a place in Yosemite until I entered this thread.
I was a PC user during the cat names so am unable to miss them, but I wouldn't mind having one.
Some dog names would be interesting too (Timber Wolf, Coyote, Dingo, Rottweiler, Doberman, Husky etc.)

dbm
10-28-2015, 08:33 AM
Nobody wants a dog of an operating system... ;)

pm-r
10-28-2015, 01:33 PM
Nobody wants a dog of an operating system... ;)


Hmmm…???? I often wonder why and how we even got offered an OS that takes its name from a big huge challenging hunk of specialized granite — and a very hard type of granite at that!!

mattymac
11-12-2015, 05:25 AM
OSX: Housecat

Exodist
11-13-2015, 01:56 PM
Well I am just happy it doesn't run like Yosemite.. I am actually having great success with Captain Morgan... :-/ No more ship wrecks!!

Exodist
11-13-2015, 02:02 PM
This is why they get paid the big bucks!;)
.........
- Smartphones
- iPad's
- iWatch
- backlit keyboards
- Intel based Macintosh computers
- SSD storage devices
- download only OS's
- free OS releases
- Recovery Partitions on storage devices
- etc. etc.
..........

- Nick

O lordy Nick,

I had a phone that actually worked as a phone..
Tablets were already out..
James Bond had a better watches..
I have owned many backlit keyboard before then..
Nothing wrong with PPC cpus..
Apple had nothing to do with SSD's...
I run LINUX it was free and downloadable..
Recovery partitions were called a bootable CD.. (remember Apple quit giving those away, right before they quit putting DVD drives in their systems..)

Only thing you can really give Apple credit for is one hell of a marketing team..

Cheers, Joe :-D

Alwyn
11-25-2015, 01:30 PM
Problem was, once you got to lions you were close to the top of the cat tree in terms of size. Tigers are bigger but Mountain Lion sounded quite cool. As a Brit I hadn't realised that El Capitan was in Yosemite so thanks for the lesson.

teetertotter
01-18-2016, 03:28 PM
I patiently read all 6 pages....yes..6 pages.....and fell off my chair after reading ALL the comments. But, I am okay!
It was all worth the entertainment. Thanks guys/dolls, it made my day.

Cr00zng
01-21-2016, 07:10 PM
O lordy Nick,

I had a phone that actually worked as a phone..
Tablets were already out..
James Bond had a better watches..
I have owned many backlit keyboard before then..
Nothing wrong with PPC cpus..
Apple had nothing to do with SSD's...
I run LINUX it was free and downloadable..
Recovery partitions were called a bootable CD.. (remember Apple quit giving those away, right before they quit putting DVD drives in their systems..)

Only thing you can really give Apple credit for is one hell of a marketing team..

Cheers, Joe :-D

You could also give Apple credit for integrating the latest technology into their product line. No, it is not necessarily their invention, but still...

Apple was the only one that used PCIe-based flash storage about three years ego. It's about 30-40% faster than SSDs. One of the reason why I've got MacBook, instead of a Windows laptop. The other reason is the best laptop hardware for Windows 8.1, running via VMware Fusion. Not to mention that the 13" MacBook Pro cost less than a high end Windows laptop...

chscag
01-21-2016, 08:36 PM
Not to mention that the 13" MacBook Pro cost less than a high end Windows laptop...

That's true, a fact many Windows users refuse to believe. Try pricing out a Microsoft Surface Pro 4 with 8 GB of memory, a 512 GB SSD, i7 CPU, and the optional (but necessary keyboard) and see what it costs. ;)

pm-r
01-21-2016, 09:19 PM
That's true, a fact many Windows users refuse to believe. Try pricing out a Microsoft Surface Pro 4 with 8 GB of memory, a 512 GB SSD, i7 CPU, and the optional (but necessary keyboard) and see what it costs. ;)

Just out of curiosity, I checked and I couldn't even get a 512GB storage option. Anyway, not interested … but odd that 256GB seemed to be the max limit so one is also restricted with their options it seems… regardless of price… hmmm…??? :(
http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msca/en_CA/pdp/productID.326659100/config.true

chscag
01-21-2016, 09:26 PM
The US Microsoft store also doesn't show anything larger than 256 GB but does offer 16 GB of system memory. Expensive enough.

This is the one (http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Surface-Book/productID.325716000) that I meant to refer to. :) (Surface Book)

pm-r
01-21-2016, 11:03 PM
The US Microsoft store also doesn't show anything larger than 256 GB but does offer 16 GB of system memory. Expensive enough.

This is the one (http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Surface-Book/productID.325716000) that I meant to refer to. :) (Surface Book)


Hey, it just may be a bargain as it, are you ready…??? ——— "Surface Pen included"!!! Hot damn!!! :o ;)

chscag
01-21-2016, 11:16 PM
I played around with one at Staples (office supply chain store) and was actually impressed with it until I began to add up what it would cost. If I'm going to spend that much, I would rather it be on a new retina 27" 5K iMac with a 512GB SSD. (Approximately $2200 at B&H Photo in New York, free shipping and no state sales tax.)

dbm
01-22-2016, 05:32 AM
A couple of years back a friend asked me to help him spec-up a new desktop for work and gaming. It very quickly became more expensive than my rMBP. I was shocked; the "Apple is expensive' myth is just that.

MacWannabeNTX
01-22-2016, 09:16 AM
Maybe this isnt even the appropriate place to put my comment, I dont quite understand all I read on this thread except the comments about "life before....", LOL. Anyway, just want to say, granted however from a senior low tech user, my new 2015 15" fully maxed out mbp is only marginally better than the one I had, a base line mid 2012 non retina mbp. Used it 4 years thru all the OS upgrades and it never gave me any trouble not even a beachball. This new one had 3 kernal panics/restarts its first week (mid December). After 3rd one, I called Apple and they had me do a safe boot/restart normal and it has been ok since. But faith in it like I had with the 2012, nope, and wonder now why I replaced it!

Cr00zng
01-22-2016, 02:29 PM
That's true, a fact many Windows users refuse to believe. Try pricing out a Microsoft Surface Pro 4 with 8 GB of memory, a 512 GB SSD, i7 CPU, and the optional (but necessary keyboard) and see what it costs. ;)
And don't forget, the SSD isn't as fast as the PCIe flash drive that MacBooks have. Here's the performance of the PCIe flash drive in my Macbook from 2013:
23685
The AS SSD benchmark in Windows 8.1, running in VMware:
23686

Cr00zng
01-22-2016, 02:33 PM
That's true, a fact many Windows users refuse to believe. Try pricing out a Microsoft Surface Pro 4 with 8 GB of memory, a 512 GB SSD, i7 CPU, and the optional (but necessary keyboard) and see what it costs. ;)
And don't forget, the SSD isn't as fast as the PCIe flash drive that MacBooks have. Here's the performance of the PCIe flash drive in my Macbook from 2013:

23685

The AS SSD benchmark in Windows 8.1, running in VMware on the MacBook:

23686

I doubt that the Surface with its SSD drive's performance comes even close to the Windows 8.1 performance in VMware, much less the Macbook's performance...