Update OS X or not?

[Velvis]

Client has a iMac late 2012 2.9ghz i5 with 8gb running 10.9.5

She is running into issues with Safari and Chrome being out of date.

I didnt want to update and have it run painfully slow.

Anyone have any recommendations?

 

[JoeTech]

I haven't had any problems with updating similar models. You could always clone it to another drive using super duper first

https://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html

Then update and if you run into any problems just clone it back.

 

[GTP]

I've got a 2010 iMac running macOS High Sierra 10.13.4
I think it is performing better than it did on anything previously.
Not had one (OS) issue so far.
My biggest concern is working out their stupid way of doing the simplest things!

 

[timeshifter]

Client has a iMac late 2012 2.9ghz i5 with 8gb running 10.9.5

She is running into issues with Safari and Chrome being out of date.

I didnt want to update and have it run painfully slow.

Anyone have any recommendations?

You're confusing macOS with Windows. It doesn't get dog-slow with each major update. 10.13 might be a tiny bit slower if you don't have a lot of RAM but 8GB should be golden with no issues.

I would not talk my client out of upgrading from an end-of-life OS that has no security updates. She needs to be updated. That's a decent machine. Put an SSD in there while you're at it and watch it really fly!

 

[sapphirescales]

I usually recommend a clean install with any Mac OS update. At the very least you should back everything up before you do it. But at that point you might as well just do a clean install.

 

[carmen617]

I automatically update all Macs to the latest version of MacOS - that's how they get the security updates to keep them more or less virus free, which is the big advantage Mac owners will tell you they have over Windows users. Apple has a lovely habit of discontinuing updates for older versions of OSX without informing users that their version has been EOL'd. Just do a Time Machine backup first in the rare case of any issues, then upgrade to High Sierra.

Next version after High Sierra, or perhaps the one after that (Apple has been unclear) will cease supporting 32 bit apps. The most common 32 bit app my clients have on their Macs is Office 2011. Make sure you let folks know they are going to have to upgrade their version of Office at some point.

 

[fincoder]

You're confusing macOS with Windows. It doesn't get dog-slow with each major update.

Neither does Windows by the way. Vista was the last Windows version that used more resources than its predecessor (XP). From Windows 7 onwards (released 2009), each new release uses the same or fewer resources. Microsoft has put a lot of effort into this so that Windows can run on tablet devices.

 

[Markverhyden]

Put an SSD in there while you're at it and watch it really fly!

That's the most important update we can give a customer!

I've got a 2012 MBP, 2.5 i5, but has 16 gb. Switching to an SSD made a world of difference. Now it's only 5-10 seconds behind my 2017 MB Air with 8gb. The down side is that model has the adhesive attached glass which is more difficult and requires the proper tools.

@sapphirescales has a valid point about clean installs. Personally I don't always do a clean install. But I've spent hours trying to clean up troublesome installs and in the end a clean install did the job. Especially if there are browser problems.

 

[GTP]

Neither does Windows by the way. Vista was the last Windows version that used more resources than its predecessor (XP). From Windows 7 onwards (released 2009), each new release uses the same or fewer resources. Microsoft has put a lot of effort into this so that Windows can run on tablet devices.

Just for giggles today, after reading @fincoder 's comment above, and for testing purposes only, I dragged out and old desktop PC from the storeroom.

AMD Sempron 1.8GHZ, 2 GB ram 320GB Spinner and loaded it with Win 10 Home.
There was no OS on it but I think it must have had Vista originally as there is a Vista OEM key on the side.

It surprised me how snappy it was. So I removed one of the two ram modules and booted it up again.
And again I was surprised how snappy it was.
Now it didn't have an AV or any other programs so (I thought) It would soon buckle if it had.
With only 1GB ram with Emsisoft installed, 1 tab open in Firefox, and wordpad open it was still reasonable.
You would think that anything more than that would have caused it to start paging, which would have degraded performance significantly - but no - it was still responsive.

Might try it with Win 7 and Vista...(if I can find that Vista disk..)

 

[pcpete]

Client has a iMac late 2012 2.9ghz i5 with 8gb running 10.9.5

She is running into issues with Safari and Chrome being out of date.

I didnt want to update and have it run painfully slow.

Anyone have any recommendations?

Update it and let them know the newer versions of OSX run best with an SSD. That should be an easy upsell

 

[fincoder]

AMD Sempron 1.8GHZ, 2 GB ram 320GB Spinner

Wow that thing must really be slow. With the original Vista OS it would have moved like molasses.

Now it didn't have an AV

No third-party AV, but that means Defender would have been active so probably not much difference in resource usage with Defender or Emsisoft.

I never recommend the very low performance computers that are available from big retail stores (e.g. Celeron or AMD E1 which are double the performance of that Sempron) but if all bloatware is removed they work kind of OK. The big problem for ordinary users is the bloatware and other apps they install (or are tricked into installing) that add background processes that autostart on boot. That and productivity apps like Word are very slow to load up, and two or more desktop apps/tabs open at once results in grinding slowness.

I have a 10" Windows tablet with Atom Z3000-series CPU and 2GB RAM (Asus H100HA) and it works beautifully for web and email using Edge and Mail apps in Windows 10's tablet mode. I wouldn't try and use it for much else though.

 

[GTP]

Wow that thing must really be slow. With the original Vista OS it would have moved like molasses.

Well that was the reason for the test.
It wasn't slow at all, in fact (as I stated) it was quite snappy with Win 10.
I put Vista back on it and it was slow but not to the point of being unusable. In fact I was surprised that it seemed to be ok even with 1GB ram. It was definitely better with the second stick of ram though.
I haven't tried it with 7 yet but I will when I get time.

The funny thing is that when this computer was new, it (probably) had Vista installed from the start.
It must have worked ok then?

 

[carmen617]

Well that was the reason for the test.
It wasn't slow at all, in fact (as I stated) it was quite snappy with Win 10.
I put Vista back on it and it was slow but not to the point of being unusable. In fact I was surprised that it seemed to be ok even with 1GB ram. It was definitely better with the second stick of ram though.
I haven't tried it with 7 yet but I will when I get time.

The funny thing is that when this computer was new, it (probably) had Vista installed from the start.
It must have worked ok then?

Not necessarily. I recall the first Vista machines I worked on often had only 2GB of RAM from the factory and worked terribly. I think this is one of the reasons Vista was so despised - it really ran hugely better if I could convince the client to upgrade the RAM on their brand new machine.

 

[timeshifter]

The funny thing is that when this computer was new, it (probably) had Vista installed from the start.
It must have worked ok then?

Maybe with a clean install with only the Microsoft stuff. But a Dell or HP probably would be loaded with crap. Plus, even if it was clean to start, it could degrade pretty quickly with use.

Agree that 1GB was not enough and one reason Vista got a bad rap. The other two: it did have problems, remember the black screen and an arrow cursor that worked, but nothing else? Second, Office 2007 came out at that time and people couldn't stand the change. And as you know most users don't know the difference between Windows and Office, it's all just "Microsoft". So I think a lot of people hated Vista but what they really hated was the new Office interface.