Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
A question that always generates calm and reasonable discussion: What OS do you use? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 149 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Saturday August 08 2015, @09:33PM

    by wantkitteh (3362) on Saturday August 08 2015, @09:33PM (#220000) Homepage Journal

    Hmmm, strange. I get no delay at all pulling it up. Then again, I am using a Core i7 (mobile, Q2GHz) and an SSD with 8gb of DDR3. Pauses like that usually mean it's time to nuke&pave, it seems Mac OS is (has always?) been subject to performance drops over time, just like Windo*ahem*any other OS. Then again, the sheer age of your hardware.... Nothing lasts forever, as much as we'd like it to, know what I mean?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by mendax on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:28AM

    by mendax (2840) on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:28AM (#220173)

    My new iMac, bought in June, is a 2.7 ghz quad-core Intel Core i5, with a 1 TB hard drive instead of SSD (I don't trust it quite yet) but with 8 gb of DDR3. I agree with you that the performance problems you noted in that evil boot virus from the devils in Redmond are not uncommon when using older hardware. I seem to recall the howls when folks transitioned from XP to Vista, only to discover just how god awful slow it was. The problems I have with Yosemite on my 2008 iMac are nowhere near as bad as people had with the transition to Vista. It could be faster on app start up. But once the app gets started, its performance is more than adequate... usually. The exception is when I've overloaded the poor thing and it's having to swap. But that happens only rarely and awful performance is expected then.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.

    • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:47AM

      by wantkitteh (3362) on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:47AM (#220179) Homepage Journal

      I think that may be your real problem then - if you don't trust SSDs, at least use an SSHD. [hexus.net] I have one of those drives in my Linux desktop, I don't know how the cacheing algorithm figures out what to keep in that 8gb NAND, but I suspect witchcraft myself.

      • (Score: 2) by mendax on Monday August 10 2015, @03:10AM

        by mendax (2840) on Monday August 10 2015, @03:10AM (#220532)

        Well, that is an option, but it's still a recipe for disaster in my book. I just don't quite believe what is quoted about the write wear on SSD modules. Not yet. Think of me as politically liberal and technologically conservative.

        --
        It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.

        • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Monday August 10 2015, @10:11AM

          by wantkitteh (3362) on Monday August 10 2015, @10:11AM (#220614) Homepage Journal

          You don't have to believe the quotes - they've been tested already. [techreport.com] The worst drive in these endurance tests got through 728TB of writes before it hard-failed. A couple of the units were up to 1.5PB (yes, PETAbytes) and still going. Obviously your own usage case applies here, but I'd say it's pretty safe to trust SSDs already.