Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
56,964
19,799


Apple today seeded the first beta of an upcoming macOS Big Sur 11.1 update to developers for testing purposes, with the beta coming five days after the launch of macOS Big Sur 11.0.1, the release version of the software.

First-Look-Big-Sur-Feature2.jpg

Developers can download the macOS Big Sur 11.1 beta using the Software Update mechanism in System Preferences after installing the proper profile from the Apple Developer Center.

There's no word yet on what's included in macOS Big Sur 11.1, but it likely includes performance improvements, security updates, and fixes for bugs that weren't able to be addressed in the release version of macOS Big Sur. We'll update this article should anything new be found in the software update.

Article Link: Apple Seeds First Beta of Upcoming macOS Big Sur 11.1 Update to Developers
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel

Lounge vibes 05

macrumors 68000
May 30, 2016
1,846
5,999
I think this confirms that from now on, macOS will get a new version number every year.
so next year we’ll get 12.0, in 2022 we’ll get 13.0, etc.
Or, maybe Apple will start doing what everyones asking, and instead of releasing a new major version every year, they go back to the days where the current version is perfected over a 24 to 30 month period Before we move on.
to be honest, what irritates me more is that all of their operating systems now are on different version numbers. macOS 11, iOS 14, watchOS 7.
let’s unify that. Since next year, we’ll get iOS 15, tvOS 15, and HomePod OS 15, let’s just bump all of the version numbers to 15.
Apple has skipped version numbers in the past, and so has Microsoft, and every other computer company.
or maybe, instead of making things this ultra complex, just introduce all the new operating systems with the year, instead of using the actual version number in marketing.
so next year, at WWDC, Apple would just say “our lineup of operating systems for 2021.”
it makes sense, Microsoft is already doing that, and macOS 11.0.1 isn’t technically 11.0.1. It can actually display itself as macOS 10.16 for applications that won’t support something without a 10 at the beginning.
on top of that, when Apple introduces these major versions, not all the features launch at the same time. iOS 13.0 did not include all the features that it was promised to include. We had to wait until 13.4 to get every single feature. So maybe, if Apple just started introducing them by year, that wouldn’t matter as much.
 
Last edited:

justperry

macrumors G5
Aug 10, 2007
12,333
9,504
I'm a rolling stone.
Waiting to see if they have a fix for MBP's that got bricked last week. I decided to hold off and not install and I am glad I didn't since I have a late 2014 MBP.
Most likely a Firmware (Update) bug, some of those people trying to get Big Sur on unsupported macs got into similar problems, one poster opened his MBP to disconnect the battery, that solved the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel

retta283

Cancelled
Jun 8, 2018
2,845
2,912
Victoria, British Columbia
I guess more things have changed than just those that would make a x.x.2 release, that's how software versions work.
The point here is that he's disappointed that macOS 11 will not follow the version structure of OS X, and instead will get a new number every release (for example Tiger was 10.4, Catalina was 10.15, but now it appears that Big Sur will be 11, and the next release will be 12.).
 

Lounge vibes 05

macrumors 68000
May 30, 2016
1,846
5,999
Obviously I’m referring to the 30+ year history of Apple’s operating system naming scheming. Thanks. :rolleyes:
Actually, they used to bump the main number very frequently. macOS 1.0 came out in 1984, and by 1987 we were already at 5.0.
them only updating the decimal only started in 2001, and once we got to 10.10, it was starting to be a little bit ridiculous. so I actually support this change, kind of.
 

rtjstevens

macrumors regular
Apr 20, 2004
105
0
Sheffield + Bath UK
Going off on a slight tangent here...I've downloaded Big Sur in two external drives (just to see if it's stable etc) prior to upgrading Catalina on my iMac. However I now have 4 new disc icons on my desktop labelled "update". What do I do with them? Rename ? Erase?

Two seem to contain the new OS. The other two, greyed-out ".fseventsd".

Thanks
 

Lounge vibes 05

macrumors 68000
May 30, 2016
1,846
5,999
If we’re being extremely technical, after 10.10 Yosemite, they started to make less and less sense. 10.1 and 10.10 are the exact same number. Obviously, puma and Yosemite are two different operating systems, but I think you get my point. 10.15, which was Catalina, is actually a smaller number than 10.2 jaguar was. So Apple attempting to get away from that confusing mess is something that I appreciate.
 

KoolAid-Drink

macrumors 68000
Sep 18, 2013
1,664
671
USA
Yay, I knew it... Apple would be moving to the iOS-style numbering scheme for macOS... so that means we'll be getting macOS 12 next year (or whenever Apple releases the successor to Big Sur)!

I also think this means an end to supplementary updates, because now Apple can easily bundle them into 11.x.x updates. iOS does not have supplementary updates at all.

This is an improvement, IMHO.
 
Last edited:

Tommy Hewitt

macrumors member
Sep 19, 2013
79
84
If we’re being extremely technical, after 10.10 Yosemite, they started to make less and less sense. 10.1 and 10.10 are the exact same number. Obviously, puma and Yosemite are two different operating systems, but I think you get my point. 10.15, which was Catalina, is actually a smaller number than 10.2 jaguar was. So Apple attempting to get away from that confusing mess is something that I appreciate.
You don't know how version numbers work, do you? 10.1 and 10.10 are not the same numbers because they aren't decimals.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.