macOS Monterey is Now Available To Download (theverge.com) 38
The latest version of macOS, Monterey, is now available to download, according to Apple. The software has been available in public beta for several months, but today's release means Apple thinks the software is ready for everyday use. From a report: As is tradition, Apple announced its latest version of macOS at WWDC in June. New features include the ability to set Macs as an AirPlay target to play content from iPhones and iPads, as well as Shortcuts, Apple's iOS automation software. There have also been improvements made to FaceTime, as well as a new Quick Note feature. For a full rundown of what's on the way, check out our preview from July, as well as Apple's own feature list.
Unfortunately, some of Monterey's biggest new additions, Universal Control and SharePlay, don't seem to be available at launch. Apple notes that both features will be available "later this fall." Universal Control allows files to be dragged and dropped between several different machines, as Apple's Craig Federighi demonstrated at WWDC. It also will let you control multiple Apple devices including Macs, MacBooks, and iPads, with the same mouse and keyboard. SharePlay will enable shared experiences of music, TV shows, movies, and more while connected over FaceTime. Once it's available, Apple says you can use the feature with Apple Music, Apple TV+ and unnamed "popular third-party services." It's better news when it comes to Safari's redesign, which by default now uses a more traditional interface rather than the controversial new tab design introduced at WWDC.
Unfortunately, some of Monterey's biggest new additions, Universal Control and SharePlay, don't seem to be available at launch. Apple notes that both features will be available "later this fall." Universal Control allows files to be dragged and dropped between several different machines, as Apple's Craig Federighi demonstrated at WWDC. It also will let you control multiple Apple devices including Macs, MacBooks, and iPads, with the same mouse and keyboard. SharePlay will enable shared experiences of music, TV shows, movies, and more while connected over FaceTime. Once it's available, Apple says you can use the feature with Apple Music, Apple TV+ and unnamed "popular third-party services." It's better news when it comes to Safari's redesign, which by default now uses a more traditional interface rather than the controversial new tab design introduced at WWDC.
I'll give it a try (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Penis envy.
Re:MacOS [is getting better?] (Score:2)
Mod parent funny?
But that isn't why I'm gonna download the new OS. Didn't even care enough about the last version to seriously test it. The last moderately serious use I had for the MacBook Pro was voice dictation, but the Android dictation apparently leapfrogged Apple, assisted by Apple's taking at least a half step backwards two major OS versions ago. (Or maybe the mic went slightly bad, to go with the other devolving hardware problems?)
If the machine gets bricked, it would be hard for me to care much. I
Re: (Score:2)
The day of reckoning for 32Bit apps (Score:3)
Sorry for me and many others, this is the day of reckoning for all of us who have 32 bit Apps.
It seems that, contrary to hopes and dreams that apple would break tradition, and support Mojave (the last MacOS able to run 32 bit apps) for 1 more year, Apple will not issue security patches for it.
You see, apple DOES NOT DOCUMENT ther OS support timeline anywhere...
Since I do not feel confortable running an unssuported OS for extended periods of time, It seems that, come late Nov, i'll be going from Mojave all the way to Catalina.
I recomend all other to do the same.
Will be dualbooting more now... Cést la vie
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I meant from Mojave to monterey
Re: (Score:2)
Mac OS has been warning customers about 32-bit apps and their unlikely future since 2018. Three years seems like a reasonable amount of time to find alternatives.
Re:The day of reckoning for 32Bit apps (Score:4, Insightful)
Mac OS has been warning customers about 32-bit apps and their unlikely future since 2018. Three years seems like a reasonable amount of time to find alternatives.
Half my steam library says otherwise
Re: (Score:1)
Mac OS has been warning customers about 32-bit apps and their unlikely future since 2018. Three years seems like a reasonable amount of time to find alternatives.
Half my steam library says otherwise
And that's Apple's fault?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
yup. 100% on Apple. they made the decision to drop support, there's nothing wrong with 32 bit that requires it to be dropped, it's just about money, as always with Apple.
It is about three things, actually:
1. Money (Cost to Maintain old Methods/Libraries)
2. Stability/Security (less complexity means less vectors for exploitation)
3. Time (for additional Maintenance and Testing)
But the real reason is more likely that, with Apple Silicon, from what I understand, one of the big efficiency gains with 64-bit ARM comes from having everything be "64-bit Clean". IMHO, that's the real reason Apple finally completely cut ties with 32 bit support; first in iOS, where it was easier, then
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How come Microsoft solved this problem? Apple doesn't care about legacy software.
Not so much with their ARM Win 10, eh?
Is their 64 bit support really out yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much with their ARM Win 10, eh?
Is their 64 bit support really out yet?
Is there a reason you specifically call out a version of Windows that's incompatible and ignore the fact that there's a perfectly functioning OS that supports x64? Doesn't seem like Microsoft made any moves to abandon legacy software there.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much with their ARM Win 10, eh?
Is their 64 bit support really out yet?
Is there a reason you specifically call out a version of Windows that's incompatible and ignore the fact that there's a perfectly functioning OS that supports x64? Doesn't seem like Microsoft made any moves to abandon legacy software there.
I referenced that version because it is ARM-based. Trying to show that supporting multiple word-lengths in an ARM OS is apparently non-trivial.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's Apple's fault?
Breaking backwards compatibility at an OS level? Yes. Yes it is.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's Apple's fault?
Breaking backwards compatibility at an OS level? Yes. Yes it is.
So, are you willing to say that about Linux, too?
https://www.networkworld.com/a... [networkworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you willing to say that about Linux, too?
https://www.networkworld.com/a... [networkworld.com]
Yes I am. And if you dig through my post history you'll find comments to that effect when we discussed this a few years ago.
Don't confuse me with the religious Slashdot hypocrites. I don't care who or what software we're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you willing to say that about Linux, too?
https://www.networkworld.com/a... [networkworld.com]
Yes I am. And if you dig through my post history you'll find comments to that effect when we discussed this a few years ago.
Don't confuse me with the religious Slashdot hypocrites. I don't care who or what software we're talking about.
Ok. If that is true about your posting history, then I apologize.
However, Apple really had no choice in a practical sense at least, once the internal decision to switch to 64 bit ARM was made.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I agree. I don't hold it against them one little bit. In fact I don't think that some undying support for past architectures should impede our future development in any OS. I'm just calling out the comment that is questioning if it is not Apple's fault. It is Apple's fault. I support their decision, but breaking compatibility via an OS is 100% their fault. Users are right to complain about Apple doing the breaking, but I stand by Apple for making that decision as I stood by Ubuntu and other distros in th
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I agree. I don't hold it against them one little bit. In fact I don't think that some undying support for past architectures should impede our future development in any OS. I'm just calling out the comment that is questioning if it is not Apple's fault. It is Apple's fault. I support their decision, but breaking compatibility via an OS is 100% their fault. Users are right to complain about Apple doing the breaking, but I stand by Apple for making that decision as I stood by Ubuntu and other distros in their drop for 32bit legacy support.
The ultimate question is will users care enough to change OS or will they accept it and move on. Mr "my Steam library says otherwise" seems a bit pissed, but I wonder how strong his convictions are.
Ah! As usual, a breakdown in communication was the real culprit!
The issue centered around my use of the word "fault". I used it in the perjorative sense, "laying blame" (albeit in a negative manner (i.e. not laying blame)); but you were using it like "decision", without any particular negative connotation.
I'm sincerely very glad you agree that change sometimes requires change; some people just don't get that. And I really like that you understand and appreciate the rationale behind their decision to end 32
Re:The day of reckoning for 32Bit apps (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah I mean 64 bit cpus have only been common for what, 15-16 years now?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they really didn't start becoming mandatory until very recently, and a mix of 32 and 64 bit apps are common all over the place, even in Windows. It's a massive headache. I've been migrating some internal tools to be 64 bit, from code that is woefully unportable, and in my own time without any requirement to do so. But then it was like a couple months between "why are you wasting time on this?" to "omg, are you done yet everyone needs 64-bit NOW!"
Legacy code, legacy binaries, etc. Just becaus
Re: (Score:3)
Except that they really didn't start becoming mandatory until very recently, and a mix of 32 and 64 bit apps are common all over the place, even in Windows. It's a massive headache. I've been migrating some internal tools to be 64 bit, from code that is woefully unportable, and in my own time without any requirement to do so. But then it was like a couple months between "why are you wasting time on this?" to "omg, are you done yet everyone needs 64-bit NOW!"
Legacy code, legacy binaries, etc. Just because there's something new doesn't mean everyone is jumping on it. How long has IPv6 been around and how long have we been running out of IPv4 addresses and we still are seeing too few people trying to migrate?
But Apple only released about 2 32 bit Intel Macs, total. Not 2 generations; 2 early model-variants with a Core Solo. IIRC, a bottom-rung Mac mini, and a low-end MacBook. Everything else has been 64 bit.
Plenty of time for Devs. to do a recompile, and plenty of time for Users to pressure Drvs. for same.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple did keep dual 32/64 executable for some time (aka, the Fat Binaries), and there are 32-bit apps still out there. Once 64-bit support existed, you would still get applications in 32-bit.
It's not like people who have a set of production apps go and check every month if they need to update them. I mean why update things that are working just fine? The person who wrote them may have left the company a long time ago and the people using it will have no idea that it needs upgrading. It's not like these
Re: (Score:2)
So you could run DOS programs in Windows, and you could run 16-bit windows in 32-bit Windows, and so forth. Backwards compatibility to the point of being absurd sometimes.
Absurd, indeed!
And exactly why it has the well-deserved reputation for weird performance stalls and hiccups, problematic Updates, and more than its fair share of exploits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that, during the last decade plus, there are a LOT of software developers who either just went faded or who sold out to $MEGACORP. And $MEGACORP has typically only cared about the portfolio of Windows applications they've acquired - any Mac applications are left to wither.
Either way, the commonly-expressed notion that "the developer just needs to get on the ball" isn't realistic for a lot of 32-bit Mac software.
Re: (Score:2)
so many applications would have to be rewritten in order to be 64 bit.
Rofldi Rofldi.
Nope: you just compile them again with a compiler producing 64bit code.
Facepalm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Why did you bother to reply? I mean, literally removing the words that makes your comment utterly stupid, rather than not posting your stupid comment, would be the way most people would go about it.)
Seems you have some lack of brains too.
You have some very weird thinking.
What exactly has _rewriting_ from 32bit to 64bit to do with Carbon?
Nothing obviously. Carbon does not support 64bit apps.
So: why insulting me for nothing?
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day I ran Windows XP for 10 years past its "final expiration date", without any "security software". Never seen a virus/exploit/trojan (obviously).
"Security patches" from Apple are pretty much unnecessary if you do not expose any services externally (but it does require a healthy level of professional paranoia, of course). I plan to keep running Mojave for as long as the hardware permits. The biggest issue will be software support (like TurboTax which I had to stop using because they required th
Re: (Score:2)
You could run it in VMs, but then Mac M1s don't support them and BootCamp. :(
Re: (Score:2)
M1 do support VMs, e.g, Parallels runs fine, there is another one, but forgot the name.
Where is that @DamnOregonian if you need him?
Bootcamp certainly will come as well.
The new networkQuality test tests for bufferbloat (Score:2)