E.g., how does this compare to the rate of equivalent problems with large Windows releases?
E.g., how does this compare to the rate of equivalent problems with large Windows releases?
I use EndeavourOS on all my old Mac hardware and update without fear literally every couple of days. It “just works”. So, a “long tail” of hardware is no excuse anyway.
Apple is in the middle off a platform transition from Intel to their own silicon. Some of these problems could be a de-emphasis on the Intel experience. Some of it though seems to be lees quality and more philosophy ( such as the claim it actively deleted files from root ).
If you are going to play in the Apple garden, you have to play the way they want you to.
And people give Microsoft shit for not supporting Windows 10 more than 10 years when Apple only does 5.
>I use EndeavourOS on all my old Mac hardware and update without fear literally every couple of days
That's incredibly brave (or foolish) to have no fear of upgrading Arch, considering Arch does indeed break, it's not a question of IF, it's a question of WHEN.
Also had EndeavourOS for a while when I attempted to switch to Linux and, gave up on it when an update left me without sound. It's a great "batteries included" Arch distro, but can't tolerate such risks on a daily driver machine that I need it to work 100% of the time, every time.
For daily driving without update anxiety I'd go for something boring like Ubuntu/Debian based OSs, Fedora if you want more up-date, or even OpenSUSE if you want a sane rolling distro, but I'd stay away from Arch if you want your computer to just-work(TM) and don't wanna be your own part-time sys-admin.
Why? If an update is broken, then it will break your shit when you update to it no matter from where the starting point was. The destination is still a broken system.
Unlikely since several of the issues seem to happen only on Apple Silicon.
It's officially considered "vintage" 5 years after it is last sold, but that doesn't mean it won't receive OS updates. Apple considers hardware to be obsolete 7 years after sale ends, but is still likely to receive security updates for a while longer.
Their phones enjoy an even longer support window than their desktops/laptops if you consider security updates, the iPhone 5s (2013) just received a security update last year.
I'm still more than bitter, after buying some nice 27" 4K HDR 144Hz monitors that Apple actively broke (and may still be broken) Display Stream Compression 1.4 for the Pro Display XDR.
When it was released, there were questions about how Apple was managing to drive that display.
Well, the answer is because they absolutely nerfed/bastardized DSC 1.4 from Big Sur to make it happen with some proprietary magic: those same screens could now only be driven at 60Hz in HDR10 or 95Hz in SDR.
Proof in the pudding was that my monitors (LG27GN950-B) actually allowed you to change the advertised/supported DSC version, and when I "downgraded" the monitors to DSC 1.2, performance actually improved, and allowed 120Hz SDR and 95Hz HDR.
This happened with many many users, across many screen types.
And if you downgraded to Catalina? Boom, back to 144 Hz.
Apple studiously ignored it, and may still be. They simply don't care if you're not using an Apple display.
Do you have any more info/links about this? I’m curious, since I do have a Pro Display XDR, and I’ve been trying to understand for some time how exactly it’s able to reach its bandwidth, which is definitely a rabbit hole.
Ironically, I too, moved to the XDR.
Downgrading to DP 1.2 improved the display options from DP 1.4.
You ask any long time macOS/OSX user and they will point to Apple software quality worsening well before anything comes up in the news media.
Heck, I'm in the camp that thinks Apple OSX software quality peaked at Snow Leopard and it has been all downhill since then, and this camp is massive.
I doubt we're being influenced by the "media".
What I am is skeptical that subjective pulse checks of social media threads are a good way to measure software quality. They're a decent way to measure public sentiment, not actual error rates.
I was a total apple advocate between 2004-2014. Now it's become just preferable to windows (although the trackpad on laptops is miles ahead of anything in PC land I've come across). I'm getting more and more annoyed at the iphone, but the alternative is a phone run by an advertising company...
So I don't know if older macs are intentionally crippled or they're just ignored during QA, but I don't believe they're actually intentionally supported
More likely neither. Software just becomes larger and more complex and thus slower on older hardware.
(My 2021 MacBook Pro 14" is still lightning-fast though, I never wait for anything.)
So every major OS update is larger and more complex, so it's to be expected that after ~4 of those my machine lags when doing literally everything? It's not that I'm running tons of background apps, it's a powerful machine lagging on a clean install of a recent macOS version when doing basic operations like opening a webpage.
> My 2021 MacBook Pro 14" is still lightning-fast though, I never wait for anything.
I suppose it's Apple Silicon? Because that would still be in line with Intel-based macs becoming less performant over time
How much have they /really/ added to the OS (which is enabled on my hardware) and consuming extra resources?
It’s amusing to compare the comments here to the comments on windows update threads. As nobody else has, let me add the reminder for everyone to switch to <different OS>.
Appart from my 2y old corporate laptop the newest machine in my household is a lenovo Yoga X390 from 2019, nearly 5 year old. everything else is between 6 to 15 years old and they are all running a supported OS.
Also release date != purchase date.
One of the reasons MS introduced "patch Tuesday" in 2003 was because Windows updates until then had been notorious for years for causing issues randomly, which their corporate users hated firefighting without warning. By rolling out their updates on a predictable schedule, corporate IT depts could set their calendar to keep a day (or two) per month clear to do post-update firefighting, or (if they were really on the ball) to make time for their own QA before releasing the update to the rest of the org.
So unless the QA firing you're talking about was more than a quarter-century ago, Windows updates have always been issue-laden shitshows.