OS X El Capitan

I preferred the cat names.

" OS X Garfield " would have been my favourite

Cheers ... McBie

McBie said:

I preferred the cat names.

" OS X Garfield " would have been my favourite

Cheers ... McBie

Click to expand...

+1.

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

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.

McBie said:

I preferred the cat names.

" OS X Garfield " would have been my favourite

Click to expand...

Lifeisabeach said:

Click to expand...

HAHA You got a LOL from me !!!

Lifeisabeach said:

Click to expand...

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?

XJ-linux said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Garfield
Cheshire
Grumpy
Nashville...

pigoo3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

cwa107 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

cwa107 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

cwa107 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.)

cwa107 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

cwa107 said:

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)...

Click to expand...

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

- Nick

Put me on the list for when the Beta for Grumpy Cat comes out . . .

cwa107 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

RavingMac said:

Put me on the list for when the Beta for Grumpy Cat comes out . . .

Click to expand...

I'll be downloading Grumpy Cat too!

John.

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.

Dysfunction said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

toMACsh said:

When will new Macs be sold with El Capitan installed?

Click to expand...

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