Want to highlight a helpful answer? Upvote!
Did someone help you, or did an answer or User Tip resolve your issue? Upvote by selecting the upvote arrow. Your feedback helps others! Learn more about when to upvote >
Did someone help you, or did an answer or User Tip resolve your issue? Upvote by selecting the upvote arrow. Your feedback helps others! Learn more about when to upvote >
I have a 2009, 2.93 GHz quad-core Intel Xeon with 12 GB ram. Im currently running 10.6.8, will 10.9.2 run OK on this Mac or is too old?
I'm using the same configuration Mac Pro(Early 2009 2.93GHz quad core Xeon with 12GB RAM) and it works OK on Mavericks.
Dual boot as in keep your old system handy. Mavericks, or rather Lion actually, drops support for PowerPC so if you still have any programs that relied on or written to use Rosetta, they would not. Plus a clean install makes for less trouble and better OS with few problems.
www.roaringapps.com has compatible lists
Why wouldn't you update?
Are you running anything that requires Snow Leopard?
Apple's site probably has a list somewhere detailing which hardware is able to run Mavericks. Your machine is able to run the latest OS X.
I think you will find Mavericks to be more responsive / faster than Snow Leopard. I found 10.6.8 quite sluggish when using it after trying Mavericks.
Mavericks is free so why not update?
Is this a work oriented or home? business users tend to hold back "if it ain't broken" rule.
Do your system a favor, buy and install an SSD (250GB SSD are fast and affordable $139 now for Samsung EVO)
With 12GB RAM I assume you don't push it for dealing with a lot and large graphics projects.
Some didn't like Lion, I do but mine can't run Mountain Lion. Any reason why though you skipped those?
10.7 Lion takes several steps in the direction of unification with IOS-for-iPhone that some (like me) find troubling: elimination of the Save command, and file versioning in particular. These were not carried forward into later versions.
The top seven Applications to lose support in 10.7 and later, in my opinion, are:
Eudora 6
AppleWorks
Freehand
Quicken 2007 (but Inuit has a US$15 upgrade that IS supported in 10.7 and later)
Microsoft Word and Office 2004 and older
FileMaker Pro 6
Adobe Photoshop and Creative Suite 2 and older
--------
Mavericks is much nicer than Lion. I updated to Lion in 2011, but didn't like it much. Apple had not sorted out the desktop graphical effects (Full Screen mode transitioning, for example). The effects skipped and dragged.
All that has since been fixed it seems, and Mavericks runs quite nicely.
Running OS X on an SSD makes everything faster/smoother, still.
Paul Hiscock wrote:
I have a 2009, 2.93 GHz quad-core Intel Xeon with 12 GB ram. Im currently running 10.6.8, will 10.9.2 run OK on this Mac or is too old?
It will run that OS, but unless you have programs that specifically need 10.7 or later, 10.6.8 is the best OS for your computer.
Studio K wrote:
Why wouldn't you update?
Reduced features, slower, very buggy finder, Mail, no PowerPC program support, App Store software update, notification center, very poor full screen support, no "save as" commands, dumbed down for iDevice users.
Mavericks is free so why not update?
Free ≠ good. 10.6.8 was Apple's "Windows XP", their best OS to date. Simple, reliable and efficient.
You are right about Finder. It's slower in Mav. It just hasn't caused me too much trouble so far.
According to this article, your Mac does not use 64-bit kernel by default under 10.6.8. You should consider actively taking steps to run 64-bit kernel if you have not already.
Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:
You should consider actively taking steps to run 64-bit kernel if you have not already.
Please state exactly why.
Unless you are using large amounts of memory (files over 3GB) and your programs are written in 64-bit code, there is no benefit to a 64-bit OS.
Running in 64-bit mode will consume more memory for doing the same tasks if you are not taking advantage of the increased capability.
Running some Applications under 64-bit kernel may provide speed improvements.
64-bit kernel allows Applications to directly address over 4GB of RAM at once. This can provide a simplification for ordinary Applications like Safari that can run with fewer sub-tasks, less inter-task communication overhead, and run faster. If you already have the memory, using more memory on a highly Virtualized system is not an issue -- free memory sitting idle does nothing for you.
It should provide tangible speedups for industrial-strength Applications like Photoshop.
The Original Poster said his Mac had 12GB of RAM. There is no need for special 64-bit Applications, as even 32-bit Applications can load and run (in 32-bit mode) without issue. It is true they will not see any speedup, but they will not be penalized either.
Should I upgrade from 10.6.8?
