←back to thread

MacOS Catalina: Slow by Design?

(sigpipe.macromates.com)
2031 points jrk | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.314s | source | bottom
Show context
leephillips ◴[] No.23273433[source]
This is completely insane. I am so glad I decided years ago to leave closed operating systems behind.

This design seems to cement the trend at Apple to position their products as consumer appliances, not platforms useful for development.

replies(2): >>23273517 #>>23273942 #
Nextgrid ◴[] No.23273517[source]
> I am so glad I decided years ago to leave closed operating systems behind.

The problem is, there's nothing else out there. Everything is going to shit in one way or another. Windows is now a disaster, Linux was always a disaster in terms of user experience and isn't improving.

Mac OS was the last bastion of somewhat good, thoughtful design, user experience and attention to detail and now they've gone to shit too.

replies(11): >>23273559 #>>23273633 #>>23273636 #>>23273647 #>>23273673 #>>23274768 #>>23275140 #>>23275299 #>>23277410 #>>23279544 #>>23285193 #
kick ◴[] No.23273559[source]
Linux was always a disaster in terms of user experience and isn't improving.

Curious: what have you tried? People who use "Linux" as a catch-all in terms of UX usually have only tried a single distribution with a single desktop environment.

replies(7): >>23273618 #>>23273700 #>>23273748 #>>23273752 #>>23273849 #>>23274337 #>>23275962 #
m463 ◴[] No.23273748[source]
People who have used ubuntu might want to just once try arch linux.

I had an ubuntu machine that took a while to boot even with an SSD. Later I installed arch linux on the same machine and boom! it would be to the desktop in seconds. It was night and day.

replies(1): >>23274308 #
1. zozbot234 ◴[] No.23274308[source]
Debian is just as quick, and does not have the problematic "rolling" updates of Arch. (It does have the "testing" and "unstable" channels which are roughly comparable, but the Debian folks won't tell you to use them in production.)
replies(2): >>23275173 #>>23280235 #
2. kick ◴[] No.23275173[source]
Debian is not just as quick (significantly slower and higher resource usage), but Arch isn't all that fast nowadays, either.
replies(2): >>23276218 #>>23282425 #
3. catalogia ◴[] No.23276218[source]
> Debian is not just as quick (significantly slower and higher resource usage)

In which respects? Are you talking about apt vs pacman or something? Default DEs?

replies(1): >>23278810 #
4. kick ◴[] No.23278810{3}[source]
Default install; a default Debian install has about 3x running.
5. m463 ◴[] No.23280235[source]
> problematic "rolling" updates

Rolling updates for me have not been problematic.

I've had a few updates that gave an error message, and they were easily fixed in one minute after searching the arch website.

I think one was a key expired - I had to manually update it and redo the update process.

The other I can recall was a package that had become obsolete/conflicting and a question had to be answered.

In general rolling updates are a tiny blip every few months.

In comparison, the several debian based distributions I've run have been a "lost weekend" type of upgrade for major updates.

6. Yetanfou ◴[] No.23282425[source]
Debian - or Devuan if you don't want systemd - can be made as spartan as you want. It boots in those mentioned few seconds on my 15yo T42p (Pentium M@1.8GHz, 2GB). Use Sid/Unstable if you want more up-to-date software with the accompanying larger flow of updates.