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.
How much longer for 10.8.1?
- Thread starter 50548
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i just realize the OP was Mr. I Hate MountainLion
yes OP you will not like a what a 38MB little update has done to that pile a poop 10.8
Speakin' of poop... some of us so-called OSX haters have been using OSX when you were crappin' yellow.
(And before there even was an OSX for that matter).
Speakin' of poop... some of us so-called OSX haters have been using OSX when you were crappin' yellow.
I've been using the Mac OS since before 1/24/1984 so just relax....
S-
Speakin' of poop... some of us so-called OSX haters have been using OSX when you were crappin' yellow.
Well then I think you must be looking back with rose coloured glasses then because I too remember all releases of OS X.
10, 10.1 and 10.2 were steaming piles of crap in terms of performance, usability and features.
For me, Tiger was a highlight but I think you've all just been too spoilt by Snow Leopard
I would rate OS X release like this: Snow leopard > Mountain Lion > Tiger > the rest...
Also don't forget that the Snow Leopard we all know and love didn't reach it's peak until 8 minor releases later.
I mean really, anyone who has a decent amount of experience with computers in general realises that they shouldn't be using .0 releases if their livelihood depends on it or if they use it for any other mission critical things.
I'm in the process of making my USB install for my new upgrade from Mountain Lion to Snow Leopard.
I've had it with ML after a couple days. In all fairness, it is better than Lion, but even with 8 gb RAM and 512 SSD on a core 2 duo (MBP 2010), I can see a degradation in speed from SL.
Memory management appears to be more efficient (this is a subjective) than Lion, but I find that there is a serious bug with the MBP sleeping and recognition of RAM (sometimes it would recognize only 4 gb as opposed to 8 gb). I would have to restart for it to properly recognize the amount of RAM. I have tested with remtest and everything came back fine. I even took everything apart and shopvac'ed all the dust out and cleaned out the actual memory banks. I also tried other RAM modules and saw the same problem: everytime it goes to sleep and doesn't wake up, a hard reset needs to be done, and then only half the ram is recognized. You have to shut down the computer disconnect the magsafe and then turn back on and boom: 8gb of ram.
But stepping back and looking at the overall quality of Lion and ML from SL, it reminded me of the infamous xp to Vista by microsoft.
Anyways, my USB install is made. gotta go.
I've had it with ML after a couple days. In all fairness, it is better than Lion, but even with 8 gb RAM and 512 SSD on a core 2 duo (MBP 2010), I can see a degradation in speed from SL.
Memory management appears to be more efficient (this is a subjective) than Lion, but I find that there is a serious bug with the MBP sleeping and recognition of RAM (sometimes it would recognize only 4 gb as opposed to 8 gb). I would have to restart for it to properly recognize the amount of RAM. I have tested with remtest and everything came back fine. I even took everything apart and shopvac'ed all the dust out and cleaned out the actual memory banks. I also tried other RAM modules and saw the same problem: everytime it goes to sleep and doesn't wake up, a hard reset needs to be done, and then only half the ram is recognized. You have to shut down the computer disconnect the magsafe and then turn back on and boom: 8gb of ram.
But stepping back and looking at the overall quality of Lion and ML from SL, it reminded me of the infamous xp to Vista by microsoft.
Anyways, my USB install is made. gotta go.
Sorry, but it's absolutely nothing like XP to Vista, it's not even close. As much as people seem to not like Lion, even that is not even close to the Vista experience (and yes, I used Vista from the MSDN release onwards).
People make out Vista to be far worse than it actually is. It had some issues at launch but they were quickly fixed through updates. By the time SP1 rolled around, Vista was very solid.
Speakin' of poop... some of us so-called OSX haters have been using OSX when you were crappin' yellow.
When you could full screen apps with multi monitor support?
Apple's prior delta update were gigabytes in size. No matter how you slice it, this one appears to be a small update. Definitely focused on some specific bug fixes with no added features
If it is just a few bug fixes and no added features - why would that be such a problem?
Its not and to my knowledge I never implied it was. It is what it is, and if it makes Mountain Lion more stable then all the better.
It seemed like you were / are expecting more than just bug fixes from this update. But, if I am wrong, sorry.
No worries - I just pointing out that prior updates were typically a lot larger. No big deal, as mentioned I don't care how large/small an update is, as long as it improves OSX
I tend to agree with you there. Size is irrelevant to me. As long as it get's the job done.....wait... that came out wrong, lol!
Agree wholeheartedly. Vista was the worst OS ever in my opinion. It was one issue after the next and that is when I ditched Windows.