From your description, all your trouble is with 8G Kingston ram. LIon and M. Lion are more demanding on ram quality. Buy Crucial, or the same as the original brand. Pay close attention to the speed, it has to be the same as original. I have the same lappy as you and first I had it with 7200rpm, than SSD. Boy that puppy is fast and stable with all first SL, than Lion and now ML. Avoid Kingston memory at all cost. Also flash from them is a real ****.
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.
Snow Leopard vs Mountain Lion
- Thread starter bruleke
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have to say, this thread really reflects my position as well. I have been using Macs since the early 1990s and Lion and Mountain Lion have been stunningly troublesome. I have no idea who at Apple decided to release such crap, but Snow Leopard is definitely the apex of stability and reliability for Apple OSes. Since then, it's been downhill.
Keep in mind that SL was the last of the methodical releases that didn't conform to this new and rushed release schedule which brings us Lion and now Mountain Lion. The days of 8 OSX updates are over. We're more likely to see just 5 from here forward.
My issues with Lion/ML have more to do with Apple's foray into "consumerism" with its iOS undertones. Let us hope, as Apple's stock continues to tank and more executives find their heads on the chopping block (instead of up their arses), that Apple revisits what an OS needs to be.
Personally, I have put Apple on notice. If OSX 10.9 looks to be more of the same I'll abandon the platform - devices and all. Even though we have iPhones and iPads in the family, our macs are considered the workhorse when we're done "playing".
I will certainly miss the build quality.
I, at least, have had very few issues with Lion and Mountain Lion. Lion was a bit slow, but Mountain Lion fixed that. I never had the WiFi issues that many people reported in Lion either.
As to this supposed move toward consumerism, I welcome it! So far as I can tell, Apple has not actually removed anything from the OS that we consider necessary for power users. I will grant that there haven't been as many advances as some would like in the areas of file management, but that doesn't bother me since I use a Finder replacement anyway (though I guess it does bother me on principle). The Unix underpinnings are still there, and there have been significant improvements to security and power as well (OpenCL and Grand Central anyone?).
Desktop computing has matured to the point where it's very difficult to come with revolutionary improvements every time. I'm not saying they can't be had, but the days of early Classic Mac OS and OS X are over. At some point, someone will come up with something that completely changes how we interact with our computers, and the cycle will start anew. But until then, enjoy the fact that your Mac and iDevices are more in sync and easier to use than ever before. After all, isn't that the point of improving OS X, to make it both more powerful and easier to use?
As to this supposed move toward consumerism, I welcome it! So far as I can tell, Apple has not actually removed anything from the OS that we consider necessary for power users. I will grant that there haven't been as many advances as some would like in the areas of file management, but that doesn't bother me since I use a Finder replacement anyway (though I guess it does bother me on principle). The Unix underpinnings are still there, and there have been significant improvements to security and power as well (OpenCL and Grand Central anyone?).
Desktop computing has matured to the point where it's very difficult to come with revolutionary improvements every time. I'm not saying they can't be had, but the days of early Classic Mac OS and OS X are over. At some point, someone will come up with something that completely changes how we interact with our computers, and the cycle will start anew. But until then, enjoy the fact that your Mac and iDevices are more in sync and easier to use than ever before. After all, isn't that the point of improving OS X, to make it both more powerful and easier to use?
What about:
1. Grid based Spaces, which I find very useful to have certain apps in the same position of the grid. I personally use 9 Spaces in SL which is possible in ML, but it would be more cumbersome to all 9 in a row instead of a 3X3 grid.
2. A Full-Screen mode which kills a 2nd monitor. I would think most power users would have at least 2 monitors, and would want different apps on each window. For example, the main app in Full-Screen mode on 1 monitor, and finder windows containing the files on a 2nd monitor. This is possible in SL, but not in ML's Full-Screen mode.
I definitely feel Apple removed some functions that "power users" use. Which is why I'm still with SL, and think that ML's Mission Control ISN'T more powerful or easier to use.
True, I hardly ever use Spaces, so I completely forgot about that. Good point!
FWIW, the Lion/Mountain Lion FS mode doesn't disable the 2nd monitor inherently, it's just that 99% of apps aren't coded to use it. For example, FCPX DOES use the 2nd monitor in FS mode. That being said, I think it could obviously be handled much better.
However, FS was added in Lion, which means that the takeover of the 2nd monitor by the FS mode isn't a feature lost, but a feature that needs to be added so my original point (for the most part) remains. To me, ML's Mission Control is easier and more useful than SL's Exposé...
What's the difference? Every single Full Screen application coded to Apple's specs disables the 2nd Monitor.
So FCPX, made by Apple, doesn't conform to Apple's own specs? Because FCPX does use the 2nd monitor in FS mode.
I'm just making sure we're clear that the 2nd monitor isn't being disabled, but taken over by the app and not used. The end result for the user is that the screen is effectively disabled, so I guess it depends on how technical we're getting. That was really a small part of my overal post, so I'm not really going to say more about it unless you want to discuss it further.
FCPX has special code to show the video on the 2nd screen. Most applications don't.
And I'm not clear what point you're trying to make. If the 2nd monitor doesn't work, it's not Apple's fault?
What does "technical" have to do with it? It simply doesn't work as any user would expect and god only knows why. You can tout all the technicalities you want but they would still defy common sensibility.
Did you conveniently ignore the part where I said this point was a small part of my overall point and that Apple implemented it terribly?! You don't have to convince me that it's done poorly, that's painfully obvious. It's just interesting to me that the 2nd screen CAN be used in FS mode, just that no apps beside FCPX do.
I started to be a Mac user in 2009 with Snow Leopard ... it was great after 14 years on Windows. Moving to Lion it was so so ... now I moved to ML and I will probably switch back to Windows world!!!
ML is like Vista for Apple ... of course most of the newbie will love it.
But I work in IT since 1991 and I can say without a doubt Mountain Lion is a fiasco.
It's incredibly slow ... I got a new i5 MacBook Pro with 8GB RAM and I discovered my old core duo was faster.
Really notifications is useless like mission control and other new apparently cool features. And it seems Microsoft won't develop anymore Office for Mac and majority of the business world is on Office platform.
So to have fun Mac is fine but Mountain Lion is just a toy ... not for working.
Probably OSX decadence started when Bertrand Serlet left Apple.
Shame on you Apple!
ML is like Vista for Apple ... of course most of the newbie will love it.
But I work in IT since 1991 and I can say without a doubt Mountain Lion is a fiasco.
It's incredibly slow ... I got a new i5 MacBook Pro with 8GB RAM and I discovered my old core duo was faster.
Really notifications is useless like mission control and other new apparently cool features. And it seems Microsoft won't develop anymore Office for Mac and majority of the business world is on Office platform.
So to have fun Mac is fine but Mountain Lion is just a toy ... not for working.
Probably OSX decadence started when Bertrand Serlet left Apple.
Shame on you Apple!
After reading this I'm glad I'm not the only person experiencing silly slow down with Mountain Lion. It's made my i3 3.06Ghz mac perform like an old 200mhz Laptop running Windows 95 I have in my loft. In fact on reviving the laptop for the purposes of experimentation its performance is faster than MLs on my 2010 iMac! SL was lightning fast, now even the UI is slow, what have you done Apple?
I have 16GB Crucial RAM, and a 7200 RPM HDD.
I have 16GB Crucial RAM, and a 7200 RPM HDD.
Snow Leopard was considerably lighter and more stable than Lion, but the new features were worth it to me.
Now, Mountain Lion is better than Snow Leopard in every way, except for a little drop in battery life.
Now SL feels cluttered and counterintuitive to me, features like the Mission Control and the Notification Center provide an enormous increase in productivity. I loved the new Spaces from day one as well. Security improvements at system level and FileVault 2 are also crucial to me.
BTW I'm using a 2011 13" MBP with 8GB RAM, a 128GB SSD for the system and the original 320GB HDD in the optibay as the user folder. Took a little Unix tinkering to get it working, but now it's fast and versatile.
Now, Mountain Lion is better than Snow Leopard in every way, except for a little drop in battery life.
Now SL feels cluttered and counterintuitive to me, features like the Mission Control and the Notification Center provide an enormous increase in productivity. I loved the new Spaces from day one as well. Security improvements at system level and FileVault 2 are also crucial to me.
BTW I'm using a 2011 13" MBP with 8GB RAM, a 128GB SSD for the system and the original 320GB HDD in the optibay as the user folder. Took a little Unix tinkering to get it working, but now it's fast and versatile.
That's a load of FUD; Snow Leopard is still a very viable, stable, fast & productive OS especially for image management power users, & will still be years & years from from now.
I've still got snow leopard on my iMac, it is a great system. I've still got tiger on my even older mini mac, has also been very reliable but is making odd noises, on death row now.
Mountain lion on my Air. Feels a bit edgy, still has bugs, but I love a lot of things about it. If you only have one computer you have to upgrade or live with ever more limitations via an unsupported OS as well as apps you can't update.
But it depends what you do with your gear. I spend half my time writing and so for that I could still get by with my 2003 MacBook and a screen. It's still working perfectly, with panther! I gave it to a friend who still uses it every day for things her iPad can't do.
My needs are changing, and I'm upgrading this year more than I ever have at one time because I want the 3 main tools I use now to be same generation and all synced and happy together ... Ipad4, iphone5, 2012 Air. I will keep the iMac with snow leopard, until it dies. I could upgrade it to ML but why bother, it works fine as it is, and i have the Air for the new things SL can't do. But if it was my only computer I would upgrade to ML, no question.
Mountain lion on my Air. Feels a bit edgy, still has bugs, but I love a lot of things about it. If you only have one computer you have to upgrade or live with ever more limitations via an unsupported OS as well as apps you can't update.
But it depends what you do with your gear. I spend half my time writing and so for that I could still get by with my 2003 MacBook and a screen. It's still working perfectly, with panther! I gave it to a friend who still uses it every day for things her iPad can't do.
My needs are changing, and I'm upgrading this year more than I ever have at one time because I want the 3 main tools I use now to be same generation and all synced and happy together ... Ipad4, iphone5, 2012 Air. I will keep the iMac with snow leopard, until it dies. I could upgrade it to ML but why bother, it works fine as it is, and i have the Air for the new things SL can't do. But if it was my only computer I would upgrade to ML, no question.
Uh... no.
Unless they just slap a version number of 10.9 on it. (Which incidentally would be fine for me).
I'm not saying it isn't - today. I have it running on my Mini.
What i AM saying is that the support will not last forever, and you need to make plans to migrate for when support does run out, no doubt as soon as 10.9 is released, if not before.
Sticking your head in the sand, and staying with 10.6 forever isn't going to remain viable forever - at some point, likely within 12 months, apple is going to stop supporting it with security fixes.
I'd be more concerned with SL becoming unusable when the machines that still run it die. You'd be surprised at the number of people that buy new macs only to discover they can't run Snow Leopard on them. That's why I'm trying to adapt to ML (kicking and screaming).
We'll see what 10.9 brings.
I don't understand the rationale for this argument. Can you elaborate?
What connection is there between Apple dropping support for an OS and the ability to continue using that OS? I still have a Mac running Leopard and it works just fine.