My new iMac runs Mojave; my old iMac never moved off High Sierra, which I felt was a fine version of macOS. Now that I have no choice but to use Mojave full time (I have it on my laptop for work purposes), I’m finding some annoying changes. Amongst those annoyances, this one is—by far—the most annoying…
That’s a set of messages in Mail, as viewed in Classic View mode (using San Francisco Display at 15pt on both Macs).
Somewhere in Apple, someone thought it’d be a great idea to reduce the line spacing in Mail—only when using Classic View, which is my forever-preferred view. Maybe they’re doing this to force us to upgrade to the modern view?
After I posted this, Brad Oliver contacted me on Twitter about the frame rates for DiRT Rally—he commented that the fact that they were clustered around 60fps made him think I’d left vertical sync (Vsync) on…and he was right. I’ve updated that section with the modified results, as well as one additional comparison I forgot to include the first time.
Oh, and in case you don’t know Brad…he was directly involved in porting DiRT Rally to the Mac for Feral, so he knows his stuff! Thanks Brad!
In part one of the comparison between my old and new iMacs, I provided a brief overview of the new machine, tech specs for both, and a number of benchmarks. (I also tested the video card against a Windows GeForce GTX 1080, and posted a slide-over image that demonstrates the wider color gamut on the new Mac.)
In today’s second (and final) part, I’ll take a look at video processing performance (via iMovie), how well the new iMac handles gaming, and then wrap up the whole series.
I knew my new iMac had the wide color gamut (P3) display, but until I used it side-by-side with my old iMac, I didn’t realize just how different things would look. In my comparison test of the two iMacs, there are a couple of photos of onscreen images—one set with the default iMac color profile, the next with the Adobe RGB (1998) color profile—the differences are quite obvious, especially on the default profiles.
Here’s one last image, with a comparison slider, so you can more easily see how the colors change. (Thanks to Kirk McElhearn for the source photo.)
My 2019 iMac has the new AMD Pro Vega 48 video card, the fastest video card Apple has offered in a (non-Pro) iMac. But just how fast is it? I’ll have more to say about it in an upcoming “games shootout” with my 2014 iMac, but I was also curious as to how (badly) it might compare to the video card—an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080—in my 2017 Frankenmac.
While I’d love to be able to compare the performance under macOS on Frankenmac, that’s not possible as I uninstalled it a while back—I’d been unable to update to Mojave due to a lack of NVIDIA drivers for Mojave. (Which is related to all of this, in that you cannot use an NVIDIA card—with acceleration—in Mojave, even in an external GPU box, because it seems Apple and NVIDIA aren’t on speaking terms right now.)
However, because a number of the benchmark apps I used in my 2019 iMac vs 2014 iMac—Part One comparison test also run on Windows, I was able to do some head-to-head testing, even if the difference in the OS adds a layer of unknown to the results.
Going in, I was pretty sure I knew what the results would show: The Windows PC was going to crush the iMac in anything graphically related, but lose in the CPU tests. While the AMD card is a big step up from previous-generation iMacs, it’s nowhere near bleeding edge—it’s more like “minor scrape” edge—in the Windows world.
Anyway, I ran a bunch of tests, and the results were pretty much as I expected…
I recently purchased a new 2018 13″ MacBook Air—my first new Mac laptop in over five years. My hope is that this machine can replace two aging laptops: A 2013 13″ Retina MacBook Pro (I use this when I want more “power” or screen resolution) and a 2012 11″ MacBook Air (I use this when I want portability).
Reviews of this machine are all over the net, so I’m not even going to attempt a full review. If you want an in-depth review of the machine, go read Six Colors’ review, or The Verge’s review or Wired’s review…or just start with Macrumors’ round-up of reviews and go from there.
Instead of a full review, I’ll provide some brief thoughts on the machine, then move on to my main focus: The performance changes in Apple’s smallest laptops from 2012 to today, based on comparisons between my three machines. I was interested in how this would turn out, as the two older Macs are both Core i7 CPUs, versus the Core i5 in the new Air. There’s lots out there to read about how the 2018 Air compares to other current machines, or semi-new machines…but I thought it might be interesting to see how performance has changed in five-plus years.
But first, my thoughts on the new Air…
Note: This was originally published in 2015; I’ve updated it with a minor change required for Mojave, and clarified a bit of the text.
macOS includes—and enables by default—translucency, which gives you ‘wonderful’ effects such as this in Calculator:
This is just one example; lots of other apps (Mail and Messages, to name two) contain panes that become grossly distorted by background color bleed-through. I’m not sure who at Apple (Marketing?) thinks this feature is good for productivity , but I find it completely distracting.
As a result, I turn off translucency on every Mac I own. You can do so yourself in System Preferences > Universal Access > Display. Just check the Reduce transparency* box, and you won’t get any more bleed-through. (You’ll also get a solid Dock, and perhaps the world’s ugliest Command-Tab task switcher. Such is the cost of usability.)
* It’s ridiculous that Apple calls this transparency, which is defined as “the condition of being transparent,” and being transparent means being see-through, clear, invisible, etc. This is clearly translucency, or “allowing light, but not detailed images, to pass through.” But I digress…
However, when writing for Many Tricks or Macworld, I often need to take screenshots. And because most users won’t disable translucency, I prefer to take those screenshots with translucency enabled, so that they’re closer to what most users might see. That means a trip through System Preferences to toggle the checkbox, which gets annoying after the second or third time you’ve done it.
There had to be an easier way—and after some missteps, I eventually found it.
I know, clickbait headline, but really, it’s how I’ve felt since the release of the iPhone X, and still feel today. And no, this isn’t about switching to Android. It’s about not buying a newly-designed iPhone. Why not? Two reasons…
The notch adds nothing to the iOS experience, but takes away much. Those stupid ears grab my eyes every time I see them, and there’s no way to avoid them, save never using anything but an all-black screen. When not in an app, they show status items on a black background, which is fine…as long as your iPhone’s wallpaper is also black.
But once you’re in an app, you’re in Notchville…
As part of this longer post on my purchases from the Mac App Store over the last seven years, one particular bit really struck me: Based on my purchases, at least, there are a a lot of rarely-updated apps—and games in particular—in the Mac App Store.
Of the 116 purchases (or free downloads) I’ve made since the App Store opened, 90 are still available in the App Store today. At first glance, that seems pretty good—78% of what I have is still in the App Store. But it doesn’t look quite so good if I examine when each of those 90 apps was last updated:
Yes, 51 of those 90 apps (57%) have been updated within the last year, and that’s good. But what’s not good is that the remaining 39 apps (43%) haven’t been updated in at least a year—and of those 39 apps, 21 of them (over half!) haven’t been updated in four or more years.
Digging into those 21 apps reveals that four of them are utilities, five are general use apps, and 12 of them are games.
My main machine is a late 2014 27″ iMac with a 4GHz Core i7 CPU, 24GB of RAM, and a 256GB SSD (plus a big external RAID for most of my files). While it runs fine, I would like something with Thunderbolt 3 support, with faster graphics for X-Plane, and with more computing power for ripping Blu-Ray discs. It’s also beyond AppleCare age, and if something fails, it will be expensive and time consuming to repair.
When the iMac Pro came out, I was intrigued, but the price point is scary high and there was the “new new” Mac Pro on the horizon—potentially a cheaper alternative, given the display wouldn’t have to be bundled (and upgradeability is a good thing). I was hoping for an update on that machine at WWDC this June. Instead, we got the update much earlier, though it’s not was I was hoping to hear: The new new Mac Pro won’t be released in 2018.
As a result, if I want to replace my iMac this year, I have only two choices: A new iMac non-pro, or a new iMac Pro. (In theory, I could look at a MacBook Pro with an eGPU for graphics, but I despise the Touch Bar, and that’s the only way to get the highest-spec MacBook Pro. But I really want a desktop Mac, not a laptop-as-desktop Mac.)
So just what would I be getting for my money with either machine? And how do those machines compare with the Frankenmac homebuilt I put together last year? And perhaps more intriguingly, how do they compare with the 2013 “new” Mac Pro that Apple still sells today?
To answer those questions, I turned to the Geekbench 4 benchmark app, which includes both CPU and graphics (they call it Compute) benchmark tools.
One of the unpublicized nuggets in macOS 10.13.4 is this little doozy in the release notes:
Enables sorting Safari bookmarks by name or URL by right-clicking and choosing ‘Sort By…’
This has been a feature request for nearly as long as Safari has existed—Safari was released in January 2003, and I found this MacRumors forum thread from April 2003 asking how to sort bookmarks. So this feature was nearly 15 years in the making!
Sure enough, right click on an entry in your Bookmarks list, and you can sort by name or URL:
I have a junk drawer in Safari where I bookmark stuff that I might someday want. Like a real junk drawer, it gets filled pretty quickly, and sorting the entries is a great way to trim the out of date entries. But when I tried to sort my junk drawer…
…there was no such option available. Stumped for a moment, it struck me that there may be a limit on the number of entries, as that was the only difference between this folder and others. I removed half the entries, leaving 546, but still, no Sort entry in the contextual menu.
After a bunch of back-and-forth moving (which takes some time, when you move hundreds of bookmarks around), I found the limit: 450 entries.
So if you have a large folder of bookmarks in Safari that you need to sort, you’ll have to split it into multiple folders, none of which can have more than 450 entries. Weird but true.