[deleted]
OS X 10.10 Yosemite: The Ars Technica Review
51–60 of 233 posts
Re: OS X 10.10 Yosemite: The Ars Technica Review
#52None of these reiews answer the one question I always want answered; will this cause my MBP to crash more often than 10.8.5? I have all the features I need, I want fewer GPU panics. I know these reviewers cannot answer this question, I just want to point out that it's the only relevant question for me. Given Apple's track record, this release will most likely cause my MBP to crash more often, but I want data on that.…
I started experiencing GPU panics on rMBP in the past week as well, I guess NVidia or related circuits have some issues. I switched it off using gfxcardstatus and now it's stable running on Intel HD only. Try to do the same - if it stops crashing, your discrete GPU might be damaged.
Re: OS X 10.10 Yosemite: The Ars Technica Review
#53I actually read this all the way through... Quality writing.
I'll check it out, but in his past reviews, I've had the impression that the author really likes showing off his background knowledge of all things Apple. A lot of the text is irrelevant to the review, and therefore shouldn't be there. Also, the endless, endless links. He really needs to learn when something should be linked and when it shouldn't -- it really affects the reading experience on the web. You're constant…
>background knowledge of all things Apple
Not a Hypercritical or ATP listener, huh?
Re: OS X 10.10 Yosemite: The Ars Technica Review
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even though it feels very fad-ish because it's been used as a buzzword/bandwagon, I don't feel like it's actually a fad. My view is that that digital design has matured to the point where designers no longer feel they have to wow users with lots of effects and visual flourishes, allowing for a more purpose driven design. My hope/opinion is that is here to stay.
As ericd says, a lot of those little flourishes actually aid human perception and cognition. Yes, we don't need giant flashy effects or lots of animation, but that doesn't mean that the most functional design is the most minimal. Also, it's kind've ironic that you can now have a 5k display to show off your flat, monochrome circles...
This. Shadows (fake 3D), textures, colors, and other elements may seem like a gimmick, but they are fundamentally crucial in visual cognition of the UI. What's sad is that so much UI design is driven by meaningless trends instead of more precise research data on how well UI elements work.
Re: OS X 10.10 Yosemite: The Ars Technica Review
#55None of these reiews answer the one question I always want answered; will this cause my MBP to crash more often than 10.8.5? I have all the features I need, I want fewer GPU panics. I know these reviewers cannot answer this question, I just want to point out that it's the only relevant question for me. Given Apple's track record, this release will most likely cause my MBP to crash more often, but I want data on that.…
Around two months ago, I switched from running 10.8.5 on my main machine to running the 10.10 betas full time and I've not had a single panic. (Late 2012 iMac 27").
However, If I were you I'd still wait for 10.10.1 though, just to be on the safe side.
Re: OS X 10.10 Yosemite: The Ars Technica Review
#56What's missing here for me is some kind of performance evaluation. If I upgrade my 2011 MBA from Mavericks to Yosemite, should I expect any change in performance, for better or worse? Did the power management change in any significant way? Apple's mobile OSs have a way of obsoleting older hardware. I'm curious to know if their desktop OSs are trending that way as well, or if they're making performance gains instead.
There might be a small battery time reduction because these new vibrancy effects will cause a bit more cpu consumption than Mavericks. It's probably negligible though.
Re: OS X 10.10 Yosemite: The Ars Technica Review
#57None of these reiews answer the one question I always want answered; will this cause my MBP to crash more often than 10.8.5? I have all the features I need, I want fewer GPU panics. I know these reviewers cannot answer this question, I just want to point out that it's the only relevant question for me. Given Apple's track record, this release will most likely cause my MBP to crash more often, but I want data on that.…
Yes, I've never had OS X crash as often as Mavericks. And some of the crashes are completely repeatable. For example, open a lot of windows (20 terminal windows, 5-6 projects in Sublime, a bunch of browser windows used to test apps), turn on mission control and it just crashes every single time. I haven't done more test to figure the exact number of windows until it crashes but I know that it does for my workflow. Ad…
If it's that reproducible, it would probably be good to file a bug report with Apple.
Re: OS X 10.10 Yosemite: The Ars Technica Review
#58I actually read this all the way through... Quality writing.
I'll check it out, but in his past reviews, I've had the impression that the author really likes showing off his background knowledge of all things Apple. A lot of the text is irrelevant to the review, and therefore shouldn't be there. Also, the endless, endless links. He really needs to learn when something should be linked and when it shouldn't -- it really affects the reading experience on the web. You're constant…
He stated in the past that you shouldn't care about the links except if you don't understand something. I've been reading his reviews for the fourth or fifth time now, and skipping the links never bothered me.
Also, there's other very good straight to the point reviews. John Siracusa's review is not supposed to be a TLDR laundry list of changes, there's no point in being trapped in the reviewed product and forget the things that led to it.
Re: OS X 10.10 Yosemite: The Ars Technica Review
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mavericks added performance and battery life, but as far as I'm aware there isn't a focus for that on Yosemite - the work having been done in Mavericks.
Apple has a pretty poor track record in recent years on perf. Especially with iOS updates. If Yosemite didn't focus on perf then it seems likely to have gone down and older machines will suffer. Thats not necessarily wrong but it is important to understand before you dive in.
I don't know that that's been the case on OSX though — since 10.0 the story has consistently been that each release is as fast or faster, albeit more memory hungry.
I'm sure I'm missing one but I can't remember any OSX release being associated with performance complaints.
Re: OS X 10.10 Yosemite: The Ars Technica Review
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has a pretty poor track record in recent years on perf. Especially with iOS updates. If Yosemite didn't focus on perf then it seems likely to have gone down and older machines will suffer. Thats not necessarily wrong but it is important to understand before you dive in.
> Apple has a pretty poor track record in recent years on perf Apple has a bigger problem where they're popular enough that every release has a ton of people who post subjective problem reports but rarely provide repeatable benchmarks or failures. They're definitely not perfect but if you see a report which doesn't have a specific test with the exact steps needed to duplicate it, it's wise to assume it's an urban leg…
I have experienced it first hand with both MacBooks and iPhones. That's enough to make me hesitate to click upgrade. It's certainly anecdotal but it's my anecdote that I would be a fool to not take under consideration. You should treat my story with more salt. Anecdotally a lot of people have experi need what I have and are also hesitant to update based on their own personal anecdotes. Take it as you will.