macOS Monterey

Post by baxuz » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 8:56 AM UTC

aluminum96 wrote: post #477

ksec wrote: post #75

Sort of a mini review. Using it at home on my MacBook Pro 2015 Intel Machine. Big Sur on M1 was fine ( if not great ), mostly because M1 is extremely fast. But Big Sir on x86 was slow, really slow. I am in the group that reported Big Sur was slower than Catalina, and Catalina was slower than Mojave. That is with both the OS itself and Safari. So Big Sur was not a smooth experience for me. Monterey so far brings back…

> Far less Kernel_Task CPU usage This typically means the machine is thermally throttled, not that the kernel is actually using the CPU.

Post by beagle3 » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 9:01 AM UTC

seniorivn wrote: post #510

forgingahead wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Post by seniorivn » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 9:04 AM UTC

native_samples wrote: post #504

popcorncowboy wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. Th…

Post by hnarn » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 9:11 AM UTC

beagle3 wrote: post #513

seniorivn wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

Post by qwerty456127 » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 9:19 AM UTC

jamil7 wrote: post #501

dual_dingo wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gr…

> 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.