3 ms·
If I remember correctly it was Lion (or Leopard?) that was an actual performance improvement on the previous instalment of Mac OS X. It was just so much notable
by aequitas 6y ago
If I remember correctly it was Lion (or Leopard?) that was an actual performance improvement on the previous instalment of Mac OS X. It was just so much notable snappier. Haven't had a single update since then that did the same.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoI believe you're thinking of Snow Leopard. Definitely not Lion, which was a somewhat poor release, and not Leopard, which had a lot of performance issues initially. Mountain Lion is also a possible candidate (because it fixed the problems with Lion), or Mavericks if you were on memory-constrained hardware (because it introduced memory compression). But it's probably Snow Leopard.
- jki275 6y agoSnow Leopard was essentially a maintenance release, and I think you're correct there with the rest.
- aequitas 6y agoYou could be correct there with Snow Leopard, definately not Mavericks. It was a release without a lot of new features but more under the hood stuff.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoIt really could be Mavericks in that, if you upgraded a machine with 4 GB of memory or less (which were still fairly common at the time!), I'd expect you to see a significant speed improvement. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/os-x-10-9/17/#compressed-memory https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/os-x-10-9/17/#compre... I've seen this work and it makes a big difference.