Live data from Hacker News

OS X 10.9.3 Is Toxic

brendangregg.com

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: OS X 10.9.3 Is Toxic

#131

In an attempt to balance the discussion, I'm on 10.9.3 and I've had absolutely zero issues so far.

Ditto. Retina MBP and an older 11" Air and 10.9 has been solid. I never have to reboot either of them except to do some updates.

I've had more issues with hardware reliability with Apple products than with software issues.

Re: OS X 10.9.3 Is Toxic

#132
I got a couple of kernel panics on upgrading to 10.9.3 but then Nvidia released new drivers for it and i haven't had a single kernel panic since switching to them.

Although - one port on the graphicscard won't wake up if a connected screen goes to sleep. Nvidia had that problem on the first released 10.9.2 driver, but fixed it about a day later.

Could you try checking if the Nvidia supplied drivers helps?

Re: OS X 10.9.3 Is Toxic

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, but I paid ~3000 Euros for my Macbook (thats 4000 Dollars) and that's exactly why this isn't acceptable to me.

That argument makes no sense. It's a fundamental fact that technology isn't perfect and sometimes you need to fix things - regardless of the cost of the device... And you would rather that your $4000 machine kept crashing rather then spending 30 minutes doing something that could fix it?

The problem is that this involves more than 30 minutes of my time. Setting up my development environment after the clean install will take half a day and I'm sure that I will forget to configure something in the process which will cost me even more time when I need the tool working.

I switched from Lenovo (which just worked without any problems) to Mac because I thought it's the same quality (it'll just work) with the bonus of allowing me to develop for iOS.

As it turns out, superficial things like the look and feel is better on the Mac, but it's nowhere near in terms of stability. I used my Lenovo for 3 years in work and at home as my only machine, whereas the Mac is in use for 1 day per week and I've already had more crashes on the Mac than I ever had on my old Lenovo.

I just don't have the time or the interest to babysit my laptop.

Re: OS X 10.9.3 Is Toxic

#134
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to raise a counterpoint. I have, in my house, 3 Macs, two of them running 10.9, and the only one that ever panicked was the one that's not on 10.9. 10.9, at least here, is rock solid on both an aging MBP13 and on a 2 month old MBPr13. Both are regularly plugged to external displays, via DVI or VGA adapters and through AppleTVs/Airplay. The only thing that bothers me is that, for some reason, all three have som…

Ditto on the wifi reconnection problems. I thought I had it narrowed down to the 5GHz band, but that seemed to be a different issue. Also, I would say I've had relatively zero problems in recent years. Every now and again there will be a weird freeze, but so infrequently (i.e., a few times per year at most) that I don't blame the OS for it because I don't have any useful info.

Indeed. There is something very wrong with Brandon's Mac.

Re: OS X 10.9.3 Is Toxic

#135
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly how freedoms are signed away.

I think the problem is in a different place. Ask yourself this: If I post a piece of software on the internet, and on page 57 of the 132 page license agreement there is a provision that says you have to pay me $150,000 every time there is a lunar eclipse, what do you think as a policy matter that a court should do when there is a lunar eclipse and I file a lawsuit for non-payment in breach of contract against a milli…

To be clear, many/most software contracts limit the right of the user to do things like reverse engineer it, and some contracts also include rather controversial arbitration clauses.

Re: OS X 10.9.3 Is Toxic

#136

I've been a Mac user for 6 months (MBP), I hardly tax the machine but it has crashed a dozen times. Twice today, and five times this week in total. Not since Windows 98 have I seen such an unstable OS. I've seen less BSOD in the last 15 years than I've seen kernel panics in the last week.

In my experience, people who've had exorbitant numbers of kernel panics on Macs have had tons of things installed that muck around with MacOS X internals. VirtualBox, old SIMBL hacks, manual fan controls, etc. Those are all notoriously unstable and can cause lots of kernel panics.

Usually when I start getting a ton of kernel panics, I suspect hardware - bad memory or hard drive. Just had an iMac doing that last month and it was indeed the hard drive.

Anecdotal information is not particularly helpful but I have had almost zero 10.9.x kernel panic problems on any of our 11 machines except for one that had bad RAM and another that the hard drive was dying.

Re: OS X 10.9.3 Is Toxic

#137
Older OSX updates have done the same thing to my similarly older Macs. I wish Apple would be more diligent with their testing - especially when it comes to video.

Re: OS X 10.9.3 Is Toxic

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crashes are not statistics. Code crashes or it doesn't. So something smells in Denmark.

Cmon. There's no such thing as a 'false positive' in code crashes. Its a binary thing - correct code doesn't do it. So something is wrong with an OS that crashes for somebody. Its got nothing to do with selection bias. And if it crashes for certain people chronically, then there's a syndrome that's reproducible. Meaning it is likely to affect a lot of people in similar circumstances.

Crashes aren't new. OS X has had them for a long time, they're just less common than some other operating systems.

The question is whether you can go from "2 or 3 friends of mine said they have more crashes than before" to "10.9.3 is more prone to crashing than 10.9.2." For all we know, the entire sample is using some 3rd party utility that crashes under the new update, which is bad, but is also not something you can completely blame Apple for.

Post reply on HN