4 ms·

..is that supposed to be make it any better? An OS update shouldn't kill my laptop, regardless of how old my laptop is. At most just don't let the update roll t

..is that supposed to be make it any better? An OS update shouldn't kill my laptop, regardless of how old my laptop is. At most just don't let the update roll to laptops that are too old.

anamexis 6y ago
I don't think they suggested it makes it any better.
bayindirh 6y ago
It's an anomaly, not all 2013-2014 macs experience this. Mine is fine. It doesn't make any better but, there's nothing sinister about it.
- oneplane 6y ago
  It's also possible that this is related to previous UEFI updates; there was an issue where those would be pushed via the same update paths are OS and app updates, but sometimes they would time out and not get installed; and then never get tried again. Not sure on what models this happens, but if that is the case we could be dealing with an issue related to different starting versions of the firmware during the update. Interesting to say the least.
ARandomerDude 6y ago
Honestly, I doubt most people at Apple would disagree with you. Bugs happen. I'm not saying it's good, it sounds like they need to improve testing and QA, make it right for their users, etc. But I'd be surprised if anyone in a meeting at Apple (seriously) said "let's black-screen-of-death the 2013/2014 models."
- kordlessagain 6y ago
  > I'd be surprised if anyone in a meeting at Apple (seriously) said "let's black-screen-of-death the 2013/2014 models. Nah, dude, they are in there saying "let's make more bags of money", which is exactly why software continues to suck at an accelerated rate. None of it is reliable long term and it changes so fast users can't keep up, other than having to shell out more and more money to stay in the game of usable software. A few days ago I woke up and my Sonos won't respond with Alexa. The software got updated and now they expect me to jump through a bunch of hoops (including logging out of Amazon on my devices) to get it back, but I'm not.
- rileymat2 6y ago
  It is never that straightforward. It typically is a decision to deprioritize testing of some things.
  - lallysingh 6y ago
    Testing and doc quality seem deprioritizedfor macOS. This is not good.
    - xmprt 6y ago
      Was doc quality ever a priority for Apple?
      - macintux 6y ago
        Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Macintosh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Macintosh
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    A company as rich as Apple should be able to QA their full supported product range without compromise.
    - chungus_khan 6y ago
      They should be able to. It would be easy. But it is faster and cheaper not to, and companies are not single omniscient monoliths. Each department has their own targets, quotas, and deadlines, and while I doubt anyone at the top of Apple said anything along the lines of "ignore these devices", the ball was dropped somewhere in the chain of command, and the fact that nobody picked it up (along with experiences with past Apple updates) suggests to me that QA is much lower priority at Apple than some other places.
floatingatoll 6y ago
The prior conversation does have information (such as which precise board is impacted) in it that satisfy the technical curiosity aspect, and it's possible since I last checked someone found a solution (probably not). HN's front page isn't a great way to seek emotional support on technical issues, though — for example, a subset of the community is guaranteed to tell you "switch away from Apple" rather than offer interesting or useful replies.
boogies 6y ago
Exactly, I thought it was a great example of what a dumpster fire Windows 10 and its updates are that Microsoft has blocked them from its Surface devices. I can’t believe the corporation that’s supposed to be so great at integration between their custom hardware and OSs built just for it managed to get it worse than MS and MSW10.
chaostheory 6y ago
In the past, doesn't Apple just EOL computers past 5 years of age? imo this is why Apple historically "just works". Compared to MS's strategy of supporting every hardware variation and configuration under the sun, Apple just ends support for anything that doesn't conform to the new paradigm. I'm not keen on having to spend $2000 every 5 years, but it makes sense.
- gumby 6y ago
  Seven years is required by California and I believe Apple uses that limit as a floor for all US support. They have also occasionally shipped security updates for even older hardware. I don't like using Windows but I admire MS's commitment to back compatibility. I know it adds a tremendous amount of work and makes some vulnerabilities very difficult or impossible to address. TBF I don't believe MS can or does ship firmware updates for any hardware other than their own. So they are less likely to suffer this particular failure.
  - chaostheory 6y ago
    > Seven years is required by California and I believe Apple uses that limit as a floor for all US support. Ah, that's why they changed it from 5 > They have also occasionally shipped security updates for even older hardware. Yes, only security updates > I don't like using Windows but I admire MS's commitment to back compatibility. I know it adds a tremendous amount of work and makes some vulnerabilities very difficult or impossible to address. Yes, but there's a price for backwards compatibility. It makes the goal of "it just works" near insurmountable. I'm not saying what MS or Apple is doing either is good or bad. I'm just explaining the pros and cons of both approaches. There's no wrong choice. You just need to be aware of the pros and cons before making a commitment on your choice. Dropping support for old stuff has been Apple's MO for decades now, while it feels to be the opposite for Microsoft

..is that supposed to be make it any better? An OS update shouldn't kill my laptop, regardless of how old my laptop is. At most just don't let the update roll to laptops that are too old.

anamexis 6y ago

I don't think they suggested it makes it any better.

bayindirh 6y ago

It's an anomaly, not all 2013-2014 macs experience this. Mine is fine. It doesn't make any better but, there's nothing sinister about it.

oneplane 6y ago
It's also possible that this is related to previous UEFI updates; there was an issue where those would be pushed via the same update paths are OS and app updates, but sometimes they would time out and not get installed; and then never get tried again. Not sure on what models this happens, but if that is the case we could be dealing with an issue related to different starting versions of the firmware during the update. Interesting to say the least.

ARandomerDude 6y ago

Honestly, I doubt most people at Apple would disagree with you. Bugs happen. I'm not saying it's good, it sounds like they need to improve testing and QA, make it right for their users, etc. But I'd be surprised if anyone in a meeting at Apple (seriously) said "let's black-screen-of-death the 2013/2014 models."

kordlessagain 6y ago
> I'd be surprised if anyone in a meeting at Apple (seriously) said "let's black-screen-of-death the 2013/2014 models. Nah, dude, they are in there saying "let's make more bags of money", which is exactly why software continues to suck at an accelerated rate. None of it is reliable long term and it changes so fast users can't keep up, other than having to shell out more and more money to stay in the game of usable software. A few days ago I woke up and my Sonos won't respond with Alexa. The software got updated and now they expect me to jump through a bunch of hoops (including logging out of Amazon on my devices) to get it back, but I'm not.
rileymat2 6y ago
It is never that straightforward. It typically is a decision to deprioritize testing of some things.
- lallysingh 6y ago
  Testing and doc quality seem deprioritizedfor macOS. This is not good.
  - xmprt 6y ago
    Was doc quality ever a priority for Apple?
    - macintux 6y ago
      Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Macintosh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Macintosh
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  A company as rich as Apple should be able to QA their full supported product range without compromise.
  - chungus_khan 6y ago
    They should be able to. It would be easy. But it is faster and cheaper not to, and companies are not single omniscient monoliths. Each department has their own targets, quotas, and deadlines, and while I doubt anyone at the top of Apple said anything along the lines of "ignore these devices", the ball was dropped somewhere in the chain of command, and the fact that nobody picked it up (along with experiences with past Apple updates) suggests to me that QA is much lower priority at Apple than some other places.

floatingatoll 6y ago

The prior conversation does have information (such as which precise board is impacted) in it that satisfy the technical curiosity aspect, and it's possible since I last checked someone found a solution (probably not). HN's front page isn't a great way to seek emotional support on technical issues, though — for example, a subset of the community is guaranteed to tell you "switch away from Apple" rather than offer interesting or useful replies.

boogies 6y ago

Exactly, I thought it was a great example of what a dumpster fire Windows 10 and its updates are that Microsoft has blocked them from its Surface devices. I can’t believe the corporation that’s supposed to be so great at integration between their custom hardware and OSs built just for it managed to get it worse than MS and MSW10.

chaostheory 6y ago

In the past, doesn't Apple just EOL computers past 5 years of age? imo this is why Apple historically "just works". Compared to MS's strategy of supporting every hardware variation and configuration under the sun, Apple just ends support for anything that doesn't conform to the new paradigm. I'm not keen on having to spend $2000 every 5 years, but it makes sense.

gumby 6y ago
Seven years is required by California and I believe Apple uses that limit as a floor for all US support. They have also occasionally shipped security updates for even older hardware. I don't like using Windows but I admire MS's commitment to back compatibility. I know it adds a tremendous amount of work and makes some vulnerabilities very difficult or impossible to address. TBF I don't believe MS can or does ship firmware updates for any hardware other than their own. So they are less likely to suffer this particular failure.
- chaostheory 6y ago
  > Seven years is required by California and I believe Apple uses that limit as a floor for all US support. Ah, that's why they changed it from 5 > They have also occasionally shipped security updates for even older hardware. Yes, only security updates > I don't like using Windows but I admire MS's commitment to back compatibility. I know it adds a tremendous amount of work and makes some vulnerabilities very difficult or impossible to address. Yes, but there's a price for backwards compatibility. It makes the goal of "it just works" near insurmountable. I'm not saying what MS or Apple is doing either is good or bad. I'm just explaining the pros and cons of both approaches. There's no wrong choice. You just need to be aware of the pros and cons before making a commitment on your choice. Dropping support for old stuff has been Apple's MO for decades now, while it feels to be the opposite for Microsoft