I don't know if it is a bug but I'd like to get the battery % in figures back. Other than that it has been pretty stable.
Why would the OS itself have to double in size? The size jump is likely due to the fact it has to support both an Intel and an M1 Mac and has to be universal coded and that it needs to create swap files as it updates things. That doesn't mean the next OS will have a similar size jump.Prepare your SSD's folks. The next MacOS might have 24GB instead of 12. And all of us with 128GB MacBooks, well... I hope that all you do on your laptop is limited to web browsing, otherwise I'm sure you have almost no free space left.
Is music app fixed?
Of course. Moving all the iOS code over as well.it looks like they are abandoning the old numbering scheme. they are following iOS.
Some people are arithmetically challenged. I agree the next macOS will hardly be 11.9.Well... if they are launching right now a "small" version numbered 11.1 for minor improvements and bug fixes, that means the OSX numeration logic can't be applied and then the next big OS release in 2021 has to follow another versioning logic.
No need to read the article to get to that conclusion. But of course, it's all suppositions...
- Version 10.0: "Cheetah"
- Version 10.1: "Puma"
- Version 10.2: "Jaguar"
- Version 10.3: "Panther"
- Version 10.4: "Tiger"
- Version 10.5: "Leopard"
- Version 10.6: "Snow Leopard"
- Version 10.7: "Lion"
- Version 10.8: "Mountain Lion"
- Version 10.9: "Mavericks"
- Version 10.10: "Yosemite"
- Version 10.11: "El Capitan"
- Version 10.12: "Sierra"
- Version 10.13: "High Sierra"
- 2Version 10.14: "Mojave"
- Version 10.15: "Catalina"
- Version 11: "Big Sur"
Snow Leopard was fantastic, but it's so 2009... I am surprised at the number of UI bugs in Big Sur, like the misaligned menu dropdowns and some funny stuff happening with certain desktop backgrounds.Yes. Snow Leopard was the best and will remain so forever. It has cemented its place in Mac OS history for this generation of people apparently.
Which bugs are you experiencing the OS to be full of, though, if you’d like to elaborate on that?
The decimal place they chose to represent a minor upgrade.I have no idea where you got that. I reread article 12 times to see
Yeah, looks like its the end of an era. Even though each 10.x release was a major update, I personally think they should have called Big Sur macOS 16 since it really is that version. Marketing team likely forgot at the last minute. Out of all of Apples operating system platforms, it really should be carrying the highest version number:So the next Mac OS is 12? interesting
I'm thinking it's more related to supporting Intel, M1, as well as iOS apps.Why would the OS itself have to double in size? The size jump is likely due to the fact it has to support both an Intel and an M1 Mac and has to be universal coded and that it needs to create swap files as it updates things. That doesn't mean the next OS will have a similar size jump.
Sounds like you're making this up?big sur on M1 has tons of bugs. rosetta is barely usable outside of the mainstream apps