61–70 of 193 posts
Am I the only one increasingly frustrated with macOS's naming scheme? I have no idea what the latest version is. Ubuntu versioning gets this right; you can parse their codenames alphabetically to derive the semantic version. But Apple's heuristic here seems to be "throw a dart at a map of California".
Hasn't it been this way the whole time? Why is your frustration increasing?
The login items panel is such a good change, and also like 20 years overdue.
5-6 year support for hardware is just too short. I have a Mid 2015 Macbook Pro as a "backup" and that computer is still quite decent.
They haven’t yet released a machine worth upgrading to if you’re on a 2015 MBP. I recently got a 14” M1 and I think I’ll just reinstall my 2015 and move back to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The marketing names for macOS and OSX have always been random other than having a general theme to it. The OS in most cases just refers to itself by the number and is what it will show in a lot of scenarios in addition to the marketing name.
> The marketing names for macOS and OSX have always been random other than having a general theme to it. Not entirely true: two of the cats were name variations of their predecessors to express an intent of limited end-user / feature updates and a focus on refinement (even though taxonomically the cats have basically no relationships outside of being cats, mountain lions aren’t even in the same genus as lions)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you'd need to set a goal post of what counts as trivial? Many of the things mentioned in the article aren't trivial. They may be smaller in scope, but size (large / small) are different than complexity. You can take a look at what's new in Ventura https://www.apple.com/macos/macos-ventura-preview/features/ but that's not even getting into the under pinnings. Similarly Microsoft made fairly significant changes…
We have gotten so use to these trivial changes that our expectations have renormalized. Desktop OSs are asymptotically approaching a fixed point. Examples of modest but non-trivial changes: - eliminate the folder-file system (or at least make it completely invisible to the user) - remove UI distinction (but not necessarily the sandbox distinction) between web apps and normal apps. - seamless mobile-desktop integratio…
I similarly question your definition of "modest". The first one alone is incredibly radical, and has been tried several times in the past but people keep asking for hierarchical file systems. It's far from modest.
1. How do you propose users organize things?
2. Already exists today with electron and webview. What would you propose an OS provide here? Many apps you use today on macOS are web apps within a native context.
3. This is already growing on macOS with features like continuity handofd, universal control, being able to run mobile apps on desktop, iCloud sync of projects etc.. Each year they've clearly moved towards unifying things.
If these are what you consider modest though, I fear what you consider radical without throwing out decades of learned user interaction in the process
Lets hope the open core project, namely the Open Core Legacy Patcher[1] will revive some older models to run Ventura. Personally, I'm running a 2014/15 Macbook Air 11" for 7 years now[2] and with "Open Core Legacy" on Monterrey with no issues at all. [1] https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/MODELS.ht... [2] Except the mainboard, display and shell everything else thats modular (wifi card, ssd, battery an…
You can look on the Macrumors forum and Reddit to see if they're already getting the betas to work.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-13-ventura-on-uns...
https://www.reddit.com/r/venturapatcher/
Edit: the OCLP team released an official statement, looks like they're having quite a few challenges. https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/issues/9...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hasn't it been this way the whole time? Why is your frustration increasing?
I imagine as the number of versions increase, there is more tracking you have to do when someone doesn't explicitly mention the version number.
(That said, I will also note that frustration is not inherently constant even when something is truly static: sometimes you get used to something over time and it stops bothering you, while other times it slowly drives you mad.)
> " Passkeys aim to solve the problems with passwords " So are you locked in with Apple if you use this, or can you switch all your existing passwords to another "passkey provider/service" ? > " Wave Goodbye to CAPTCHAS " I assume that's Safari only... so this is bad news for Firefox?
Eventually, yes. Not now, but the goal is eventually, yes. It requires support to come to Android and at that point, they'll build the bridge to bring them together. I don't think the system currently exists for this, but they've said Passkeys will be a "multi-year industry-wide transition" so I'm inclined to believe it'll ship in the coming years.
When you sign in with a passkey, you have the option of scanning a QR code from a locally present device running any software that can speak the standard (e.g., Android). This means that you can login using any software that supports Passkeys using any devices that support Passkeys. For example, Chrome on Windows (chrome://flags, turn on passkey support) with an iPhone is a valid pair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The version number and build number are on the "About this Mac" screen and in the output of `sw_vers` - where else would you like to see it used?
In marketing material, such as here: https://www.apple.com/uk/macos/macos-ventura-preview/
5-6 year support for hardware is just too short. I have a Mid 2015 Macbook Pro as a "backup" and that computer is still quite decent.
They haven’t yet released a machine worth upgrading to if you’re on a 2015 MBP. I recently got a 14” M1 and I think I’ll just reinstall my 2015 and move back to it.