4 ms·
That's because it's a free upgrade that improves speed, battery life, adds multi-monitor support, and removes the dumb leather interfaces. This is the first tim
by reginaldjcooper 13y ago
That's because it's a free upgrade that improves speed, battery life, adds multi-monitor support, and removes the dumb leather interfaces. This is the first time since Snow Leopard that I felt new OS X was an upgrade; not a downgrade just to continue using Xcode.
- chm 13y agoI was anxious while updating from SL yesterday. I'll have to wait before judging the product, but from the moment it booted I felt like I made the right choice. One caveat: SL provided me with ~6 hours of browsing battery life while M predicts I'll manage only 4.5 on a 2009 15" MBP.
- mathieuh 13y agoI think that could be to do with some apps not being optimised yet or something. If I browse using Safari on my 15" Retina, I get ~8 hours of browsing, if I use chrome that falls massively down to ~3.5.
- chm 13y agoOuch. But I can hardly see why that could reduce battery life so much. The new power-saving features in Mavericks shouldn't, in theory, lower the battery life. The OS should act like it did under SL unless lots of RAM is needed (I'm at 50%). I'll let the computer go through a couple of power cycles, maybe that'll fix it.
- mitchty 13y agoThe reason is in chrome the background tabs don't get frozen and stop executing etc... Safari has had a huge makeover to improve the amount of energy use for things like background tabs/etc.... Or even not running when occluded by another window. Small things like that add up overall. I think this is the way forward for improving the efficiency of our software in general. I'm glad someone is bringing power use to light alongside cpu/memory/disk/network. As for the os level stuff, have you tested the actual time under use or just looked at the estimates?
- chm 13y agoI got 4:56 minutes out of my battery today. I switched from FF to Safari when I wrote the previous comment. It did make a difference.
- mitchty 13y agoI'm noticing the same as well with my retina actually. The power drain differences are significant enough for me to swap back to safari. I was getting ~7 hoursish (hard to tell I tend to compile/browse/etc) before and now it looks more like 5. Which is disappointing to be honest. Though using non "best for retina" seems to kick in the discreet gpu more often now.
- micampe 13y agoI honestly don’t get the fuss about multi-monitor support. Mavericks doesn’t add multi-monitor support, it’s always been there. What Mavericks does is fix multi-monitor behavior for fullscreen applications, which I personally would never use on a display larger than 13" anyway, non-fullscreen behavior hardly changed, so I really don’t understand the big deal.
- kalleboo 13y agoIdeal uses for full screen on an external monitor: Video, presentations, photo slideshows.
- tlrobinson 13y agoFixing multi-monitor fullscreen support was my only desired "feature" since they broke it about 4 years ago.
- mitchty 13y agoI thought it only broke for fullscreened applications? I never had any issues with regular multi-monitor setups with any of the recent os upgrades as far as non fullscreen use goes. What was broke there?
- teaneedz 13y agoSpartan (or leather) have a place. User Experience is what matters and flat design often increases the cognitive load as we try to figure things out. There's a lot of figuring out in Mavericks's UI, but I believe those things will get fixed over time. Maverick's is not flat (yet) but as long as it's not, I'm a user.
- reginaldjcooper 13y agoIf they figure out how to visually separate the buttons and text inputs from the text, I'm all in. I prefer the flat UI.