5 ms·

Yosemite has been a massive mess since the day it was released - easily the most buggy, unreliable OS I've ever used. It is a stark contrast to the solid reliab

by mrmondo 12y ago

Yosemite has been a massive mess since the day it was released - easily the most buggy, unreliable OS I've ever used. It is a stark contrast to the solid reliability and performance of 10.8/10.9 and every update seems to make things worse. It's as if Apple is no longer spending as much time on stability and performance and a lot more on flashy bells and whistles.

jakejake 12y ago
It must be related to particular hardware combinations. We have 9 macs here of various ages on Yosemite with no problems. We had one machine go totally wonky for a while, but it turned out to have a bad memory chip (off-brand memory upgrade that we did).
- m4x 12y ago
  Or hardware and software combinations. These posts seem to come up quite regularly and reliably generate a bunch of posts saying (a) "I have this problem; OS X has sucked since 10.X!", and (b) "I don't have a single one of the cited issues despite using the same hardware and software versions". It seems more likely that the issues are either caused by specific software that doesn't come with OS X or possibly by bad batches of hardware. In this case it sounds like Photos may be responsible. It would be better if people were able to identify the cause of the issue and file proper bug reports, rather than just berating OS X in general. Sometimes the issue isn't even a bug - for example I've seen many people complain about sleep/hibernate issues that are actually the result of Apple complying with an EU directive (see autopoweroff on https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/pmset.1.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin...)
- radley 12y ago
  Sounds like you have a lab or studio, so you're not using the core apps. I've seen WAY too many problems in OSX & related apps.
jaywunder 12y ago
>Yosemite has been a massive mess since the day it was released That's pretty unfair to say without giving examples.
- mrmondo 12y ago
  You want examples? Seriously? Just go look at the apple support forums and see the number of people complaining about Yosemite.
  - gyc 12y ago
    People don't post on support forums if their computers don't have any problems.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- 13 12y ago
  Disable UI transparency, the volume change overlay still has black corners. http://i.imgur.com/pRNO7Oc.png http://i.imgur.com/pRNO7Oc.png It doesn't for iTunes, just for volume and screen brightness changes.
  - threeseed 12y ago
    Not an issue for me (Late 2012 Mac Mini). Given that disabling UI transparency is for accessibility purposes and is only for certain graphics cards I wouldn't use this as an example of a major bug.
    - 13 12y ago
      I can replicate on a 2014 Retina MacBook and a 2012 MacBook Pro. Lots of people disable the transparency, not just for accessibility. I'm not a fan of burning up my whole battery doing Gaussian blurs.
DannoHung 12y ago
> easily the most buggy, unreliable OS I've ever used Are you 10? Seriously, when did you start using Operating Systems if this is the buggiest, most unreliable OS you've ever used.
- mrmondo 12y ago
  No I'm not 10 but thank you for asking. My team has a mix of MacBook Pros ranging from 2011-2014 - everyone has daily - yes daily problems with Yosemite. I have never had an OS crash and lock up as much as I've seen in Yosemite. - Beach balls are a daily occurrence. - Finder crashing when switching from wired to wireless. - iTunes refusing to launch for seemingly no reason. - Failure to map network drives until finder is force killed. - Poor wireless performance. - Corrupt boot process. - Excessive CPU usage from window server service.
  - threeseed 12y ago
    We also have a team of Macs. Not once have I seen any of those issues. My suggestion would be to create a new user and migrate your data across. I suspect most of the issues with OSX are to do with their migration of preferences between releases.
    - FireBeyond 12y ago
      You can suspect that but you'd be wrong. My early 2013 15" rM P experiences most of the issues the above poster describes. It also experiences graphics subsystem freezes even when the only app I have open is iTerm, requiring a power button reboot. Windows Server service can often be seen chewing 30% or more CPU, Wifi often needs to be turned off and on, while in range of my router (latest gen/firmware Express and Extreme). Every day I think I should go back to 10.9, but I'm worried for the day, if not already, that Apple refuses to back port security fixes (which may even have happened, recently). Especially a worry for me since I am involved in healthcare in my laptop.
      - threeseed 12y ago
coherentpony 12y ago
> easily the most buggy, unreliable OS I've ever used. Windows ME?
- mrmondo 12y ago
  At least ME didn't crash every day for most people.
  - mirashii 12y ago
    Yes it did
  - threeseed 12y ago
    You're being a bit ridiculous here. OSX is not crashing every day for "most people". There are tens of millions of users. There would be a massive uproar on all the forums and in the media if the OS was that unstable.
  - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
    Windows ME definitely had that reputation. I'll stick up for Windows NT based versions of Windows on stability grounds. But while 95, 98, and 98SE were "mostly stable" Windows ME was "mostly unstable" even on good hardware. The 9x based versions of Windows had a lot of problems. And as more LOC were added to Windows 9x it seems like the core design of that range showed that it couldn't scale (since an error in one sub-system "infected" another, due to limited memory protections across boundaries). So often something would crash, but it was actually a sister process which caused it (opps!). Essentially what I am saying is that the 9x range had a "upper complexity limit," so as it became more complex, it inherently became less stable (since more complexity=more bugs=less stability). ME was the upper limit of how complex that model could become. NT based versions of Windows (NT 3.xx, 4.0, 2K, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 (and server + embedded editions)) have no such problem since the core design is simply superior (in a large part due to x86 hardware improvements NT takes advantage of). Edit: Just to clarify: "Simply superior" in the final paragraph is contrasting Windows 9x to Windows NT (not OS X). OS X and NT both take advantage of x86's memory protections and both try to restrict kernel hotpatching (which was a massive PITA for 9x/MS Dos). They're both "modern" operating systems relative to what 9x was (and Dos, and other similar systems of that time period).
jjoonathan 12y ago
If so, where are the bells and whistles? The UI has been stagnant or in regress since 10.5. They've, what, added blur shaders, scroll bars, and reskinned to a fisher-price icon set? It's not like they don't have the money to pay for a large enough, good enough dev team. They just gave $200B back to investors! My bet would be that they never got around to bringing the core dev team back from the iPhone. I don't think it's a mistake that the last Mac OS X upgrade I was excited about happened in 2007. Still, that was 8 years ago! They should have noticed something was up with the replacements long before now!
- ghshephard 12y ago
  10.6 was actually a pretty amazing step forward in technology, and, ironically, simultaneously pitched as a "No New Features" release.
  - radley 12y ago
    10.6 came out in the infancy of iOS (summer '09). iOS sales weren't so astronomical as they are now. 10.6 was the last effective OSX update, with 10.9 being the start of the great downfall.
  - chaostheory 12y ago
    I'm really hoping that the next release is actually a "No New Features" release. The limitations in upgrading the hardware resources for stuff like iMac and the Macbooks are fine when you have a really efficient OS, but it's really horrible when you have a resource hog in terms of memory. I'm glad they addressed it in 10.10.3 but still, the only real option before that was getting a MacPro and there's no way I'm shelling out close to $4k for something that runs OSX smoothly again. In the end I had to ebay an old gen Mac Pro and upgrade that which really shouldn't be the case. There should be something in between an iMac and Mac Pro.
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      iMac can outperform the Mac Pro on single threaded tasks.
radley 12y ago
It's not the bells and whistles. They're making most of their money, and banking their future, on mobile. All of their A-team and B-team is in iOS and Apple Watch. OS X is definitely getting Apple's C-team. Not only is the UI getting converted over to being an add-on for iOS users, but sooooo much core OS X functionality is broken because the team working on OS X has no clue how feature-rich the OS used to be. Want a list of OS X bugs, limitations, and fallacies? I can EASILY put one together.
alexqgb 12y ago
I have a partitioned drive on my MBP, and an install of Snow Leopard (10.6.8) that I still use periodically. Every time I switch back to Yosemite I get irritated by the way it makes my machine seems slightly but noticeably less responsive. After a few hours I just get used to it. But when I switch back to Snow Leopard I always notice that everything feels quicker and more solid. I also find that once I'm in Snow Leopard, I tend to stay there until I actually need something on the Yosemite side. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of nice touches and features in Yosemite that I like. And I've never had problems with crashes, or really any serious issues. I just wish it didn't feel quite so bloated.

by mrmondo 12y ago

jakejake 12y ago

It must be related to particular hardware combinations. We have 9 macs here of various ages on Yosemite with no problems. We had one machine go totally wonky for a while, but it turned out to have a bad memory chip (off-brand memory upgrade that we did).

m4x 12y ago
Or hardware and software combinations. These posts seem to come up quite regularly and reliably generate a bunch of posts saying (a) "I have this problem; OS X has sucked since 10.X!", and (b) "I don't have a single one of the cited issues despite using the same hardware and software versions". It seems more likely that the issues are either caused by specific software that doesn't come with OS X or possibly by bad batches of hardware. In this case it sounds like Photos may be responsible. It would be better if people were able to identify the cause of the issue and file proper bug reports, rather than just berating OS X in general. Sometimes the issue isn't even a bug - for example I've seen many people complain about sleep/hibernate issues that are actually the result of Apple complying with an EU directive (see autopoweroff on https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/pmset.1.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin...)
radley 12y ago
Sounds like you have a lab or studio, so you're not using the core apps. I've seen WAY too many problems in OSX & related apps.

jaywunder 12y ago

>Yosemite has been a massive mess since the day it was released That's pretty unfair to say without giving examples.

mrmondo 12y ago
You want examples? Seriously? Just go look at the apple support forums and see the number of people complaining about Yosemite.
- gyc 12y ago
  People don't post on support forums if their computers don't have any problems.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
13 12y ago
Disable UI transparency, the volume change overlay still has black corners. http://i.imgur.com/pRNO7Oc.png http://i.imgur.com/pRNO7Oc.png It doesn't for iTunes, just for volume and screen brightness changes.
- threeseed 12y ago
  Not an issue for me (Late 2012 Mac Mini). Given that disabling UI transparency is for accessibility purposes and is only for certain graphics cards I wouldn't use this as an example of a major bug.
  - 13 12y ago
    I can replicate on a 2014 Retina MacBook and a 2012 MacBook Pro. Lots of people disable the transparency, not just for accessibility. I'm not a fan of burning up my whole battery doing Gaussian blurs.

DannoHung 12y ago

> easily the most buggy, unreliable OS I've ever used Are you 10? Seriously, when did you start using Operating Systems if this is the buggiest, most unreliable OS you've ever used.

mrmondo 12y ago
No I'm not 10 but thank you for asking. My team has a mix of MacBook Pros ranging from 2011-2014 - everyone has daily - yes daily problems with Yosemite. I have never had an OS crash and lock up as much as I've seen in Yosemite. - Beach balls are a daily occurrence. - Finder crashing when switching from wired to wireless. - iTunes refusing to launch for seemingly no reason. - Failure to map network drives until finder is force killed. - Poor wireless performance. - Corrupt boot process. - Excessive CPU usage from window server service.
- threeseed 12y ago
  We also have a team of Macs. Not once have I seen any of those issues. My suggestion would be to create a new user and migrate your data across. I suspect most of the issues with OSX are to do with their migration of preferences between releases.
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    You can suspect that but you'd be wrong. My early 2013 15" rM P experiences most of the issues the above poster describes. It also experiences graphics subsystem freezes even when the only app I have open is iTerm, requiring a power button reboot. Windows Server service can often be seen chewing 30% or more CPU, Wifi often needs to be turned off and on, while in range of my router (latest gen/firmware Express and Extreme). Every day I think I should go back to 10.9, but I'm worried for the day, if not already, that Apple refuses to back port security fixes (which may even have happened, recently). Especially a worry for me since I am involved in healthcare in my laptop.
    - threeseed 12y ago

coherentpony 12y ago

> easily the most buggy, unreliable OS I've ever used. Windows ME?

mrmondo 12y ago
At least ME didn't crash every day for most people.
- mirashii 12y ago
  Yes it did
- threeseed 12y ago
  You're being a bit ridiculous here. OSX is not crashing every day for "most people". There are tens of millions of users. There would be a massive uproar on all the forums and in the media if the OS was that unstable.
- UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
  Windows ME definitely had that reputation. I'll stick up for Windows NT based versions of Windows on stability grounds. But while 95, 98, and 98SE were "mostly stable" Windows ME was "mostly unstable" even on good hardware. The 9x based versions of Windows had a lot of problems. And as more LOC were added to Windows 9x it seems like the core design of that range showed that it couldn't scale (since an error in one sub-system "infected" another, due to limited memory protections across boundaries). So often something would crash, but it was actually a sister process which caused it (opps!). Essentially what I am saying is that the 9x range had a "upper complexity limit," so as it became more complex, it inherently became less stable (since more complexity=more bugs=less stability). ME was the upper limit of how complex that model could become. NT based versions of Windows (NT 3.xx, 4.0, 2K, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 (and server + embedded editions)) have no such problem since the core design is simply superior (in a large part due to x86 hardware improvements NT takes advantage of). Edit: Just to clarify: "Simply superior" in the final paragraph is contrasting Windows 9x to Windows NT (not OS X). OS X and NT both take advantage of x86's memory protections and both try to restrict kernel hotpatching (which was a massive PITA for 9x/MS Dos). They're both "modern" operating systems relative to what 9x was (and Dos, and other similar systems of that time period).

jjoonathan 12y ago

If so, where are the bells and whistles? The UI has been stagnant or in regress since 10.5. They've, what, added blur shaders, scroll bars, and reskinned to a fisher-price icon set? It's not like they don't have the money to pay for a large enough, good enough dev team. They just gave $200B back to investors! My bet would be that they never got around to bringing the core dev team back from the iPhone. I don't think it's a mistake that the last Mac OS X upgrade I was excited about happened in 2007. Still, that was 8 years ago! They should have noticed something was up with the replacements long before now!

ghshephard 12y ago
10.6 was actually a pretty amazing step forward in technology, and, ironically, simultaneously pitched as a "No New Features" release.
- radley 12y ago
  10.6 came out in the infancy of iOS (summer '09). iOS sales weren't so astronomical as they are now. 10.6 was the last effective OSX update, with 10.9 being the start of the great downfall.
- chaostheory 12y ago
  I'm really hoping that the next release is actually a "No New Features" release. The limitations in upgrading the hardware resources for stuff like iMac and the Macbooks are fine when you have a really efficient OS, but it's really horrible when you have a resource hog in terms of memory. I'm glad they addressed it in 10.10.3 but still, the only real option before that was getting a MacPro and there's no way I'm shelling out close to $4k for something that runs OSX smoothly again. In the end I had to ebay an old gen Mac Pro and upgrade that which really shouldn't be the case. There should be something in between an iMac and Mac Pro.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    iMac can outperform the Mac Pro on single threaded tasks.

radley 12y ago

It's not the bells and whistles. They're making most of their money, and banking their future, on mobile. All of their A-team and B-team is in iOS and Apple Watch. OS X is definitely getting Apple's C-team. Not only is the UI getting converted over to being an add-on for iOS users, but sooooo much core OS X functionality is broken because the team working on OS X has no clue how feature-rich the OS used to be. Want a list of OS X bugs, limitations, and fallacies? I can EASILY put one together.

alexqgb 12y ago

I have a partitioned drive on my MBP, and an install of Snow Leopard (10.6.8) that I still use periodically. Every time I switch back to Yosemite I get irritated by the way it makes my machine seems slightly but noticeably less responsive. After a few hours I just get used to it. But when I switch back to Snow Leopard I always notice that everything feels quicker and more solid. I also find that once I'm in Snow Leopard, I tend to stay there until I actually need something on the Yosemite side. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of nice touches and features in Yosemite that I like. And I've never had problems with crashes, or really any serious issues. I just wish it didn't feel quite so bloated.