Apple Releases tvOS 12.4.1, watchOS 5.3.1, and a macOS Mojave 10.14.6 Supplemental Update

[BigBoy2018]

That’s the thing. I was around for the original iPhone release. People never envisioned half of the features it introduced.

Otherwise you’re building a straw man. I said was I’m looking forward to what the next OS will bring to the table.

But hey.

My guess is the only likely change would be to make it more like iOS, more security that locks down what you can and cannot install, and lose some of the more advanced funtionality that makes macos so much better than ios, all of which would suck imo. So yeah, if thats the case I’ll be glad to stick with Mojave/Catalina

 

[R3k]

My guess is the only likely change would be to make it more like iOS, more security that locks down what you can and cannot install, and lose some of the more advanced funtionality that makes macos so much better than ios, all of which would suck imo. So yeah, if thats the case I’ll ve glad to stick with Mojave/Catalina

Yeah, if for some reason they gimped it, I’d be petty hesitant to move on as well.

 

[R3k]

You're looking forward to losing all the 32-bit software (like say Photoshop CS3 or a version of Microsoft Office without a cloud subscription or iZotope RX) to stop working? I'm not. This will be my last OS update on my Mac Mini. It might very well be my last Mac period. There was no need for Apple to kill off perfectly usable expensive software. Those three combined probably cost more than my Mac Mini itself so it bodes well for me to leave the Mini at Mojave so I can keep using them. I'm not going to shell out $1000+ for updates to something that works fine for me in a version I already have. They could have created a sandbox mode for older software or something. Probably over 80% of all Mac games will stop functioning and will never see updates (Aspyr already quit selling them). In Apple's rush to meet some imaginary goal line that makes no real functional difference whatsoever, they are sabotaging loads of consumers in the process. You can make light of it any way you wish with "time to move on" type posts, but the fact is Microsoft "gets it" and Apple does not. You never know if Apple will turn around again in a year or two and just ditch Intel CPUs altogether (some seem to WANT that, consequences be damned). Apple tried Motorola CPUs. Apple has gone through three sets of CPUs. It has no benefited them to change just to be different ever. All they do is lose loads of software that has to be replaced and lots of users in the process. Some don't care because it doesn't affect them. Well howdy do. That's what's wrong with the world today. People don't care about other people and what affects them so RAM IT THROUGH anyway (until the other side does the same to them and then it's war).

Intense post my friend. I remember a few people having similar issues with the change from os9 to OS X. My crew stuck with os9 for quite a while until the rough edges were sorted out. Couple of years. In the end OSx turned out to be much better.

for my 2013 MP production system, I’ll probably stick to Mojave as well for a long time, until I need to upgrade hardware. I also use RX, they’ll update the app I’m sure (and charge for it). I understand I’ll probably need to pay for a bunch of software updates as well when I finally update my hardware.

Btw, the change from Motorola was amazing. They were bottlenecked - heat and processing power. Macs weren’t getting any faster. We started getting horsepower again when they went intel.

sure, some changes are uncessary, and sometimes even insidious, but there is good that comes with it. Computing is so stable nowadays compared to years back with OS9 and Windows 95/8

 

[TLNZstudios]

I won't touch this next mac OS upgrade with a ten foot pole. the betas somehow reached out and hosed my time mahine back ups. thank god i did a b/u away from Apples reach. and still took a week to fix. trying to take that drive back to mojave. thanks, not thanks. no more betas for me. lesson learned.

 

[TheIntruder]

I agree that waiting is a good idea. You really don’t want to tempt fate by relying completely on an abortive update sorting itself out completely in the event of an interruption. On Windows they say Do Not Turn Off Your Computer, for this reason.

But I would say there’s a general problem with Apple’s update UI. If things look stuck, customers will naturally assume that it has stuck. Personally, I’d like to see more detail than a line crawling (or not crawling) across the page. Worse of the worse is where you get the line starting again from the beginning for no good reason. That doesn’t even look slick. It looks like something is messed up. More information = good.

One issue -- Apple's updates now not only modify the system files, but can also touch the Boot ROM and firmware.

Second issue --an opaque UI to insulate the average user from the updates process works best when the process is reliable, which it sometimes isn't.

The old days of downloading a .dmg, opening a ..pkg, and watching the Installer.app do its thing was fine, but not a "modern" UX where the assumption is that users shouldn't have to worry about such things at all. Even when that old progress bar seemed to slow down or stall, at least there might be sounds (or lights) from the hard drive indicating that some activity was occurring in the background. The Downloads section of the Support site is now a shadow of its former self, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it deprecated entirely in the future.

At least the progress bar is better than a spinning gear (or the juggling balls in Windows) in the sense that it gives some idea how far along the process is, even if it's probably not very precise, and the time estimates are usually wildly off.

The real puzzling thing is that Apple is not entirely averse to keeping users informed during an update, but ironically, it's with the most appliance-like Apple product of all, the AppleTV, which does provide indications as to what it's doing, and what users should expect, to complement the progress bar.

My Mac rebooted twice during this last Mojave update, and I have no idea what occurred at any point along the way.

 

[bgalakazam]

Issue still present on 2017 13.3". Maybe time for a swap.

 

[chucker23n1]

Issue still present on 2017 13.3". Maybe time for a swap.

Which issue?
[doublepost=1567336270][/doublepost]

That’s silly, why be conservative with technological advancement?

Why make OS X in the first place? macOS 9 worked fine. Why make the iPhone? My Ericsson mobile worked fine for calls. Why make an iPod? My Sony Walkman did the job. Quantum computing? I’m already productive on my iMac. You don’t know what advancements and benefits a new OS will bring. Technology is progress, saying there is no need to change what works is short sighted.

Most changes in Mac OS X compared to Mac OS 9 were more out of necessity or sensible evolution, not capriciousness.

You can argue that they didn't really have to do replace Platinum with Aqua, or could've gone with a more subtle change in looks. Or that they could've left the Apple menu more like it was in Mac OS 9, with the ability to add your own items as system-wide shortcuts. And so forth.

But for the most part, Mac OS X wasn't really about those design changes; it was about bringing a far more modern foundation to an OS. It had been overdue for almost a decade at that point. Apple had met as early as 1988 — in parallel to designing System 7 — to bring preemptive multitasking to Mac OS, and had multiple attempts such as Taligent and Copland fail at this goal. Mac OS X finally succeeded. System 7.5 through Mac OS 9 were, in that sense, stop-gap releases to move the parts forward that they could move forward, while they were simultaneously waiting for the more fundamental advances.

So, no, Mac OS 9 didn't "work fine". It barely did for its time, and it wouldn't have carried us to 2019.

Your other examples are even sillier.

There's a huge difference between change for change's sake (which is really more fashion than design) and change as a natural evolution or necessary revolution.

I'd actually argue that the iPhone design has been changing a bit too rapidly and sometimes unnecessarily. I still like the iPhone 4/5 design more than that of the 8 I currently have.

 

[chucker23n1]

At least the progress bar is better than a spinning gear (or the juggling balls in Windows) in the sense that it gives some idea how far along the process is, even if it's probably not very precise, and the time estimates are usually wildly off.

Incidentally:

• for bigger installs, Windows shows a percentage, not just juggling balls
• you can, in fact, make the macOS installer more verbose (and get a Console window), depending on what stage its in

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Incidentally:

• for bigger installs, Windows shows a percentage, not just juggling balls

True, but in my experience, the percentage often bears no discernible relation to the time remaining. For example:

• I’ve seen percentages very rapidly leap forward and then spend several minutes advancing one or two percentage points,
• I’ve seen percentages advance to the upper 30s and then leap back to around 11%,
• When preparing to restart with updates, Windows 10 always restarts at 30%, but after restarting the remaining 70% invariably goes much faster,
• And my very favorite, "Working on updates… 100%", accompanied by juggling balls, for up to two minutes.

Personally, I don’t find a made-up percentage to be a more reassuring indication of progress. In fact, I take it to be an indication of mendacious contempt for their users on the part of Microsoft’s UI designers.

 

[Stevedam]

My wife’s series 1 watch started to have display issues from the latest update. Anybody else have issues?

 

[Konigi]

If by macOS 12 you mean macOS 10.12 and by OS X 9 you mean Mac OS 9: yes, absolutely it is. System 1 through Mac OS 9 were basically a completely different OS than Mac OS X 10.0 through macOS 10.15 are. The latter is an evolution of the NeXTSTEP operating system, with Mac additions (such as QuickTime, AppleScript, Carbon, …) sprinkled in. (iOS, watchOS, etc. are all descendants of that, in turn.)

10.0 was a very big change and no iterative change since has been quite as big (nor would that be necessary).

Ok thanks, I didn't know about this and it's nice to know!

I'm still not sure why they make these names complicated for the users, though. It's not very good marketing. But why not.

 

[chucker23n1]

Ok thanks, I didn't know about this and it's nice to know!

I'm still not sure why they make these names complicated for the users, though. It's not very good marketing. But why not.

Yeah, at this point, they should just call it macOS 15 instead of 10.15. Oh well.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

macOS XXX (i.e. Triple X). It's a dirty operating system.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Yeah, at this point, they should just call it macOS 15 instead of 10.15. Oh well.

I agree that it no longer makes sense to keep the 10.x version numbering scheme, but if Apple were to call Catalina macOS 15, then a reasonable person who didn't know better might think that Mavericks must have been macOS 9, or that System 6 was Snow Leopard.

Since Catalina is the 15th major upgrade to what used to be called Mac OS X, it might make more sense to call Catalina macOS 25. That, of course, would introduce its own confusion.

I’m tempted to remark that this is what happens when you don’t drown marketing people at birth, but Apple’s OS numbering scheme has been a model of simple clarity compared to, say, the arcana of Performa model numbers from the dark days of Michael Spindler, or to AMD’s current GPU numbering schemes.

 

[chucker23n1]

I agree that it no longer makes sense to keep the 10.x version numbering scheme, but if Apple were to call Catalina macOS 15, then a reasonable person who didn't know better might think that Mavericks must have been macOS 9, or that System 6 was Snow Leopard.

OK, sure, but does that matter?

Does it really matter in 2019 that Snow Leopard (2009) isn't the same thing as System 6.0.7 (ca. 1989)?

I’m tempted to remark that this is what happens when you don’t drown marketing people at birth, but Apple’s OS numbering scheme has been a model of simple clarity compared to, say, the arcana of Performa model numbers from the dark days of Michael Spindler, or to AMD’s current GPU numbering schemes.

Eh.

The big problem, as Jobs correctly analyzed, was that there was too little focus. Secondarily, there were so many product variants that paralysis of choice occurred (people didn't know which one to pick, and ended up picking up none at all).

But I don't think the numbering scheme was that bad per se. The 5xxx had a built-in screen; the 6xxx were mini towers.

As for why they introduced "Centris" only to get rid of it barely a year later? Or renamed some Performas as Power Macintoshes? Or had them available as LCs, too, in the meantime? Those were pretty bad.