Why Should Anyone Upgrade Their OS - Ever?

if it works for needs and is supported for security, why update and risk breaking things?

I personally agree with your boss

 

There's a distinction between keeping your OS up to date and upgrading to a different version.

In general, it's recommended practice to keep your OS updated with security updates. That doesn't mean you have to upgrade to a new version though, and many people don't. One of the major reasons is that, especially with macOS, new versions tend to break parts of mainstream software, or introduces stability or performance issues, for a while.

It's generally better to be riding the trailing edge if stability is your priority, which is generally the case in the workplace. There's rarely much added that compels people to upgrade to a new version.

 

One good reason TO upgrade is that new software versions may run on only the current and maybe last prior macOS version.

 

While Apple does provide some security updates for the 3 most recent versions of macOS, they sometimes don’t include all the security updates for the non-current version. Apple really wants users on the newest OS.

 

Your bos is actually right....
Updates and patches are needed. Keep systems safe. Usually safe to apply.
Upgrades to new version are optional. Add features. BUT BREAK STUFF. I have number of apps which stopped working after upgrade to Mojave. Most were eventually upgraded - some at cost - some were not. If the cycle is 3 years, why to risk that something important breaks? Why waste resources? Use existing system, replace in 3 years, setup/configure with new tools. Done for next 3 years.

 

"Upgrades" frequently break old software anymore. That makes them labor intensive and costly.
I keep a couple, three up to reasonably new systems. the others get pulled from the internet and used only in house.
3 years is a good turn around time. Couldn't do that on my last mac Mini because it took Apple 4 years to get around to updating it themselves. -Still those 128GB SSD's I can't help but think that they're selling Apple cloud portals, rather than computers. I have USB sticks that size.
If you stick as close as you can to 3 years, you end up being able to choose a reasonably stable 10.17.5, rather than run in disaster mode on 10.15.0. Plus you get to skip two cycles of persistent bugs.

 

I don't have an article. I spent time as a systems admin, though that's not my job any longer.

I absolutely would not update my OS without some justifiable analysis, especially in a professional setting. Even for personal use, I'm fairly risk averse, and I think it's justifiable given Apple's track record in recent years. Not saying that as a "hater", just a believer of the "if it's not broken..." theory. Even when it comes to incremental updates, I'll let other people do the initial testing and I'm ok being a release or two behind.

In a professional environment it's even more important. Again, if things are working well and there is no real value for new features, then why upgrade if you're still getting security updates?

As an example, I was happy with Sierra, I was on 10.12.6 until HS got to 10.13.5. Moved to High Sierra a few weeks after 10.13.5 was out and started having problems. A notable decrease in stability. I went to 10.13.6 and it wasn't any better, so I did a clean install of 10.14.0 out of desperation, with a plan to go back to 10.12.6 if I couldn't get my issues resolved in Mojave. I'm on 10.14.2 and things are running fantastically, but I'm not likely to move to 10.15 unless there's something pretty good in there, now that things are working great again.

For people who like stability, there's a lot to gain from a conservative update timeline.

So why would you update? You do raise good points for sure. Security updates, and consistency across platforms. There are benefits there, but those are not usually mutually exclusive with a conservative update timeline. As long as the OS is still getting security updates, then I've just seen too many issues, personally and professionally, that would prompt me to be aggressive in that regard. If an update being real features that bring easily demonstrated value, that's a different story. In reality though, that's often not the case. I appreciate the cumulative feature additions from Apple. The ones that stick out more than anything for me are Time Machine and macOS/iOS interop (handoff etc), to me those are worth a gamble. But HEVC support from 6th gen Intel support (with HS) has no value to me on a 2015, for example. As much as Mojave has some nice features in it, I'd still take Sierra over High Sierra. I think there are plenty of reasons to not be too quick to upgrade.

You can't run Sierra on a 2018, but you can keep two or three tiers of hardware/OS version I'm sure.

 

AbSoluTc I agree with none of this. IMHO, the OS and your applications should always be updated to the latest versions. You state the 2 main reasons. But, over the years I have found a smoother and faster machine with each OS update. And, having multiple machines in the workplace running different OSs can be confusing. Just my opinion, and what I have done over the last 30 plus years.

Lou

 

I hope they're not facing the internet.

 

macOS UI is so stable if you compare it to Windows. They add a few new features, but there aren't many changes like for example Window 8 or Windows 10.

 

On a larger scale, for people who manage many Macs, this statement is decidedly not true. In the last few major OS upgrades, and even within 10.13.x, Apple has changed a lot about how it's possible to manage computers. Windows is far more stable in that respect.

 

Tell your boss he's a ****ing moron. Make him sign a form that protects you, your pay and anything that could affect your ability to earn / produce.

If there is ever a virus, bug, security breach because he's a ****ing retard, he has to continue to pay you. He'll figure it out then. I guarantee it.

 

As was said, Apple doesn’t backport all security fixes. Plus, newer releases of the OS typically add security enhancements.

If you have the “don’t change what isn’t broken” mentality, then Apple just isn’t your best choice, as annual updates are the norm. If you want long-term support i. e. fewer disruptive upgrades, then choose Windows or a LTS Unix, Linux or BSD release instead.

 

Depending upon your work environment, your boss may very well be correct. Mission critical applications can cease to function, or function in a diminished capacity if the OS update is not compatible with the app. The cost of troubleshooting the problem (and maybe even require changes to business practices and procedures) is something to be concerned about.

Sometimes when an OS is updated the application vendor requires an update to their app. In the case of something like Parallels, it's just their way of extracting more money from their customers.

Although the update to the OS is "free", it could very well cost the company money to pay for upgrades to the software.

The "security fixes" reason is generally made by people who don't understand the nature of many of these fixes. Often times, the security holes require a very specific set of conditions for them to be exploited. Sometimes it is limited to a particular set of OS APIs/functions that are used by specific apps. In those situations, if you're not running those apps, then you won't be exposed to those threats.

These are a few of the reasons why it might make sense to not update the OS. This may or may not be applicable in your situation however.

 

My comment was on the user facing UI, not on how macOS is deployed

 

I take it you tell that to the guy who hands out your unemployment cheque.

 

Microsoft has announced that Windows 7 support won't end until January 14, 2020.
That is going to be 11 years after it was released.

Now that they release a new MacOS every year, Apple's policy of supporting only the last three versions of the OS is wholly inadequate and from a business point of view it would create major headaches.
No wonder businesses mostly use Windows...

 

How'd that work out for Rex Tillerson?

Oh, wait. He told colleagues, and someone ratted on him to the media...

 

Security.

Close thread.

 

You must be someone really important, to expect to shut down an entire conversation just because you arrived and added your 2cents.

Blurting out “security” is not an argument. What do you think happens to all these iOS devices when they can’t be upgraded after 3 point releases? They wink out of existence? Apple is fine with leaving them running all over the world with their outdated OS’s, just like they’re fine with leaving generations of Macs behind every year, running all over the world with out-of-date security. Every device you own will end up with outdated security, and that’s fine, no security is perfect anyway, and you should always be conscious of that and how you’re using these things.

If I could find an iPad mini 4 or iPad Pro with iOS10 still installed, I’d buy it in a heartbeat. iOS 6 was the high point in terms of efficiency and coherent ui design, even with its hated skeuomorphic graphical elements, and iOS10 was a second peak marking greater iPad multitasking utility and modern functionality. iOS11 and 12 are both a significant step down in usability and efficiency, and all the security in the world doesn’t help make it a more useful tool again.

 

It's Kanyay. He IS important. He's only here because he's taking a break from busting rhymes all over Chicago and busting nuts all over Kim.

 

My local university hasn't mandated moving all machines to Windows 10 yet. It's because it is a major headache and MS still supports Windows 7 till next year. The local Mac users are pretty much left alone although they are getting nervous about his 2013 iMac, and I suppose El Capitan on it.