Still, El Capitan is too heavy... will Sierra be any different?

[developer13245]

The maddening part of this is Apple requires El Crap to run the latest version of Xcode. Xcode used to run on the latest and previous version of OS X, but now Apple is forcing us developers to run the latest OS. Forcing developers into OS X beta testers is really not a good idea.

Apple is crashing and burning.. worse than Microsoft did.. big time..

 

[ScottishCaptain]

The maddening part of this is Apple requires El Crap to run the latest version of Xcode. Xcode used to run on the latest and previous version of OS X, but now Apple is forcing us developers to run the latest OS. Forcing developers into OS X beta testers is really not a good idea.

Apple is crashing and burning.. worse than Microsoft did.. big time..

If you've got a stationary workstation (and I'm assuming you do since this is the Mac Pro forum), it's almost worth it to invest in a secondary system (like a Mac Mini, or something else running FreeBSD if you're really adventurous) so you can run Netboot and boot into various versions of OS X without repartitioning your local system drives.

This is more or less what I do. Around 10.8 I basically said "**** it, I'm not upgrading anymore". My daily driver is still 10.8.5, loaded with Adobe CS6 and all the other software I need to do my job. ~95% of my development process happens there.

For the other 5%, I've got a handful of net boot images sitting on my Mac Mini server that I can just reboot into whenever I need to run some specific version of Xcode. Whenever Apple releases a new version of Xcode (which inevitably requires the latest OS), I just spin up a new image and stuff it on the Mac Mini. Since all my development stuff is checked into SVN anyways, it's easy to synchronize work related stuff between images.

-SC

 

[deconstruct60]

The maddening part of this is Apple requires El Crap to run the latest version of Xcode. Xcode used to run on the latest and previous version of OS X, but now Apple is forcing us developers to run the latest OS.

shouldn't the latest version of XCode be the one for targeting OS X 10.12 (Sierra). In about 1-2 months Sierra and El Cap will be the "latest' and "previous". Developers will have a choice of sticking with XCode 7.3-7.3.1 or moving up to 8 (which is beta now).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode#Xcode_7.0_-_8.x_.28since_Free_On-Device_Development.29

Part of this hiccup is the XCode 7 to 8 transition in addition to the OS upgrades.

Forcing developers into OS X beta testers is really not a good idea.

if "force" folks to move to XCode 8 they will be beta testers. ;-) Apple removed 7.2 from folk's systems?

Pragmatically closer to Apple presuming developers have virtual machine installs of "bleeding edge" stuff and keep the more stable production toolchain back outside the bleeding edge VM.

Apple is crashing and burning.. worse than Microsoft did.. big time..

Not so much crash and burn as not able to walk and chew gum at the same time. if short on resources I can see taking a "shortcut" of doing major upgrade to toolchain and OS at the same time ( macOS 10.12 and XCode 8), but it would be better to decouple those in time. Means more resources and planning. It is one thing to "eat your own dog food" and another to "eat own dog food while it is still cooking".

 

[developer13245]

.... Yes, I have multiple boot partitions. I just hate it when Apple forces me to be on El Crap to use the latest (shipping) version of Xcode. They never used to require the latest - it's a big step backwards for them.

 

[PowerMac G4 MDD]

I don't know abut Mountain Lion, but Mavericks had some graphics driver issues that wasn't fixed until Yosemite.
http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,8206.0.html

That being said, personally, I don't find El Capitan "heavy" and I have no issues using it. Everything feels snappy to me. Plus, as ActionableMango has mentioned, there has been under the hood optimizations in El Capitan.

By the way, I would imagine that DOS would simply fly on Mac Pros.

Everything is okay, save for the fact that Finder and some other menus just take a bit longer to come up than they did in Mountain Lion - and this is on BETTER hardware. For example, Finder and Sys Prefs open faster and perform better on a 2006 Mac Pro w/ HDD - on Mtn. Lion - than on a 2009 Mac Pro with two SSDs in RAID 0 - on El Cap.
[doublepost=1471924605][/doublepost]

I don't know abut Mountain Lion, but Mavericks had some graphics driver issues that wasn't fixed until Yosemite.
http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,8206.0.html

That being said, personally, I don't find El Capitan "heavy" and I have no issues using it. Everything feels snappy to me. Plus, as ActionableMango has mentioned, there has been under the hood optimizations in El Capitan.

By the way, I would imagine that DOS would simply fly on Mac Pros.

P.S. - In El Cap, try hiding a single Finder window (the command+H way) and then click on Finder to open it. THAT is how fast Finder itself would open in Mountain Lion, on my 2006 Mac Pro & its cruddy HDD. Now, compare that with opening a new Finder window, by closing all existing ones and clicking Finder again. On top of this all, Finder seems to also be graphically heavy compared to previous versions. I assume that that is one of the main reasons it feels so clunky compared to other versions. You can really feel it when switching between menus within Finder.
[doublepost=1471924969][/doublepost]

I haven't done any comparison lately, so thanks for your info.
I have also noticed that Finder has issues in 10.11 and of course it seems heavier in general. For a moment I thought that this may be an issue with the older hardware not being well supported (like the bottlenecs in 3,1 GPU performance after mountain lion) but you wrote that you have noticed the same behavior with a new 5k iMac...

Anyway, imho, I think that the OS X (macOS now) has a noticed detoriation in quality as of lately. The yearly cycle has a great influence in this issue as it stopped a lot of the OS refinement, at least as we knew it in the past (i.e. leopard/snow leopard, lion/mountain lion etc) now the most of the interest is about adding more support/features for iOS things and services, not to mention the lower quality of some of the current Applications (and the decrease of functionality for some of them too) like, Airport utility (vs the old one), Disk utility, Mail, App store, iTunes etc.

MacOs is still very nice in general, but unfortunately it has taken the route of the Mac line, now it is like a poor relative of the wealthy iOS family... but we will see how things will evolve.
Cheers!

Well-said; I have observed the exact same thing. Mac OS, while still the best out there, has seen a bit of deterioration since Snow Leopard: many more bugs, deleted features, etc. Not only this, we've seen Apple screw with once-good utilities and applications. I remember how appalled I was when I opened up the first revision of iWork (namely Pages) since 2009. There were but a few things added to this new version, and about a page full of things removed. Oh, and the interface took a major dump. We saw Apple screw up Final Cut as well, and we also have seen what they have done to Disk Utility and Airport Utility. *sigh*

It makes me angry because Mac OS is way better than all of the others - it should remain like that. I don't want the best choice to be a reluctant one.


(As for the 5K iMac, I believe Finder does come up more quickly because of how optimized the graphics drivers and such are, but, in comparison with previous versions of Finder, it's still slower to come up.)

 

[JamesPDX]

I don't know abut Mountain Lion, but Mavericks had some graphics driver issues that wasn't fixed until Yosemite.
http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,8206.0.html

That being said, personally, I don't find El Capitan "heavy" and I have no issues using it. Everything feels snappy to me. Plus, as ActionableMango has mentioned, there has been under the hood optimizations in El Capitan.

By the way, I would imagine that DOS would simply fly on Mac Pros.

How about CPM?

 

[pastrychef]

Everything is okay, save for the fact that Finder and some other menus just take a bit longer to come up than they did in Mountain Lion - and this is on BETTER hardware. For example, Finder and Sys Prefs open faster and perform better on a 2006 Mac Pro w/ HDD - on Mtn. Lion - than on a 2009 Mac Pro with two SSDs in RAID 0 - on El Cap.

Two SSD on SATA 2 in RAID 0 essentially gets you the same bandwidth as a single SSD on SATA 3.

P.S. - In El Cap, try hiding a single Finder window (the command+H way) and then click on Finder to open it. THAT is how fast Finder itself would open in Mountain Lion, on my 2006 Mac Pro & its cruddy HDD. Now, compare that with opening a new Finder window, by closing all existing ones and clicking Finder again. On top of this all, Finder seems to also be graphically heavy compared to previous versions. I assume that that is one of the main reasons it feels so clunky compared to other versions. You can really feel it when switching between menus within Finder.

I'm not seeing it. When I open a new Finder window, it seems every bit as fast as hiding Finder.

Edit: I just fired up an older i7-3770 based system with GT 630 video card and still don't see it...
[Command]+n and [Command]+h are equally as fast.

Edit #2: Okay. I just tried on my 2008 MacBook. [Command]+n was maybe 1/10th of a second slower than [Command]+h. I would never have noticed if I wasn't looking for it...

[doublepost=1471927642][/doublepost]

How about CPM?

Absolutely. I'm sure CPM will fly as well. But I honestly hated using that thing when I was a kid.

 

[PowerMac G4 MDD]

Two SSD on SATA 2 in RAID 0 essentially gets you the same bandwidth as a single SSD on SATA 3.



I'm not seeing it. When I open a new Finder window, it seems every bit as fast as hiding Finder.

Edit: I just fired up an older i7-3770 based system with GT 630 video card and still don't see it...
[Command]+n and [Command]+h are equally as fast.

Edit #2: Okay. I just tried on my 2008 MacBook. [Command]+n was maybe 1/10th of a second slower than [Command]+h. I would never have noticed if I wasn't looking for it...

[doublepost=1471927642][/doublepost]

Absolutely. I'm sure CPM will fly as well. But I honestly hated using that thing when I was a kid.

I didn't mean command+n; I meant to say to exit out of any Finder windows and simply click the Finder icon and let Finder come up. Now, command+h that single finder window and then click Finder again. You'll notice how quickly hidden Finder comes up in comparison to exited-out-of Finder: it comes up instantaneously. That's about how quickly it would come up before Yosemite, yet with Finder exited out of - NOT simply hidden. Also, that's with an HDD that gets nowhere above 50 MB/s read/write. My SSD RAID setup on my better Mac Pro, running El Cap, sees ~500 MB/s read/write.

EDIT: Actually, I suppose command+N is just like clicking Finder and opening a new Finder window. Tried to see if there's a difference on my own machine, and it seems like command+N is just as slow. Maybe I should do a screen capture of this.

 

[pastrychef]

Maybe I should do a screen capture of this.

Yes, please. I really don't know what the complaint is here.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Latest Sierra beta is shaping up good. It does seem 'snappy' and animations appear to be more polished than El Cap, on my ****** GT120.

The question is have Apple fixed the Finder's performance on a traffic heavy network.

 

[PowerMac G4 MDD]

Latest Sierra beta is shaping up good. It does seem 'snappy' and animations appear to be more polished than El Cap, on my ****** GT120.

The question is have Apple fixed the Finder's performance on a traffic heavy network.

I will have to test the beta on my laptop, then, with its aging 9400M chip.