Upgrade macOS 10.13.6 to ?

[maseevel]

I'm running macOS 10.13.6 on my late 2014 Mac mini. I need to download a newer operating system for a new printer. Which is an easier (problem free) upgrade to download; 10.14.6 or 11.6?

 

[pm-r]

I need to download a newer operating system for a new printer. Which is an easier (problem free) upgrade to download; 10.14.6 or 11.6?

Hmmm... Just an opinion, but that seems like a lot of extra work with other possible upgrade problems just in order to run a new printer.

There should be lots of optional printers available that will run with your current macOS 10.13.6 version. Maybe even some at a good sale price...

My two bits worth...




- Patrick
=======

 

[ferrarr]

Why not go to Monterey (macOS 12.5)?

 

[maseevel]

The late 2014 Mac mini won't take anything beyond OS 11.

 

[Raz0rEdge]

Your 2014 Mac Mini supports the latest version of macOS which is Monterrey. But you can jump to any of the interim version depending on your workflow.

macOS Catalina, I believe, dropped 32-bit support, so if you have apps that don't work in 64-bit mode, they won't work anymore.

And problem free is relative. I would suggest that vast majority of folks have had no problems with the current version of macOS

 

[pm-r]

The late 2014 Mac mini won't take anything beyond OS 11.

Not so, even if Apple tells you so.

Check this site for up-to-date reality information and specs for a typical 2014 Mac Mini:

Mac mini "Core i5" 2.8 (Late 2014) Specs (Late 2014, MGEQ2LL/A, Macmini7,1, A1347, 2840): EveryMac.com

Technical specifications for the Mac mini "Core i5" 2.8 (Late 2014). Dates sold, processor type, memory info, hard drive details, price and more.

everymac.com

Note some of the unsupported features in case you were needing them.



- Patrick
=======

 

[maseevel]

Thanks.

 

[Rod]

I agree, I don't think there is any easier/problem free option when it comes to macOS Upgrades. There are personal preferences to consider, as Ashwin stated 32-Bit app support ended with macOS Catalina 10.15 so macOS Mojave 10.14 would be as far as you could go.

To find out how many 32-Bit apps you have go to "Find 32-Bit Mac apps" on this page; macOS: How to See Which Mac Apps are 32-Bit
If there are some you really need check with the app or developers for a 64-Bit update.

Obviously upgrading to Monterey would be easy because you can get to it via the App Store, earlier macOS versions are also available from the App Store but "hidden". To access them you will need the links from this page; How to get old versions of macOS.

Keep in mind that upgrading an OS seldom fixes anything. If you cannot get a printer driver for your current OS (only a later one) you may be in luck.
Broadly speaking upgrading to the current macOS where possible is almost always a good idea but make sure everything else is upgraded and make a full backup of your data first.

 

[Randy B. Singer]

I'm running macOS 10.13.6 on my late 2014 Mac mini. I need to download a newer operating system for a new printer. Which is an easier (problem free) upgrade to download; 10.14.6 or 11.6?

Things to keep in mind:

- If your mini has an internal rotating disk hard drive, and you upgrade to OS 10.14 or later, your internal rotating disk hard drive will be non-optionally reformatted to APFS, and your entire Mac forevermore will take a very noticeable hit in performance and often display the rotating beachball when you go do certain things (that involve disk access). I very strongly recommend that you stand pat at OS 10.13 if your mini has an internal rotating disk hard drive.

- If you upgrade to OS 10.15 or later, you will lose ALL 32-bit applications. You can check and see what applications will be lost with this free utility:

Go64 (free)
https://www.stclairsoft.com/Go64/index.html

- You might find this Web page useful:

Upgrading To The Latest Mac OS
http://www.macattorney.com/upos.html

 

[Rod]

it's a good point Randy makes, is your internal drive HDD (spinner) or SSD (solid state)?

 

[krs]

Things to keep in mind:

- If your mini has an internal rotating disk hard drive, and you upgrade to OS 10.14 or later, your internal rotating disk hard drive will be non-optionally reformatted to APFS, and your entire Mac forevermore will take a very noticeable hit in performance and often display the rotating beachball when you go do certain things (that involve disk access).

I find it interesting that Apple continues to force their customers in a certain direction even to the point of a negative user experience.
I'm sure there are many people that upgraded to 10.14 specifically because it's the last macOS to run 32-bit applications and who have a rotating disk drive, not realizing they are going to see a performance hit.
Just for education and information, I'm not suggesting people actually try that, here is an interesting discussion of people trying to run Mojave on HFS+

Can you update to macOS 10.14 (Mojave) without converting to APFS?

At WWDC 2018 macOS 10.14 or macOS Mojave was disclosed. I am currently on macOS Sierra (10.12) and am looking forward to upgrading to macOS Mojave once its released. I was wondering if it will be

apple.stackexchange.com

 

[MacInWin]

I find it interesting that Apple continues to force their customers in a certain direction even to the point of a negative user experience.

Nobody is forced. Unlike MicroSoft, Apple does not force updates or upgrades. The decision is entirely the user's.

As for the performance hit, I read somewhere (can't remember where, sorry) that if the RDHD has room on it, the performance hit from converting to APFS is relatively small. I seem to recall that it does get worse when the drive is more full and more fragmented. I can't say from experience as I had SSDs when APFS came out. I did have one iMac that had RDHD and that was converted to APFS, but it was a low-use home automation center, so performance wasn't super critical. I didn't notice any adverse impacts. Of course, if you have disk-intensive activity then the impact will be larger.

What Apple does, and has done throughout its life (yes, even back in the "Golden Days" of Steve Jobs) is to move technology relentlessly forward with little to no consideration for folks left in the dust. They changed CPUs, multiple times, and only supported the older tech for a limited time. It's how they work. they also don't retrofit the OS so that you can run older versions of macOS on newer hardware. In general, you cannot run a version older than what was installed at the factory when the machine was made. Again, relentlessly forward, never backward.

The confusion comes in the fact that the hardware is brilliant, lasts a long time and works well, but Apple just keeps moving on, so a 5-6 year old Mac, hardware running perfectly, gets the tag "vintage" or "obsolete" and left in the dust. The reason that doesn't seem to be an issue for Microsoft and Windows is that PCs are, for the most part, not built to last as long, so if one lasts 4-5 years and then dies, that's just the PC-life.

I guess the thing to remember is Apple is at its core a hardware company. They write software to support the hardware, but what they sell is hardware (and now, services). So, in that light, it makes sense that they don't spend a lot of time or effort on old software that they gave away for free years ago. MS is a software company, not hardware, so they have a different perspective and different drivers for decisions. They hold a near-monopoly, but don't want to attract a lot of attention to that, so they keep the masses happy by supporting older software pretty well. The lack of noise from users in turn keeps the government off their backs.

But, again, nobody is "forced" to update/upgrade. The old software still works, as is evident from folks who come here for advice on problems going way back, even to the G series Macs.

 

[pm-r]

I find it interesting that Apple continues to force their customers in a certain direction even to the point of a negative user experience.
I'm sure there are many people that upgraded to 10.14 specifically because it's the last macOS to run 32-bit applications and who have a rotating disk drive, not realizing they are going to see a performance hit.

I have often remarked and wondered about some of Apple's recommendations as you and Randy mentioned, and I would add their recommendation for users to use FileVault during an installation or upgrade which I and I am sure many others would disagree with.

Also to add to Randy's remarks about upgrading when using a spinner HDD, for such users, many will probably find their spinner is also 5400 RPM which compounds the slowness of the computer with such an upgrade and the use of APFS.



- Patrick
=======

 

[krs]

Nobody is forced. Unlike MicroSoft, Apple does not force updates or upgrades. The decision is entirely the user's.

My point was simply that one is forced to use APFS when upgrading to Mojave.
It would have made more sense to me to base the file system on the boot drive tehnology, HFS+ for spinners and APFS for SSD's.'
As to "forcing" macOS updates, yes,Apple does not directly "force" that,but that is putting on blinders. I have had several instances where I was forced to upgrade the macOS because an external web site I needed to use regularly was no longer supported on the older macOS - the last site like that was GoToWebinar.
I'm all for moving technology forward, I guess when doing that one stumbles occasionally.

 

[pm-r]

Nobody is forced. Unlike MicroSoft, Apple does not force updates or upgrades. The decision is entirely the user's.

Hmmm.. ??? Maybe not if they are independent thinkers, but Apple does a pretty darn good job of almost nagging to death and insistence insisting some users to do the upgrades and without a proper easy option to disable such nagging messages.



- Patrick
=======

 

[Rod]

We’re not really forced to upgrade although I admit it's strongly suggested in this case maseevel seems happy enough with macOS 13.6 it’s his new printer that requires a later macOS. Mojave was released in 2018, a lot of changes in Apple software since then so it's not surprising that a printer manufacturer may prefer not to make their product backwards compatible.
No disrespect but we are talking about an 8 year old computer running 5 year old software.
Having said that there are printers out there that are compatible with pre Mojave operating systems so i'm wondering why maseevel chose this particular printer?
In any case maseevel has not responded to the question I posed in post #10, " is your internal drive HDD (spinner) or SSD (solid state)?" The 2.6Ghz and 2.8Ghz models were both configurable to SSD's.

 

[Randy B. Singer]

As for the performance hit, I read somewhere (can't remember where, sorry) that if the RDHD has room on it, the performance hit from converting to APFS is relatively small.

That's not at all my experience. In fact, I'm sitting in front of an iMac with a RDHD that has a 1TB hard drive with well over half of that free. When it was upgraded to Mojave, the performance hit was noticeable and very frustrating, as it had been a very fast computer prior to that. I see a rotating beachball anytime that I do anything disk intensive, such as launch a large app. I've heard from countless users with a similar experience.

I'm still amazed that no one has brought a class action lawsuit against Apple over this. The situation is very similar to when Apple throttled older iPhones. It's not that one is "forced" to upgrade their OS. It's that when one is enticed to upgrade, Apple gives no warning that folks with a RDHD will suffer a performance hit. That's negligence at best.

 

[MacInWin]

That's not at all my experience. In fact, I'm sitting in front of an iMac with a RDHD that has a 1TB hard drive with well over half of that free. When it was upgraded to Mojave, the performance hit was noticeable and very frustrating, as it had been a very fast computer prior to that. I see a rotating beachball anytime that I do anything disk intensive, such as launch a large app. I've heard from countless users with a similar experience.

I'm still amazed that no one has brought a class action lawsuit against Apple over this. The situation is very similar to when Apple throttled older iPhones. It's not that one is "forced" to upgrade their OS. It's that when one is enticed to upgrade, Apple gives no warning that folks with a RDHD will suffer a performance hit. That's negligence at best.

Huh, I guess the article I read was wrong. And from what I know about how APFS works, about the only reason for performance to take a hit is for a file, or group of files, to become heavily fragmented by the update process of APFS. So, for your app to be that slow to load, it must be changing over time, which could well be the case if it is updating something in the application folder itself each time it is run.

Live and learn.

 

[Randy B. Singer]

Huh, I guess the article I read was wrong.

Using APFS On HDDs ... And Why You Might Not Want To
https://blog.macsales.com/43043-using-apfs-on-hdds-and-why-you-might-not-want-to/

 

[MacInWin]

Yeah, I read that back from OWC in 2017 when it was released. And as I said, it's referring to the way APFS handles changes to files. But an application, unless it is making internal changes each time it runs, shouldn't change that much or often, which is why I was surprised you have problems specifically loading large apps. You didn't say what the large app was, but I wonder if it was something like Photos, where the app itself gets launched ok, but the loading of the photoslibrary file is slow because it has become spread out all over the drive as edits are made?

I as I said in post #12, Apple relentlessly pushes technology forward. They abandoned Flash well before anybody else; they changed CPUs multiple times, only supporting the older CPUs for a short time; they abandoned USB-A formatted plugs; abandoned Ethernet; abandoned CD-ROM and DVD drives; and they changed the format from HFS+ to APFS without a look back, probably because they think RDHD is a technology that will die soon and be replaced by SSD or something even more radical. It's how they operate. Even Steve Jobs did it, so it's not something new. It seems to be in their DNA as a company.

As for the lawsuit, I'm not a lawyer, I'll leave that to you!

EDIT: You know, in thinking about the Photos example, I wonder if the situation would improve by copying the photoslibrary file to an EHD, then erasing it on the boot drive, then copying it back to the Boot drive from the EHD would make the next loading time faster? Of course, over time as edits and changes are made, the fragmentation would reappear, so it's not a long term fix. Would make an interesting experiment, though.