El Capitan's user ratings even worse than Yosemite.

[Queen6]

As for the ratings in the store, I'm fairly convinced that there is a large cadre of people out there who just give Apple bad reviews just because. Just as an example, in the online store the ratings for the usb-c digital adapter for the retina Macbook and the usb-c power brick are both at 2 stars. Which is ridiculous. Are those devices perfect? Nope, but they both do the job they claim to do and in the case of the adapter, it's the only adapter that can do what it does available anywhere for any price some 7 months after release. It's just sour grapes.

I don't doubt that people are having issues with El Capitan, but honestly, it is on you to make sure that you don't have any critical incompatibilities before you permanently upgrade a critical machine. You have to do exactly the same with Windows, every time. I would never, ever, upgrade a critical machine on either platform before having a complete, tested backup that I could restore the entire system to in minimal time with minimal effort. I had some early issues with the El Capitan beta on my Macbook but 1) it's not a critical device for me and 2) I had a backup that I used to go back to Yosemite in about an hour while I did something else. No big deal. On my iMac at home I know that the potential for disruption is much higher if something goes wrong and the real benefit to me of upgrading is much smaller, so I've put it off until I have some compelling reason, or have the time to deal with it in a way that I can easily restore if necessary.

Apple has done a pretty good job over the years of making OS X upgrades feel a lot like iOS upgrades, but there is still a lot that can go wrong, and they cannot possibly test every combination of scenarios. There is a reason that business Windows users are usually at least 1 release if not 2 or 3 behind what's current. Microsoft is trying to change that with Windows 10, but it's a big question as to how successful they will be. They are asking for a lot of trust from their users, and so far it hasn't been going well.

Sorry no, when it`s Apple`s own recent hardware, when it`s Apple`s own applications something is seriously wrong. Apple has got fat & lazy off IOS & associated devices, delivering ever less for OS X. I have never had so much issue with OS X until 10.11, resultantly I rolled back to 10.10, the same hardware and applications with identical parameters work flawlessly. There is absolutely no other explanation for it other than Apple`s own software not being sufficiently developed for public release. If the hardware had issue it would have showed up months a go as this is a well pressed business system used in a heavy engineering environment, being 100% stable until the upgrade to 10.11.0 and subsequent clean installs of 10.11.1

If I wanted to join the beta test I would have signed up for it. Personally I expect far more of Apple, equally the fewer that do, the lower the bar will be set for the sake of marketing and the likes. What really epitomises it for me there are even some forum members stating that Windows 10 is running better than OS X 10.11 on the same hardware, if that is factual then it`s simply tragic. After seeing just how well Windows 10 can run on even very low level hardware, there may well be a grain or truth in it...

Q-6

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

From their website: "Newer Macs running Windows 8 or above are fully compatible with SIP". But you might be right that there are issues with older Macs.



I think that its great that Apple is tightening the security on the OS. I have been using 10.11 since earliest betas and I never had the feeling that it somehow controlled what I can and what I can't do. In fact, I welcome SIP because it helps me maintaining a stable system. I primarily work with open-source unix tools and I also develop such tools — and SIP is beneficial to my usage scenario. Plus, if I ever needed access to system files (I really don't know why that would ever be the case, but it might happen in the future), Apple offers an easy, clearly documented way to disable SIP or its components. Now, once they take that away and really block off the system (like they do in iOS), then I will get vey angry very quickly.

As to 'use your personal data for their profits', I think you are confusing companies here. Apple has by far the most clear to understand and most user-friendly privacy policy of all the tech giants. In fact, I have banned our employees from using Windows 10 until MS clears up their privacy policy.



That is your choice. Windows is a no-go for me and many other people for a number of reasons (and the privacy policy of 10 is a reason to NEVER use it for anyone who even remotely cares about their data). So far, Apple has been delivering a very stable OS that does everything I need it to do.

I do agree that for people who predominantly use Office or Photoshop, Windows is definitely the way to go. Fortunately, the world does not revolve around these applications. I don't even have Office installed on my computer. I also don't accept assignments from my students submitted in Word, we are not primary school.

Pah, there is absolutely no difference in the privacy policy between Apple, MS, Google, Dropbox, etc. It's just a matter of wording and how they explain themselves to the public. They all try to monetise your data and/or hit you with contextual ads/purchase recommendations. That's not my concern as they do not by default read your personal documents on your local disks or record keystrokes in productivity applications. Most of the paranoia surrounding Windows 10 is simply generated by clickbait headlines from sites that love the advertising revenue they can generate with a nice public scare.

You may applaud Apple for SIP on a security basis, but they weren't experiencing a security threat in that context anyway. MS and Google have a wider reach and have been tackling security issues extremely well when you consider their large user base, and without restricting developers.

And then there's the dumbing down of admin tools. Check my thread yesterday about UserEventAgent running wild after the 10.11.1 update. Damn thing was hogging 100% CPU usage and was stuck there because Apple's alleged 'automatic permissions repair' didn't repair some plists. I had to do it manually using a long process of discovering which files were messed up, removing them from start up folders, then putting them back in so that the system would ask me to authenticate the files. Two hours to fix the permissions just because Disk Utility doesn't let me do it in 1 minute anymore.

Take a look at this forum and those App Store reviews. Those are people who are justifiably angry and their opinion shouldn't belittled or ignored because they don't jive with the way you see things. I have seen such a terrible reaction for an Mac OS update and I have been using the Mac OS since it was grayscale.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

You know, in 2015, the term "fanboy" or "religious brainwashed meme"...that is soooo last century - I'm tempted to say primitive even.

Unfortunately there's no replacement yet.

 

[zhenya]

Sorry no, when it`s Apple`s own recent hardware, when it`s Apple`s own applications something is seriously wrong. Apple has got fat & lazy off IOS & associated devices, delivering ever less for OS X. I have never had so much issue with OS X until 10.11, resultantly I rolled back to 10.10, the same hardware and applications with identical parameters work flawlessly. There is absolutely no other explanation for it other than Apple`s own software not being sufficiently developed for public release. If the hardware had issue it would have showed up months a go as this is a well pressed business system used in a heavy engineering environment, being 100% stable until the upgrade to 10.11.0 and subsequent clean installs of 10.11.1

If I wanted to join the beta test I would have signed up for it. Personally I expect far more of Apple, equally the fewer that do, the lower the bar will be set for the sake of marketing and the likes. What really epitomises it for me there are even some forum members stating that Windows 10 is running better than OS X 10.11 on the same hardware, if that is factual then it`s simply tragic. After seeing just how well Windows 10 can run on even very low level hardware, there may well be a grain or truth in it...

Q-6

I have had issues at nearly every release of OS X in one form or another. Anyone remember the bug in, I think Snow Leopard or somewhere around there where logging into the guest account wiped your user folder??

The same is true on Windows with Office which is probably the core applications for the vast majority of the world's workers who rely on a computer. No business in their right mind would deploy a new Windows release or a new Office release immediately even though they are both just Microsoft programs.

I don't doubt that in some respects things are a bit worse for OS X releases now than in the past - but it's not like the past was trouble-free or that caution was not advised. In fact, the more I think about it, it's only really the last couple of releases where people have been able to reasonably perform an in-place upgrade an not expect serious issues or complications. Over the long-haul, that's really more the exception than the rule, though.

 

[JXShine]

While I hate iOS 9, el cap has been a smooth upgrade for me so far

 

[JXShine]

It's bizarre how the world's richest corporation didn't have a good long beta period to make sure developers and users are happy. It's like they want to put out some crap desktop OS so that we all move to iOS devices instead.

Except things look even worse on the iOS side, just check the iOS 9 forums.
iOS 9 stutters on my brand new iPhone 6S+

 

[Queen6]

I have had issues at nearly every release of OS X in one form or another. Anyone remember the bug in, I think Snow Leopard or somewhere around there where logging into the guest account wiped your user folder??

The same is true on Windows with Office which is probably the core applications for the vast majority of the world's workers who rely on a computer. No business in their right mind would deploy a new Windows release or a new Office release immediately even though they are both just Microsoft programs.

I don't doubt that in some respects things are a bit worse for OS X releases now than in the past - but it's not like the past was trouble-free or that caution was not advised. In fact, the more I think about it, it's only really the last couple of releases where people have been able to reasonably perform an in-place upgrade an not expect serious issues or complications. Over the long-haul, that's really more the exception than the rule, though.

Unfortunately it seems to be getting worse, nor do I personally care for the current 12 month cycle as it`s needlessly brisk. Add in that if you want to buy a new Mac on the next release chances are OS X will still be underdeveloped. 10.10 for many was not stable until the .4 release, (I was fortunate with solid performance throughout) then laughably the cycle repeats after just one more point realise.

For many of those unhappy with 10.11 and Apple, it`s the fact that 10.11 was lauded as a fix focusing on performance & enhancement, equally it`s also clear the OS lacks stability for many WHY? Stability is surely more important than eye candy, possibly not.

I worked for an high technology service provider in heavy engineering, although new product lines & services were launched with far more advanced capabilities, many clients preferred the older lines?

In short a new technology, product and or service should absolutely in no way present any diminishment in comparison to previous iterations. This is a lesson Apple could well do with learning. 10.11. should have built on 10.10 and not released until at very least Apple was certain is would offer a better user experience than it`s predecessors at a minimum on Apple`s own hardware & software. Today this is far from the case as this forum so eloquently illustrates.

Q-6

 

[dandl]

It's really weird. El Cap has been perfect on my mid 12 rMBP since the last beta, but lot of people are having lots of issues with it exactly as I have had a lot of issues with Mavericks and Yosemite. I have really no idea why a release works fine on some machines and it just doesn't work on others. I just hope the next release is going to fix it.

 

[TMRJIJ]

It's really weird. El Cap has been perfect on my mid 12 rMBP since the last beta, but lot of people are having lots of issues with it exactly as I have had a lot of issues with Mavericks and Yosemite. I have really no idea why a release works fine on some machines and it just doesn't work on others. I just hope the next release is going to fix it.

It usually depends on system configuration, apps being used, the health of actual Hardware, and most importantly the user.
Haters are the most vocal in how they think something is terrible. It wasn't always like this. I used to complain about so many bugs in OS X Snow Leopard in some of these forums but got so much backlash other members that my accounts would get banned by moderators for trolling.
Fast forward to now where Apple is even more powerful and half of these people have selected memories, praised Steve Jobs, have bad apps/hardware but just blame Apple, and/or just trolling in general.
The fact that my 'unsupported' MacBook 4,1 is running Yosemite and testing parts of El Capitan better than these members with newer machines raises concerns.

 

[Queen6]

It's really weird. El Cap has been perfect on my mid 12 rMBP since the last beta, but lot of people are having lots of issues with it exactly as I have had a lot of issues with Mavericks and Yosemite. I have really no idea why a release works fine on some machines and it just doesn't work on others. I just hope the next release is going to fix it.

Neither do I, there appears to be no parity. It`almost as if Apple did not fully test the release on their harware. I have no doubts that those who's state they have had absolutely no issue are openly expressing their experiences, equally those of us who have, and still are incurring issues are not saying so out of boredom. If anything it only adds to the frustration.

Q-6

 

[oldmacs]

Neither do I, there appears to be no parity. It`almost as if Apple did not fully test the release on their harware. I have no doubts that those who's state they have had absolutely no issue are openly expressing their experiences, equally those of us who have, and still are incurring issues are not saying so out of boredom. If anything it only adds to the frustration.

Q-6

Its really weird... El Capitan is good for me, Yosemite was good for me up until 10.10.4 where it all went bad (even after clean installs), Mavericks was always bad for me, Mountain Lion was great with 10.8.0 and 10.8.1, then good, but not as good with the rest. Lion was slow but stable (contrary to others experiences), Snow Leopard was rock solid (I started at about 10.6.2 ish), Leopard - was good with 10.5.8 (stayed with Tiger forever as my machine at the time was a G4), Tiger was rock solid, Panther was always a bit buggy for me.

Where as for most people Yosemite was bad at the beginning and got better, Mavericks seemed to be solid for people and Lion was a disaster for many... However its only been since they moved to a yearly release cycle that I've had really major issues with anything.

Why do they need to do it? Most users basic I know seem to hate update time. "Another Update??, didn't I just update??"... People seem much happier to update iOS then OSX. We'd be better off if Apple just let a version OSX fully mature (e.g. get passed 10.x.5...) and leave OSX in development for 2 years.

 

[Queen6]

It usually depends on system configuration, apps being used, the health of actual Hardware, and most importantly the user.
Haters are the most vocal in how they think something is terrible. It wasn't always like this. I used to complain about so many bugs in OS X Snow Leopard in some of these forums but got so much backlash other members that my accounts would get banned by moderators for trolling.
Fast forward to now where Apple is even more powerful and half of these people have selected memories, praised Steve Jobs, have bad apps/hardware but just blame Apple, and/or just trolling in general.
The fact that my 'unsupported' MacBook 4,1 is running Yosemite and testing parts of El Capitan better than these members with newer machines raises concerns.

It certainly raised concerns that on a clean install of 10.11.1 Apple`s own software has issues on a 2014 rMBP, given there was nothing else on the system, nor is installing OS X rocket science. fundamentally Apple released the OS without finalisation. If it works for you, good for you, however for a good many of us it simply doesn't "just work", and that is in the hands of Apple to fix now.

Same installation on an Early 2011 15" cMPB has proved to be fine so far. The only difference is the hardware, so we can knock off inferring that people don't know what they are doing, Apple simply did not test enough and the recent point release notes are enough to understand 10.11 was released as an unfinished product....

Q-6

 

[tampageek]

I suspect the root of El Cappy's problem is "rootless." Blocking and locking down the OS on a laptop/desktop is going to break a lot of things that used to "just work."

The yearly update schedule is going to be an issue as well, since it's unlikely they will be able to get El Cap to work property before moving on to the next OS that won't work.

 

[Queen6]

I suspect the root of El Cappy's problem is "rootless." Blocking and locking down the OS on a laptop/desktop is going to break a lot of things that used to "just work."

The yearly update schedule is going to be an issue as well, since it's unlikely they will be able to get El Cap to work property before moving on to the next OS that won't work.

True, equally one would expect Apples own to perform..

In actuality Rootless is good idea, as it will enforce developers to follow the OS provider rules and not flaunt them. I also very much agree with the yearly update comment, as it`s fast becoming a vicious circle. 10.10 was for many only stable at the point 4 release.

Literally what is the point, as once OS X reaches something approaching stability, the book is torn up and a percentage of users once again suffer another cycle of poor performance. Surely something is wrong with the math here...

Q-6

 

[sracer]

Well older versions should still work, no? Same story, you just sit it out when you can. It is unfortunate that some app developers are targeting only the latest versions of OS X.

There is not always an older version available. A new app was released that required Yosemite. I was on Mavericks. There was no older version that I could stick with. I had to go without it. In some cases, like MS Office, I could stay with Office 2011.

What I'm not certain about is where the requirement is coming from. Is it the developer taking advantage of an exclusive new feature introduced into the new version of OSX? Is there something in Apple's XCode development environment that makes it easier/default to require the latest version of OSX?

I know that Apple likes to advertise how many and how quickly customers upgrade to the latest release of OSX and iOS. They say how the "F" word is bad... "Fragmentation". Putting pressure on customers to upgrade due to the apps they use is certainly one way to accomplish this.

 

[KALLT]

There is not always an older version available. A new app was released that required Yosemite. I was on Mavericks. There was no older version that I could stick with. I had to go without it. In some cases, like MS Office, I could stay with Office 2011.

What I'm not certain about is where the requirement is coming from. Is it the developer taking advantage of an exclusive new feature introduced into the new version of OSX? Is there something in Apple's XCode development environment that makes it easier/default to require the latest version of OSX?

I know that Apple likes to advertise how many and how quickly customers upgrade to the latest release of OSX and iOS. They say how the "F" word is bad... "Fragmentation". Putting pressure on customers to upgrade due to the apps they use is certainly one way to accomplish this.

That’s why it is important to keep a backup of programs you download. A Time Machine backup also helps, because it will retain the applications you have installed in their current state. You will just not get any updates for specific programs if the system is no longer supported. This is something you need to get accustomed to: save package installers and application bundles somewhere, like an external drive.

Xcode defaults automatically to the latest OS X version as the development target. Presumably, developers change it manually in existing projects. Some features are indeed only available in newer versions of OS X. For instance, once an application uses Swift code, it must target Yosemite and later.

 

[sracer]

That’s why it is important to keep a backup of programs you download. A Time Machine backup also helps, because it will retain the applications you have installed in their current state. You will just not get any updates for specific apps if the system is no longer supported. This is something you need to get accustomed to: save package installers and application bundles somewhere, like an external drive.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that has anything to do with a developer releasing a new app for the latest version of OSX.
Here's just one app that I'm talking about... e-Sword X when it debuted required Yosemite. While I was on Mavericks I could not install it. There's nothing in that app that takes advantage of features that were exclusive to Yosemite.

Every year there are new applications being developed and released. These invariably end up requiring the latest version of OSX. Often there is no technical reason for requiring the latest version.

This is one of the side effects of Apple's annual update of OSX.

 

[Tamagotchi]

I'm not having any problems with El Capitan, however I understand some people may be experiencing problems. On the other hand, iOS9 is a lag fest on my iPhone 6 Plus.

 

[MJWMac1988]

It certainly raised concerns that on a clean install of 10.11.1 Apple`s own software has issues on a 2014 rMBP, given there was nothing else on the system, nor is installing OS X rocket science.

Queen6, I've read this whole thread and agree with all of your comments. I've done almost nothing but clean installations since the days of the Classic Mac OS. I usually regretted the few times I didn't do clean installations. For the record, I'm still using 10.6.8 as my main OS (I also have 10.9.5 on a separate partition, but I rarely use it). If I install 10.11, it will only be on an external hard drive and will only be used for educational purposes and as a "playground."

This is where you come in: I may eventually be asked to upgrade a friend's iMac to 10.11, so I would like to know if any of your clean installations of 10.11 involved NOT using Migration Assistant / Time Machine to transfer your old files and settings. In some cases in the past, NOT using either of them made a huge difference for me. If you didn't use MA / TM in at least one case, and it made no improvement in performance, then I will encourage my friend to keep using what she has, for now.

Thank you.

 

[dandl]

It usually depends on system configuration, apps being used, the health of actual Hardware, and most importantly the user.
Haters are the most vocal in how they think something is terrible. It wasn't always like this. I used to complain about so many bugs in OS X Snow Leopard in some of these forums but got so much backlash other members that my accounts would get banned by moderators for trolling.
Fast forward to now where Apple is even more powerful and half of these people have selected memories, praised Steve Jobs, have bad apps/hardware but just blame Apple, and/or just trolling in general.
The fact that my 'unsupported' MacBook 4,1 is running Yosemite and testing parts of El Capitan better than these members with newer machines raises concerns.

I agree, but. When I have big problems after a major update I always perform a clean install without installing anything for a week at least to be sure that there weren't third-party causes which caused poor performances. Of course That said:

Mavericks on my rMBP (2012, so 1 year old) has been victim of continuous spinning beach ball up to release 10.9.3. I mean I had beach balls even when I changed page in safari. It was unusable. After release 10.9.3 everything was good.
Yosemite has always been choppy. Not unusable but a little bit frustrating. I have the feeling that a VRAM of 1024 mb wasn't enough. After release 10.10.2 was a little bit smoother, but not at ML level.
El capitan on the other hand has been smooth fast and without any bug since the installation of the last beta. I didn't need neither to perform a clean install, I just updated from Yosemite and everything went very good. I feel my mac is 2 years younger.

So what you said IMO is true but not always. It's true when people just perform an update or restores all the settings with TM. But I think that apple has so many machines (MPB, rMB, MBA, rMBP, iMac, MacPro and all the different hardware configurations) that 6 months of development is just not enough to provide an OS which is optimized for everyone.
With El Cap I got lucky, with Yosemite and Mavericks I didn't. Maybe Queen6 will get lucky with OSX 10.12 and it will screw my rMBP instead.

 

[maxsix]

Apple has got fat & lazy off IOS & OS X...

If I wanted to join the beta test I would have signed up for it. Personally I expect far more of Apple, equally the fewer that do, the lower the bar will be set for the sake of marketing and the likes.

You've expressed how I feel as well!

The reason I find buggy OS software from Apple so incredibly frustrating is twofold.

1) I've been a loyal customer paying top dollar for new MB/MBA/MBP laptops & multiple Pads/Pods/Phones annually.

2) After two decades as a Apple customer I _know_ they can do it right if they want to.

The main reason we must endure various issues is Apple chooses to ship it as it is.

However I'm sure some are thinking "they've got to ship it at some point it can't be perfect."
Yes! I agree, I am NOT expecting perfect, just usable. It just doesn't have to be this buggy.

In the past their were little bugs, that's to be expected. But when my fresh new $3,000 fully optioned top of the line MBP won't even hold a WiFi connection... That's unacceptable.

Apples better than that, I know it and THEY brag about it ...

 

[leman]

Pah, there is absolutely no difference in the privacy policy between Apple, MS, Google, Dropbox, etc. It's just a matter of wording and how they explain themselves to the public. They all try to monetise your data and/or hit you with contextual ads/purchase recommendations. That's not my concern as they do not by default read your personal documents on your local disks or record keystrokes in productivity applications. Most of the paranoia surrounding Windows 10 is simply generated by clickbait headlines from sites that love the advertising revenue they can generate with a nice public scare.

Windows 10 privacy policy states quite explicitly "we reserve the rights to read and disclose the contents of your private files". I don't really care what the clickbait sites are writing, but its my job to recommend products and define the IT strategy for my company and I can't in good faith recommend a product that has something like that in their EULA. So you need to understand where my scepticism comes from.

Btw, Apple does not serve you ads in the OS itself, unlike some of the competitors. Yeah, they might data-mine my music tastes for all I care. But I want my private data to be off hands to anyone. And Apple seems to me to deliver this, e.g. they encrypt my online keychain with my private key so that even they themselves can't read it.

And then there's the dumbing down of admin tools. Check my thread yesterday about UserEventAgent running wild after the 10.11.1 update. Damn thing was hogging 100% CPU usage and was stuck there because Apple's alleged 'automatic permissions repair' didn't repair some plists. I had to do it manually using a long process of discovering which files were messed up, removing them from start up folders, then putting them back in so that the system would ask me to authenticate the files. Two hours to fix the permissions just because Disk Utility doesn't let me do it in 1 minute anymore.

I fail to see how this is the case for dumbing down anything or locking you out of anything. This is a bug in the OS and Apple's first priority should be fixing this bug. In any other respect, there is no difference from any other OS bug.

 

[Traverse]

Preview app still broken under 10.11.1.

A 10 page PDF still requires 1.3GB of RAM.

 

[chevalier433]

I just checked the App Store to see how El Capitan was doing:

5 star ratings: 69
1 star ratings: 115

That's even worse than Yosemite.

My personal experiences are bottlenecks and excessive resource consumption to the point that the system almost locks up. It would be nice if I was doing anything significant, but basic web browsing and checking e-mail doesn't cut it. The culprit for me appears to UserEventAgent.

I found the following quote interesting:

"Software developers and users have argued that Apple's yearly release schedule and development practices have compromised stability, and meant that no version of OS X is truly recommendable for users requiring reliability above new user interface design and features."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X_Yosemite

El Capitan functions like a beta release.

They fix basic fuctionality bugs as wifi and Bluetooth although Internet speed is still slow and add a lot others like moronic design disk utility,safari pdf lag and preview app pdf lag,third party apps and email dis function,software updater and time machine misbehavior but they add new emoji and now we are talking they develop a new os x.Clearly there is a leadership problem in Apple.

 

[KALLT]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that has anything to do with a developer releasing a new app for the latest version of OSX.
Here's just one app that I'm talking about... e-Sword X when it debuted required Yosemite. While I was on Mavericks I could not install it. There's nothing in that app that takes advantage of features that were exclusive to Yosemite.

Every year there are new applications being developed and released. These invariably end up requiring the latest version of OSX. Often there is no technical reason for requiring the latest version.

This is one of the side effects of Apple's annual update of OSX.

I just gave you one reason: the programming language Swift, which is becoming very popular (and is a huge reason why applications can’t be supported below Yosemite). Another one is Metal (El Capitan only). Apple expands Cocoa and other core frameworks all the time and not all of its functions are compatible with older systems. You don’t know what the reason is, but I will make the assumption that it doesn’t happen without a good reason (which developer wants to reduce the pool of available customers without a good reason?). If you want to rely on a specific function or class that isn’t available in an older version of OS X then it means that you have to choose between using something else, creating a workaround for that older version or leaving the older version behind. I have just started learning programming and I don’t care at all about Objective-C. Everything that can’t be done without Swift is not interesting to me at the moment. Xcode makes it fairly easy to target older versions of OS X, it is a deliberate choice of the developer to target a specific version, although Apple imposes the constraints with regard to frameworks and APIs.