4 ms·

> "New versions of macOS are full of bugs" This is why I never liked Apple's annual upgrade schedule. Ostensibly to stay ahead of security issues, annual upgra

> "New versions of macOS are full of bugs" This is why I never liked Apple's annual upgrade schedule. Ostensibly to stay ahead of security issues, annual upgrade isn't working and is causing more issues than it is worth. Leopard to Mountain Lion were the glory days of OS X stability, with Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion, and High Sierra standing out as focusing on bug fixes rather than introducing new features (and new bugs). I wish Apple had development and stable branches for macOS, such that stable was plain and had very limited features, stayed compatible with decade-old hw, and continued to receive security updates, and upgrading to development was effectively a large patch for stable that included all the new features. > Moreover, the most dangerous software on your computer is not the operating system per se, it's the web browser. Agreed. > You can also use another browser such as Firefox or Google Chrome, which ironically support older macOS versions than Apple supports, and the latest versions of those apps are identical and fully patched on every macOS version they support. If one must have browser connectivity on a mac, then do this, even when still supported and fully patched. I wouldn't mail or surf on any unsupported OS.

black_puppydog 4y ago
> I wish Apple had development and stable branches for macOS, such that stable was plain and had very limited features, stayed compatible with decade-old hw The reason they don't have that is the same we don't have this for phones. No profit driven venture on the planet would go through that trouble just to hurt their own sales. Which is why free (as in speech) alternatives are so important.
- Maursault 4y ago
  It wouldn't hurt their sales. Users running old hardware aren't doing it to save money but instead because they can't afford new hardware, which isn't the same thing. Apple isn't getting those sales anyway. Mac sales are driven by new users and users that can afford to upgrade hardware every two years. These consumers aren't going anywhere, and if Apple remained committed to a minimal amount of support for older hardware, it would only make their brand more attractive and increase sales.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >It wouldn't hurt their sales. Users running old hardware aren't doing it to save money but instead because they can't afford new hardware, which isn't the same thing. Many of those users that "can't afford new hardware" are still forced to update after some point due to the lack of updates ("cannot afford" and "absolutely cannot afford" being two different things, and most are in the former category, they can e.g. put it on their credit card, or save some more, or sacrifice something else they'd be spending on, even if they're tight). Plus, there are many more who can afford it, but doesn't really care much for having a new machine, they just do it because the old ones don't run their software or get updates anymore. Both of those categories would update less frequently if they had regular updates and support for their old machines.
  - flenserboy 4y ago
    Especially as they're looking to expand profits from services. Including older hardware will only increase audience capture and the number of people using and paying for various offerings from Apple.
lapcat 4y ago
> Leopard to Mountain Lion were the glory days of OS X stability, with Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion, and High Sierra standing out as focusing on bug fixes rather than introducing new features (and new bugs). This is a common misconception. Major OS updates always introduce more bugs than they fix. Bertrand Serlet put up a "No New Features" keynote slide for Snow Leopard, but that was highly misleading, because Snow Leopard had many big under the hood changes, and the early versions of Snow Leopard had some nasty bugs. You can go back and look at the old Mac OS X release notes to see the descriptions of the bug fixes. What was different about Snow Leopard than today is that it received a full 2 years of nothing but bug fixes. The Snow Leopard people remember fondly was 10.6.8 v1.1 not 10.6.0, which was much buggier than its predecessor 10.5.8. The current yearly major OS update schedule is death for quality, because there's never enough time to fix the bugs. The engineers always have to turn around and start working on the next big thing, never fix the current big then. There's no solution except more time between major updates. The other difference between now and the past is that now Apple is immediately pushing everyone to update, whereas new major Mac OS X versions used to be paid rather than free, so there was a lot more lag, you had to go to the store and purchase new discs in order to upgrade, and a lot more users were sticking with the older versions.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > This is a common misconception. This is vague. > Major OS updates always introduce more bugs than they fix. This was my major point. > Bertrand Serlet put up a "No New Features" keynote slide for Snow Leopard, but that was highly misleading, because Snow Leopard had many big under the hood changes, But no new features. The major goals of Snow Leopard were to improve performance and reduce its memory footprint (by removing a lot of PPC code). What was nice about it, and what my point was, Apple had 2 years for bug fixes. > and the early versions of Snow Leopard had some nasty bugs. You can go back and look at the old Mac OS X release notes to see the descriptions of the bug fixes. What was different about Snow Leopard than today is that it received a full 2 years of nothing but bug fixes. Yes, thank you, this is the entire point of my criticism of annual upgrades in that a year is not enough time to fix bugs before introducing instability and new bugs in a major release. > The Snow Leopard people remember fondly was 10.6.8 v1.1 not 10.6.0, which was much buggier than its predecessor 10.5.8. Thank you for the straw man, but, in fact, this was my entire argument against major annual releases. I'm not sure who expects point zero software to be bug free. I would actually prefer that major releases stop entirely unless there are fundamental changes, such as a new platform. > The current yearly major OS update schedule is death for quality, because there's never enough time to fix the bugs. The engineers always have to turn around and start working on the next big thing, never fix the current big then. There's no solution except more time between major updates. >< This is like Scooby Doo. Thank you for making me into Thelma, Fred. > The other difference between now and the past is that now Apple is immediately pushing everyone to update, whereas new major Mac OS X versions used to be paid rather than free, so there was a lot more lag, you had to go to the store and purchase new discs in order to upgrade, and a lot more users were sticking with the older versions. This is a fair point, except for the part about Apple pushing upgrades. Unrestrained users push themselves with no regard to what they're using continuing to work. Though software updates can be configured automatically by the user, and security updates are pushed, Apple isn't pushing upgrades, and I don't think the OS can be configured to upgrade automatically, only update.
mozman 4y ago
Maybe I’m getting old but the UX changes in newer versions of macOS turn me off. I’m still running Catalina but that has to change as it’s EOL this year. I use third party software to bring back some old behaviors but it’s an uphill battle, especially with things like the notification center.
- rapind 4y ago
  Apple has added no UI changes since Leopard that I prefer or even care about about. I'd be extremely happy if they froze UI changes / features and focused entirely on stability, compatibility, and security instead.

black_puppydog 4y ago

> I wish Apple had development and stable branches for macOS, such that stable was plain and had very limited features, stayed compatible with decade-old hw The reason they don't have that is the same we don't have this for phones. No profit driven venture on the planet would go through that trouble just to hurt their own sales. Which is why free (as in speech) alternatives are so important.

Maursault 4y ago
It wouldn't hurt their sales. Users running old hardware aren't doing it to save money but instead because they can't afford new hardware, which isn't the same thing. Apple isn't getting those sales anyway. Mac sales are driven by new users and users that can afford to upgrade hardware every two years. These consumers aren't going anywhere, and if Apple remained committed to a minimal amount of support for older hardware, it would only make their brand more attractive and increase sales.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >It wouldn't hurt their sales. Users running old hardware aren't doing it to save money but instead because they can't afford new hardware, which isn't the same thing. Many of those users that "can't afford new hardware" are still forced to update after some point due to the lack of updates ("cannot afford" and "absolutely cannot afford" being two different things, and most are in the former category, they can e.g. put it on their credit card, or save some more, or sacrifice something else they'd be spending on, even if they're tight). Plus, there are many more who can afford it, but doesn't really care much for having a new machine, they just do it because the old ones don't run their software or get updates anymore. Both of those categories would update less frequently if they had regular updates and support for their old machines.
- flenserboy 4y ago
  Especially as they're looking to expand profits from services. Including older hardware will only increase audience capture and the number of people using and paying for various offerings from Apple.

lapcat 4y ago

> Leopard to Mountain Lion were the glory days of OS X stability, with Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion, and High Sierra standing out as focusing on bug fixes rather than introducing new features (and new bugs). This is a common misconception. Major OS updates always introduce more bugs than they fix. Bertrand Serlet put up a "No New Features" keynote slide for Snow Leopard, but that was highly misleading, because Snow Leopard had many big under the hood changes, and the early versions of Snow Leopard had some nasty bugs. You can go back and look at the old Mac OS X release notes to see the descriptions of the bug fixes. What was different about Snow Leopard than today is that it received a full 2 years of nothing but bug fixes. The Snow Leopard people remember fondly was 10.6.8 v1.1 not 10.6.0, which was much buggier than its predecessor 10.5.8. The current yearly major OS update schedule is death for quality, because there's never enough time to fix the bugs. The engineers always have to turn around and start working on the next big thing, never fix the current big then. There's no solution except more time between major updates. The other difference between now and the past is that now Apple is immediately pushing everyone to update, whereas new major Mac OS X versions used to be paid rather than free, so there was a lot more lag, you had to go to the store and purchase new discs in order to upgrade, and a lot more users were sticking with the older versions.

Maursault 4y ago
> This is a common misconception. This is vague. > Major OS updates always introduce more bugs than they fix. This was my major point. > Bertrand Serlet put up a "No New Features" keynote slide for Snow Leopard, but that was highly misleading, because Snow Leopard had many big under the hood changes, But no new features. The major goals of Snow Leopard were to improve performance and reduce its memory footprint (by removing a lot of PPC code). What was nice about it, and what my point was, Apple had 2 years for bug fixes. > and the early versions of Snow Leopard had some nasty bugs. You can go back and look at the old Mac OS X release notes to see the descriptions of the bug fixes. What was different about Snow Leopard than today is that it received a full 2 years of nothing but bug fixes. Yes, thank you, this is the entire point of my criticism of annual upgrades in that a year is not enough time to fix bugs before introducing instability and new bugs in a major release. > The Snow Leopard people remember fondly was 10.6.8 v1.1 not 10.6.0, which was much buggier than its predecessor 10.5.8. Thank you for the straw man, but, in fact, this was my entire argument against major annual releases. I'm not sure who expects point zero software to be bug free. I would actually prefer that major releases stop entirely unless there are fundamental changes, such as a new platform. > The current yearly major OS update schedule is death for quality, because there's never enough time to fix the bugs. The engineers always have to turn around and start working on the next big thing, never fix the current big then. There's no solution except more time between major updates. >< This is like Scooby Doo. Thank you for making me into Thelma, Fred. > The other difference between now and the past is that now Apple is immediately pushing everyone to update, whereas new major Mac OS X versions used to be paid rather than free, so there was a lot more lag, you had to go to the store and purchase new discs in order to upgrade, and a lot more users were sticking with the older versions. This is a fair point, except for the part about Apple pushing upgrades. Unrestrained users push themselves with no regard to what they're using continuing to work. Though software updates can be configured automatically by the user, and security updates are pushed, Apple isn't pushing upgrades, and I don't think the OS can be configured to upgrade automatically, only update.

mozman 4y ago

Maybe I’m getting old but the UX changes in newer versions of macOS turn me off. I’m still running Catalina but that has to change as it’s EOL this year. I use third party software to bring back some old behaviors but it’s an uphill battle, especially with things like the notification center.

rapind 4y ago
Apple has added no UI changes since Leopard that I prefer or even care about about. I'd be extremely happy if they froze UI changes / features and focused entirely on stability, compatibility, and security instead.