The problem with this is that Apple still sells their systems with "spinner" HDDs as the default. I bought a new iMac at the Apple store last summer; it has .. you guessed it ... a "spinner" HDD.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Any Regrets for upgrading to El Capitan?
- Thread starter WizardHunt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem with this is that Apple still sells their systems with "spinner" HDDs as the default. I bought a new iMac at the Apple store last summer; it has .. you guessed it ... a "spinner" HDD.
VLC is the only app I use that El Capitan doesn't seem to like. It treats it like a virus; won't open it.
Until late 2014 the best 'sold in store' iMac was 100% HDD, meaning non fusion.
I still have an HDD in my iMac. I can see it as a bottleneck at times but it's ok under El Capitan.
Honestly SSD options are unrealistic for me in an iMac. Internal options are too small and expensive, external options aren't that great. Occasionally unmounting, hokey external enclosures that you'll lose another precious USB port or overpriced thunderbolt, etc blah. Almost feel I need to look into Mac Pro options for processing and storing my iTunes library lol.
My next iMac will likely have a 3tb fusion.
VLC runs perfect for me on el cap. Have you updated to the latest release of VLC?
No problems here with VLC either. Other than the fact it upgraded with a Christmas icon for a few days and it took me a minute to find out where it's gone in my dock 
I also bought external USB 3.0 housing (20 euro from amazon) for external SSD (250GB - 100 euro) and Installed El Capetan on it. I use it on my 2012 Macbook air to run logic pro x (probably over 70GB with all the libraries installed). I honestly couldnt tell if it was any slower than my built in SSD. It is that good. You put it to sleep like normal SSD. It would wake up almost instantly. Only in powerer up?starting up process it takes a little longer (around 45 seconds).
If i had iMac or any mac with HDD it would be no brainer to go external SSD route. Gains over regular HDD are worth any penny. And is not all that expensive. You can get 500SSD and external USB 3.0 housing for 200 euro (in usa i am sure it is around 200 dollars or less) and it works like magic. Apple charges close to 500 dollars for SSD of that size. And best of all, even when you are running OS from external disk, you can still see and use internal HDD with no problem (perfect for iTunes library or movies or large data files).
And you can always buy powered USB expander (for 4 or more new USB 3.0 inputs) for 20 dollars if shortage of USB connectors is an issue
What are you referring to as a Spinner Drive? 7200 RPM Drive or 5400? Or Something else?
[doublepost=1452706256][/doublepost]I still have not upgraded to EL Capitan, as I still don't trust it. Has anyone put it off to install until say just recently? What was the reason you did not want to install earlier? Incompatible with some software? If So which software? Did you find a solution or did upgrading to EL Captian fix things?
Seems to me that was your choice. Every Mac currently being sold by Apple is available with Flash (SSD) storage. Yes, the iMacs or the MacMini still come standard with 72K RPM spinners, but Fusion or SDD is an upgrade.
Most folks buying those less expensive machines are just looking for price and Apple is willing to accommodate them. Others seeking more performance have options available to them. You chose not to partake of those options. Certainly not Apple's fault.
Lou
I have no problem with a 7200rpm HDD in El Capitan. It's not as fast as an SSD obviously but still perfectly useable.
I'm not sure why people insist on saying OS X isn't optimized for HDD. An SSD only has faster read/write performance. Saying OS X isn't optimized for a HDD is the same as saying it's poorly optimized altogether and needs to horsepower of an SSD to cover up its deficiencies.
I'm not sure why people insist on saying OS X isn't optimized for HDD. An SSD only has faster read/write performance. Saying OS X isn't optimized for a HDD is the same as saying it's poorly optimized altogether and needs to horsepower of an SSD to cover up its deficiencies.
+1
Before I upgraded my HD to and SSD, I ran Yosemite and El Capitan with a 7200rpm HD. Didn't have any probs. Yes it took a little longer to boot/load apps, but was perfectly usable.
Yesterday I updated my fiance's mid-2011 27" (12 GB RAM) adding a Thunderbolt SSD (not even a super fast one) and El Capitan. It feels like a new machine. Spotify start time went from over a minute to two seconds. System opens within 30 seconds rather than 3-4 minutes of beachballing. I hoped it would get faster but I had no clue it would get THAT fast. Not sure how much of it is the SSD and how much El Cap but all of a sudden we don't need to buy a new Mac quite yet.
Since I didn't do comparison tests I can't say much about spinner Yosemite vs El Cap but in my opinion Yosemite 10.10.5 definitely wasn't optimised well. If you have to switch on the computer and go make yourself a cup of tea and a sandwich while the system is loading something isn't going all that well.
Since I didn't do comparison tests I can't say much about spinner Yosemite vs El Cap but in my opinion Yosemite 10.10.5 definitely wasn't optimised well. If you have to switch on the computer and go make yourself a cup of tea and a sandwich while the system is loading something isn't going all that well.
And no iMac sold IN an Apple Store is sold with an SSD. You seem to think that everyone should BTO, but not everyone can wait for a new system.
I was going to mention this. When I got the iMac in my sig in 2014 it was the in store maxed out version. At that time everything other than a 7200 rpm HDD was BTO.
That is still the case with 21" iMacs (except 5400 HDD). They do offer the fusion drive with their in store mid and maxed out 27" which is nice.
Couple of problems:
1. Only the most expensive Retina iMac models have Fusion drive, all other models have 5400 or 7200 HDD. Given that even the least expensive Macbook Air has SSD Apples decision not to include Fusion drive as a standard in a more expensive iMac is strange (I suspect greediness).
2. You have order FD or SSD from the factory which takes longer and its not practical if you need Mac fast.
Try Yosemite or El Capitan with a 5400 HD. Somehow I'm quite certain you have a different opinion afterwards...
I strongly doubt Apple optimised neither 10.10 or 10.11 for hard drives, compared to 10.8 both are much slower on hard drive and even 10.9 is faster on hard drive. (Tested on 2012 Mac Mini).
I had a similar experience with 2014 Mac Mini until I started using external SSD, I doubt Apple bothered to test 10.10 or 10.11 on a 5400 HD because both are intolerable slow.
Last edited:
Though I've not had any experience with BTO (I upgrade my own machines, cheaper than Apple sells the BTOs for) I see from doing a couple of searches that a BTO usually takes 2 days after order. You folks can't wait TWO days!
Lou
I think you missed the point of what I said.
The difference between a HDD and SSD on the surface is read and write performance. Saying OS X isn't optimized for a HDD is implying other operating systems are or that OS X used to be.
If that is in fact what you are implying than all you are saying is other operating systems can read from storage devices better then OS X. Which honestly I kind of agree with, I feel sometimes Windows has better storage performance even with an SSD.
BTW I still use 5400 RPM drives with El Capitan in a NAS (just storage). Performance isn't great but it is what it is.
Last edited:
I have installed-upon--and ran--multiple installations of ElCap on a local, traditional 7200RPM HD (e.g., rotational, platter-based, spinning fixed-disk hard-drive) these past few months to test whether I would be met with differences which left me wanting for more, or failing to meet my basic expectations:
What works for me?
How much change am I able to tolerate?
Where do I want to go?
My needs are few, and my software-requirements are minimal, yet I have always been game to roll with the changes.
I've been running 10.11.2 (15C50) for over a week, now, with my first install in which I used the Migration Assistant to pull my System Experience from my current Yosemite installation, and I was--frankly--taken-aback by the seamlessness of the process.
I was waiting a bit for ElCap updates for some software updates, but, well, all that's obligatory these days....
That for which I waited was basically time to personally test how this foux-'upgrade' would function.
I'm rollin' with the original 2006 Mac Pro (ordered November 11, 2006, and delivered, well . . . the snow was thick, and stuff <smile>), and I have the advantage of being able to have four fixed-disks installed at any one time.
I've been running OSX on Solid-State Drives (OWC for the first, then Toshiba Q-Series Pros for the remainder) for three years, and have grown accustomed to how responsive my System performs.
Testing ElCap installs on a 7200rpm spinner has been, well, humbling, to say the least . . . the time I've spent waiting, and waiting, and . . . running these installs was entirely more fluid, but not nearly as prompt as my latest installs on SSD's.
I did not need to do these things, but I wanted to, and the road to where I am has been most gratifying.
Short story-long...
I have no immediate regrets, and am currently--happily--where I was ten years ago:
Editing photos, building websites, creating art, email'ing my Dad, syncing Notes from my phone to my desktop in real-time, watching kittei videos on teh Toobs, participating in code-(de)construction with cool-as-**** people in other countries (hi, @Pike R. Alpha! hi, @PeterHolbrook!), filing my taxes (gak!), installing WIFI/BT wafers manufactured for a 2015 iMac the size of a postage-stamp I bought-of eBay from some guy in China into a piece of hardware manufactured in 2006 . . . it's all, completely fsck'n awesome.
I'll not be looking-back for one, single second
Nevertheless, you really do need to test it yerself . . . only then, will you be able to Know.
Regards, splifingate
just yesterday i had to restart a mini running crapitan just to find wi fi , then again to find a printer , then again to find a monitor then again to re index spotlight !!!
what a brilliant os it is
what a brilliant os it is
In my experience with some Linux distributions it seems they work better with HD compared to 10.10 and 10.11 on same hardware. I'm not sure why, I suspect that either they are better optimised for HD or they have less background processes compared to latest OS X versions.
I have similar experience with older OS X versions (10.6-10.8) and I suspect Apples system requirements are too optimistic and SSD/ Fusion Drive is almost mandatory for latest OS X if one wants to have reasonable speed without interruptions.
Although el capitan is not perfect, it's much better than the buggy yosemite.
I wish Apple would take a step back from their yearly release cycle to just look at their code and work more on ironing performance issues and bugs than trying to make new "features" for the keynote. Unlike Windows, Apple has a limited hardware configurations on their computers, so it's hard to give Apple excuses.
I wish Apple would take a step back from their yearly release cycle to just look at their code and work more on ironing performance issues and bugs than trying to make new "features" for the keynote. Unlike Windows, Apple has a limited hardware configurations on their computers, so it's hard to give Apple excuses.
I give Apple no excuses, when 10.6 boots and shuts down 4-5 times faster than 10.11 ... and that on a Core 2 Duo with a 5400rpm spinner.
I am actually of the opinion that people who said that bought into Apple's "stable as a rock" promo. 10.10.5 seems much less buggy than 10.11.2 to me.