have you considered getting help with these issues? (ie the sleep one; that doesn't happen here on my M2 macs). have you tried perhaps calling apple about this?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 2018 Mini and why it will be my last Mac
- Thread starter InuNacho
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And I was a hardcore Mac hater during that time, only having become a Mac user with Apple Silicon giving me a change of heart.
Just like my midrange 3060 PC. It's nice to have a space heater in Texas winters.
The Mac Mini was my first Mac. I absolutely love the Minis and what can be done with them, from a small office computer, a first Mac for switchers like me, or for some, a really cool (pun intended) server
You know you really should consider getting an UPS instead of a power strip that way you also protect your computers from brownouts. UPS are pretty much mandatory for power users like you and I.
YES THANK YOU! You have no idea how many arguments I get with people here about the loss of 32 bit and OpenGL. Windows doesn't support 32 bit anymore either, but at least they have a compatibility mode so our legacy software we bought and paid for still works, especially all my classic games.
Gonna be real man, FireWire is dead and has been dead since Thunderbolt. There's no reason to use it anymore since USB 3.0 is faster than it in everyway
The good news is Amazon sells FireWire to USB-C adapters
Bro what? Google made a file transfer app for Mac to make connecting Android phones to it easy.
https://www.android.com/filetransfer/
if you want more ports either get a Satechi Mac Mini hub, or get the Mac Studio. Two less USB-C ports on the regular Mac Mini sucks yes, but most people don't even use all four USB-C ports on the Mini anyway. Hell I'd add a third USB-A personally.
Again, it sounds like the Mac Mini isn't the computer for you, which is why they made the Mac Studio for the artists and power users.
You don't have to use Windows you know. There's lots of user friendly Linux OSs, such as Nobara by the Fedora team, or Zorin OS. They're so user friendly you rarely gotta use the Terminal at all, if ever. There's also a new Linux distro in development exclusive to Apple Silicon Macs called Asahi Linux and it's been getting overwhelmingly positive reviews (they even have a vtuber streaming GPU driver development for the distro named Asahi Lina.) Hell Forbes' Linux contributor did a one month challenge where he used a Steam Deck and SteamOS as his work computer and daily driver set the rule he would not use the Terminal once just to demonstrate how much easier and user friendly Linux is now.
Or you know you don't have to leave macOS completely. I'm a PC gamer but I still use a Mac as my main computer because I love macOS and the Apple Silicon chips so much, and many like me are in the same boat. My dad and uncle were hardcore Mac haters since the 80s and Apple Silicon won them over. Just give the new Macs a try, you might like them.
(Sorry for the necromancy I only now saw the date of the OP)
Last edited:
IMO Apple should have never tried to foist their own browser; it just opened a can of worms they're still dealing with today since Safari is designed to deliver all of the ads that is BigTech accredited business partners wants you to see (unlike the Adblock-extensioned Firefox's most of use were playing with ten years ago). However, malware-encrusted spam does give Apple a fantastic excuse to declare any of their older machines and operating-systems "obsolete" as soon as they decide to withhold new security-update patches for those particular configurations...patches which generally deal with Safari. (The bright note for me is that no hijacker bothers writing exploits for old versions of Safari that I've long nuked off the dock anyway.)
Who is filling your head with this "have to be" "understand"ing? As machines get faster and faster, and storage capacity ever increases, the amount of legacy code required for retention of backwards-compatability always shrinks to become a tiny fracton of the software payload (and, since Apple doesn't ship physical media for its OSes anymore, it wouldn't even have to lose bandwidth installing to a non-intel machine, since its installer would sniff the target and know what is required).
The real ulterior motive for the relentless cycle of obsolescence is to continue milking the cow. I.e., prompting us to pay again to replace software that already performed satisfactorily. E.g., Final Cut 7 is regarded as the last "good" version of that app line, before Apple bought them out, then released new OSes that obsolesced FC7. (And they've done similar with their own software too; iMovie losing features over time is one many people remember.)
Yup. Mojave runs like a dream on a 2019 i9 27" I grabbed the other day.
The real ulterior reason for 32bit-genocide is killing off everyone's paid-in-full productivity suites that they'd otherwise freight-forward into new OSes via the Migration utility. --If Final Cut Pro 7 ran like a dream, and you bought the company that made it, your evil brain will quickly devise shady excuses for FCP7 no longer working on your machines.
Most manufacturers got rid of slot-drives because they were gaping holes letting dirt inside the computer. And they broke constantly, as the component the user bashed on the most, and were therefore a warranty pestilence.
I'll bite: when's the last time the MacOS had a security flaw that wasn't related to either Safari or any of Apple's other in-house app software?
(I tell all my clients: "Never use Safari, for the same reason you didn't use Internet Explorer on a Windows machines.")
I don't start using an OS until Apple is finally done meddling with it, and I use old firefox clone browsers running ancient extensions, and am connected to the internet 24hr/day with MRT yanked out by the tonsils.
i did 20 years of freelance mac support in nyc. and still, neither of us can speak for the millions of macusers out there.
no charge.
First off, who cares about old iconography? Like, fine, it's an eyesore to you. Does it still work? Does it otherwise need changing? Also, UI that hasn't been updated in 30 years doesn't necessarily equate to 30 year old security flaws.
Microsoft uses telemetry to get feedback for things like Windows and Microsoft 365 so that if people don't like how it looks or runs, they can change course in these feature drops or in versioned Feature Updates before the OS becomes the second coming of Windows 8. They're changing course so many times because people complained and they listened. Would be nice if Apple did that for a change. Maybe we wouldn't be stuck with the nightmare that is System Settings.
You made an assertion that Microsoft is being held back by backwards compatibility. I challenged that and asked you how so. You came up with nothing.
Taking forever to sunset things does not constitute being held back, especially if the pieces that they are taking a while to sunset are not actually holding the platform back (as is true of both Control Panel and Internet Explorer).
I didn't say "it doesn't bother me". I asked you for an example and you didn't deliver.
Windows 95 is about to have its 28th birthday. Windows XP is about to have its 22nd birthday. Incidentally, the jump from Windows 95, 98, 98 Second Edition, and Millennium Edition (all MS-DOS based operating systems) to Windows XP (a Windows NT based system) was about as radical for the platform as Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Steve Balmer and Bill Gates were asshats back then and didn't manage that transition terribly well. Again, you are citing a 22 year old example. Go back to when Windows 95 first came out, and you'll see Apple similarly making missteps that nearly led them to bankruptcy.
First off, Classic wasn't dumped before the Intel switch. Classic was dumped when Mac OS X Leopard came out; the first and only OS to simultaneously release for both PowerPC and Intel. Secondly, Apple BOUGHT NexT and with it a bunch of industry-leading talent that made the whole thing possible. You act as though Apple pulled this off in a vacuum. They didn't.
The first attempt was aimed at competing with the iPad. Not with the Mac. That's a seriously key distinction. The idea wasn't baked in the oven long enough because it entailed horrible UI without the option to not have to use it (at least you are not forced to use LaunchPad if you don't want to).
The only reason why Microsoft has a lack of software problem is that they are not forcing developers to produce ARM64 binaries. It's optional. VERY similarly, I still have a fair amount of software that is still Intel-only. Moreso during this architecture transition than the PowerPC-to-Intel transition, developers are slow to update their apps to fully support Apple Silicon. Why? They don't have to. Rosetta 2 performance for most apps is still better than a native Intel Mac. And Apple hasn't announced a date in which Rosetta 2 will be deprecated. There is no incentive for anyone to update their apps if they don't want to. Sure, Adobe, Microsoft, and other similarly larger Mac software vendors are doing it. But independent software developers? Devs that don't stand to make money on updating an app they made for Intel Macs, let alone those that probably weren't pleased with having to suddenly update their apps to be 64-bit Intel just one year prior?
I'm not going to tell you that Microsoft is better when getting ARM64 Windows apps out there. But I will tell you that it's not great for both of them and for the same reason; for the time being, no one is forcing anyone to put out ARM64 binaries under the threat of discontinuation of compatibility with the platform as it stands today.
Lack of selection will do that. That's a hardware problem more than anything. Apple Silicon is a highly optimized SoC platform for the OS it is intended to run. None of the other SoC platforms are purpose built like that. All that being said, I'm pretty sure there are now twice as many ARM64 Windows systems available than there were in 2020 when Apple first announced the Apple Silicon transition.
I can't speak to that since I'm not a developer for either platform. However, my guess is that you aren't either because I'm sure there's a ton more to it than that.
(a) Apple hasn't completed this one yet. I don't doubt they will. But they are STILL selling Intel hardware and, at nearly the three year mark since announcement, there is a much smaller percentage of macOS software that is Apple Silicon native than there was natively on Intel in March 2008. Working emulator to cover currently non-ported software doesn't mean anything if Apple is subject to pull the emulator whenever they feel like it.
There's one theory and one fact that you can propose about this. They are not mutually exclusive. The theory is that Rosetta 2 was never going to be able to translate 32-bit x86 into 64-bit ARM. The fact is that Apple Silicon hardware that is A11 and newer is completely devoid of 32-bit instruction sets.
That being said, there was nothing stopping Apple from still shipping Rosetta 2 as it is and having it work exactly as it does while not dropping 32-bit Intel app support from the Intel releases of macOS. Nothing, that is, except for the massive damper that would put on Apple Silicon in the eyes of consumers. There isn't that much legacy cruft in macOS Mojave that was suddenly gone in macOS Catalina. And, by in large, Mojave is the smoother and more stable of the two OSes anyway. Supporting 32-bit code wasn't holding the OS back. It was preventing Apple from having Rosetta 2 be a failure in the eyes of customers instead of the success we all see it as now.
I honestly am unsure of what you mean here. Most software that can run in Windows 7, an unsupported OS, can also run in Windows 10 and Windows 11, supported OSes. Supported OSes get patches to plug up those exploits in whatever old libraries are present. Problem solved. Furthermore, Windows 11's more stringent system requirements have eliminated at least 60% of all Windows vulnerabilities. Hell, Windows 10 compartmentalizing the OS's components such that an attack on one part of it doesn't affect the others was pretty damn revolutionary. As someone who lives and breathes IT and cares greatly about remedying security vulnerabilities in endpoints, I think you might not know as much about this stuff as you think you do.
Yes, Extended Support Updates solely for seriously large enterprises with software they were not ready to transition from. I was there for that. The number of businesses that needed to use these updates wasn't that large. Most moved to Windows 10 just fine. I worked at least four different Windows 7 to 10 migrations. You had some people not on top of things. And you had some people who absolutely needed to use esoteric software the likes of which would never exist on the Mac and that couldn't smoothly run in Windows 10. Rare cases, but they existed.
The paid extended support programs covered supporting Windows 7 for years 11 through 13 of its existence on this planet. Apple cuts things off after 3 years. The only people holding onto 11 year old hardware are 2010-2012 Mac Pro users. Otherwise Apple doesn't sell to people whose needs are THAT mission critical such that their drastic annual OSes are not an option.
There will always be users computing on endpoints. Not as many are buying desktops today as they were 20 years ago. Even not as many are buying laptops as they were 20 years ago. Most do their computing on their smartphone.
Microsoft will still exist. Windows will still exist. Windows will still lead the market because they can be depended on in situations where macOS cannot. And Windows will still lead the market because IT management of Windows isn't as hard to grasp as IT management of macOS. Just because iPads and Chromebooks have joined the fray doesn't change that.
You haven't used Linux much either, I see. There's never a guarantee that anyone has compiled any open source thing for you unless it's from a big company (i.e. Canonical, Google, Mozilla, etc.). Linux is safe if you know what you're doing.
They only got rid of them for one reason; they could.
Happens damn near all the time! This last zero day was Safari related. That much I'll grant you. Happened A BUNCH during Monterey's reign.
You can't get rid of it. Even if it's not your default, it's a bad idea never to patch it.
I'm not going to tell you how to live your life. But I will tell you that if you are an IT consultant and you are telling people to wait until an OS no longer gets security updates to move to it, then you REALLY shouldn't be in this line of work.
(Why do people say this right before they do so? It's like some sort of weird compulsion.)
I advise my customers not to be unpaid beta-testers of the latest shiny, and to avoid using Safari for anything security-related.
The premise of your argument is that Apple (and this critique is hardly limited to them) is an ethical corporation with the best interests of their consumers at heart, and guards them from harm like a tigress defends her cubs. Demonstrably they are not despite their blandishments, and haven't been for quite some time now.
Couldn't tell ya. I've seen the same phenomenon before. Must be some literary trend that never died. In any case, I didn't tell you how to live your life. And I still won't.
There's a difference between
(a) running the current macOS which is getting updates AND
(b) Running the OS behind the current macOS which is more or less only getting security updates, despite now (as of Big Sur and newer) still incrementing version number AND
(c) Running an OS not getting ANY updates at all.
I completely agree with you that (a) is often perilous and more so than it's worth, especially with Apple's current track record of poor quality control for macOS and iOS updates. But (c) is just a bad idea. If you are in the IT space, security and getting regular security updates is crucial. Furthermore, having been on OSes that are not getting ANY updates at multiple points in time, I can tell you that third party apps stop getting updates and ultimately, stop working. Not all of those apps, but enough for it to be a bad time (even if the OS you're staying on is awesome [as some of the ones I did that with legitimately were]).
(b) is the sweet spot.
My argument has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with best practices. Security is a huge concern and Apple is no longer the platform that is immune to vulnerabilities and exploits. What I say is just as applicable to Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, VMware, Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, and any other vendor who produces software that hackers are trying to use the vulnerabilities of to gain access to your system.
I don't doubt that Apple isn't good intentioned. They want me to buy more Macs, iPhones, and iPads and they're going to do whatever they can to make me. Their quality control for the operating systems these devices runs is getting worse, on average. They do not care that I feel this way. They don't care what any of us think or feel about their products so long as enough of them sell.
That doesn't change the fact that I expose myself to remote attackers by not keeping my software regularly patched, no matter who makes it.
Again, there is absolutely zero correlation between UI not changing and security holes under the hood. Microsoft and Apple both routinely patch vulnerabilities in components without the UI changing one bit. Microsoft has some really old UI (primarily in its mmc consoles). Everyone acts like this not being tweaked to look like the rest of the OS means that the OS is lagging behind in that area. While that area COULD be lagging, the fact that the UI hasn't changed isn't directly correlated to that whatsoever.
Case in point: Active Directory has changed many times over since Windows Server 2008 R2, yet most consoles for Active Directory have remained identical since then. UI isn't everything.
I shall consider it. (OK; done.)
I know every one who drops their ostensibly "obsolete" mac off at the local recycler, since I buy a dozen a week. At least half still have user accounts on them. --Out of hundreds of statistical datapoints, I've seen less than ten where the user had drive icons on the desktop and scrollbars always enabled. (IIRC, these were defaulted "off" in Mavericks or El Capitan, or thereabouts.) In other words, approximately 1% now have their Mac desktop "look and feel" the way it was *default* fifteen years ago. They literally don't know how to drag-and-drop files on and off their internal drive anymore.fisherking said:
I”m not talking about look and feel at all.
I’m talking about Windows UI libraries that have had known architectural flaws in them for 15 plus years. NOT LOOK AND FEEL