Catalina still buggy?

[MacBH928]

I am still on High Sierra(no longer updated) and I guess I must move with times, I heard horror stories of Catalina instability. Do you advise to upgrade or its a horrible OS and should wait out until Big Sur is ironed out? Would upgrading to Mojave be good enough?

My other question is I heard Safari 14 is buggy too? I am currently on Safari 13 and Apple being Apple I am not getting latest browser unless I upgrade the whole OS meanwhile Google, Brave, and Mozilla are providing the latest browser versions.

What about Automator and its scripts? does this still work or Apple pulled the plug on it?

My current setup is solid and works and does what I want so I don't want to shoot myself in the foot. Early MBP 2015 if that matters.

 

[Natzoo]

I am on Mojave and have been since release and debated upgrading to Catalina but it is still really bad from what I can tell. Just update to Mojave, it will have security updates until the end of 2021 (at least).

 

[MacBH928]

I am on Mojave and have been since release and debated upgrading to Catalina but it is still really bad from what I can tell. Just update to Mojave, it will have security updates until the end of 2021 (at least).

I updated to Mojave and took the safe road, I guess I will completely avoid Catalina and jump right ahead in Big Sur.

 

[pmiles]

If you were running High Sierra, odds are pretty good you can't even run Big Sur. Most machines that ran High Sierra cannot upgrade past Catalina. Most skip Catalina mostly because it eliminates support for 32-bit applications... and of course the bugs.

For the record, if your machine doesn't have an SSD as an internal drive, your system is taking a performance hit under Mojave. Mojave forces you to use APFS on the system drive which runs like crap on non-SSD drives. Even if you have a secondary drive, the transition from the APFS volume to non-APFS volumes takes a performance hit.

So non-SSD systems are better off with High Sierra. SSD systems with Mojave. And ARM systems with Big Sur.

 

[stevenaaus]

Mojave 10.14.2 is the last macOS to not enforce APFS I think , and is what i ship with some Macs i sell.

But getting that version installed may be a hassle/impossible... Dosdude is a great resource though.

 

[MacBH928]

If you were running High Sierra, odds are pretty good you can't even run Big Sur. Most machines that ran High Sierra cannot upgrade past Catalina. Most skip Catalina mostly because it eliminates support for 32-bit applications... and of course the bugs.

For the record, if your machine doesn't have an SSD as an internal drive, your system is taking a performance hit under Mojave. Mojave forces you to use APFS on the system drive which runs like crap on non-SSD drives. Even if you have a secondary drive, the transition from the APFS volume to non-APFS volumes takes a performance hit.

So non-SSD systems are better off with High Sierra. SSD systems with Mojave. And ARM systems with Big Sur.

my macbook was originally shipped with El Capitan and supports Big Sur. Big Sur could be installed on MBA, MBP, and Mac Pro from 2013.

 

[greyeyezz]

I'm running 10.15.7 on a brand new iMac, all apps installed. Been about a week and all is well so far, we will see.

 

[Jack Neill]

Catalina was very problematic for me until about .4/.5 and then it got ironed out. I have a Mid 2011 iMac and a Hackintosh both running 10.15.7 perfectly and has been very stable. Ironically both machines are very unsupported yet run it well.

 

[AlexMaximus]

Same here like Jack. I am Running 10.15.7 on a Mac Pro 5.1 from 2010 for a full year now without a single problem. Very stable and really great. I never thought Apple could ever top Mojave, but Catalina was a great and stable update when they finished it with the last revision. Of course I used the DosDude method, but other than that its 100% on a 11 year old pimped tower.

 

[k27]

Yes, Catalina is buggy.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1458930288558370816

Apple's Poor Patching Policies Potentially Make Users' Security and Privacy Precarious - The Mac Security Blog

Apple's practices regarding security updates are frustrating and perplexing, and may endanger users.

www.intego.com

 

[throAU]

Do you advise to upgrade or its a horrible OS and should wait out until Big Sur is ironed out?

I have run every macOS since Snow Leopard as soon as I have been able to. With regards to recent platforms, I'd suggest if you're considering Big Sur, go straight to Monterey.

It's significantly faster and generally nicer than Big Sur in my experience, even on intel.

Catalina imho was a bit... meh. Big Sur was a big UI update but performance was also ... meh.

Monterey has the UI upgrade but performance is improved vs. Big Sur.


Check your software compatibility first of course, but... my thoughts above.

 

[posguy99]

I have run every macOS since Snow Leopard as soon as I have been able to. With regards to recent platforms, I'd suggest if you're considering Big Sur, go straight to Monterey.

Don't ever install a .0, there is absolutely no reason to. The .6 will be plenty of time to consider whether or not to bother with Monterey. It certainly wasn't for Big Sur, but who knows?

OP: Is there some reason you think you need to replace the OS you are currently running?

 

[k27]

OP: Is there some reason you think you need to replace the OS you are currently running?

Catalina? Are you kidding? See my previous post. Or do serious unpatched vulnerabilities not matter?

Apple’s Poor Patching Policies Potentially Make Users’ Security and Privacy Precarious​

"Confirmed: You need the latest macOS version
Last month, I spoke at Objective by the Sea v4.0, an Apple-focused security conference, about this very subject. Specifically, I focused on whether the two previous versions of macOS get the same treatment as the current macOS version when it comes to security updates.
[...]"

Apple's Poor Patching Policies Potentially Make Users' Security and Privacy Precarious - The Mac Security Blog

Apple's practices regarding security updates are frustrating and perplexing, and may endanger users.

www.intego.com

 

[Wando64]

Whatever.

Please delete.

 

[k27]

You overlooked all the security holes that may still exist but have not been patched. You've overlooked all the future vulnerabilities that may never be patched by Apple.

The way Apple handles security vulnerabilities, the older the macOS version gets, the greater the risk.

 

[Wando64]

You overlooked all the security holes that may still exist but have not been patched. You've overlooked all the future vulnerabilities that may never be patched by Apple.

OK. They may do, they may not.
I see where you’re coming from. We all have to make our choices, and I respect yours.

 

[k27]

OK.

Just one more thing: Keep in mind that this serious security vulnerability was not patched by Apple for a very long time and was also exploited.

 

[posguy99]

Catalina? Are you kidding? See my previous post. Or do serious unpatched vulnerabilities not matter?

It's always a dance between using something that works, but may have a vuln, and something that doesn't work. You never want to run a .0 (of course), but Apple's clear incompetence means you usually want to evaluate even later versions for suitability to purpose.

 

[throAU]

Don't ever install a .0, there is absolutely no reason to. The .6 will be plenty of time to consider whether or not to bother with Monterey. It certainly wasn't for Big Sur, but who knows?

Fair enough, that's a reasonable statement.

Usually I'd agree but if you're going all the way to Big Sur, you may as well go to Monterey in my opinion simply due to the improved performance. Going from Big Sur to Monterey for me was a noticeable performance improvement, and most of the compatibility breaking stuff happened earlier.

Sure there's a memory leak on the latest M1 Pro/Max machines with it, but its not too bad to live with and will get patched.

 

[Isamilis]

I got persistent issues on Catalina, draining battery during sleep. Already change various setting as well as reinstall from fresh 2 times, with no luck. Finally few months ago, I jumped to Big Sur (MBA 2020, could not install Mojave) and problem solved until now.

 

[k27]

but Apple's clear incompetence means you usually want to evaluate even later versions for suitability to purpose.

I don't want to disagree here. But there is a difference if you use the predecessor macOS version or an ancient one. The older the version, the worse the security updates.

Apple's handling of updates is a complete disaster anyway.

Exactly what the article reflects, I have always suspected.

It's also a bad joke that you can't install a previous version of the current macOS on a newly released Mac. But in the non-Mac world that is common and there are reasons for it:

- the current macOS version often still has many bugs
- applications and equipment do not yet run with the current macOS version
(- the used Mac is no longer supported by Apple)

Apple should give a clear and binding statement about how long a macOS version is supported. By that I mean really supported, like the current version. (So not as it is currently that Apple simply does not fix some vulnerabilities or fixes some vulnerabilities much later).

 

[MacBH928]

You overlooked all the security holes that may still exist but have not been patched. You've overlooked all the future vulnerabilities that may never be patched by Apple.

The way Apple handles security vulnerabilities, the older the macOS version gets, the greater the risk.

I am not asking for security holes but... I always keep hearing updated with security patches but I don't see any one running older software being attacked or anything. I have a lot of older software and currently running Mojave... everything fine and dandy.

I think a lot of these security patches are theoretical and extreme rare cases.

 

[k27]

I am not asking for security holes but... I always keep hearing updated with security patches but I don't see any one running older software being attacked or anything. I have a lot of older software and currently running Mojave... everything fine and dandy.

I think a lot of these security patches are theoretical and extreme rare cases.

The report says otherwise.
You can do whatever you want, of course.


"As mentioned in the talk and detailed in the upcoming white paper, macOS Mojave is—and presumably always will be—vulnerable to the “FORCEDENTRY” bug that has been actively exploited by the Pegasus spyware. There are other vulnerabilities that presumably affect macOS Mojave—and some, for now at least, that affect macOS Big Sur and Catalina—but remain unpatched.

You’d never know these facts based solely on Apple’s actions or statements. Most users assume that when they install security updates, Apple has fixed every known vulnerability, and their Mac is perfectly safe. But in reality, unless you’re running the very latest major version of macOS (now macOS Monterey), Apple’s updates provide only selective fixes along with a false sense of security."

Apple's Poor Patching Policies Potentially Make Users' Security and Privacy Precarious - The Mac Security Blog

Apple's practices regarding security updates are frustrating and perplexing, and may endanger users.

www.intego.com

 

[MBAir2010]

Mojave is great (we are Mojavians)
im running that on my MacBook air 2010 via a nice healthy patch!
what REALLY is a security update anywho?
there are ad blockers and tracking software and smarter web browsing.
well my post is to promote Mojave or even use a Linux Disco- a fun one!

hope this helped!

 

[Rashy]

Mojavian here as well. I am not scared of ending security support. This doesn't mean you are getting flooded with malware the next day, let alone MacOS is a very secure platform anyway.

I hate Crapalina and Bug Slur (even their names sound terrible), and as long I am on Intel devices, they provide me ZERO benefit, but increased risks of bugs, incompatibility and removed features (32bit, dashboard...)

Monterey seems better, especially if you're switching to M-chips anyway, just waiting a bit until stuff like Safari and Memory run as they should.