 |
 |
Poll: OS X Version Stability
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tempe, AZ & Wash. D.C.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Please steer anyone you know to this important poll...
CowEdit: Wow! MacNN rocks! Cool response so far! I just wanted to thank you all for voting and the input! This has been a great response especially considering I only started this the other day! I hope this helps anyone else out who was also wondering what the consensus was.
Sincerely,
Cow ^_^
(Last edited by cowicide; Jun 1, 2003 at 10:34 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
I wen't from 10.2.3 to 10.2.6 Both of which have been fine. Never used 10.2.4 or 10.2.5.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Youngsville, NC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Haven't had a problem with any of them really. I don't theme or use haxies though, that might help
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: France
Status:
Offline
|
|
10.2.6 in Speed and Stability.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: NYC
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've never had any major troubles either (and it's been a while since I've had any minor troubles either, come to think of it). So, I voted for 10.2.6 since that cured some of the USB problems others were having after 10.2.5.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
No problems with any of them. Which option do I choose? 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Union,MO,USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've never had problems with any of them and I have haxies to the max. Perhaps you should try that poll again only this time add the choice of all of the above or none of the above.
|
|
It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tempe, AZ & Wash. D.C.
Status:
Offline
|
|
> No problems with any of them.
> Which option do I choose?
"Angus" and "Cow" in the same thread... is it fate?
Since you've had no issues with any versions, I guess you could vote for the one that "feels" the fastest? I can't vote myself, because I've only upgraded to 10.2.3 thus far...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bellevue, WA
Status:
Offline
|
|
10.2.6 works fine on my FW800..snappier?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
I used 10.2.3 for ages and ages, as it offered the best S&S options on my machines...
10.2.4, and the associated modem bug, totally trashed my install on my main machine.
I recently went up to 10.2.6... a great build. No problems at all. Very speedy.
Peace,
Marc
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I can never tell the difference between the point upgrades. They come out, I wait a week to make sure they're solid, and I install them. Never noticed additional slowdowns or instability after an update.
|
|
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.
-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by cowicide:
Since you've had no issues with any versions, I guess you could vote for the one that "feels" the fastest?
I perceive no difference. If it's there, it' small.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris, France
Status:
Offline
|
|
a combo update of 10.2.6 on a fresh 10.2.3 rocks !
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tempe, AZ & Wash. D.C.
Status:
Offline
|
|
> a combo update of 10.2.6 on
> a fresh 10.2.3 rocks !
I'm going to do it now and post my results so I can finally vote on my own poll.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
They're all equally stable and snappy for me.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
x.x.1 upgrades dont have anything to do with speed, much less stability.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The City Of Diamonds
Status:
Offline
|
|
I never had stability issues, from OS X 10.1 to 10.2.6 . Speed only improves (well, I didn't notice speed differences in 10.1.x and 10.2.x releases.)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tempe, AZ & Wash. D.C.
Status:
Offline
|
|
> x.x.1 upgrades dont have anything to do
> with speed, much less stability.
Then what are they for?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Laurentia
Status:
Offline
|
|
I agree with most of the other posters.
Stability in all of these has never been an issue for me (Ghz Ti, Gig RAM, PHP, MySQL, Apache, no USB maddness or third party hacks/kernel extensions).
I have only had X tank on me 1 time. And that was a classic/sleep related panic in 10.0!! 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Aiken, South Carolina, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
i had a bad experience w/ 10.2.5, or was it 10.2.3?, anyway i'm running 10.2.0, should i upgrade to 10.2.6? 
|
|
Apple II GS | Powerbook 165 | iMac Rev. A 96mb RAM| iBook G3 500mhz, 128mb RAM | Power Macintosh G5 1.6ghz, 2.25gb RAM | Black MacBook 2ghz, 2gb RAM | iPhone Rev. A 8gb HD
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by BurpetheadX:
x.x.1 upgrades dont have anything to do with speed, much less stability.
Oh but they are... For instance the 10.2.6 ugrade fixed a usb stability issue. What did you think these small upgrades were for?
|
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SoCal
Status:
Offline
|
|
As with just about everybody else, I can't detect the speed differences between the different versions, nor have I had any stability problems with any of them.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New York, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
cpac
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
I will admit it, I am an OS X Junkie. With my 350 MHz G4 Tower (PCI Graphics version), I have toyed with every version of X since 10.1. Puma was better than Cheetah, Jaguar rocks the house. Only draw back is that my external SCSI burner no longer works with it. No worries, got a new one. 10.2.6 seems to handle things greatly, especially with the theme changer, Duality 4 GT. I have yet to experience a freeze, crash or kernel panic. I can't wait for OS X Panther.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tempe, AZ & Wash. D.C.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by blackbird_1.0:
i had a bad experience w/ 10.2.5, or was it 10.2.3?, anyway i'm running 10.2.0, should i upgrade to 10.2.6?
Well, if 10.2 does everything you want it to and never crashes, etc. You might as well stick w/ it. However, it would appear people favor 10.2.6 overall.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by voodoo:
Oh but they are... For instance the 10.2.6 ugrade fixed a usb stability issue. What did you think these small upgrades were for?
Bug fixes. Occasionally bugs which affect stability are fixed, but rarely are there any performance enhancements worth speaking of.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
