Yes many mentioned it and did provide reports, but not in this thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/slow-boot.2072585/
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why is High Sierra so horrible?
- Thread starter CrashX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes many mentioned it and did provide reports, but not in this thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/slow-boot.2072585/
Yes, it is seriously not good to power down electronics. Each time you power up electronics, the system experiences a shock. The best thing to do is power down only when you really need to. If you are out and about, consider turning off your laptops to conserve battery power if using an AC adaptor isn't convenient. If you have spinning disk(s), if it could be jostled a bit will help protect from drive failures.
How often you should power off computers depends on how they are operating. If it's sluggish and just rebooting doesn't seem to clear it up, shut it down completely but be sure to wait a few minutes before turning it back on. Otherwise, if you know you are not going to use it for some time (days, weeks, months). I'll add electrical storms are good times to shut them off too. Don't want a close lightening strike to cause harm.
^^^^I have always shut my Mac and all peripherals, except the router, down at night and turn it on in the morning. This has been my modus operandi since 1986:
https://www.lifewire.com/shut-computer-down-or-not-4135231
Lou
https://www.lifewire.com/shut-computer-down-or-not-4135231
Lou
Same here. Been shutting down daily unless running a process since early ‘80s. It’s never caused a problem.
That really is the best compromise if you use the computer several times a day.
I always explain it this way. An electrical device is rated for a given number of hours.
The more time it spends with electricity flowing through it, the faster you will reach that number of hours.
Electronic devices also experience stress when they go from total rest to a surge of power as you turn them on. That high stress is greatest as the power surges into the computer from the power supply and gradually decreases as everything stabilized into normal operating mode.
The more frequently you stress the components, the faster you will end its life.
So you have a choice on how you want to kill it.
You can either burn through its number of total hours of life as fast as possible.
Or you can stress it frequently until it eventually dies.
Realistically, most components are going to die at their rated number of hours (not exactly to the minute - just somewhere in the ballpark) before they will die from stress.
This experience is based on over 30 years of dealing with thousands of machines (multiple thousands).
The exception to that general trend, is the spinning hard drive. The hard drive (if a spinner) is the weak link. It is a combination of electrical components with mechanical machinery and moving parts. It will almost never reach its electrical rated life span. And will generally provide 3 to 5 years of reliable use before its days are on borrowed time.
It is also the most fragile device in the system. And it does absolutely weaken every time it starts and stops receiving power. It gets that surge of power, then the motor starts rotating those (comparatively) heavy platters. The arms have to go from a locked position of rest and start moving (like when you first stand in the morning).
The hard drive absolutely will die faster the more you turn it on and off. And it has a relatively short number of hours it’ll live comparatively.
So again, like a light bulb, you have a choice which way you want to kill it.
Hard drives also provide an illusion of working much longer because often they will “work” beyond their reliable life if they are never powered down. Only to suddenly “fail” when you eventually turn them off. The reality is that at that point, they’ve had problems for years, that just didn’t manefest. The parts have been bad for a long time. Momentum just kept it spinning. So if your data is critical, then plan to schedule a replacement cycle of 3 to 5 years on a spinning hard drive. And of course keep backups of your data.
In the end, all you can really do, is try not to use up its rated number of hours any faster than you have to, without shocking it with stress any more frequently than necessary.
That is the compromise you need to find.
If you use your computer one time or a couple times per day, turn it off when it’s not being used.
If you use it several times a day, let it run until the last time you use it that day. Then turn it off.
If more than a day is going to pass before it’s used again. Turn it off.
The dirty little secret, is that the hard drive is already going to be partially stressed several times a day anyway. When it’s not actively in use, most modern operating systems will stop the moving parts, which will then have to spin up again anyway. So you’re really only saving the wear on the non mechanical parts by leaving it on.
So you’re going to kill it no matter what. But you can postpone it’s death longer if you balance the two poisons as best you can.
UI is more responsive (faster screen writes). User interaction is all around quicker by comparison on my system.
It’s not really big, it just annoys me a bit.
On shutdown, when the screen goes black and the OS is about to finish its business, the lower right quadrant of the screen displays “dancing pixels” the seem to spell out (in script font) the word “Wish” or “Wick”. After about 5 seconds of this, it powers off.
woah, what? seem to spell out? or is there def a word? otherwise, might be a graphics card issue...
I think it’s a driver issue... It did the same exact same thing a few versions back, then a point release cleared it up.
I really don’t know why it seems to form a word, but I’ve talked to 2 others here with an AMD Card that does the same thing... Same word... Maybe it’s taunting me...
let's hope then that it's 'wish' and not 'wick' (as in 'john wick')...
Yes, and why is it so Horrible...
[doublepost=1528080913][/doublepost]
I think it has something to do with the AMD Framebuffer setting. I've had similar anomalies in Linux on a different machine & different AMD GPU. I was able to change a setting relating to Framebuffer and it went away there.
I don't really know how to do that in macOS or even if it could be done.
Either way, it's not really causing a problem, it's just a momentary visual annoyance on shutdown. I'm getting used to it.
good news for the people i've argued with here about HS; am leaving this forum (and moving to the mojave forum).
i will miss the whining here (but am sure there's a new world of hurt to come, with 10.14)
peace!
i will miss the whining here (but am sure there's a new world of hurt to come, with 10.14)
peace!
Do go just yet. I think we have one more point release of HS don't we?
I have no stability or usability complaints with HS at all.
I have no stability or usability complaints with HS at all.
Have a happy road. We will all be thrilled to join when Mojave becomes sharp.good news for the people i've argued with here about HS; am leaving this forum (and moving to the mojave forum).
i will miss the whining here (but am sure there's a new world of hurt to come, with 10.14)
peace!
Don’t regret that I passed the HS. Mojave looks so cool.
good news for the people i've argued with here about HS; am leaving this forum (and moving to the mojave forum).
i will miss the whining here (but am sure there's a new world of hurt to come, with 10.14)
peace!
Right now, ladies and gentlemen who like to get work done on their computers and not fight beta bugs, High Sierra is ready for installation.
* New graphic cards (Sapphire Pulse RX580 and Vega 56) run without glitches? Check.
* Huge security bugs have been sussed out and corrected? Check.
* Finder copying bugs have been mostly fixed? Check.
* Some new software worth the trouble of upgrading an OS has been released? Check (FCPX 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 neither of which will install on Sierra which has only the buggy 10.4, serious issues with three way colour corrector).
Hence I'll be staying right here. Thank you for the brave souls like Fisherking who had to burn in public beta hell for almost a year so that the rest of us could join the party late at 10.13.4 or 10.13.5 and enjoy a working OS. Enjoy a big round of applause and our undying gratitude.
good news for the people i've argued with here about HS; am leaving this forum (and moving to the mojave forum).
i will miss the whining here (but am sure there's a new world of hurt to come, with 10.14)
peace!
Good luck to you. Wish I could go, but since I'm running a GTX 1080, I have to stay here. And it's my understanding that Mojave doesn't yet support the cMP 5,1. Hopefully that support comes soon.
Lou
My best experience with Mac-OS so far were/are:
1. Snow Leopard
2. Yosemite
3. High Sierra - in progress
I agree that planned obsolescence does make using the older version difficult or impossible due to new features only available on the newer OS versions. I tried to hold out for a while but needed the benefits so upgrade I did.
My experience with the OS was extremely brief. I installed it on my machine, noticed that the startup time had increased at least 30 seconds - which seemed like an eternity given how spoiled I've become with an SSD - so I immediately went back to Sierra.
I've never read any ATTEMPT at an explanation as to why even the startup time increased so much? Ars Technica doesn't even explain it - instead they published the glowing review that convinced me to try the update in the first place?
This all just seems very weird? Sadly, I'm paranoid enough to think:
"Shhh... don't tell anyone what's actually going on at Apple - they have WAY too much money these days! Seriously, they'll bury us!"
You'd think that at LEAST Ars Technica would have grumbled at least a WEE tiny little bit - but no? All's well that's not even close to well - even for a completely non-technical person like me?
Nope - their review screams "All aboard!" It's PERFECT! Awesome improvements under the hood!
Do what now?
I guess we can all hope for a Snow Sierra with the next outing - so we can just skip this whole mess? That sadly actually is my only plan? Well, other than fear that Apple will never release another decent OS for their lowly bothersome old computer division?
I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks?
And, if anyone would care to explain what's up with the ridiculously long startup time? Why is that?
If you're running a late 2013 Retina MacBook Pro and NOT experiencing that issue, then I'd be very interested to understand how/why your machine is more special than mine?
I thought they all came out of the same factory - which has always kinda been the whole point, right? The OS can be FINELY turned for our specific machines, allowing them to operate at their very BEST? Right? No?
I seriously don't get this at all? I'm not committing heresy by complaining that the startup time is weird at best, right? There's apparently zero explanation for it, so... ?
But, rather than getting berated for not lovingly towing the line and loving Apple as much as I should -
Please at least just explain the startup time thingy? I don't get it? Does anyone? It seriously freaks me out that even Ars Technica refuses to even mention it - much less criticize it?
Thanks for any feedback.
Jesus dude, step away from the computer and go outside.
That's three of us then who agree on "My best experience with macOS so far are Tiger, Snow Leopard, and El Capitan". By a long way in my case. If I'd had a need, I could have made do with Mountain Lion as well (there was less pressure then on the application side to constantly update). I think we have a consensus that Snow Leopard and El Capitan have been the most solid of the recent releases. If you must install High Sierra, at least make sure to avoid APFS for now (very beta file system software, no thanks!). Without APFS, High Sierra isn't much more trouble than Sierra it seems to me.
I 've been mac users for 10 years.
I am a developer.
And my next machine will be Windows.
Every mac OS & iOS upgrade release, they always slow down old device significantly.
And Apple always told that it is becuse old device has old cpu, too old to run new OS.
Only end users believe it.
For all tech guys, we all knows that even core2duo with at least of 4GB of RAM is still too powerful to run just an OS.
Slow down device is an intention of Apple to push user to upgrade hardware. I believe if someone can reverse engineer the OS code, they will find it.
Windows 10 can run on Core2duo smoothly. But High sierra runs like ****.
iOS device falls in more serious situation. Apple always claim its Ax chip is powerful as desktop CPU. But when new iOS version release, the device slow down as hell. And that is just MOBILE OS in PROPRIETARY HARDWARE.
I am a developer.
And my next machine will be Windows.
Every mac OS & iOS upgrade release, they always slow down old device significantly.
And Apple always told that it is becuse old device has old cpu, too old to run new OS.
Only end users believe it.
For all tech guys, we all knows that even core2duo with at least of 4GB of RAM is still too powerful to run just an OS.
Slow down device is an intention of Apple to push user to upgrade hardware. I believe if someone can reverse engineer the OS code, they will find it.
Windows 10 can run on Core2duo smoothly. But High sierra runs like ****.
iOS device falls in more serious situation. Apple always claim its Ax chip is powerful as desktop CPU. But when new iOS version release, the device slow down as hell. And that is just MOBILE OS in PROPRIETARY HARDWARE.
Windows 10 update broke my 15 month old Dell laptop and my home built computer. I spent 4 hours on the phone with Microsoft, and they did not have a solution to fix the laptop. Thousands of users have complained about the recent Windows 10 update.
I erased the hard drive of my home built computer and installed Windows 7. The other 2 hard drives in the computer have Mac OS.