OS X El Capitan

[Tygrz]

Garfield
Cheshire
Grumpy
Nashville...

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

 

[Slydude]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

'O Capitan! My Capitan!'

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]

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

 

[magaretz]

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]

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]

Nobody wants a dog of an operating system...

 

[pm-r]

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]

OSX: Housecat

 

[Exodist]

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]

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 **** of a marketing team..

Cheers, Joe :-D

 

[Alwyn]

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]

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]

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 **** 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...