Still far too many holes in Yosemite to consider upgrading for me at this point. I really wish Apple would go back to a bi-yearly OS X release schedule. It seems more and more that releasing on a yearly basis results in rushed an unfinished OSX's plagued with bugs.
So what bugs exist? Have you even used Yosemite since the final release? I'm guessing not and are just saying things without actually using a final release for a period to time. Yosemite is one of the best OS releases in a long time. ANY major OS release is going to have bugs, even releases of OS X on an 18-24 month cycle had issues at first.
One of the things I think helped with the lack of major bugs in Yosemite is the public beta program. I wish they'd expand this to dot dot releases. More and more people could have tested 10.10.1 to see if indeed the WiFi bug was squashed.
I really wish Apple would go back to a bi-yearly OS X release schedule. It seems more and more that releasing on a yearly basis results in rushed an unfinished OSX's plagued with bugs.
Reducing the release frequency (releasing less often) will not solve the problem at all. That is a myth based on the theory that you can "test" quality into a product by doing something like freezing all new feature development for the last 12 months of the development cycle and only testing what has already been developed up to that point. This is by far that least effective and most expensive quality strategy you can possibly employ. Quality needs to be built into a product and doing much more frequent but much more incremental releases is much more effective. The integration and testing needs to occur immediately as the feature is developed and not deferred to a huge big-bang effort on the back end of the development cycle when it's mixed into a huge bucket of many other untested and partially integrated changes and new features. The big-bang strategies are the ones that caused Microsoft to go years and years between releases and still unleash something like Vista on the world. How did that work out?
Apple would be better off releasing much more frequently (monthly, weekly, daily, or whenever necessary) and foregoing the pretense and ceremony associated with "big-splash name-changing" releases. That's 1990s marketing driven product strategy that's no longer appropriate for the current connected computing environment. The OS is no longer a product, it's simply a service platform for running products and accessing the rest of the connected worldwide computing infrastructure. Apple is effectively giving away the OS for free so why do they feel compelled to make a big deal about what name it has this year or this week? Does your favorite web site change its name every time it adds a new feature? Web sites are generally updated continuously and there's no reason why OSs can't approximate the same model. This should be customer need and capability driven, not marketing driven. The sales and marketing people need to wake up and realize it's no longer 1995. You'd figure the $0 price tag on each new OS X "sale" would have been a little hint to them that times have changed. I hope they didn't already spend their commissions.
The most notable for me are the graphical ones — blurry or pale pdfs in preview and extremely choppy system animations a few hours after a restart. Furthermore, unusable airdrop and handoff to iOS — I have been able to get a handoff icon on my Macbook only once and even then clicking it just rendered Mail unresponsive. Fortunately I don't get have any problems with Wi-Fi.
Read the reddit page of Yosemite bugs — plenty of serious problems there.
Read the reddit page of Yosemite bugs — plenty of serious problems there.
Problems with those people calling it a website you mean? Because this has to be an insult to peoples intelligence, making them think this is a website:
Reducing the release frequency (releasing less often) will not solve the problem at all. That is a myth based on the theory that you can "test" quality into a product by doing something like freezing all new feature development for the last 12 months of the development cycle and only testing what has already been developed up to that point. This is by far that least effective and most expensive quality strategy you can possibly employ. Quality needs to be built into a product and doing much more frequent but much more incremental releases is much more effective. The integration and testing needs to occur immediately as the feature is developed and not deferred to a huge big-bang effort on the back end of the development cycle when it's mixed into a huge bucket of many other untested and partially integrated changes and new features. The big-bang strategies are the ones that caused Microsoft to go years and years between releases and still unleash something like Vista on the world. How did that work out?
Apple would be better off releasing much more frequently (monthly, weekly, daily, or whenever necessary) and foregoing the pretense and ceremony associated with "big-splash name-changing" releases. That's 1990s marketing driven product strategy that's no longer appropriate for the current connected computing environment. The OS is no longer a product, it's simply a service platform for running products and accessing the rest of the connected worldwide computing infrastructure. Apple is effectively giving away the OS for free so why do they feel compelled to make a big deal about what name it has this year or this week? Does your favorite web site change its name every time it adds a new feature? Web sites are generally updated continuously and there's no reason why OSs can't approximate the same model. This should be customer need and capability driven, not marketing driven. The sales and marketing people need to wake up and realize it's no longer 1995. You'd figure the $0 price tag on each new OS X "sale" would have been a little hint to them that times have changed. I hope they didn't already spend their commissions.
Sorry thats not the way an OS can be released. It's true that features should be tested as added during the cycle, but that for internal and beta testers. A website is far less complex, and most importantly, can be A/B tested and the older website can be restored immediately.
Also an OS needs integration across all it's parts. New applications need new API to function, but those API could cause problems elsewhere.
I would suggest most often your so called 'bugs' change from machine to machine due to the different levels of directory corruption and thirds party apps etc.. As to the interface, it is the best OS X version, hell best modern GUI there is IMHO, that opinion based upon 36 years using Apple equipment.
The whole blaming of 3rd party applications for OS flaws is dumb. A 3rd party app isn't causing wifi problems, or crashes in the Finder, or anything else which is OS based.
The most notable for me are the graphical ones — blurry or pale pdfs in preview and extremely choppy system animations a few hours after a restart. Furthermore, unusable airdrop and handoff to iOS — I have been able to get a handoff icon on my Macbook only once and even then clicking it just rendered Mail unresponsive. Fortunately I don't get have any problems with Wi-Fi.
Read the reddit page of Yosemite bugs — plenty of serious problems there.
That choppiness on re-install is a big issue. It is generally the indexer which is running for Spotlight - the notorious MDWorker(s). The modern OS warns about the choppiness but apparently they can't fix it, to index the disk takes a lot of time and CPU.
In general I am quite happy with Yosemite. However, there is a known problem with Apple Mail's junk mail filter. The junk mail filter does not work for iCloud accounts. This was reported to me by a senior engineer when I called tech support. I was told I had to forward all junk mail to spam@icloud.com. This is a tedious work around and in the end did not work. I could not car less if my windows are transparent or not, I do want my junk mail filters to work.
So public betas should brick apple's new computers and you think that is acceptable? If that is to be the case, they shouldn't give us seed access. Bugs maybe ok, but not total os failure....
10.10.2 appears to connect better to my iPhone via Instant Hotspot. Broken is the ability to drag email messages into a folder located on an IMAP server. Curiously, you can still select the message and then choose Message:Move To:[mailboxname].
So public betas should brick apple's new computers and you think that is acceptable? If that is to be the case, they shouldn't give us seed access. Bugs maybe ok, but not total os failure....
It's a developer beta. Not a public beta.
There really is no need to install these unless the release notes fix a problem you need fixed or you need the API if there are any new. Installing the pre .0 beta makes sense as there are lots of new API devs need. Even then you are better off waiting for a later beta.
Apples testing is getting worse but if you download a .x beta then you are responsible.
I am new to the Mac world (as of this year) after using Windows for almost 20 years. I have read so many comments on these threads; and I guess I am puzzled why more people don't try a clean install? I know clean installs versus upgrades can be time consuming. But the advantages can really pay off. For example, I was one of those people with wi-fi problems after upgrading from Mavericks to Yosemite. But when I decided to nuke my hard drive and start over with a clean install, the problems were gone. And while I hope I am not speaking too soon, my macbook pro (late 2013 edition) is running flawlessly!
Of course, the trick to a clean install is having a new time machine backup or otherwise with all of your most recent personal data and having a bit of a comfort zone doing it. We all know there's several ways of doing a clean install. Personally, I am old school and like physical media. So I made a USB stick with a bootable installer of Yosemite 10.10.1. For anyone who is continuing to have chronic problems, whether it's wi-fi, bluetooth or otherwise, a clean install is certainly something to at least consider after making a backup of all of your personal data.
And if anyone is interested in making a bootable installer of Yosemite on a USB stick, I think the below article does a good job of outlining the steps.
Now that I am back up and running again with a clean install of Yosemite and no hickups with Yosemite, I have made a new image (using time machine) of my entire setup.
Comments
Still far too many holes in Yosemite to consider upgrading for me at this point. I really wish Apple would go back to a bi-yearly OS X release schedule. It seems more and more that releasing on a yearly basis results in rushed an unfinished OSX's plagued with bugs.
So what bugs exist? Have you even used Yosemite since the final release? I'm guessing not and are just saying things without actually using a final release for a period to time. Yosemite is one of the best OS releases in a long time. ANY major OS release is going to have bugs, even releases of OS X on an 18-24 month cycle had issues at first.
One of the things I think helped with the lack of major bugs in Yosemite is the public beta program. I wish they'd expand this to dot dot releases. More and more people could have tested 10.10.1 to see if indeed the WiFi bug was squashed.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6607637?start=0&tstart=0
Dot releases are sent out via the public beta program. I got 10.10.1 a few days before public release via the public beta.
They are also released usually much earlier to developers -- but I am not sure what either has to do with the subject?
Reducing the release frequency (releasing less often) will not solve the problem at all. That is a myth based on the theory that you can "test" quality into a product by doing something like freezing all new feature development for the last 12 months of the development cycle and only testing what has already been developed up to that point. This is by far that least effective and most expensive quality strategy you can possibly employ. Quality needs to be built into a product and doing much more frequent but much more incremental releases is much more effective. The integration and testing needs to occur immediately as the feature is developed and not deferred to a huge big-bang effort on the back end of the development cycle when it's mixed into a huge bucket of many other untested and partially integrated changes and new features. The big-bang strategies are the ones that caused Microsoft to go years and years between releases and still unleash something like Vista on the world. How did that work out?
Apple would be better off releasing much more frequently (monthly, weekly, daily, or whenever necessary) and foregoing the pretense and ceremony associated with "big-splash name-changing" releases. That's 1990s marketing driven product strategy that's no longer appropriate for the current connected computing environment. The OS is no longer a product, it's simply a service platform for running products and accessing the rest of the connected worldwide computing infrastructure. Apple is effectively giving away the OS for free so why do they feel compelled to make a big deal about what name it has this year or this week? Does your favorite web site change its name every time it adds a new feature? Web sites are generally updated continuously and there's no reason why OSs can't approximate the same model. This should be customer need and capability driven, not marketing driven. The sales and marketing people need to wake up and realize it's no longer 1995. You'd figure the $0 price tag on each new OS X "sale" would have been a little hint to them that times have changed. I hope they didn't already spend their commissions.
What? Too many holes? It's pretty much flawless.
Yes, too many holes.
The most notable for me are the graphical ones — blurry or pale pdfs in preview and extremely choppy system animations a few hours after a restart. Furthermore, unusable airdrop and handoff to iOS — I have been able to get a handoff icon on my Macbook only once and even then clicking it just rendered Mail unresponsive. Fortunately I don't get have any problems with Wi-Fi.
Read the reddit page of Yosemite bugs — plenty of serious problems there.
Problems with those people calling it a website you mean? Because this has to be an insult to peoples intelligence, making them think this is a website:
Still far too many holes in Yosemite to consider upgrading for me at this point.
Not even remotely true. Where do you get the nerve to comment when you're not even using it? I'm sure you're gonna tell me you "tried it".
Do not install this beta on the Retina iMac. They screwed up.
Retina resolution is completely OFF in the beta and a restart booted to black screen.
I Time Machine'd my way back to 10.10.1 right quick.
Reducing the release frequency (releasing less often) will not solve the problem at all. That is a myth based on the theory that you can "test" quality into a product by doing something like freezing all new feature development for the last 12 months of the development cycle and only testing what has already been developed up to that point. This is by far that least effective and most expensive quality strategy you can possibly employ. Quality needs to be built into a product and doing much more frequent but much more incremental releases is much more effective. The integration and testing needs to occur immediately as the feature is developed and not deferred to a huge big-bang effort on the back end of the development cycle when it's mixed into a huge bucket of many other untested and partially integrated changes and new features. The big-bang strategies are the ones that caused Microsoft to go years and years between releases and still unleash something like Vista on the world. How did that work out?
Apple would be better off releasing much more frequently (monthly, weekly, daily, or whenever necessary) and foregoing the pretense and ceremony associated with "big-splash name-changing" releases. That's 1990s marketing driven product strategy that's no longer appropriate for the current connected computing environment. The OS is no longer a product, it's simply a service platform for running products and accessing the rest of the connected worldwide computing infrastructure. Apple is effectively giving away the OS for free so why do they feel compelled to make a big deal about what name it has this year or this week? Does your favorite web site change its name every time it adds a new feature? Web sites are generally updated continuously and there's no reason why OSs can't approximate the same model. This should be customer need and capability driven, not marketing driven. The sales and marketing people need to wake up and realize it's no longer 1995. You'd figure the $0 price tag on each new OS X "sale" would have been a little hint to them that times have changed. I hope they didn't already spend their commissions.
Sorry thats not the way an OS can be released. It's true that features should be tested as added during the cycle, but that for internal and beta testers. A website is far less complex, and most importantly, can be A/B tested and the older website can be restored immediately.
Also an OS needs integration across all it's parts. New applications need new API to function, but those API could cause problems elsewhere.
I would suggest most often your so called 'bugs' change from machine to machine due to the different levels of directory corruption and thirds party apps etc.. As to the interface, it is the best OS X version, hell best modern GUI there is IMHO, that opinion based upon 36 years using Apple equipment.
The whole blaming of 3rd party applications for OS flaws is dumb. A 3rd party app isn't causing wifi problems, or crashes in the Finder, or anything else which is OS based.
Yes, too many holes.
The most notable for me are the graphical ones — blurry or pale pdfs in preview and extremely choppy system animations a few hours after a restart. Furthermore, unusable airdrop and handoff to iOS — I have been able to get a handoff icon on my Macbook only once and even then clicking it just rendered Mail unresponsive. Fortunately I don't get have any problems with Wi-Fi.
Read the reddit page of Yosemite bugs — plenty of serious problems there.
That choppiness on re-install is a big issue. It is generally the indexer which is running for Spotlight - the notorious MDWorker(s). The modern OS warns about the choppiness but apparently they can't fix it, to index the disk takes a lot of time and CPU.
It's a beta.
In general I am quite happy with Yosemite. However, there is a known problem with Apple Mail's junk mail filter. The junk mail filter does not work for iCloud accounts. This was reported to me by a senior engineer when I called tech support. I was told I had to forward all junk mail to spam@icloud.com. This is a tedious work around and in the end did not work. I could not car less if my windows are transparent or not, I do want my junk mail filters to work.
So public betas should brick apple's new computers and you think that is acceptable? If that is to be the case, they shouldn't give us seed access. Bugs maybe ok, but not total os failure....
It's a developer beta. Not a public beta.
There really is no need to install these unless the release notes fix a problem you need fixed or you need the API if there are any new. Installing the pre .0 beta makes sense as there are lots of new API devs need. Even then you are better off waiting for a later beta.
Apples testing is getting worse but if you download a .x beta then you are responsible.
I am new to the Mac world (as of this year) after using Windows for almost 20 years. I have read so many comments on these threads; and I guess I am puzzled why more people don't try a clean install? I know clean installs versus upgrades can be time consuming. But the advantages can really pay off. For example, I was one of those people with wi-fi problems after upgrading from Mavericks to Yosemite. But when I decided to nuke my hard drive and start over with a clean install, the problems were gone. And while I hope I am not speaking too soon, my macbook pro (late 2013 edition) is running flawlessly!
Of course, the trick to a clean install is having a new time machine backup or otherwise with all of your most recent personal data and having a bit of a comfort zone doing it. We all know there's several ways of doing a clean install. Personally, I am old school and like physical media. So I made a USB stick with a bootable installer of Yosemite 10.10.1. For anyone who is continuing to have chronic problems, whether it's wi-fi, bluetooth or otherwise, a clean install is certainly something to at least consider after making a backup of all of your personal data.
And if anyone is interested in making a bootable installer of Yosemite on a USB stick, I think the below article does a good job of outlining the steps.
http://osxdaily.com/2014/10/18/clean-install-os-x-yosemite/
Now that I am back up and running again with a clean install of Yosemite and no hickups with Yosemite, I have made a new image (using time machine) of my entire setup.