Testing Stage Manager on a 2018 iPad Pro With the New iPadOS 16.1 Beta

[tobybrut]

I’m not replying any further, you are deliberately ignoring the facts, Apple themselves stated multiple times ONLY the M1 iPad Pro would run Stage Manager, no other iPad Pro would run it, if you can’t or won’t understand that point I can’t really help explain it any further.

No they didn't. They said they ran it on other iPads and found the performance not up to par. That's what Craig was talking about when he was referring to customers expecting instantaneous response. He was basically saying that it was running too sluggish for them to ship on those other systems. That's why they kept it with M1's only. You're deliberately mischaracterizing what they said, taking pieces of what they said and claiming Apple said it was impossible for it to run at all. That is demonstrably false.

What they ended up doing was finding a workaround to permit a subset of the full functionality to work on earlier models that won't be quite as snappy as on an M1. What you're doing is parsing words like a politician to fit your world view. teh_hunterer is absolutely correct. When Craig was talking about not finding the performance acceptable, that was for the full implementation of Stage Manager, the full dual window, 8-app implementation that allowed apps to allocate up to 15GB EACH. What they ended up doing for the earlier iPads is single-window, 4-app implementation. We don't know how much each app can allocate. THAT new implementation is a lesser Stage Manager. But since you have no facts to back up what you say, all you can do is parse words to say that no possible incarnation of Stage Manager EVER, even with one app running at a time on one window could ever run on a non-M1 iPad. See how ridiculous your argument is when you won't even acknowledge that Stage Manager on the 2018 is not the same Stage Manager as on the 2021?

 

[tobybrut]

Very interesting. I didn't have any idea the extent of what desktop-class features were missing from the A series.

Even the techier YouTubers were saying the M1 was just an A-X or A-Z series chip with some extra hardware for Rosetta 2 and Thunderbolt.

Nope, the M1 was built from the ground up as a desktop class processor. It's got a ton of things on it that aren't present on the A-series chips. A lot of people offhandedly say the M1 is a glorified A14X because it's got 8 CPU cores and 8 GPU cores, the same as an A14X would have had if Apple had built one. But it has a lot more than just some extra cores. The problem is that most people don't understand hardware on computers and concentrate only on the stuff everyone talks about like CPU and GPU and Neural Engine. Nothing else exists on an SoC to the average person. People forget that a computer involves a lot of support processors, which in the Intel/AMD world are called the chipset. A Windows PC cannot even boot without the accompanying chipset. Apple built the chipset into the M1 while x86 keeps things separate.

When talking about the M1, Apple even mentioned a lot of the different parts of the new M1, including optimized memory controllers to handle a large increase in bandwidth. There are several parts of the M1 die they never referred to in their event keynote, leaving people to wonder what they did. Parts of it were the interconnects used for piecing M1's together into the Pro and Max. But Apple only mentioned the high level stuff an average person would understand. They'd never get into the weeds or else their audience would have their eyes glaze over and fall asleep. None of those extras exist on an A-series because they aren't needed to run iOS, and until Stage Manager, iPadOS. You mentioned yourself iOS was never intended to run virtual memory. That optimized hardware was never included because they didn't need it. But the M1 did because it had to run macOS.

 

[Abazigal]

No they didn't. They said they ran it on other iPads and found the performance not up to par. That's what Craig was talking about when he was referring to customers expecting instantaneous response. He was basically saying that it was running too sluggish for them to ship on those other systems. That's why they kept it with M1's only. You're deliberately mischaracterizing what they said, taking pieces of what they said and claiming Apple said it was impossible for it to run at all. That is demonstrably false.

What they ended up doing was finding a workaround to permit a subset of the full functionality to work on earlier models that won't be quite as snappy as on an M1. What you're doing is parsing words like a politician to fit your world view. teh_hunterer is absolutely correct. When Craig was talking about not finding the performance acceptable, that was for the full implementation of Stage Manager, the full dual window, 8-app implementation that allowed apps to allocate up to 15GB EACH. What they ended up doing for the earlier iPads is single-window, 4-app implementation. We don't know how much each app can allocate. THAT new implementation is a lesser Stage Manager. But since you have no facts to back up what you say, all you can do is parse words to say that no possible incarnation of Stage Manager EVER, even with one app running at a time on one window could ever run on a non-M1 iPad. See how ridiculous your argument is when you won't even acknowledge that Stage Manager on the 2018 is not the same Stage Manager as on the 2021?

I agree with what you have said 100%. What likely happened is that Apple initially intended for stage manager (which to Apple, includes external monitor support) was designed with the M1 chip in mind (in part due to the memory requirements). They did take the feedback to heart and engineer a striped-down version of stage manager that could still run on older iPads, but I question its utility on a smaller display, and people likely wanted the external display support more.

Though at this point, I also think that everything which can be said has been said, and it really isn't worth any more of your time and energy trying to convince someone who is deliberately acting obtuse. In the very least, you have laid out your arguments clearly for all to read, and we can only let the readers here come to their own conclusions.

Save yourself the frustration, and have a good weekend ahead.

 

[teh_hunterer]

Though at this point, I also think that everything which can be said has been said, and it really isn't worth any more of your time and energy trying to convince someone who is deliberately acting obtuse. In the very least, you have laid out your arguments clearly for all to read, and we can only let the readers here come to their own conclusions.

Save yourself the frustration, and have a good weekend ahead.

100%, tobybrut has laid out the arguments and facts far more clearly and patiently than that other person deserved, and their response is still to foolishly and arrogantly disregard it all through sheer deliberate ignorance. It's not worth any more of their effort. Nor is it worth any more of my effort.

Wish both of you a good weekend, too.

 

[Pezimak]

As has been pointed out in this thread before, the DTK had 16 GiB RAM, whereas the equivalent iPad Pro had 6. That makes a huge difference for Stage Manager.

But does that make any difference to the swap file methods used on the A12? That was Apples entire argument for it not working on older iPads. Isn’t the memory technology enabling that built into the CPU? How can Apple have made a simple flag change in the code if the swap file technology they claimed Stage Manager required to run isnt in the A12 processor like they claimed.

 

[chucker23n1]

But does that make any difference to the swap file methods used on the A12?

Of course it does. The more physical RAM you have, the less relevant swap becomes.

As soon as you need swap, memory becomes orders of magnitude slower. (For example, consider that an M1 Pro has 200 GiB/s RAM bandwidth, but the SSD "only" does 7 GiB/s.)

 

[teh_hunterer]

But does that make any difference to the swap file methods used on the A12? That was Apples entire argument for it not working on older iPads. Isn’t the memory technology enabling that built into the CPU? How can Apple have made a simple flag change in the code if the swap file technology they claimed Stage Manager required to run isnt in the A12 processor like they claimed.

Apple didn't say it wouldn't work - they said it wouldn't work well enough. So it would work, but not perform well enough to be acceptable.

 

[tobybrut]

But does that make any difference to the swap file methods used on the A12? That was Apples entire argument for it not working on older iPads. Isn’t the memory technology enabling that built into the CPU? How can Apple have made a simple flag change in the code if the swap file technology they claimed Stage Manager required to run isnt in the A12 processor like they claimed.

No, it's not built into the CPU. I'm guessing you didn't even read my numerous posts on this topic. Apple didn't put anything into the A12X/Z that wasn't needed by iOS/iPadOS. Since iOS/iPadOS doesn't support virtual memory (until SM), neither did the A12 series.

What gives you the idea that it was a simple flag? That just turns a feature on or off. Seeing as we know the features are different on the various iPads, there was definitely code changes beyond a simple flag.

 

[Pezimak]

Of course it does. The more physical RAM you have, the less relevant swap becomes.

As soon as you need swap, memory becomes orders of magnitude slower. (For example, consider that an M1 Pro has 200 GiB/s RAM bandwidth, but the SSD "only" does 7 GiB/s.)

I read it as a specific memory swap tech exclusive to the M1 chip, Apple called it a new fast memory swap feature in iPad OS. But I see what you mean, they did state that it needed fast storage though implying only the M1 had it. Still I get what you say now. It works by storing the windows in the internal storage. Hmm that'll eat up space then. Still it was a bit dishonest I think of them to claim only M1 could do it, yet it does seem to be working pretty well in the A12 iPad Pro's. I know how memory swap works, didn't connect that was the method for the Stage Manager, still proves the older iPads have fast enough storage and CPU's for it to work.
I stand corrected.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

What gives you the idea that it was a simple flag? That just turns a feature on or off. Seeing as we know the features are different on the various iPads, there was definitely code changes beyond a simple flag.

Because that needs to be true to continue the conspiracy? First rule of conspiracies, ignore anything that doesn’t back up the conspiracy.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

What Apple previously communicated regarding Stage Manager.

Taking advantage of the power of the M1 chip, Stage Manager brings a new way to multitask with multiple overlapping windows and full external display support.

and

Stage Manager also unlocks full external display supportwith resolutions of up to 6K, so users can arrange the ideal workspace, and work with up to four apps on iPad and four apps on the external display.

Stage Manager, as a feature USED to include full external display support. As a result, this PR is no longer accurate.

iPadOS 16 takes the versatility of iPad even further

Apple today previewed iPadOS 16, a major update that makes the iPad experience even more versatile.

www.apple.com

I’d imagine we’ll see another PR that more clearly separates “Stage Manager” from “full external display support”.

 

[840quadra]

Then what is your point? And I'm not attacking you here, I'm genuinely trying to drill down to the core of this argument. Anyone who knows a bit about this issue knows that external display support is not the technical issue at the core of this argument. Nor is being able to run an interface of a bunch of floating windows. We all know the iPad is capable of that at a hardware level.

The technical issue at hand is, Stage Manager with external display support allows 8 apps side by side, so can the A12X and A12Z iPad Pros actually run 8 apps side by side in enough scenarios where Apple deems the performance appropriate? Sure, it might be able to do that for the apps you or I want to run, but Apple can't just test for our usage and call it a day. They have to imagine a scenario of someone multitasking across 8 apps, some of them being quite heavy. They also have to test for whether the extra usage of memory swap on a 4GB device with 8 apps running side by side would thrash the storage so much that it would limit its lifespan.

Ultimately, they decided that it just wasn't a good enough experience because of the fact the RAM is low and the storage was not designed for the amount of memory swap required. Remember, a device with half the RAM may end up doing twice the memory swap of a device with double the RAM. If enough people in enough scenarios run into crappy performance on an iPad, then Apple loses the reputation that the iPad is a speedy modern device that basically doesn't slow down or have any performance issues.

The amount of RAM a device has is meaningless without knowing what era that device is from, what era software it's running, and what operating system it's running on. 4GB of RAM on iPadOS15 where there is no memory swap, and RAM management is done by simply killing apps that use too much is fine. Some people complain that the apps reload too much, but it's more or less fine.

4GB of RAM when you're running 8 modern apps side by side is a scenario you literally won't see on any premium device sold by Apple or any other major company, because in 2022 4GB of RAM and an SSD that doesn't do memory swap very well just isn't enough. Any serious company who is selling a device with a floating window OS experience on it is including at least 8GB of RAM. And has been for many, many years.

I have attempted to relay my point multiple times to the point where I am disinterested in attempting a new variation of explaining the same thing using too many words. In short, the main thing I am after is support for Discrete displays to be turned on for older iPads too. That’s it.

On some of your other points, Stage manager on older devices is limited to 4 applications, not 8 So there is already a harder limit for these older devices. Personally I feel the limit should be based on expected RAM use of applications, not a hard limit of quantity of applications. But this is a different discussion.

RAM is relevant to this conversation and I understand your point of view on some items but also wonder if you understand the differences in desktop applications and iPad applications. Since most iPad applications are drafted to be used by many models (most of which aren’t Pro models with more RAM) the lesser ram isn’t as significant as the wild Wild West that exists on MacOS.

With the slimmer apps, aggressive memory management, and reduced complexity to most applications I have been shocked to see how little many of my main apps use when I run them on an M1 or M1 Pro laptop, and monitor them via Activity Monitor.

I personally feel (based on using 3rd party tools that support it), that Apple can enable discrete display support on older models, especially with the 4 App limit.

There's a saying in software engineering that eventually all software will eat up all the resources provided by new hardware, which is why things don't run appreciably faster than they did 30 years ago. CPU's, memory, graphics all get faster, but software engineers load them down with so much new stuff, whether it be moving from 8-bit to 16-bit to 64-bit graphics and data or providing more and more sophisticated algorithms to handle bigger tasks.

I'll agree partially in that you can compare feature sets between hardware from 20 years ago to today's, but know that the amount of data being moved by today's computers is orders of magnitude larger than back then. And you have to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

My disagreement is that we're talking about a feature on a desktop to a non-feature on a tablet, which is an apples to oranges comparison. It doesn't matter if the hardware was made the same day or 20 years ago. If the hardware isn't present to do something, it won't be able to do it well. Any desktop OS is built from the ground up to do virtual memory. All desktop CPU's and their chipsets are designed to handle that. The A-series was never built to do that. Optimized memory controllers are needed to handle moving large amounts of memory from RAM to disk and back while compressing/decompressing and cleaning up at lightning speeds. I used the ASICs comparison before where an ASIC built for the scrypt algorithm can easily mine Dogecoin because Dogecoin is built on that algorithm. But use a GPU, which is a general purpose unit, would take decades to mine a single coin where the ASIC would take weeks to do the same job. The ASIC is highly optimized for that one job and can do it far faster, just as an optimized memory controller is going to be able to manage virtual memory a lot faster than using non-optimized hardware. But that ASIC can't do much of anything else, which is why CPU's are composed of a mix of optimized hardware for specific tasks and general purpose hardware to run app code. When you're missing a part, it doesn't matter if some other hardware was able to do something 20 years ago.

None of that specialized hardware exists on the A12X or A12Z, so comparing something on a desktop of today to a desktop of 20 years ago is not meaningful. iPadOS is not a desktop OS, so its processors were never designed to handle desktop OS requirements until the M1 came around. Apple's workaround is simulating that dedicated hardware, likely with algorithms running on the high performance cores or GPU cores, none of which are optimized for handling virtual memory. They can do it, but not anywhere near as fast as dedicated hardware could. This is the same reason why a video editor can do H.264 rendering on any Mac, but a Mac with a media engine with dedicated hardware can do it immensely faster. That is the crux of the issue. As Craig F said months ago, they ran SM on many iPads but found the performance inadequate on non-M1 iPads. That remains true. But they were able to find a workaround that brought a limited feature set to the older iPads. That workaround is not going to be able to do the job of a dedicated "engine" nearly as fast or efficiently.

On top of that, the older iPads have less memory and flash that's five times slower than the flash on the 2021 M1 iPads compounding the difficulty. Consider people were complaining about slow flash on the base M2 MBA that was half the speed of the M1 MBA and complaining that the performance was unacceptable. The flash on the 2018/2020 iPads are 1/5 the speed of the 2021 M1 iPads. That comparison should put some things in perspective.

See above with regards to what my main focus is, and why I disagree with most of what you outlined here. Yes it is comparing different things, but those Desktops pale in comparison to the hardware capabilities these iPads have now. Even factoring in the higher loads of newer software, and more memory hungry applications, these devices have enough in them, especially with the 4 app limit.

Keep in mind that 3rd party applications already prove that these devices can run discrete information on the internal, and external screens without much issue. This is why I feel Apple would be fine allowing activation of an external discrete display on the 2018+ non M1 Pro devices with USB-C.

 

[darngooddesign]

There was no reason it couldn't run on the A12X and A12Z. The 12Z was the chip developers used to create the first Apple Silicon apps. It's not all that different from the M1.

The dev kit Mini had 16GB RAM while the 2018 11" iPad Pro only has 4GB.

 

[840quadra]

The dev kit Mini had 16GB RAM while the 2018 11" iPad Pro only has 4GB.

4 or 6GB depending on storage size, and these devices (ipads) run iPad apps with more aggressive memory management & not full blooded MacOS applications. Additionally, applications are usually (not always) written to support lesser iPads (with even less memory) than Pro models.

The combination of those factors are why many of us (on the other side of the argument) feel the original lack of support for Stage Manager on older Pro models was nonsensical.

 

[tobybrut]

4 or 6GB depending on storage size, and these devices (ipads) run iPad apps with more aggressive memory management & not full blooded MacOS applications. Additionally, applications are usually (not always) written to support lesser iPads (with even less memory) than Pro models.

The combination of those factors are why many of us (on the other side of the argument) feel the original lack of support for Stage Manager on older Pro models was nonsensical.

I would point out that Apple lifted the limit on apps on the original Stage Manager to allow 15GB of RAM allocated to each and every one of those eight apps running simultaneously. Even on Windows machines, they have minimum RAM requirements to run anything reasonably well. Virtual memory is great and all, but even it needs real RAM for decent performance. The faster flash on M1 iPads still runs glacially when compared to real RAM. macOS has pretty good memory management but most reviewers still recommend 16GB, showing they recognize that the more real RAM there is, the better things perform. Most Mac apps do not use memory allocation remotely close to 15GB and macOS still requires 8GB at minimum, granted the OS itself has a larger memory footprint than iPadOS, but to run really well it needs 16GB or more.

Why is it unreasonable for Apple to use the metrics of apps allocating 15GB each when specifying limitations on Stage Manager? Sure, if you run eight tiny apps, you're not going to need even 4GB and no virtual memory at all, but if you're running eight apps each with 15GB in the future, and they all have to be awake the entire time, Stage Manager would screech to a halt with insufficient real RAM. They're envisioning running the equivalent of eight Photoshops at the same time, each editing a monster file, filling up that entire 15GB allocation for each app. Apple is essentially saying that the 8GB in the M1 iPads is enough, but that 4-6GB may not be sufficient. Put limitations on the lack of virtual memory support in the A12 series together with low RAM and incredibly slow flash (1/5 the performance of the M1 iPad Pro), you've got some serious obstacles to a well-performing SM. Any engineering company would use worst case scenarios when determining the minimum requirements for a feature, not the best case scenarios, hence why using a handful of apps with low RAM usage isn't all that meaningful. You're simulating a best case, not a worst case.

I've also explained earlier why Apple doesn't have full display extension on iPadOS. They don't even have that with Stage Manager. Stage Manager is not full display extension by any other name. When people think of display extension, they envision a joined desktop spanning multiple monitors where apps can even sit between two monitors, with half in one and half in the other because they make up contiguous space. iPadOS doesn't have that because it doesn't have a desktop at all. The closest comparison is macOS's LaunchPad, which looks a lot like Springboard. Note that LaunchPad is single monitor. Why is that? Because it makes no sense to have a bunch of app icons on multiple monitors even if those monitors are available. Springboard is exactly the same thing.

On top of that, iPadOS at its core is touch-centric. What's the point of a second monitor if you can't touch anything over there? This is why apps that currently support a second monitor use that only for display purposes with no live interaction. iPadOS 15 and earlier does not even supply notifications for the second monitor. It's also why Apple mirrors the main display instead of extending the "desktop". How do you extend something that doesn't exist? If you can't touch it, what's the point? Sure Apple could fill in the sides with more wallpaper to eliminate the black borders, but why? It would still look ugly with nothing in them, with icons clustered in the middle and the edges empty. So they don't bother. It wouldn't be hard to fill the sides, but it doesn't make any sense to do so. The only way Apple will do that is if a future iPad moves to 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio. It'll still mirror.

You'll also notice Stage Manager differs from the version on the Mac. You cannot freely drag apps between monitors, even in the full blown iPad version. The reason is because there is no desktop. You have to either use those three dots or use the Globe-Control-Backslash key combo to move the frontmost app to the other monitor. Stage Manager consists of two entirely self-contained packages of four apps, and never the twain shall meet. They have their own docks and their own side app panels. Even with just a self-contained Stage Manager on the second monitor, it is so buggy that they had to pull the feature for later release while SM on the iPad itself works pretty well. You might wonder why is one stable and the other unstable since they look exactly the same. Non-engineers make the fundamental mistake that just because something looks the same that it is. This is another reason comparisons to 2006 desktops is non-sequitur. Bottom line is that secondary monitors make no sense on a touch-centric device, so iPadOS would need major revisions to use one, along with an entire conceptual shift in creating an actual desktop environment where none currently exists. Opening up a secondary monitor for generic use is opening up a can of worms Apple doesn't want to deal with. If they do eventually move to a desktop setup, expect that to take many more years because it is essentially a re-writing of major parts of iPadOS rather than the tacked on module that SM is. Samsung does it with DeX for two reasons. They also completely isolate DeX from its core Android UI so they avoid any fundamental changes and they need to put lipstick on a pig. Android lacks tablet apps and DeX is there to make ugly phone apps look less ugly. It's not very useful, though. I own two Galaxy Tabs (S7+ and S8 Ultra) and DeX is pointless.

If I were a programmer at Apple, I would have created Stage Manager as side code, running separate from core iPadOS to avoid having to change fundamental aspects of the OS, and from how SM runs and how there's zero interaction between the two monitors, I think they did exactly that. What you're asking for would require a fundamental re-writing of iPadOS, and I don't think Apple is willing to do that to satisfy the teeny tiny minority who actually use a second monitor.

 

[teh_hunterer]

I have attempted to relay my point multiple times to the point where I am disinterested in attempting a new variation of explaining the same thing using too many words. In short, the main thing I am after is support for Discrete displays to be turned on for older iPads too. That’s it.

On some of your other points, Stage manager on older devices is limited to 4 applications, not 8 So there is already a harder limit for these older devices. Personally I feel the limit should be based on expected RAM use of applications, not a hard limit of quantity of applications. But this is a different discussion.

RAM is relevant to this conversation and I understand your point of view on some items but also wonder if you understand the differences in desktop applications and iPad applications. Since most iPad applications are drafted to be used by many models (most of which aren’t Pro models with more RAM) the lesser ram isn’t as significant as the wild Wild West that exists on MacOS.

With the slimmer apps, aggressive memory management, and reduced complexity to most applications I have been shocked to see how little many of my main apps use when I run them on an M1 or M1 Pro laptop, and monitor them via Activity Monitor.

That is the case with iPad apps now, but you realise that is only because of iPadOS's and iOS's aggressive RAM management up until now, ie the iPad's roots in the iPhone's OS. With iPadOS16, apps are getting access to virtual memory for the very first time, which means that reduced complexity and memory behaviour will be going away over time. That is, it's not just Stage Manager that will be utilising virtual memory, but the apps themselves will also get access to virtual memory.

Apple has to design Stage Manager to work with the apps that will be releasing after iPadOS16, not just the apps as they are today.

I personally feel (based on using 3rd party tools that support it), that Apple can enable discrete display support on older models, especially with the 4 App limit.

Sure, and I wish they would too. Proper external display support and Stage Manager don't have to be the same thing.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The only thing I prefer about it is that full screen iOS apps like Instagram don’t take over the entire screen. Otherwise, still preferring Slide Over, BUT will give it a try again after the next beta. One common use for me (Safari side by side with another app and Notes and Messages available via Slide Over) is the one I’ll be looking to replace. If they release a 15 inch iPad (so that I can have a 12.9 “window” plus other stuff, that’d get a smile out of me with Stage Manager.

And, if you have one app in view and have that one app zoomed, the time and battery remaining doesn’t show. If you’ve got TWO apps, one app zoomed and the other behind, it DOES show that data. Bug report entered for that.

 

[Bearxor]

I feel like a feature as underwhelming as Stage Manager really doesn't deserve this much discussion about RAM management.

 

[Ernst Krenek]

One perifer way to have Stage manager on an even older iPad (in my case a 2017 12,9 inch iPad Pro) is to extend the screen from a compatible Mac to it with Sidecar. You'll be tied to the Mac of course, but at least each screen has Stage manager, and moving apps to the other screen will place it in that screen's Stage manager. On the iPad, you can also tap apps in Stage manager with your Apple Pencil. Cumbersome perhaps, but someone might find it useful, I don't know.

 

[LeoI07]

I used the beta of macOS years ago in 2006 that had stage manager and it worked with an external display. An iPad Pro from 2018 is faster than the MacBook in 2006 I had running it with. So yes, @eicca is correct.

Is it possible you could share screenshots of the 2006 build of Mac OS X with Stage Manager / Shrinkydink? Do you happen to know what its build number is?

 

[ratspg]

Is it possible you could share screenshots of the 2006 build of Mac OS X with Stage Manager / Shrinkydink? Do you happen to know what its build number is?

There is a blog that has it mentioned, linked to it below. I don't even have that laptop anymore for over 10+ years no way I could remember which build it was.

Rising from the ashes: Stage Manager | Tech Reflect

Every year I worked on macOS/iOS, I would get attached to a handful of features that would ultimately get axed. Over time, I grew de-sensitized to it, but s ...

techreflect.net

 

[_Spinn_]

There is a blog that has it mentioned, linked to it below. I don't even have that laptop anymore for over 10+ years no way I could remember which build it was.

Rising from the ashes: Stage Manager | Tech Reflect

Every year I worked on macOS/iOS, I would get attached to a handful of features that would ultimately get axed. Over time, I grew de-sensitized to it, but s ...

techreflect.net

That's very interesting that Apple has resurrected a feature from so long ago.

 

[ratspg]

That's very interesting that Apple has resurrected a feature from so long ago.

It's from such a long time ago! I personally don't like the feature, I hope people do though, because Apple is digging deep into their history grab bag for features these days. lol 😂