gdanmitchell wrote:
On the other hand, I would not be in too great of a hurry to move to this new OS on a work-centric photography machine since there are some pretty significant changes.
What would those be? It was Tahoe that had a completely rewritten window manager, in a modern programming language and faster. (And that was why they couldn’t revert some of the deeply unpopular UI changes – the code to do it the old way didn’t exist in the new implementation.)
(You may have seen the warnings about the need to use Rosetta if you have some old software, for example some of the tools that come with Epson printers.)
I have not; I just checked the Golden Gate release notes, and Rosetta is still supported. However, any universal apps which were previously set to “Open with Rosetta” are reset to open natively, and Rosetta itself is nuked and will redownload if it is actually ever used again. That strikes me as reasonable preparation for macOS 28, when Rosetta will be gone.
melcat wrote:
They’re really not. The original Mac interface was arrived at after two years of prototyping and formal psychological experiments. For example, Fitt’s Law allows convenient menu access (at the top), and conveniently moving the dock to another monitor (by smashing the mouse pointer to the bottom edge of that monitor and holding it there).
There can be no doubt that a text entry box which is transparent to text below it, as seen in Tahoe’s Settings app, is a bad idea. But if you do doubt, you can prove it by experiment.
It’s only 3 to 5 weeks until the release of Golden Gate, which fixes most or all of Tahoe’s UI problems, and Sequoia is still receiving security updates, and will for another year. If your machine can run Golden Gate, and is still on Sequoia, I think it would be best just to wait for Golden Gate, and perhaps the first update of Golden Gate if you’re not eager for some feature in it. On the other hand, if it’s even possible with the applied firmware updates, I think it would be silly to try to downgrade a Tahoe machine to Sequoia for just a few weeks....Show more →
I realize you don't have a crystal ball into the timing of when the first update will be ... ballpark, typical timeframe after release till first update =
I haven't updated to Tahoe, so GG will be of interest to me.
melcat wrote:
What would those be? It was Tahoe that had a completely rewritten window manager, in a modern programming language and faster. (And that was why they couldn’t revert some of the deeply unpopular UI changes – the code to do it the old way didn’t exist in the new implementation.)
I have not; I just checked the Golden Gate release notes, and Rosetta is still supported. However, any universal apps which were previously set to “Open with Rosetta” are reset to open natively, and Rosetta itself is nuked and will redownload if it is actually ever used again. That strikes me as reasonable preparation for macOS 28, when Rosetta will be gone....Show more →
First, the post you replied to apparently got mangled due to my manual tag editing, and parts of it simply did not appear. My apologies. I think I have fixed it.
- - -
Rosetta is still to be supported, but this is reportedly going to be the last version that supports it. And Apple is giving us and third-party developers some pretty loud and clear warnings about that. I think that is a good thing. (Some developers have been recalcitrant about getting in line with new OS releases in the past, notably Epson in my experience, though things have gone much more smoothly recently.)
(My Mac experience goes back, well, a very long time… like 1984…)
Recently, each time I’ve updated the OS I have gotten warnings about some apps on my system that won’t be compatible with the upcoming version of the OS and will need to rely on Rosetta which a) suggests some under-the-hood changes that may already affect compatibility and b) lets us know — and more importantly, lets developers know — that some things aren’t going to work any more in the next OS version after the soon-to-be-released version. (Notably, one or more of these are Epson apps related to my printer installation, which has been slightly paranoid based on prior experience with Epson.)
My main point here was that if you are running a machine where unexpected problems with a new OS release have the potential to create a big problem for you, should they crop up… that it is important to weigh the fun/value of being the first on the block to update against the potential for problems… and wait at least a week or two to let others discover them. Your current version of the OS should continue to work just as well as it does now in those early weeks after Golden Gate comes out, so there’s no harm in waiting a bit.
I’ve been using Tahoe without issues other than the warnings about losing my Epson document scanner. I will upgrade to GG after a couple months of it proving stable. And then I’ll buy a new document scanner 😎
EB-1 wrote:
Some old scanners are not easily replaced.
Does Hamrick Vuescan work for your scanner? It has kept some of my printer/scanners going years after EOL.
EBH
I’m still using VueScan with an old Epson flatbed and it works fine. My little Epson doc scanner lost the dual side capability a few months ago, so I need to replace it anyway. But yes, I am confident I could run it through VueScan too 👍
I might have found an issue. Not sure if is the OS or something else, but I suspect the OS.
I ran some Epson printer software/driver installers this past week in an attempt to get some Epson paper profiles to show up in the Photoshop Print dialog. It did not work. Following some advice seen in various places on the web, I looked in the location in the Library folder where an “Epson” folder should get installed inside a “Printer” folder.
It was empty.
Wondering how that was possible after I just ran the installer, which seemed to complete its task correctly, I did a spotlight search for a file that should be in the missing Printer folder. I found it…
… on a backup system drive.
How, you might ask, could that intact folder appear on the backup drive if it did not appear on the drive it was backing up? I put that question aside for the moment and simply i moved a copy of the Epson folder in question from the backup drive to the Printers folder on the system drive.
The profiles now showed up in Photoshop after a reboot.
I would have left it there and chalked it up to the Mysteries Of Computer Life, except that…
…this morning my wife reported to me (not knowing about my issue) that she had run the driver installers for her Canon printer (which was printing absurdly slowly all of a sudden) and when she went to check her Printers folder in the Library folder…
… it was empty. Just like mine after running an Epson installer. And, yes, she found the complete installed Printer folder in the correct place… on her attached backup drive.
It seems — though I’m open to alternative explanations that don’t involve magic — that for some reason the printer driver installers are putting the updated files on the _backup_ drive rather than the system drive (an internal SSD).
She’s currently trying to reinstall again, after disconnecting all external drives.
There is a dialog that pops up when the installer runs — at least for the Epson installer — that asks for access to attached drives. One possibility is that denying that access might resolve the issue.
This is a very bizarre issue, and one that I’ve never encountered in yeas of installing and updating printer drivers.
