1. I hope there's pizza in heaven. A downloadable memorial game for Windows, macOS, and Linux. Download Now Name your own price. A year ago I had to make an incredibly difficult decision regarding my wonderful 17 year old cat Booger. CW: animal death.
2. That happened this week, when Sun Microsystems Inc.’s CEO Jonathan Schwartz said Apple’s upcoming Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, would rely on a file system that engineers at his company have spent.

1. I Hope There's Pizza In Heaven Mac Os 11
2. I Hope There's Pizza In Heaven Mac Os Catalina
3. I Hope There's Pizza In Heaven Mac Os X

Apple Archive

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).

- 2002.06.28

One of the most frequently forgotten operating systems is BeOS,the Be Operating System. This operating system was originallydeveloped for the unique BeBox, later rewritten for the PowerMacintosh, and finally ported over to the x86 platform. In the enddevelopment was only for the x86.

As one of their last efforts to show the world how great BeOSwas, Be released a free version of their OS known as BeOS 5Personal Edition. This version could be installed from withinWindows 95, 98, Me, NT, or 2000 and would not effect the Windowsinstallation.

To run the OS, you could simply click on the 'Start BeOS 5' iconin the Start menu. This would then launch you into BeOS, or, inWindows 2000, ask you to insert the startup disk (which it wouldcreate during the actual installation) and then restart yourcomputer.

After the BeOS 5 splash screen, you would see the desktop - orthe 'Tracker,' as Be calls it. At first glance, it doesn't lookmuch different than Windows or the Mac OS. Open up a window, andyou will an immediate difference, however. The window's yellowtitle bar acts more like a tab - it doesn't cover the entireexpanse of the window.

Like Windows and Mac OS X, the windows support solid/activewindow dragging and resizing. As in Windows, the menu bars arepositioned below the title bar of each window.

Like the Mac OS, hard drives appear on the desktop. Shortcutscan be placed on the desktop, just like in other operating systems,and you can change the desktop picture or pattern, just like anyother graphical OS currently available.

But what is actually different about BeOS? First of all,it is fast. In fact, it is the fastest full-featuredoperating system that I have ever used. Windows open instantly, andmy favorite: Double click an MP3 file and it will open Media Playerand start playing with no delay whatsoever.

Want to browse the Internet? NetPositive opens like it is justanother folder. In fact, all applications open so quickly thatyou'd just think they were folders. This, to me, is how anoperating system should act.

Unfortunately, there are some downfalls that come with BeOS 5.There are many Ethernet cards and modems that will never besupported (my Network Everywhere NIC happens to be one of them), soif you want to get online, you may have to buy a different NIC ormodem.

Why do I say 'never supported'? Because Be, Inc. is out ofbusiness. Running BeOS means that you have no support or otherassistance available. Some drivers are able to be downloadedonline, but for most things, you're on your own. While it supportsUSB on the PC, the Mac version does not work with USB or FireWirecards, and is only compatible with a small amount of 603e and 604ebased PowerMacs and clones.

This doesn't mean you can't use BeOS if you have compatiblehardware. There are loads of free applications available, justwaiting for you to download them. Check out www.bebits.com for some ofthem. You can even get themes to customize the user interface andthe Be menu.

The greatest thing about BeOS is that it does not require a fastcomputer. According to the documentation, a Pentium 90 PC with 32MB of RAM is enough. That means that it may work in Virtual PC onthe Mac. Keep in mind that I haven't tried this, and if you want totry it, it would be 'unsupported' (If you get it working, I'd loveto know).

I believe that BeOS was the best desktop OS ever made (and Iknow some of you will argue with me), however it really never madeit. What manufacturer would risk ruining their company byinstalling BeOS instead of Windows on their machines? Why shouldApple sell machines with BeOS when they already make the MacOS?

Now that Palm and Be are one, I hope to see some BeOS relatedelements become part of Palm OS 6.0 (hopefully coming in 2003).Because it was designed to be a multimedia OS, it should be able touse whatever power Palms have efficiently so that they can competebetter with Pocket PC offerings.

Further BeOS Reading on LEM

• Apple's Next Direction,Dan Knight, Mac Musings, 1999.08.02
• BeOS or NeXT: Did Apple Makethe Wrong Choice?, Jonathan Ploudre, Back & Forth,2001.04.16
• BeOS or NeXT: The RightChoice, David Puett, My Turn, 2001.04.18
• BeOS and BFS, JonathanPloudre, Back & Forth, 2001.04.20
• User Interface: Mac vs.BeOS, Jonathan Ploudre, Back & Forth, 2001.04.23
• Using BeOS on a Power Mac: Amodern OS for an older Power Mac, Jonathan Ploudre, Back &Forth, 2001.04.30
• NeXT: Apple's RightChoice, Jonathan Ploudre, Back & Forth, 2001.05.07
• Why BeOS Was So Different,Dan Knight, Mac Musings, 2002.01.02
• Why BeOS Lost, Chris Lozaga,My Turn, 2002.04.03. BeOS was a great operating system, but youcan't blame Microsoft, Apple, or NeXT for its failure.

Low End Mac is an independent publication and has not been authorized,sponsored, or otherwise approved by Apple Inc. Opinions expressed arethose of their authors and may not reflect the opinion of CobwebPublishing. Advice is presented in good faith, but what works for onemay not work for all.
Entire Low End Mac website copyright ©1997-2016 by Cobweb Publishing, Inc. unless otherwise noted. Allrights reserved. Low End Mac, LowEndMac, and lowendmac.com aretrademarks of Cobweb Publishing Inc. Apple, the Apple logo, Macintosh,iPad, iPhone, iMac, iPod, MacBook, Mac Pro, and AirPort are registered trademarks of AppleInc. Additional company and product names may be trademarks orregistered trademarks and are hereby acknowledged.
Please report errors to .
LINKS: We allow and encourage links toany public page as long as the linked page does not appear within aframe that prevents bookmarking it.
Email may be published at our discretion unless marked 'not forpublication'; email addresses will not be published without permission,and we will encrypt them in hopes of avoiding spammers. Letters may beedited for length, context, and to match house style.
PRIVACY: We don't collect personalinformation unless you explicitly provide it, and we don't share theinformation we have with others. For more details, see our Terms of Use.

Follow Low End Mac on Twitter
Join Low End Mac on Facebook

Favorite Sites

MacSurfer
Cult of Mac
Shrine of Apple
MacInTouch
MyAppleMenu
InfoMac
The Mac Observer
Accelerate Your Mac
RetroMacCast
The Vintage Mac Museum
Deal Brothers
DealMac
Mac2Sell
Mac Driver Museum
JAG's House
System 6 Heaven
System 7 Today
the pickle's Low-End Mac FAQ

Affiliates

Amazon.com
The iTunes Store
PC Connection Express
Macgo Blu-ray Player
Parallels Desktop for Mac
eBay

Advertise

All of our advertising is handled by BackBeatMedia. For price quotes and advertising information,please contact at BackBeat Media(646-546-5194). This number is for advertising only.

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…

My thoughts

First off, I really like the size of the 2018 MacBook Air. While it's not as small as my 11' Air, it's close—it's nearly the same width and just a bit deeper. Pretty impressive, given that it's holding a 13' screen in that space. The new Air is smaller than my 13' rMBP in all dimensions. Here are all three machines side by side:

The 2012 11' Air is on the left, the Space Gray 2018 Air is in the middle, and the 2013 13' MacBook Pro is on the right.

TouchID is wonderful; I hope more apps gain support for it as time passes. Battery life has been amazing, too. I also really like the color, though I do miss the backlit Apple logo.

Something else I miss is Mag Safe on the power connector: It's a real pain having to hunt for a port in a dark room, and I dread what happens the first time I trip over the cord. The power cord is also much shorter than before—maybe 6.5 feet versus about 12 feet for the older machines. Maybe Apple figures you'll be less likely to trip on the non-Mag Safe cord if it's not so long?

But what about the much-maligned 'butterfly' keyboard, now in its third generation? I may be in a minority, but I like it. It's rock solid, and there's plenty of travel for me. It is, however, notably louder than either of my other two portable Macs. How much louder? I typed out the well-known quick-fox-lazy-dog pangram on all three machines, recording each on my iPhone. I moved each Mac to the same spot on my desk, with the iPhone positioned nearby, and started typing. The results, um, speak? for themselves…

And no, I wasn't pounding any harder on the 2018 Air's keyboard than I was the other two. So yes, it's much louder, but it's not so loud that it bothers me. I'm not sure if others seated nearby will feel the same, though.

Overall, I'm quite happy with the machine, especially the fact that it has actual function keys and no stupid Touch Bar. (Dear Apple: I'd trade this in on a top-of-the-line MacBook Pro if you offered one without the insanity that is Touch Bar.) Enough of the review…time to look at the evolution of performance over five years' time in Apple's small laptops—at least those that I own.

The evolution of performance

What I really want to dive into is a comparison of the new Air's performance against my two older machines: How much have CPUs, GPUs, and disk drives changed in the last six years, particularly in Apple's smaller laptops?

Here are the specs of each of my small laptop Macs—all three are running macOS Mojave 14.1 (though the 2018 Air has the recently-released Supplemental Update version).

What stands out in that table—to me, at least—is the change in power requirements over the last six years. The Core i5 in the new Air has a TDP value of just seven watts, versus 17 watts in the 2012 Air and a whopping 28 watts in the 2013 Retina MacBook Pro. Just looking at that figure, along with the lower frequency and 'one class down' Core i5 vs Core i7, you'd tend to think the new Air probably has a slower CPU.

To see how fast or slow the new Air really is—not just its CPU but also disk and graphics (GPU)—I ran a slew of tests. Before I get to the results, though, a word about my benchmarking: It's really basic. I don't have the time to run multiple passes of every test; I don't have the time to reboot each machine between every test, into a a new fresh user account, etc.

Instead, I ran each of the following tests once, and did so on the main account on each machine. (If I got some results that appeared to be really out of line, I'd run the test again to confirm, but this only happened with two tests.) No other apps were running, but things like Dropbox and Moom and other small utilities were still active. I left each display in its actual native resolution (1280x800 for the two retina machines, and 1366x768 for the 2012 Air, as that's all it can do).

I was fine with these limitations, because I was interested in general high-level comparisons not ultra-specific results—and the same set of utilities/apps were running on each machine. So what you read here will probably differ from what you find on other sites that do more rigorous testing. And now, on to the results.

OpenSSL benchmark - CPU

OpenSSL 'is a robust, commercial-grade, and full-featured toolkit for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols. It is also a general-purpose cryptography library.' At least, that's what it says on their web site.

For my purposes, I like that OpenSSL is built into every version of macOS, and that it includes a nifty little benchmarking tool: In Terminal, just type openssl speed and then wait a while. The test uses a number of cryptographic hash algorithms with various block lengths to test the speed of those algorithms.

Here are the results for my three laptop Macs…note that there are many more tests run; this is just a sampling of the output. (The higher the rate, the better the result.)

As you can see, the new Air's CPU—despite drawing much less power—is about 20% faster than my 2012 Air, and 5% faster than the 2013 Retina MacBook Pro. Impressive.

Geekbench 4 - CPU and GPU

Geekbench 4 is a cross-platform benchmark suite that tests both the CPU and the GPU (the 'Compute' tests). There are a total of four tests—CPU single and multiple core, and GPU tests using OpenCL and Metal. Here's how my three Macs scored (higher is better)…

CPU results with Geekbench mirror those of the OpenSSL speed test, though the new Air showed more improvement against the 2013 MacBook Pro than it did in the OpenSSL test…and simply crushed the 2012 MacBook Air in the Compute categories, seemingly a reflection of a much better GPU.

Cinebench - CPU and GPU

Cinebench is a benchmark that tests both the GPU (using an OpenGL animated car chase) and the CPU (by rendering a photorealistic 3D image).

The OpenGL results again show a strong performance from the GPU in the new Air, while the CPU test shows little to no improvement on the CPU side. But remember, the Air is doing this with half the power draw of the old Air, and one quarter that of the MacBook Pro.

Blackmagic Disk Speed Test - Disk

The Blackmagic Disk Speed Test is a handy tool for measuring the read and write speed of your disks. This is one area where I expected my new machine to easily best both of its older stablemates, and I was right…

The advances in solid state 'drives' in the last six years is evident in these results—and a fast disk contributes a lot to the overall feel of the machine's speed: Apps launch quickly, and even if you have to use swap space on 'disk' when you run out of RAM, it happens so quickly you may not even realize data is being swapped.

Heaven - GPU

Heaven is a 2009 OpenGL benchmark test that still runs fine on today's hardware. The benchmark runs through a number of animated 3D scenes, and at the end, returns an average frames per second and a score, based on the average FPS as well as the high and low FPS.

Test notes: I ran the 'basic' test, in a window, with no default settings changed, and each machine running its native resolution.

When I first ran this test, I got some very strange results: The new Air was no quicker than the 2012 Air, and was crushed by the 2013 model. I ran it again, and got the same results. Then the 2018 Air's 10.14.1 Supplemental Update came out. I installed that, and re-ran the tests, and got the above results: The new Air nearly doubles the frame rate of the old Air, and is slightly faster than the 2013 MacBook Pro.

I have no idea if there was some graphics-related fix in the supplemental update, or if simply installing the update and rebooting cleared something out, but these results are more in line with what I expected given the GPU performance in other benchmarks.

Valley - GPU

Valley is the 2013 follow-on to 2009's Heaven. Again, I used the 'basic' test running in a window at each Mac's native screen resolution.

I Hope There's Pizza In Heaven Mac Os 11

My first run here was the same as with the Heaven test: The new Air did horribly (even after a fresh boot). After installing the supplemental update and rebooting, the scores improved dramatically.

GFXBench Metal

GFXBench Metal is an App Store app that tests GPU performance using Metal, Apple's new hardware-accelerated graphics technology. As such, I thought it would be a good benchmark to use, given Apple's move away from OpenGL. Unfortunately, it's quite flakey, as it quits on launch on certain machines and works fine on others. (It's not just me; the reviews are filled with such comments.)

For me, it runs on the new Air and the 2013 MacBook Pro, but not the 2012 Air. So this comparison was between only those machines. There are a number of tests in GFXBench; I arbitrarily chose five of them…

My results here didn't change before and after installing the supplemental update, which seems to imply that perhaps the issue was with the OpenGL driver. But who knows for sure. With the exception of the Driver Overhead 2 test, the new Air was quicker than the MacBook Pro in every test.

Benchmark wrap up

I was quite impressed by the Air's benchmark results: Using a CPU with much lower power draw, it held its own against older but arguably more-powerful chips—besting the 2012 Air by a lot, and slightly outperforming the 2013 MacBook Pro. In the disk and graphics areas, there was no comparison: The new Air has a wicked-fast solid state drive, and (at least after the supplemental update) the graphics chipset is notably faster, too.

Things are even more impressive if you consider performance per watt. Take the Geekbench 4 single core CPU results, and look at what's being done for each watt of power…

That is impressive performance with minimal power draw…which should translate into longer battery life, amongst other things.

But so much for benchmarks, what about real-world usage?

Real world usage

I've used the Air quite often over the last week, as I was out of town for four days, so I took it with me. (I had the other two as well, so I could work on this writeup). In my real world typical use—email, web browsing, editing HTML and CSS in Coda or Atom or in a browser, more email, some graphics editing, a bit of screen recording work, etc.—it's clearly much faster than my two dinosaur-era small Macs. Apps open instantly, and even if I load the thing up so it has to use virtual memory, the solid state drive is so fast that it's almost a non-event.

App launching

I wanted to run some tests on app launch times, so I did…but all three machines launch apps so quickly that it's basically a non-event. At best, I got about a one-second difference between the 2012 and 2018 Airs when launching four apps at the same time. So much for that as an area of focus.

Battery life

Next, I wanted to get a sense for real world battery life across all three machines. But as with the benchmark tests, I don't really have the time to do it right, i.e. seeing how long I can run all three machines until they shut down. Instead, I created a one-hour test, then compared results at the end of that test period.

For my test, I played the first (and still best) Jurassic Park movie from the hard drive while running htop, an enhanced version of top, just to give the machine a bit more to do. I also had the Intel Power Gadget app open and charting during the hour. Each machine's screen looked roughly like this:

I charged all three machines so they had full batteries, set the brightness to about 50%, unplugged the power cords, and started the movie. After one hour, I quit the open apps and took some measurements in Terminal, using pmset -g batt. This command will return the current battery charge level (in percentage), as well as an estimate as to remaining life. Here's the output from each machine after the hour:

I Hope There's Pizza In Heaven Mac Os Catalina

2012 Air: 78%; discharging; 2:30 remaining
2013 MBP: 90%; discharging; 6:10 remaining
2018 Air: 97%; discharging; 10:52 remaining

I Hope There's Pizza In Heaven Mac Os X

In a nutshell, the new machine crushed the other two—nearly eleven hours remaining, against 2.5 for the old Air and just over six for the MacBook Pro. The short run time for the 2012 Air, with its smaller 35 watt-hour battery, isn't overly surprising (though 3.5 hours of total usage time is quite short). The 2013 MacBook Pro, though, has a 50 watt-hour battery…yet the new Air's smaller 35 watt-hour battery has no trouble outlasting it.

Of course, there's another variable here, and that's the age of batteries. To check the condition of the older machine's batteries, I used ioreg -brc AppleSmartBattery, which dumps a ton of info about the battery.

In the output, the DesignCapacity field shows what the battery should have held when new, and MaxCapacity shows what it can now hold when fully charged. If there's a big gap in those numbers, then the battery isn't capable of holding much charge.

For my 2012 Air, the ratio is 4075/4680, or 87%; for the 2013 MacBook Pro, it's 5707/6330, or 90%. So while both batteries are down, it's not enough to explain the disparity. And even if they were both at 100%, there'd be no comparison with the new Air's performance.

Conclusion

For me, given the age of my other two laptops, this upgrade is a no brainer. I get a much better screen, a lower-power-drawing CPU that nonetheless outperforms the other two machines, better graphics, and a seriously long-lasting battery. And did I mention it doesn't have a Touch Bar?

This machine will easily replace both of my others, and hopefully last at least as long with me as the first two have.

If you've got a newer Air, though, it's a tougher question. The CPU, GPU, and disk probably aren't all much quicker than they were two years ago, so you'll have to judge if the retina screen and longer battery life make the new Air a worthwhile upgrade.