10.9.3 now available...

Discussion in 'Apple' started by billy@MIX.COM, May 15, 2014.

  1. Guest

    , May 15, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Kevin McMurtrie, May 18, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Kevin
    McMurtrie <> wrote:

    > In article <ll33q0$4su$>, wrote:
    >
    > > http://support.apple.com/downloads/DL1745/en_US/OSXUpd10.9.3.dmg
    > >
    > > http://support.apple.com/downloads/DL1746/en_US/OSXUpdCombo10.9.3.dmg
    > >
    > > Billy Y..

    >
    > Ugh. I put 10.9 on a laptop that I don't use much so I could try some
    > apps that require Mavericks. The 10.9.3 seems to have accomplished the
    > impossible and made Mavericks even slower. It stalls like it was booted
    > from an ancient CD ROM drive. No swapping, no CPU load, no errors -
    > just beachball.


    No problems here on several computers.
     
    Mr. Strat, May 19, 2014
    #3
  4. Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.05.18, 00:14 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    > In article <ll33q0$4su$>, wrote:
    >
    >> http://support.apple.com/downloads/DL1745/en_US/OSXUpd10.9.3.dmg
    >>
    >> http://support.apple.com/downloads/DL1746/en_US/OSXUpdCombo10.9.3.dmg
    >>
    >> Billy Y..

    >
    > Ugh. I put 10.9 on a laptop that I don't use much so I could try some
    > apps that require Mavericks. The 10.9.3 seems to have accomplished the
    > impossible and made Mavericks even slower. It stalls like it was booted
    > from an ancient CD ROM drive. No swapping, no CPU load, no errors -
    > just beachball.



    I have it running on a 2009 MBA with 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB of RAM
    (256 MB is shared with the graphics processor) and it runs fine with
    10.9.3. Usual 'load' is Chrome, Mail, iTunes - other programs used
    often include Word, Excel and others. Occasionally use Bridge/Photoshop
    CS5 and it does well enough.

    CPU load per Menu Meters varies as normal (including a nice clean idle)
    but it doesn't take much to be near fully loaded. (Some web page
    content can cause it to go near saturation).

    That said I'm considering a rollback to 10.8.x to see if it does perform
    better.

    I suspect your installation has other issues - or is it simply that it
    hadn't finished Spotlight indexing?

    --
    I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.
     
    Alan Browne, May 19, 2014
    #4
  5. On 2014-05-19 14:24:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:

    > I suspect your installation has other issues - or is it simply that it
    > hadn't finished Spotlight indexing?


    I have found that most issues of "slow Macintosh" are indeed caused by
    Spotlight indexing.

    Personally I have found that on both a 2011 Mac Mini and a 2010 Macbook
    10.9 is faster than 10.8 - AFTER I let Spotlight do its thing!
     
    Oregonian Haruspex, May 19, 2014
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > On 2014.05.18, 00:14 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    > > In article <ll33q0$4su$>, wrote:
    > >
    > >> http://support.apple.com/downloads/DL1745/en_US/OSXUpd10.9.3.dmg
    > >>
    > >> http://support.apple.com/downloads/DL1746/en_US/OSXUpdCombo10.9.3.dmg
    > >>
    > >> Billy Y..

    > >
    > > Ugh. I put 10.9 on a laptop that I don't use much so I could try some
    > > apps that require Mavericks. The 10.9.3 seems to have accomplished the
    > > impossible and made Mavericks even slower. It stalls like it was booted
    > > from an ancient CD ROM drive. No swapping, no CPU load, no errors -
    > > just beachball.

    >
    >
    > I have it running on a 2009 MBA with 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB of RAM
    > (256 MB is shared with the graphics processor) and it runs fine with
    > 10.9.3. Usual 'load' is Chrome, Mail, iTunes - other programs used
    > often include Word, Excel and others. Occasionally use Bridge/Photoshop
    > CS5 and it does well enough.
    >
    > CPU load per Menu Meters varies as normal (including a nice clean idle)
    > but it doesn't take much to be near fully loaded. (Some web page
    > content can cause it to go near saturation).
    >
    > That said I'm considering a rollback to 10.8.x to see if it does perform
    > better.
    >
    > I suspect your installation has other issues - or is it simply that it
    > hadn't finished Spotlight indexing?


    I've debugged this before. 10.7, 10.8, and especially 10.9 make
    excessive calls to an aging filesystem that can't handle the load.
    Finder may deep traverse a directory over and over again for several
    minutes for no apparent reason, resulting in thousands of 'stat64'
    calls. Autosave, file versioning hacks, mds, local Time Machine
    backups, and several new daemons hit the filesystem hard.

    Apple's bonehead workaround is for these problems is that the filesystem
    throttles excessive calls. Yes, Apple is throttling their own apps to
    keep their bugs from locking up their old OS.

    This is also the reason for people complaining that network volumes are
    slow in Mavericks.


    Try running 'fs_usage' in 10.6.8. It's fairly quiet. Now try it in
    10.9. It's massive spew with 'THROTTLED' flashing by periodically.
    Open some Finder windows and watch Finder go nuts hammering the
    filesystem.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, May 20, 2014
    #6
  7. Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.05.20, 02:47 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2014.05.18, 00:14 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    >>> In article <ll33q0$4su$>, wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://support.apple.com/downloads/DL1745/en_US/OSXUpd10.9.3.dmg
    >>>>
    >>>> http://support.apple.com/downloads/DL1746/en_US/OSXUpdCombo10.9.3.dmg
    >>>>
    >>>> Billy Y..
    >>>
    >>> Ugh. I put 10.9 on a laptop that I don't use much so I could try some
    >>> apps that require Mavericks. The 10.9.3 seems to have accomplished the
    >>> impossible and made Mavericks even slower. It stalls like it was booted
    >>> from an ancient CD ROM drive. No swapping, no CPU load, no errors -
    >>> just beachball.

    >>
    >>
    >> I have it running on a 2009 MBA with 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB of RAM
    >> (256 MB is shared with the graphics processor) and it runs fine with
    >> 10.9.3. Usual 'load' is Chrome, Mail, iTunes - other programs used
    >> often include Word, Excel and others. Occasionally use Bridge/Photoshop
    >> CS5 and it does well enough.
    >>
    >> CPU load per Menu Meters varies as normal (including a nice clean idle)
    >> but it doesn't take much to be near fully loaded. (Some web page
    >> content can cause it to go near saturation).
    >>
    >> That said I'm considering a rollback to 10.8.x to see if it does perform
    >> better.
    >>
    >> I suspect your installation has other issues - or is it simply that it
    >> hadn't finished Spotlight indexing?

    >
    > I've debugged this before. 10.7, 10.8, and especially 10.9 make
    > excessive calls to an aging filesystem that can't handle the load.
    > Finder may deep traverse a directory over and over again for several
    > minutes for no apparent reason, resulting in thousands of 'stat64'
    > calls. Autosave, file versioning hacks, mds, local Time Machine
    > backups, and several new daemons hit the filesystem hard.
    >
    > Apple's bonehead workaround is for these problems is that the filesystem
    > throttles excessive calls. Yes, Apple is throttling their own apps to
    > keep their bugs from locking up their old OS.
    >
    > This is also the reason for people complaining that network volumes are
    > slow in Mavericks.
    >
    >
    > Try running 'fs_usage' in 10.6.8. It's fairly quiet. Now try it in
    > 10.9. It's massive spew with 'THROTTLED' flashing by periodically.
    > Open some Finder windows and watch Finder go nuts hammering the
    > filesystem.


    That's all very entertaining but as I say above I don't seem to have the
    same issues with a fairly low powered laptop with only 2 GB of RAM.

    It has, in some cases, with some web pages, gone to CPU saturation but
    that's pretty easy to solve.

    So it would seem to be less an OS version issue than a particular
    installation issue.

    --
    I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.
     
    Alan Browne, May 21, 2014
    #7
  8. Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.05.19, 18:40 , Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
    > On 2014-05-19 14:24:24 +0000, Alan Browne said:
    >
    >> I suspect your installation has other issues - or is it simply that it
    >> hadn't finished Spotlight indexing?

    >
    > I have found that most issues of "slow Macintosh" are indeed caused by
    > Spotlight indexing.
    >
    > Personally I have found that on both a 2011 Mac Mini and a 2010 Macbook
    > 10.9 is faster than 10.8 - AFTER I let Spotlight do its thing!


    Stands to reason. On my prior iMac when it was indexing I'd leave the
    room and do something else (unless I was doing something pretty passive
    like reading the news online or some such).

    On the new iMac I haven't noticed when it indexes at all.


    --
    I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.
     
    Alan Browne, May 21, 2014
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.