Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster


Apple today provided the second beta of an upcoming macOS Tahoe 26.6 update to developers for testing purposes, with the update coming almost three weeks after Apple seeded the first beta.

macOS-Tahoe-26-Thumb-2.jpg

Developers can download the macOS Tahoe 26.6 update by opening up the System Settings app, selecting the General category, and then choosing Software Update. Beta Updates will need to be enabled, and a free developer account is required.

With macOS Golden Gate set to launch in just a few months, Apple is likely focusing most of its attention on the new software. We are not expecting any major new features in macOS Tahoe 26.6.

Article Link: Second macOS Tahoe 26.6 Beta Now Available for Developers
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Z-4195
build number is 25G5043d

here are the others released today

macOS 15.7.8 RC 2 (24G809)
macOS 14.8.8 RC 2 (23J607)
iOS 26.6 beta 2 (23G5043d)
iPadOS 26.6 beta 2 (23G5043d)
tvOS 26.6 beta 2 (23L5744d)
audioOS 26.6 beta 2 (23L5744d)
visionOS 26.6 beta 2 (23O5743c)
watchOS 26.6 beta 2 (23U5040d)
 
Last edited:
it’s kind of sad they’re stranding intel macs on tahoe. at least throw them a bone and give them the supposedly fixed next version and save a tree or two 😂😂
 
Last edited:
it’s kind of sad they’re stranding intel macs on tahoe. at least throw them a bone and give them the supposedly fixed next version and save a tree or two 😂😂
Impossible. macOS 27 was specifically designed around a deep system-wide overhaul, and Apple took advantage of the final transition from Intel to Apple Silicon to remove everything that had become unnecessary: x86 binary code, legacy components, and hundreds of megabytes of obsolete Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA drivers.

This wasn’t simply about dropping support for Intel Macs. It was a complete cleanup and modernization effort across the entire operating system. Every component was reviewed, optimized, and rebuilt exclusively for Apple Silicon. As a result, there are no longer any system files that still contain integrated x86 binary code. The entire operating system has been streamlined and optimized around a pure ARM architecture.

The only remaining exception is Rosetta, but Rosetta is not integrated into the operating system itself. It is a separate, optional package that can be installed or removed independently, and it exists solely to provide compatibility for third-party applications that have not yet been updated for Apple Silicon.

Bringing Intel support back would require reintroducing massive amounts of x86 code, libraries, frameworks, and drivers that were intentionally removed during this cleanup process. Doing so would undermine much of the work Apple has invested in simplifying, optimizing, and modernizing the platform.

This is the same philosophy Apple followed during the PowerPC-to-Intel transition, which ultimately led to Snow Leopard. First, the platform transition is completed; then the legacy architecture is removed so the operating system can become leaner, faster, easier to maintain, and better optimized for current hardware. Apple is now applying that very same approach with the final transition from Intel to Apple Silicon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roncron
Impossible. macOS 27 was specifically designed around a deep system-wide overhaul, and Apple took advantage of the final transition from Intel to Apple Silicon to remove everything that had become unnecessary: x86 binary code, legacy components, and hundreds of megabytes of obsolete Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA drivers.

This wasn’t simply about dropping support for Intel Macs. It was a complete cleanup and modernization effort across the entire operating system. Every component was reviewed, optimized, and rebuilt exclusively for Apple Silicon. As a result, there are no longer any system files that still contain integrated x86 binary code. The entire operating system has been streamlined and optimized around a pure ARM architecture.

The only remaining exception is Rosetta, but Rosetta is not integrated into the operating system itself. It is a separate, optional package that can be installed or removed independently, and it exists solely to provide compatibility for third-party applications that have not yet been updated for Apple Silicon.

Bringing Intel support back would require reintroducing massive amounts of x86 code, libraries, frameworks, and drivers that were intentionally removed during this cleanup process. Doing so would undermine much of the work Apple has invested in simplifying, optimizing, and modernizing the platform.

This is the same philosophy Apple followed during the PowerPC-to-Intel transition, which ultimately led to Snow Leopard. First, the platform transition is completed; then the legacy architecture is removed so the operating system can become leaner, faster, easier to maintain, and better optimized for current hardware. Apple is now applying that very same approach with the final transition from Intel to Apple Silicon.
um, not sure where you got that from, but you do realize you can compile an os for any cpu architecture. some features may require special hardware for best performance, but 99 percent of the os does not.
 
You’re right that an operating system can be compiled for different CPU architectures. The issue, however, isn’t whether Apple could technically recompile macOS for Intel, but whether it makes sense to continue maintaining an entire second platform.

In just the last year, Apple has removed numerous Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA-specific drivers, optimized frameworks and system components exclusively for Apple Silicon, and increasingly focused development on hardware features that simply do not exist on Intel Macs.

Bringing Intel support back would require far more than simply recompiling the operating system. It would mean restoring testing, validation, drivers, and long-term maintenance for a platform that Apple has already decided to move on from. 🤔
 
  • Like
Reactions: roncron
As a result, there are no longer any system files that still contain integrated x86 binary code.
Actually, there are loads of x86-64 binaries still in the OS Frameworks of Golden Gate. OS apps, like Preview, are now AS-only; but there's plenty of dual-fork executables still in the OS.


Code:
/System/Library/Frameworks/AppKit.framework/Versions/C/XPCServices/com.apple.appkit.xpc.openAndSavePanelService.xpc/Contents/MacOS/com.apple.appkit.xpc.openAndSavePanelService (for architecture x86_64):    Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64

/System/Library/CoreServices/APFSUserAgent (for architecture x86_64):    Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64

/System/Library/Frameworks/AppKit.framework/Versions/C/XPCServices/ColorSampler.xpc/Contents/MacOS/ColorSampler (for architecture x86_64):    Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64

It's possible that Rosetta needs them for its translation.
 
it doesn't effect me so badly as I have an M4 macbook pro, but I still don't like creating tons of waste of perfectly good systems. I also have a trusty old 16GB late 2013 running Sequoia (thanks MCLP) and quite frankly unless you're editing video or something else very intense the performance is *shockingly* good. This is much different than the last hardware transition to intel. Sure you need to wait an extra second for something to load, but for what most people use these things for - web, social, video, youtube, productivity, office, etc - it handles it all running things simultaneously including VMs without even a stutter. so my take is more on the impact to the environment and people who can least afford to be on the bleeding edge.

Compiling the base OS and leaving out new AI features, as has been happening, would be great if it kept these things going. leaving them on the buggy mess that is tahoe is just sad. i guess there is always linux, but most folks would not figure that out and continue using insecure hardware since it fits there needs. I think a trillion dollar organization could handle keeping a handful of maintainers if open source projects could do it without any resources. Maybe trade out some app monetizing, emoji and wallpaper "engineers" 😂 .

ironically, it would probably increase sales, by them advertising how environmental and how incredibly long their real support is. But alas, it's just a dream as we know apple will be apple.

it's like my old ipad pro 9.7. why was it stuck at 16? i still use it for basic tasks to this day, plenty of power, just forced obsolecense. Again, I'm not talking about new features, but why cant imessage, notepad or more importantly safari (damn webkit lock-in) be updated? It's not even a different architecture in that case - well we know the answer.
 
it doesn't effect me so badly as I have an M4 macbook pro, but I still don't like creating tons of waste of perfectly good systems. I also have a trusty old 16GB late 2013 running Sequoia (thanks MCLP) and quite frankly unless you're editing video or something else very intense the performance is *shockingly* good. This is much different than the last hardware transition to intel. Sure you need to wait an extra second for something to load, but for what most people use these things for - web, social, video, youtube, productivity, office, etc - it handles it all running things simultaneously including VMs without even a stutter. so my take is more on the impact to the environment and people who can least afford to be on the bleeding edge.

Compiling the base OS and leaving out new AI features, as has been happening, would be great if it kept these things going. leaving them on the buggy mess that is tahoe is just sad. i guess there is always linux, but most folks would not figure that out and continue using insecure hardware since it fits there needs. I think a trillion dollar organization could handle keeping a handful of maintainers if open source projects could do it without any resources. Maybe trade out some app monetizing, emoji and wallpaper "engineers" 😂 .

ironically, it would probably increase sales, by them advertising how environmental and how incredibly long their real support is. But alas, it's just a dream as we know apple will be apple.

it's like my old ipad pro 9.7. why was it stuck at 16? i still use it for basic tasks to this day, plenty of power, just forced obsolecense. Again, I'm not talking about new features, but why cant imessage, notepad or more importantly safari (damn webkit lock-in) be updated? It's not even a different architecture in that case - well we know the answer.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but could you not install an up-to-date third-party browser like Firefox?
 
unfortunately, on ios/ipados apple locks all browsers to webkit. since you can't update webkit to the latest version once your device is no longer able to get the latest version of IOS, even if you installed a 3rd party browser, it would still be using the old safari webkit, so websites would still be broken/insecure. kind of ridiculous, since even really old devices at this point could be used for simple things like web browsing and be useful to children or older people.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.