7 ms·

I just upgraded to Monterey on my Macbook Pro 2018 15-inch and after rebooting, all of the USB-C ports stopped working, including the power adapter. I spent som

I just upgraded to Monterey on my Macbook Pro 2018 15-inch and after rebooting, all of the USB-C ports stopped working, including the power adapter. I spent some time on the phone with Apple Support trying to figure out how to fix it. After about an hour and a half there was about 18% battery left before I started to panic and figure out how I was going to back everything up. After panicking, the 3rd Apple Support Representative and I endeavoured to try and reset the System Management Controller (SMC) [1] once again. At this point I had realised that the first few times that I tried this with a previous support representative would not have worked, as I was holding shift on the left-hand side of the keyboard (the previous support representative did not specify) and not the right-hand side as outlined in the support article for Macs with the T2 chip. Good luck! 1. https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT201295 https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT201295

dual_dingo 5y ago
> I just upgraded to Monterey > I started to panic and figure out how I was going to back everything up. Upgrading to a new OS on release day without a prior backup. You like to live dangerously, do you?
- hnarn 5y ago
  This isn't Arch Linux we're talking about, it's the presumably tested and released operating system for the most premium personal computing hardware in the world. I'm not saying you shouldn't back up your stuff but your expectation on user behavior is unrealistic to put it mildly.
  - dual_dingo 5y ago
    I am not very experienced with Arch, but my impression is that it is actually more reliable when updating/upgrading then going to a new major MacOS release, which is an absolute disagrace given the fact that Apple can actually test their stuff on every single hardware model it is supposed to run. And no, my experience on general user behaviour is to expect no backup, but this isn't Auntie Ednas crocheting Facebook group, but Hacker News :)
    - ungamedplayer 5y ago
      Imagine the hardware that arch has to support vs the hardware configurations that arch has to support. Makes you think on the QE that goes into the release.
    - jamil7 5y ago
      > I am not very experienced with Arch, but my impression is that it is actually more reliable when updating/upgrading then going to a new major MacOS release I used Arch briefly and this was not my experience, but at least in that community it's kind of expected that you understand this is a possibility and a tradeoff of running the OS.
      - qwerty456127 5y ago
        Use Manjaro then. It's a polished and reasonably tested Arch (roughly saying kind of like what Ubuntu is to Debian). Never had a single problem with it.
        pharmakom 5y ago
        Ubuntu… polished? Ha!
        qwerty456127 5y ago
        There always is a huge room for subjectivity, edge cases and other critique in this. But generally saying I'd say yes. My experience mostly is about desktop/laptop (non-gaming, on-board video only) though.
        heurisko 5y ago
        Same. The Ubuntu long term support releases are quite conservative. I did find the Unity interface more polished however. It seemed like Canonical did a lot of UX research, to make things like the "power off" button adjoin the corner of the screen, so you could imprecisely flick the cursor and know it has hit the target. It also worked a lot better under old hardware. I still use Unity with community support. It's a shame, I think as I remembered seeing the Unity interface at work sometimes and thinking that Ubuntu was making inroads.
  - forgingahead 5y ago
    My expectation for user behaviour is that users, regardless of self-identified tech competency, shouldn't upgrade their OS on the first day of a new release. I find that there's nothing that one can miss out on with a new release.
    - seniorivn 5y ago
      what's the point of a release date if it's not ready? os upgrades do fail, and you better backup before you upgrade, but if it's released, than it means it's ready
      - beagle3 5y ago
        From my perspective, it means it has been deemed ready for fresh installs — which aren’t uncommon. They have, especially with Apple, fewer configurations to test. But the probability that they got a good enough sample for system upgrade is very small. Systems that have been in use— especially for a few years — tend to diverge widely. The users who upgrade should wait unless they are willing to risk the small but not negligible probability that the upgrade will Bork their system.
        hnarn 5y ago
        > From my perspective, it means it has been deemed ready for fresh installs I don't think you'll find many "normal" people (i.e. non-developers) that agree with you on that definition.
        beagle3 5y ago
        Indeed. And those people used to come to me for help when they upgraded their windows prematurely.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Conversely, I’ve been looking at release notes and — with the exception of security patches and needing the latest version of Xcode for my job — I’ve not actually seen any positive benefit to upgrading since the versions were named after cats rather than places. On the plus side, at least the most recent security update no longer had me listening to auto-playing YouTube videos in the front tab of Chrome before I even saw the login prompt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVvu94g3iq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVvu94g3iq0 On the down side, the latest security update decided to spontaneously start playing the YouTube video in the front tab of Chrome about 15 minutes ago when my laptop went into screensaver…
  - richeyryan 5y ago
    You don't update OSX before March in my experience. There are always teething issues.
  - nuker 5y ago
    > … presumably tested and released operating system for the most premium personal computing hardware in the world. New tabs in Safari 15 are premium too. Look nice but totally unusable.
    - planb 5y ago
      Those are opt-in in the final (12.0.1) release and the sane tabs are back..
  - jbirer 5y ago
    bleeding-edge Arch Linux is more reliable than new macOS releases, lesson.
    - hnarn 5y ago
      That's beside the point. Arch Linux makes no effort to appear more reliable than new macOS releases, and there's no reasonable expectation that it should be, even if it is.
  - endymi0n 5y ago
    Personally, I really didn't regret waiting for 11.1 back then... unfortunately this wasn't the first bugged major release. While Apple's hardware and product interop is still top notch, I feel way less safe about their grip on low-level and OS technology. For me, the (lack of) handling of their bug bounty program speaks volumes towards their priorities and I'm actively looking for the next platform that I can trust my data to that works out of the box and I don't have to babysit or debug.
  - egypturnash 5y ago
    I've been using Macs since about 2000 and that was my reaction too; I remember being very glad I waited a bit after one release that deleted some user's entire iTunes libraries.
  - jonaustin 5y ago
    Honestly, this is some FUD; I've used Arch for 10 years; upgrading at least once a week, and the only time an upgrade has really messed things up was when they switched to systemd. Also used Macbooks at work for 10 years, and I'm far more wary of apple upgrades.
  - dsego 5y ago
    At least on linux you can have /home as a separate partition, which should reduce the risk of losing user data. Unless I'm completely wrong and this doesn't really matter that much during updates.
  - joshspankit 5y ago
    You’ve gotten a lot of pushback on this. Rightly so, I’d say. As someone who has used and managed all types of Apple products all the way back to Mac OS 7, it is not just my direct experience here but also countless discussions with peers: Every major update has teething pains. It feels like Apple engineers test only on fresh machines from the factory. The first week is the “release client” test. New OS’, new products, new components (eg: butterfly keyboard), etc. Nothing is immune. Yes, the marketing says that every detail of every Apple product is flawless however the core DNA of Apple drives them to innovate and you cannot innovate without breaking things. Their white glove motto is “bring it in, we’ll replace it”.
- popcorncowboy 5y ago
  At what point do we start to hold software and software providers to a higher standard? A multi-trillion dollar company releases an upgrade to its flagship operating system and "anyone who knows anything" smiles and nods because we understand that actually USING the upgrade runs a high enough chance to brick your device that doing so without a backup is a rube cliche. I get it. But my question stands.
  - dual_dingo 5y ago
    I absolute agree with you, it's an absolute disgrace and while I am all in on holding Apple, MS or Google responsible for their shit, any law in that regard would most likely only affect the livelihood of your friendly neighborhood OS developer, but not actually Apple & Co.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    We do hold them accountable ... by using Apple :( It's not like Linux or Windows upgrades are drastically smoother. In fact right now I have a Windows VM that tells me "This PC doesn't meet the requirements to upgrade to Windows 11" in the upgrade screen, and their health check app tells me "This PC meets the requirements". Probably something got cached somewhere, as I had to add a virtual TPM just now. But still. This kind of experience is routine, with Windows. Like, why is the health check app not built in? Why is there a separate tool to begin with? Why doesn't it use their latest app packaging and distribution system instead of a sucky old MSI file? It constantly feels like there's nobody at the head of the ship with Windows.
    - seniorivn 5y ago
      NixOS updates are drastically smoother, if default option to boot into any of previous updates is enough to never overthink it
      - IIsi50MHz 5y ago
        Haiku [operating system], while not ready for most people to use ar a daily driver, also has this ability to boot into prior state. Updated an app, or the whole system, and now something's gone pear-shaped? Reboot with the magic key held down and choose a previous config by date-time.
- crawrey 5y ago
  I do! Actually I never upgraded to Catalina and waited until Big Sur seemed stable enough to upgrade to and it upgraded from Mojave without a hitch. I had been following the beta releases of Monterey and it seemed pretty solid, so I figured what the heck, let’s live dangerously baby! As for not having a recent backup it’s just something that always gets put the back burner. That’s my failing. But to be honest, I wouldn’t have really lost anything of worth, everything important is in version control. Maybe I would have lost a few dot files, some configs, some PoCs, the grooves in my couch. Those grooves that I’ve cultivated wouldn’t cost me much time and honestly sometimes it’s good to get a fresh couch and re-evaluate the grooves of the past. With all of that said, despite the inconvenience of the upgrade, I would love to give a shout out to Apple support. It’s these moments that you get to appreciate the fact that you can pick up the phone and talk to someone who has some outstanding fault finding and problem solving abilities, leagues ahead of any other provider I have ever had experience with.
- unmole 5y ago
  I never had to worry about making a backup before upgrading Linux distros. I mean, what's the worst that could happen when your /home lives on a different partition?
- gremloni 5y ago
  I doubt anyone backs up their data with mac oses since they feel so much like generic updates.
irae 5y ago
The T2 chips were a bold move and probably necessary for Apple as a transition plan. Imagine all the features it provides (Touch ID, secure boot, disk encryption) arriving only with the M1 Macs? Firmware and software needed to see the light of day and be put to test by the millions. Thanks everyone that ever owned Intel Macs with T2 chips. I am so glad I never owned anything from that generation, and I appreciate your sacrifice. <3
- BillinghamJ 5y ago
  I think in most regards, they were actually a lot better than the Intel-only Macs - including on stability etc. As the T2 chip was the primary thing controlling the computer, effectively they were M1 machines, up until the point where the full x86 OS was being loaded. So for a problem like this - with the SMC, ports, etc. - there's no distinction between the T2 Macs and the M1 Macs, they're the same thing and run the same fundamental software (which does get updated)
snowwrestler 5y ago
Good example of why I usually wait for a few dot releases before upgrading MacOS. I thank you and other early adopters (AKA QA testers) for your service.
- Tagbert 5y ago
  But this kind of thing described by the parent (SMC data corruption) is usually caused by a local condition on the device rather than specifically buggy code. Waiting for a later version would not help in that case. Not saying that there aren’t sometimes bugs in initial version released and it’s perfectly rational to wait to hear about any fire alarms going off, but the example given is not really a case in point.

dual_dingo 5y ago

> I just upgraded to Monterey > I started to panic and figure out how I was going to back everything up. Upgrading to a new OS on release day without a prior backup. You like to live dangerously, do you?

hnarn 5y ago
This isn't Arch Linux we're talking about, it's the presumably tested and released operating system for the most premium personal computing hardware in the world. I'm not saying you shouldn't back up your stuff but your expectation on user behavior is unrealistic to put it mildly.
- dual_dingo 5y ago
  I am not very experienced with Arch, but my impression is that it is actually more reliable when updating/upgrading then going to a new major MacOS release, which is an absolute disagrace given the fact that Apple can actually test their stuff on every single hardware model it is supposed to run. And no, my experience on general user behaviour is to expect no backup, but this isn't Auntie Ednas crocheting Facebook group, but Hacker News :)
  - ungamedplayer 5y ago
    Imagine the hardware that arch has to support vs the hardware configurations that arch has to support. Makes you think on the QE that goes into the release.
  - jamil7 5y ago
    > I am not very experienced with Arch, but my impression is that it is actually more reliable when updating/upgrading then going to a new major MacOS release I used Arch briefly and this was not my experience, but at least in that community it's kind of expected that you understand this is a possibility and a tradeoff of running the OS.
    - qwerty456127 5y ago
      Use Manjaro then. It's a polished and reasonably tested Arch (roughly saying kind of like what Ubuntu is to Debian). Never had a single problem with it.
      - pharmakom 5y ago
        Ubuntu… polished? Ha!
        qwerty456127 5y ago
        There always is a huge room for subjectivity, edge cases and other critique in this. But generally saying I'd say yes. My experience mostly is about desktop/laptop (non-gaming, on-board video only) though.
        heurisko 5y ago
        Same. The Ubuntu long term support releases are quite conservative. I did find the Unity interface more polished however. It seemed like Canonical did a lot of UX research, to make things like the "power off" button adjoin the corner of the screen, so you could imprecisely flick the cursor and know it has hit the target. It also worked a lot better under old hardware. I still use Unity with community support. It's a shame, I think as I remembered seeing the Unity interface at work sometimes and thinking that Ubuntu was making inroads.
- forgingahead 5y ago
  My expectation for user behaviour is that users, regardless of self-identified tech competency, shouldn't upgrade their OS on the first day of a new release. I find that there's nothing that one can miss out on with a new release.
  - seniorivn 5y ago
    what's the point of a release date if it's not ready? os upgrades do fail, and you better backup before you upgrade, but if it's released, than it means it's ready
    - beagle3 5y ago
      From my perspective, it means it has been deemed ready for fresh installs — which aren’t uncommon. They have, especially with Apple, fewer configurations to test. But the probability that they got a good enough sample for system upgrade is very small. Systems that have been in use— especially for a few years — tend to diverge widely. The users who upgrade should wait unless they are willing to risk the small but not negligible probability that the upgrade will Bork their system.
      - hnarn 5y ago
        > From my perspective, it means it has been deemed ready for fresh installs I don't think you'll find many "normal" people (i.e. non-developers) that agree with you on that definition.
        beagle3 5y ago
        Indeed. And those people used to come to me for help when they upgraded their windows prematurely.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Conversely, I’ve been looking at release notes and — with the exception of security patches and needing the latest version of Xcode for my job — I’ve not actually seen any positive benefit to upgrading since the versions were named after cats rather than places. On the plus side, at least the most recent security update no longer had me listening to auto-playing YouTube videos in the front tab of Chrome before I even saw the login prompt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVvu94g3iq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVvu94g3iq0 On the down side, the latest security update decided to spontaneously start playing the YouTube video in the front tab of Chrome about 15 minutes ago when my laptop went into screensaver…
- richeyryan 5y ago
  You don't update OSX before March in my experience. There are always teething issues.
- nuker 5y ago
  > … presumably tested and released operating system for the most premium personal computing hardware in the world. New tabs in Safari 15 are premium too. Look nice but totally unusable.
  - planb 5y ago
    Those are opt-in in the final (12.0.1) release and the sane tabs are back..
- jbirer 5y ago
  bleeding-edge Arch Linux is more reliable than new macOS releases, lesson.
  - hnarn 5y ago
    That's beside the point. Arch Linux makes no effort to appear more reliable than new macOS releases, and there's no reasonable expectation that it should be, even if it is.
- endymi0n 5y ago
  Personally, I really didn't regret waiting for 11.1 back then... unfortunately this wasn't the first bugged major release. While Apple's hardware and product interop is still top notch, I feel way less safe about their grip on low-level and OS technology. For me, the (lack of) handling of their bug bounty program speaks volumes towards their priorities and I'm actively looking for the next platform that I can trust my data to that works out of the box and I don't have to babysit or debug.
- egypturnash 5y ago
  I've been using Macs since about 2000 and that was my reaction too; I remember being very glad I waited a bit after one release that deleted some user's entire iTunes libraries.
- jonaustin 5y ago
  Honestly, this is some FUD; I've used Arch for 10 years; upgrading at least once a week, and the only time an upgrade has really messed things up was when they switched to systemd. Also used Macbooks at work for 10 years, and I'm far more wary of apple upgrades.
- dsego 5y ago
  At least on linux you can have /home as a separate partition, which should reduce the risk of losing user data. Unless I'm completely wrong and this doesn't really matter that much during updates.
- joshspankit 5y ago
  You’ve gotten a lot of pushback on this. Rightly so, I’d say. As someone who has used and managed all types of Apple products all the way back to Mac OS 7, it is not just my direct experience here but also countless discussions with peers: Every major update has teething pains. It feels like Apple engineers test only on fresh machines from the factory. The first week is the “release client” test. New OS’, new products, new components (eg: butterfly keyboard), etc. Nothing is immune. Yes, the marketing says that every detail of every Apple product is flawless however the core DNA of Apple drives them to innovate and you cannot innovate without breaking things. Their white glove motto is “bring it in, we’ll replace it”.
popcorncowboy 5y ago
At what point do we start to hold software and software providers to a higher standard? A multi-trillion dollar company releases an upgrade to its flagship operating system and "anyone who knows anything" smiles and nods because we understand that actually USING the upgrade runs a high enough chance to brick your device that doing so without a backup is a rube cliche. I get it. But my question stands.
- dual_dingo 5y ago
  I absolute agree with you, it's an absolute disgrace and while I am all in on holding Apple, MS or Google responsible for their shit, any law in that regard would most likely only affect the livelihood of your friendly neighborhood OS developer, but not actually Apple & Co.
- native_samples 5y ago
  We do hold them accountable ... by using Apple :( It's not like Linux or Windows upgrades are drastically smoother. In fact right now I have a Windows VM that tells me "This PC doesn't meet the requirements to upgrade to Windows 11" in the upgrade screen, and their health check app tells me "This PC meets the requirements". Probably something got cached somewhere, as I had to add a virtual TPM just now. But still. This kind of experience is routine, with Windows. Like, why is the health check app not built in? Why is there a separate tool to begin with? Why doesn't it use their latest app packaging and distribution system instead of a sucky old MSI file? It constantly feels like there's nobody at the head of the ship with Windows.
  - seniorivn 5y ago
    NixOS updates are drastically smoother, if default option to boot into any of previous updates is enough to never overthink it
    - IIsi50MHz 5y ago
      Haiku [operating system], while not ready for most people to use ar a daily driver, also has this ability to boot into prior state. Updated an app, or the whole system, and now something's gone pear-shaped? Reboot with the magic key held down and choose a previous config by date-time.
crawrey 5y ago
I do! Actually I never upgraded to Catalina and waited until Big Sur seemed stable enough to upgrade to and it upgraded from Mojave without a hitch. I had been following the beta releases of Monterey and it seemed pretty solid, so I figured what the heck, let’s live dangerously baby! As for not having a recent backup it’s just something that always gets put the back burner. That’s my failing. But to be honest, I wouldn’t have really lost anything of worth, everything important is in version control. Maybe I would have lost a few dot files, some configs, some PoCs, the grooves in my couch. Those grooves that I’ve cultivated wouldn’t cost me much time and honestly sometimes it’s good to get a fresh couch and re-evaluate the grooves of the past. With all of that said, despite the inconvenience of the upgrade, I would love to give a shout out to Apple support. It’s these moments that you get to appreciate the fact that you can pick up the phone and talk to someone who has some outstanding fault finding and problem solving abilities, leagues ahead of any other provider I have ever had experience with.
unmole 5y ago
I never had to worry about making a backup before upgrading Linux distros. I mean, what's the worst that could happen when your /home lives on a different partition?
gremloni 5y ago
I doubt anyone backs up their data with mac oses since they feel so much like generic updates.

irae 5y ago

The T2 chips were a bold move and probably necessary for Apple as a transition plan. Imagine all the features it provides (Touch ID, secure boot, disk encryption) arriving only with the M1 Macs? Firmware and software needed to see the light of day and be put to test by the millions. Thanks everyone that ever owned Intel Macs with T2 chips. I am so glad I never owned anything from that generation, and I appreciate your sacrifice. <3

BillinghamJ 5y ago
I think in most regards, they were actually a lot better than the Intel-only Macs - including on stability etc. As the T2 chip was the primary thing controlling the computer, effectively they were M1 machines, up until the point where the full x86 OS was being loaded. So for a problem like this - with the SMC, ports, etc. - there's no distinction between the T2 Macs and the M1 Macs, they're the same thing and run the same fundamental software (which does get updated)

snowwrestler 5y ago

Good example of why I usually wait for a few dot releases before upgrading MacOS. I thank you and other early adopters (AKA QA testers) for your service.

Tagbert 5y ago
But this kind of thing described by the parent (SMC data corruption) is usually caused by a local condition on the device rather than specifically buggy code. Waiting for a later version would not help in that case. Not saying that there aren’t sometimes bugs in initial version released and it’s perfectly rational to wait to hear about any fire alarms going off, but the example given is not really a case in point.