macOS Big Sur is Now Available To Download (theverge.com) 86
Apple on Thursday released the latest version of macOS: macOS Big Sur (also known as macOS 11.0), which is available to download now -- assuming you have a compatible Mac. From a report: Big Sur is one of the biggest updates to Apple's laptop and desktop software in years, featuring a top-to-bottom redesign of the interface, icons, and menu bar, a new control center UI borrowed from iOS, widgets (also borrowed from iOS), and a variety of other improvements (see here for the full list). It's such a big change that Apple is actually moving on from the OS X / OS 10 branding that it's been using for Macs for almost 20 years. Apple's also adding some new privacy-focused features, including better tracking information in Safari and new privacy data in the Mac App Store for any apps you download. ArsTechnica has published a comprehensive review of the new operating system. An excerpt from their conclusion: The Good
The bright, fresh visual style mostly looks pretty good.
The Control Center (and other changes to the upper-right section of the Menu Bar) are genuinely useful additions.
The Messages app finally catches up to its iOS/iPadOS counterpart, thanks to Catalyst.
The APFS version of Time Machine seems like an improvement, though we'll need to wait to see what its long-term reliability is like.
Aside from the old AFP file-sharing protocol and the Network Utility, Big Sur doesn't remove too many things or add many new security settings that will break apps. There may be some visual issues, but my experience has actually been that Apple breaks a lot fewer apps moving from Catalina to Big Sur than it did moving from Mojave to Catalina.
The Bad
A general reduction in contrast makes it harder to discern the difference between many buttons and controls at a glance.
If you want to fix any of these contrast issues in the Accessibility settings, it should be possible to increase contrast or reduce transparency in certain places without making it an all-or-nothing setting. Some of the new buttons and icons are nice. Some of them are less nice.
Big Sur on Apple Silicon Macs will give up the ability to run Windows in a virtual machine or on a separate partition, though Intel Macs can still do both things.
The Ugly
As usual, Apple is just a year or two more aggressive about dropping support for old Macs than I think they really need to be.
The bright, fresh visual style mostly looks pretty good.
The Control Center (and other changes to the upper-right section of the Menu Bar) are genuinely useful additions.
The Messages app finally catches up to its iOS/iPadOS counterpart, thanks to Catalyst.
The APFS version of Time Machine seems like an improvement, though we'll need to wait to see what its long-term reliability is like.
Aside from the old AFP file-sharing protocol and the Network Utility, Big Sur doesn't remove too many things or add many new security settings that will break apps. There may be some visual issues, but my experience has actually been that Apple breaks a lot fewer apps moving from Catalina to Big Sur than it did moving from Mojave to Catalina.
The Bad
A general reduction in contrast makes it harder to discern the difference between many buttons and controls at a glance.
If you want to fix any of these contrast issues in the Accessibility settings, it should be possible to increase contrast or reduce transparency in certain places without making it an all-or-nothing setting. Some of the new buttons and icons are nice. Some of them are less nice.
Big Sur on Apple Silicon Macs will give up the ability to run Windows in a virtual machine or on a separate partition, though Intel Macs can still do both things.
The Ugly
As usual, Apple is just a year or two more aggressive about dropping support for old Macs than I think they really need to be.
This one goes to 11 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This one goes to 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this in "the good"? Software looks visually appealing, it has for some years. We have reached diminishing returns a good while back. What matters is usability, on which point here comes:
Fuck you. So we are at a point where the best way you can distinguish between a "badge" and a "button" or a "link" and a "static text" is to hover it with the mouse pointer and see if there's a subtle change in shade. Congratulations, you made braille interfaces and regular UI's equally usable by turning the regular UI's into braille interfaces.
Re:This one goes to 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Came here to say pretty much this. And it's not just Apple - it's in Linux and Windows too. This whole trend of sacrificing usability in the name of a sophomoric poser-driven aesthetic 'philosophy' needs to be put down; form must serve function, NEVER the other way around.
What the fuck do these morons have against colour, contrast, shading, and gradation? It's not like a UI that employs these things needs to be gaudy or ugly - there have been many that were quite beautiful and clean-looking.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't stand how distinct my post looks from yours. These lines and stuff are just noise and clatter. And separate articles is a wasted opportunity for infinite scrolling. Slashdot should be seamless. How old is their graphical consultant, 30? Yikes.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally see a "major version" increment after decades.
I wonder how long it will take before Windows goes to 11.
And it's not just the OS vendors. It seems that Qt is constantly ratcheting up the minimum OS X version for their GUI toolkit, which has an effect on dozens of major open source apps. i just noticed that the Mac version of KiCad now requires 10.14. Seems like it was only two or three years ago that Qt went to 10.10. When I tried running a particular app I wanted (I think it was PulseView) on 10.9, it would actually crash on launch. And good luck find
Re: (Score:2)
it has for some years
I found the Slashdotter who still wears flared jeans.
Are the fonts adjustable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sort of... (Score:1)
Seriously, are the fonts displayed within the user-interface adjustable?
In Catalina and I think in previous versions, you open System Preferences->Displays and then from there can select what size scaling you want for the display...
It's not exactly the same as just altering the system font though as it affects other elements.
On Big Sur maybe they've made that more configurable, not sure.
Re:Are the fonts adjustable? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You postscripters can't deny... ...
When the girl walks in with an itty bitty mac and big text on her screen
Re:Are the fonts adjustable? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Are the fonts adjustable? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has moved most of that into "Accessibility" settings. There are also other hidden settings that have no GUI exposure and require you to use the "defaults write" command-line app. There is a lot of annoying bullshit you can turn off if you know the proper magical incantations.
What really bugs me is how both Apple and MS constantly change their UI themes around. You don't like this year's flatter, lower-contrast window theme? Fuck you! MS has a little more customization, but I hear it's not possible no
"Just a year or two more aggresssive..." (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, there will be people saying "just stay on the previous versions of MacOS then", but it's not viable to run an OS no longer receiving regular patching and security updates if you need to show compliance and reasonable risk analysis for machines outside of a "home user" environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everything (Score:3, Informative)
Every ios developer will need to update xcode, which means the SDK, their phone, and probably make a bunch of app changes because of this.
I'm an iOS developer. While you do have to update Xcode over time to be able to submit apps, you do not have to update everything...
For instance, I have a phone I keep on purpose at iOS 11 for testing. That works just fine with the latest Xcode. You could keep your phone on iOS 13 for a long time if you wanted. Or heck, even on 12 since almost all apps would support t
Re: (Score:2)
And this is what forces you as an iOS developer to update macOS. Or maybe you can do it in a VM, but you're sacrificing a lot of very expensive Apple SSD to do that, especially with an Xcode 12 install starting at over 30GB.
macOS on the otherhand is a different story. I have a Profile 3,something Core 2 Duo machine from Feb 2009 run macOS 10.11 and still fine for my needs at home. Ok, excluding Lightroom. But as an iOS developer you're f
Re: (Score:2)
That should have said Feb 2008. I bought the thing shortly before moving to Shanghai, and totally ignored the Olympics when I was there for various reasons!
Re:"Just a year or two more aggresssive..." (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, my 2009 Athlon II -based TV computer runs Ubuntu 20.04, but it's not fair to expect Apple to have the same resources as Canonical. How can Apple be expected to find out the details of all that old, obscure hardware? That iMac from several years ago might anything inside it!
Re: "Just a year or two more aggresssive..." (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
No reason for apple to not support old hardware.
Sure there is - it's called psychopathy, and ALL the cool corporations are into it - have been since day one. They're just becoming more brazen about it now that they have almost limitless power over the serfs who rent - never own - the products they rape the planet to produce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You joke, but Apple regularly forgets what hardware they put in their own machines.
In the past, they've used parts from manufacturers that didn't have valid PCI vendor IDs, and "faked" IDs from other manufacturers. This caused the OS to load the wrong drivers. Once, I couldn't get audio working on my Mac after an update, because the OS misidentified the vendor of the audio chip. I guess older versions of the OS had some kind of hack to load the "correct" driver, but those hacks were removed in the newer
How is it obsolete? (Score:4, Informative)
Their forced obsolescence policies
Just because it's not going to run Big Sur does not make it obsolete.
I still use for travel, a late 2013 MacBook Pro - just on the edge, but it will still take the Big Sur update. That is seven years, which seems like a pretty good range to me...
But even if it were not - my wife still uses an older Apple MacBook Pro Mid 2010 17". She uses it for work and other things, around 10-12 hours a day - It's not able to move beyond High Sierra, but is perfectly usable for most things to this day.
Sure, there will be people saying "just stay on the previous versions of MacOS then", but it's not viable to run an OS no longer receiving regular patching and security updates
Older models will still be receiving patching and security updates. That is somewhat independent of the OS release.
I think Apple has a pretty decent range in what they support with releases, especially when you consider that even systems that cannot get a Big Sur update will still be getting other system updates for a while yet.
Re: (Score:1)
That machine must be fun to use now the meltdown and spectre patches removed most of the speed from the CPU in the name of security.
Re: (Score:2)
That machine must be fun to use now the meltdown and spectre patches removed most of the speed from the CPU in the name of security.
Not actually sure intel ever issued fixes for CPU's that old? I know High Sierra did address those.
In any case none of the Macs I have ever felt much different after the Spectre fiasco... I think Apple's patches did not impact performance as much and Windows did.
Re: (Score:2)
She's lucky that machine is still running. I had one and loved it. It suffered the usual fate of this model of the solder failing leading to the graphics dying. I even tried the solder re-flow trick of taking out the motherboard and briefly baking it in the oven, which resurrected it for a few months.
This one has held up really well. (Score:1)
She's lucky that machine is still running. I had one and loved it. It suffered the usual fate of this model of the solder failing leading to the graphics dying.
Maybe I inadvertently gave the system immortality by dropping it three feet onto a stone tile floor at airport security... it only slightly dented one corner (which took the brunt of the impact) and forever after it has a kind of subtle "stage lighting" effect along the very bottom of the screen with series of brighter spots. It was so minor I never
Re: (Score:2)
I would be worried if your wife's old MBP have security holes, infections, etc. :/
Why? (Score:1)
I would be worried if your wife's old MBP have security holes, infections, etc. :/
It still receives security patches from time to time.
It has the latest version of Safari.
So why would I be particularly worried about security holes compared to newer systems?
Thew main way in which it is pretty safe, is that we almost never install new software on it... between a patched Safari, security updates, and pretty much just running the same software it's probably better off security wise than most new computers!
Re: (Score:2)
What version is her mac OS? I think Apple dropped after three (year/version)s. So, no more High Sierra updates?
Still getting updates as recently as days ago (Score:1)
I think Apple dropped after three (year/version)s. So, no more High Sierra updates?
No more High Sierra version updates - but like I said it still gets security updates, and new Safari versions.
In fact the last security patch for High Sierra just dropped a few days ago [apple.com]... I'm installing it today.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Still releasing updates like old iOS v12.4.9. I wonder how long this will last
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, this is one of my biggest arguments against buying a Mac, ever. Their forced obsolescence policies are so aggressive that about the only way to get your money's worth out of an Intelmac was to convert it to Windows, and that turned into a nightmare as well when they started playing coy about drivers and Win10 compatibility.
Sure, there will be people saying "just stay on the previous versions of MacOS then", but it's not viable to run an OS no longer receiving regular patching and security updates if you need to show compliance and reasonable risk analysis for machines outside of a "home user" environment.
They provide security updates for OS major releases for a number of years after they stop being "current", for example one was provided for Mojave at the beginning of last month.
In fact my experience with Macs in the corporate workplace has been quite different in that the SecOps people often keep you stuck on a prior release because the stranglehold that VPN vendors have on them keep them from updating until the VPN vendor updates its clients. Why on earth VPN client side stuff isn't a shared standard tha
Re: (Score:1)
They provide security updates for OS major releases for a number of years after they stop being "current", for example one was provided for Mojave at the beginning of last month.
That argument would be a bit more compelling if the "number" in your example was greater than one (Mojave stopped being current on October 7, 2019).
Re: (Score:2)
My MacBook can run Windows just fine. Suck it Apple.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Forced obsolescence? Actually, Apple beats everyone else at keeping old hardware going. I future-proofed by opting for an i7 processor in my 2013 iMac, and it's still perfectly adequate for all tasks, including heavy photo editing, and still supports all software upgrades. How many Windows boxes are still in good shape after seven years, and without any trace of Windows Mystery Slowdown (tm) ??
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're talking about - I *just* upgraded my 2012 11" MacBook Air to an Intel Pro 13... that is 8 years of 6-16h days on that little Air. I did get the i7 and 8G of RAM when I bought it, but that machine has been *fantastic* all this time, and supported the entire time. It's still working in fact, just not as my daily driver.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Their forced obsolescence policies are so aggressive
The oldest Macs supported are from 2013. That doesn't seem overly "aggressive" to me.
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
Windows thing is not really Big Sur... (Score:4, Insightful)
Big Sur on Apple Silicon Macs will give up the ability to run Windows
In fairness, that's not really a Big Sur issue, that's an M1 issue. It's not like back porting Catalina would magically enable Apple Silicon Macs to run Windows...
Performance? (Score:4, Interesting)
When I upgraded my late 2014 Mac Mini to Catalina it brought it to its knees. Yes, it's supported, but it's not a snappy performer. I assume Big Sur will be worse and won't be upgrading any time soon.
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
could be different given this is likely an update to properly support their new M1 chip release. I'd figure the OS itself is meant to run on the low end cores of the M1 and not take up any of the higher end cores. Could mean better performance than Catalina.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's that 32GB of RAM that probably makes the biggest difference. I have an SSD from an old laptop that I plug in and boot from a 32GB 2013 Mac Pro and a 16GB 2015 MBP. Very quickly hits the swap file these days with the MBP.
Apple's servers are overloaded (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Apple's servers are overloaded (Score:3)
Apple still hasn't discovered resuming downloads, huh? High fucking tech.
Re: Apple's servers are overloaded (Score:1)
Rosetta2/Universal/Fat Binaries (Score:4, Funny)
Pshhhh. Wake me up when I can run fat binaries in this as well for my 68k codebases.
Does this work on Intel? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should work on Intel no problem, Apple mentions support for many older models that are Intel based.
They know what they are doing (Score:1)
Dropped support is a forced upgrade and more revenue. When people think a product is so great and so cool they have to have it, they will take their money.
Re: (Score:2)
Older computer, older OS still works fine.
Until new apps stop working on the older OS, and Internet services stop allowing old apps to connect. For example, good luck using Xcode to upload an iOS app to the App Store if your macOS is old enough.
supported devices list (Score:5, Informative)
Macs compatible with macOS Big Sur:
Ones that support Catalina but not Big Sur:
A general reduction in contrast (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There was a time when Apple sacrificing usability like that would have been unthinkable, now it is par for the course. No wonder people joke that Macs have become Facebook machines for hipsters to take to Starbucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Big Splooge! (Score:1)
Network Utility?! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Sticking with Mojave (Score:2)
It’ll still get (a minimum of) one more year’s worth of security updates; plus it seems rock solid - and doesn’t needlessly discard 32-bit app compatibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't downgrade without a re-install, and Apple has made it difficult to keep old version installers around. If you save an App Store version of the OS installer, there's a signed and dated digital certificate in there that prevents you from installing it without turning your clock back (and turning off networking to disable time sync). This is apparently generated live when you download it from the app store. The install will simply fail with an error when it tries to open the .dmg file, without tellin
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a way to downgrade Catalina to Mojave?
If your Mac didn't come pre-installed with Catalina - yes. Otherwise, you're SOL.
This guy [dosdude1.com] has, for the last several years, offered little utilities which ostensibly are designed to let you install specific versions of macOS on Apple hardware that's not officially supported for those releases. But those "patcher" utilities can also be used to download (directly from Apple) full installers of Mojave, High Sierra, etc. - which you can then use to make a bootable USB installer from the downloaded media.
Cupertino...we have a problem (Score:1)
Mirror (Score:1)
Here's a mirror: https://bigsur.s3.fr-par.scw.cloud/InstallAssistant.pkg [fr-par.scw.cloud]
MD5: 0030d26c6e5d01b7aa10a91b044d6ca7
I'd rather run Windows 98 (Score:1)