Preparing to Update to Golden Gate

Michael, Xcode 26 still functions on GG. You just have to launch it directly from the executable. But everything functions fine.

macOS Sequoia another year.

I have Golden Gate on my M1 Air for testing, but it's meh.

macOS Tahoe is such a bitchass release I wouldn't mind having a gap in macOS support just to never touch it again. Specifically, tell users to upgrade to macOS 15 or 27 and disparage Apple over it every chance I can.

Intel hardware at this point becomes a Linux distro.

@Léo That’s good to know in a pinch. I guess I just don’t like relying on such unsupported configurations. (Current issue that Core Data debug logging doesn’t work from tests, even with a supported config.)

Any guesses as to whether it’s better to install the latest version of Tahoe and then install Golden Gate, or is a direct upgrade from Sequoia to Golden Gate OK? I don’t plan on sticking around on Tahoe at all but if there are bugs, I’d bet Apple hasn’t tested upgrades skipping a major version much so I’m a bit wary.

Also, any thoughts on Golden Gate compared to Tahoe would be appreciated. Tahoe seems like one of the worst releases in recent years but I can’t stay on Sequoia forever. (There are some niceties I’m missing like older passwords being saved automatically in the Passwords app.)

I wish support could have been extended one more year for Intel Macs so they could end their run with a polished release. The rush to abandon older machines is wild to me, and it's unique to the Apple world. Let's not forget that Apple was still selling Intel Macs as recently as three years ago. They just released a major macOS update for them not even twelve months ago! So it's not like they're irrelevant ancient history. A lot of users on Intel Macs can't afford a new Mac right now, especially with the price increases across the board.

I agree it’s ridiculous how fast they dropped Intel support. Leaving 3 year old computers on a nightmare release is just bad business and we should have consumer protection laws to mandate five years of software support, maybe 7. It’s disrespectful to users and it’s a real problem for the environment during an ecological crisis. We can’t afford planned obsolescence anymore

What seems really inexcusable to me, is allowing developers to drop support for Intel Macs, while Apple still allegedly "supports" them with security updates.

Great, you'll still get security updates, but you can't buy new software because the developers aren't releasing Intel versions. Better yet if it's software that DID support Intel, but in a point update it goes AS only, and you can't actually buy a previous version on the MAS.

I accidentally updated to the public beta of Golden Gate and I actually find it pretty nice, better than current macOS at least. Not sure if I'm going to stick with the new Spotlight or go back to Alfred, my old friend.

No way I’m switching to GG before relase .3 or so. Looks like I will be staying on Sequoia for another year, maybe forever. Plus, I have my home folder on an external drive, and Apple won’t fix odd behaviors even though you can select another location in the OS. It seems that at least some of the new AI features won’t function under this scenario. At the very least, I will wait until GG’s behavior with external home folders is clarified in the acutal released version.

My perfectly good 2020 Intel iMac is still on Sonoma which has settled down to being really rather nice, so of course it's time to move on, *sigh*. And, honestly, I'd not mind Golden Gate, except (a) it stupidly won't run on my Intel iMac, unlike the abortion that's Tahoe, and (b) it kills VMware Fusion for VoiceOver users, and that's an important bit of software for me (unless anyone knows of a hypervisor for Linux that supports USB passthrough and doesn't use a QT UI, at minimum). And now I face the prospect of developers just dropping anything but current because of Apple's predatory software obsolescence strategies coming for Xcode. Let's face it, apart from the shine of the latest hardware, we're just spreading our cheeks for Apple at this point if we allow this nonsense to continue.

I've managed to avoid Tahoe so far, but I too have been wondering whether updating to Golden Gate is best done directly from Sequoia or using Tahoe as a stepping stone.

My partner works at a AA game studio who were a launch client for Apple Arcade, making games where Apple financed the entire production. They had a single Mac in the company, a Mac Mini in a server cabinet as a build server for Unreal, so everyone could build for device onto iOS devices plugged into their PC workstations.

Is it beyond reasonable for devs to just have a stack of lowest-necessary Mac Minis (of requisite vintages), running different eras of macOS and dev tools (and ARD) so they can test things that won’t work in VMs?

Still on Ventura, I'm planning to update my M2 Pro Mac mini to Sonoma, and end my Mac OS journey there, unless some miracle release comes out in the next years, bringing back all the good UI/UX practices we have lost, and better Apple software.

"But… security!" — I'll be fine. I'm still running Intel Macs with High Sierra and Mojave, obviously keeping a watchful eye in the process, and everything's been okay so far.

I'll miss out on some (very few) good third party apps. It's fine. I already have 99.9% of the software I need. I profoundly despise the direction Apple's been going for the past few years — they have utterly lost me as a customer. I'm tired.

And if something work-related will actually force my hand, I guess I'll get some second-hand Mac in base configuration just to install the latest & shittiest Mac OS and use it exclusively for work.

I sound like a 1990s office worker being forced to use Windows.

Great news! It looks like Apple have finally fixed the VMware Fusion crasher for VoiceOver for Golden Gate. Bad news: they clearly aren't going to backport the fix to the OS where they introduced the bug, and that's the last to run on my iMac. So even if I were prepared to tolerate Tahoe, and I *would* if it meant a bit longer on the dear old iMac, I don't have that choice thanks to Apple's incompetence. The sanest choice going forward would seem to be to turn the iMac into a Windows box and use BootCamp to reach macOS for convenience when I want to use the odd macOS app that's just not available in Windows …

This is your regular reminder that Apple's commitment to accessibility has flexible boundaries.

Very flexible, indeed.