macOS 12 Monterey Upgrade Issues
When it comes to upgrading to macOS 12 Monterey, we’re unsurprisingly seeing both good and bad experiences.
On the good side, early impressions suggest that Monterey is overall more of a refinement release rather than a major architectural leap on Apple’s part. A quick look back at the significant changes unavoidable in previous versions of macOS:
- macOS 10.14 Mojave: Automatically converted boot hard drives and Fusion drives to APFS
- macOS 10.15 Catalina: Stopped supporting 32-bit apps and introduced a read-only System volume
- macOS 11 Big Sur: Redesigned much of the interface, moved to a signed System volume, added support for Apple silicon, and moved Time Machine drives to APFS
In contrast, Monterey offers quite a few compelling features—including Shortcuts, Live Text, AirPlay reception, live location updating in Find My, Universal Control (soon), and FaceTime screen sharing (soon)—without the kind of foundational changes that caused consternation in previous macOS versions. There are also smaller improvements that may be welcome, such as an improved interface in the Finder when copying large files and AppleScript being reportedly much faster in Monterey. Plus, as Howard Oakley notes, Apple seems to be focusing its bug fix and security attention on Monterey over Big Sur and Catalina.
All that would suggest that you could contemplate an upgrade sooner rather than later. I’ve been running Monterey on my M1-based MacBook Air for months now, and I’m planning to move my 2020 27-inch iMac to Monterey as soon as I have a free weekend afternoon to fuss with it.
However, on the bad side of the equation, reports have been coming in of USB hubs having trouble under Monterey. Symptoms vary somewhat, with some hubs failing entirely while others have trouble only with certain ports. Reportedly, Apple is aware of the problem, so the next update to Monterey will likely include a fix. In the meantime, if you rely on a USB hub, it’s worth delaying your upgrade.
Another issue that has plagued a small number of users is Macs with T2 chips being bricked after updating to Monterey. Apple said in a statement to Rene Ritchie that it has fixed a firmware bug with the T2 chip and the updated firmware is now included with existing macOS updates. Anyone who was affected by this should contact Apple support for help.
Plus, some of those who have upgraded older Macs with third-party SSDs, including TidBITS reader synderlic, are receiving an error when upgrading that states, “Required firmware update could not be installed. Compatible internal storage is required in order to update.” The macOS installer refuses to install a necessary Mac firmware update if it doesn’t detect an Apple SSD. This problem isn’t actually new to Monterey, but it still affects Macs whose firmware hasn’t automatically been upgraded to the necessary version. The workaround is to reinstall the original Apple SSD, install Monterey on it (which upgrades the firmware), put the third-party SSD back in, and then upgrade it to Monterey. Of course, that assumes you still have the original Apple SSD; if that’s not true, you may have to acquire one. It may also be worth trying to boot from an external drive and figure out an upgrade path that results in upgraded firmware.
Lastly, Apple tech guru Howard Oakley had issues with a new MacBook Pro. It came with macOS 12.0, but he wanted to update it to the current macOS 12.0.1 immediately. That proved to be a time-consuming and error-prone process that succeeded after he manually reconfigured his networking settings to use the public OpenDNS and Cloudflare DNS servers. That seems like an odd solution because it’s hard to imagine Apple relying on update servers that wouldn’t have well-advertised DNS names. Still, it’s easy to try and has no downside. In addition, setting a different DNS server helped another person on TidBITS Talk who had trouble accessing the Internet after upgrading to Monterey.
Neither the good nor the bad about Monterey changes our general upgrade advice, which is that it’s worth waiting a bit longer unless you’re an early adopter who is happy to puzzle through unexpected problems. We don’t subscribe to rigid formulas that claim to specify exactly which update is ideal, instead preferring to get a feel for the quantity, severity, and prevalence of the bugs that Apple fixes with each update. With luck, we’ll be able to give the go-ahead to upgrade sooner rather than later.
Finally, in an earlier version of this article, I suffered from tunnel vision and assumed that all recent news surrounding upgrades must relate to Monterey, sharing an interesting problem and workaround from Mr. Macintosh. However, it revolved around upgrading to Big Sur, not to Monterey. Oops!
So if you’re on Mojave or Catalina and thinking about upgrading to Big Sur now instead of Monterey, beware of an installation issue that can result in a stuck Mac. It happens when Spotlight’s mdworker process has, for an as-yet-unknown reason, left tens of thousands of files in a temporary folder. The Big Sur installer chokes when it hits that folder and can leave the Mac in an unusable state.
Happily, Mr. Macintosh has provided instructions on how to check your Mac to see if it will suffer from the problem, fix it before upgrading, and recover from a stuck upgrade. Kudos to him, those on the MacAdmins Slack who helped gather information, and Apple engineering for tracking down the problem. It will likely go away as an issue once Apple can release new installers.
Mr. Macintosh is talking about upgrading to Big Sur, not Monterey and the link provided references a directory that doesn’t appear to exist in Monterey. I have updated three systems - MBP16, iMac Pro and iMac 21 (Intel) - and all updates went fine.
My Late '14 Mini updated to Monterey (from Big Sur) without any problems. I did not disconnect my external drives, even though I know you’re supposed to do that before updating. (My bad!)
I tried Live Text by taking a PDF I had of a document in Italian (needed for my class this semester), making a JPG of a page, and then -trying- to get Live Text to see and translate from Italian to English. No Go. Very disappointed with that!
My new MB Pro 16" last reported location was Anchorage. I presume it’ll arrive Monday as Apple promised (rather than tomorrow, as UPS -originally promised-. But there’s a chance it could arrive Friday, depending on where it goes to next. I’m in New Hampshire.)
I don’t think that’s a correct way to paraphrase what Howard was getting at.
His argument is that Big Sur is likely only getting security patches from here on out. So staying on Big Sur and delaying Monterey should not expose you to any specific security risk. But you will most likely be left without non-security related fixes which can, as he points out, be “damaging to workflows or downright annoying”. Let’s note he is not saying Apple has removed security attention from Big Sur (yet).
I am a bit confused on the release dates.
I enrolled a Mid 2015 MBPro system in the Beta (developer?) program well before
Oct 25, 2021, (in July actually) only lightly, dabbled with Mac OS Monterey
with no notable issues.
I blithely updated to 12.1 Beta last week 11/29… at that time the Beta version was in the App Store.
I notice today that the App Store offers Monterey, no v. listed … presumably out of Beta.
What happened between a safe Beta and this problematic official release?
macOS Monterey 12.0 shipped with the new M1 Macs late last month, but a 12.0.1 update was released as RC2 to beta testers on 10/21 and to the public on 10/25.
Beta testers generally aren’t the ones reporting these problematic issues, rather it’s coming from mostly from regular users who were running Mojave or Catalina and a few Big Sur users. There were some Beta testers that had the same issues back in the summer, but those mostly forgotten over the following months. A group of about 200 Enterprise IT’s didn’t forget and got together to find the root cause which they have communicated to Apple and gotten a promise that it will be fixed in a subsequent update (I would guess 12.1).
While my adventurous nature and tendency to be an early adopter had caused me some software compatibility issues in the past, I must confess that the upgrade of my 2019 i9 MBP16 from 11.6.1 to 12.0.1 went smoothly. Not only that it was relatively quick (disregarding the long software download that happened in the background and did not affect my work), I am also yet to discover a single application (out of those I regularly use) that misbehaves. Maybe it is the 1-week wait before performing the upgrade that allowed 3rd party software developers time to fix any incompatibilities and release the necessary updates. All in all a clean upgrade and so far a solid and stable release.
My first concern was, obviously, ensuring two applications work as they should:
So - they both do. I checked the Berkeley compatibility report and held off the upgrade until I saw the green light (or rather green V-sign) on their site.
Then it was the Video-Conf tools I use: Zoom, GoToMeeting, Teams. All work well.
The rest is easy: The Apple stuff (Safari, Final Cut, Logic Pro) was nothing to worry about, the Microsoft Office and Adobe stuff are both so widely used that if there were any compatibility issues they were resolved during that 1-week wait, and I saw nothing of them.
The lighter tools scuh as Fantastical, Keyboard Maestro and some of the technical diagram design tools (Camunda, OmniGraffle) all issued updates during that week and were stable after the OS upgrade.
Thanks for this Adam, the installer is sitting in my Applications folder. I’ll hold off a while more. Most of my critical apps, Capture One, DevonTHINK, Notion, various image editors are updated.
Talk about tunnel vision! I was so heads-down in Monterey issues that I failed to notice that key fact. I’ve recast the article now to address that error.
We know Live Text has fairly specific system requirements on iPhones and iPads (A12 Bionic or later). Apple didn’t specify any such requirements for Live Text on Macs, but perhaps there are some.
Hmmm. In that article, he seems pretty clear about how the security fixes are not equally distributed, saying:
I can confirm that Live Text does not work using Danish.
I made an example photo with some Danish text, but have the same results using English texts on photos.
Using Danish as primary language, no character cursor ever comes up in neither Photos nor Notes, but as soon as I change the primary language to English , text suddenly becomes searchable (in Notes at least), and select-/copyable. Even Danish text… a rather silly missing functionality.
Oh man, I’m reading too fast these days. @deemery was talking about Italian text, which Live Text explicitly does not support at this point, so my comment about the system requirements was misguided.
Now, your point that Live Text doesn’t even work on English text if the primary language is set to something other than a supported language is well-made—that does indeed seem like a silly limitation. Why not detect text in a supported Live Text language regardless of what the system language is set to?
FY amusement: A friend has some OCR programs left over from a project where he’d run stuff through multiple OCR and then ‘vote’ on the results to improve accuracy. I sent him the PDF of the paper in Italian. Then I took the results from the best individual program (rather than the weighted average), and then page-by-page, I pasted the Italian into Google Translate. I read the English results, and where things made no sense, I went back and fixed the OCR mistakes. This produced something that was good enough for my purposes (understanding the paper), even if it wasn’t a perfect line-by-line translation.
Well, it actually picks up both English, German and Danish, when the system language is set to English, in my brief test here. And somehow it works better in Notes than in Photos. (perhaps it is still indexing, though)
This does sound strange. Since we’re talking about image-to-text conversion and not translation, it seems to me that this should be a function of the language’s alphabet, not the language itself.
Anything using Latin characters (plus accents, of course), should work equivalently, since it is ultimately all going to use the same engine.
On the other hand, languages that use a different alphabet (e.g. Slavic, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese) will require a completely different back-end.
I can understand having the system only support one back-end at a time, because it could be a large CPU load to test every image against every supported alphabet, but I still think all languages using (for example) the Latin alphabet, should be supported at once.
Doing text recognition in a different language, even with (almost) the same alphabet is not an easy task, so that is at least a probable cause of the missing languages - and then doing simple character recognition in whatever text is present makes sense. I have just checked that the Danish characters æøå fail to be recognised, even though the text seems fine, as well as most Polish, where some letters like śą or ł don’t show up, but it picks up German characters pretty well, even without German as the primary language (it is my 3rd language on the list of languages that I use)
I guess this is more of an Op-Ed: Not to be argumentative but shouldn’t we be a little bit skeptical with regard to cost benefit in regard to maintaining support for “older” systems?
In the past Apple did support up to three systems, with aplomb. While, of course, the engineering skills on this are way over my head, I have a hard time being convinced that the burden of the cost seriously hampers this trillion dollar company.
Especially when it appears their engineering dept is a tad bit casual about bricking “old” computers
Things are really being thought “different” when a 2019 or 2020 Mac system is considered old
I’m often tempted to think that a trillion-dollar company can do just about anything as well, but the Mythical Man Month does come into play here. You can’t just assign more resources to some tasks to finish them sooner, and as the test matrix increases, the amount of work goes up much faster than linearly. That’s especially true when there is specialized knowledge that’s required to complete the task, as opposed to something where more bodies are really all that’s necessary.
And as David Shayer pointed out when iOS 13 and Catalina had such problems, we’re dealing with vastly more complex systems than in the past. Making even small changes could (and often does) cause other bugs, so there are tradeoffs to consider in every change.
Thanks. I hadn’t read that article (it was posted before I started reading TidBITS).
The lack of automated testing is very surprising. It is simply not possible to thoroughly test something as large as an operating system without it.
I remember reading, back in the 90’s, how IBM used automated testing to greatly improve the quality of their OS/2 operating system. Their policy, according to the article, was that after fixing a bug, an engineer was required to develop an automated test in order to demonstrate that the bug was fixed. The full suite of automated tests were configured to run as a part of a nightly (or maybe it was weekly) build process. So any regression could be immediately detected.
If Apple isn’t doing something like this system-wide, then I would consider it a very big mistake. They should have an in-house data center full of Macs (or at least servers running macOS in VMs) that can constantly run regression tests as a part of their internal CI strategy. A core set of tests to run after every code check-in, a broader set to run every night and the complete set running at least once a week.
And if they’re not using some form of CI, they need to start. There’s no excuse for not using it on a large project today.
I have heard that some systems for doing OCR use neural networks and operate at a higher level than individual characters, such as words. In that case I guess every language would need its own engine. But I have no idea whether Apple is using that.
thanks for the referral.
I could not help wondering as I read through the various sections whether at its core
the questionable reliance on the (clockwork): Annual Mac OS Upgrade looms as the major problematic element
No question—when you have a schedule that you have to hit, you have to make tradeoffs. But Apple has created a situation where new operating system versions are deemed necessary for marketing reasons, especially since the tight integration between all of Apple’s operating systems means that new features for one often require support from all.
On a lighter note, if I may indulge … on a sort of 90’s take on Brooke’s Law…
sort of depends on what the definition of adding is
ok, sorry, I’ll stop that now
But software QA is one of the few aspects where you CAN throw people at the problem, it does support massive parallelization of effort. And good design should localize bugs.
I worked on some large (mostly military C2, but also air traffic control) systems, the best ones had strong modularity so few bugs had significant impacts across boundaries. The ones that did usually came from a change to an interface between the modules.
Apple too often adds glitzy features instead of getting core functionality to work. When my new laptop gets here (tomorrow), I’ll be interested to see if Mail and particularly Calendar are better on Monterey. Calendar on Mojave and earlier versions is a hot mess, ill-thought-through use cases, bad interfaces/information exchanges, and the kind of behavior I’d expect from a Microsoft product.
Has anyone come across notable details with regard to Monterey installation issues
on systems having third party SSD drives installed, instead of OEM Apple SSD drives?
See the article linked at the top of this thread.
For some reason that nobody has been able to satisfactorily explain, Apple won’t install firmware updates if you have a third party SSD installed.
Monterey requires a firmware update (I think it was actually released as a part of a Big Sur update) in order to install. You may be forced to install the original Apple SSD, then install the firmware update (probably by installing Monterey on it).
Once that is done, you can go back to your original third-party SSD and install Monterey there. Once the firmware is installed on your motherboard, it should work.
Whoops, yes I missed that.
I do recall there was the similar issue with High Sierra and some version of OWC ssd drives way back when…
It is always best to retain the original SSD drives when upgrading to a third party drive for such cases
I notice that it is not that easy to navigate to, or find, an Apple support page that specifies details on what firmware version is needed before upgrading to Mac OS versions.
Although, so far, I can confirm Big Sur and Monterey systems can be installed on the same Apple SSD, I would hope the same for third party drives, despite the need for the initial set up workaround.
According to the small print of Apples web site: Live Text is currently supported in English, Chinese, French, Italian, German, Portuguese, and Spanish.
So the single most interesting feature of Monterey does not work in most languages it otherwise supports. hmm, F for Fail is the note I would think of. On the other hand this is a very common Apple issue, so nobody expects anything on the software side anymore. Those were the days!
They always add more countries to their services eventually.
I caught whiff of Monterey “bricking” older macs and even Intel models with T2 chip, just as Apple announced an update to fix the Intel w/T2 chip issues. Apple’s “revival procedure” makes it clear, this isn’t as simple as thought to be.
I’ve updated a late 2016 MacBook Pro, a 2019 Mac Mini and a 2017 27" iMac (running an external drive as the boot drive) and didn’t have an issue with any of them. Shortly thereafter, I upgraded to 12.01 and had the same experience.
In general, I find the OS more fluid and surprisingly faster than Big Sur. My advice would be to go for it.
Not sure if this is a dumb question, despite the fact I know it’s a bit over my head even asking the question.
Browsing through recent articles leads me to believe that with the advent of the proliferation of the
SSD drive in Macs that firmware is now embedded in the SSD drive itself …?
… Raises the query: why else would a firmware update fail, and subsequently a failed system update, and a “bricked” Mac be the result, due to having a third party SSD installed?
… used to be that firmware data chip resided as a separate non-volatile memory chip, not beholden, so to speak, to a particular storage drive … just wondering
There are no dumb questions…just dumb answers sometimes. The firmware isn’t actually on the SSD…it’s in essentially the boot ROM of the computer. Monterey requires an update…but that update actually shipped with one of the Bog Sur releases. The problem is that the firmware won’t update unless an original Apple SSD is in the machine…so the update doesn’t get done if you’ve upgraded to a larger 3rd party SSD. The solution is to temporarily reinstall the Apple SSD…and it has to be the internal drive…an Apple SSD in an external enclosure won’t update the firmware even if you’ve booted from the external Apple SSD when running the update.
I think part of the confusion here might be due to changes from Intel to Apple Silicon.
Intel MBPs have actual firmware implemented as flash memory on the board. It can get flashed (overwritten) via firmware update. The OS can be updated independent of the firmware. And often OS updates will not affect the firmware when small OS changes don’t require any firmware changes.
OTOH, the new M1 MBA/MBP have their firmware on one partition (or rather on one APFS container) on their internal SSD. If you flash the firmware of an M1 Mac you are effectively writing to that part of the SSD. Even when you boot an M1 Mac from an external disk, it is still getting its firmware from the internal SSD. If that SSD gets hosed, it’s lights out no matter what you try to boot from. In the M1 Mac world OS updates are linked to a certain firmware version so when you update the OS, you will also be updating the firmware. It’s a separate part of the update, but it all comes in one common ispw. Just like on iPhones.
There’s many more differences between these two approaches, but this is the main difference. And essentially the whole thing about firmware on the internal disk comes from this transition to Apple Silicon world.
now that is “Different” … like paradigm shift-level
Like no external boot repair-jobs-wise
Looks like in the coming years I’ll finally be delving into Time Machine
Well it’s really only that different if your internal SSD gets hosed to the point where the firmware container becomes corrupted/unavailable. I think it’s safe to say, considering all Apple’s experience with this same approach for many years on iPhone, they know it’s such a rare occurrence that it’s not something most users will ever have to worry about.
Of course if you are that one unlucky user, it’s likely a trip to the Apple Store for you. In the best case, you just need to restore the firmware (SSD otherwise ok hardware wise), which means if you have access to another Mac you can get it done on your own using Configurator2.
If the internal SSD is working, but has a trashed container, then Configurator 2 can be used to recover it.
If that SSD is no longer functioning (which should be a very rare occurrence), then the computer will pretty much be dead. Maybe a third-party repair shop could replace the soldered down flash chips, but I wouldn’t count on it, at least not until I read about someone successfully doing it. (If the chips are cryptographically bound to the SoC, like storage on T2-based Macs, then you won’t be able to use replacement chips without a proprietary Apple installation tool that repair shops won’t have.)
I think the expectation is that this APFS container won’t get trashed. You need to jump through many hoops in order to delete it, so it shouldn’t happen by accident. And I doubt that part of the SSD will get modified very often - probably no more often than the BootROM firmware gets updated on Intel Macs - so that storage space should last a long time.
Of course, I could envision a system where the SSD is close to its write-cycle limit and then a firmware update tries to rewrite this container, causing the SSD to fall over the edge with a halfway-updated container and no way to roll it back (because the SSD hit its write limit).
That would definitely be a worst-case scenario. I suspect that if the SSD hits its write limit at any other time, it will become a read-only device, leaving that APFS container available. So you’ll be able to boot external devices, at least until some OS update forces a firmware upgrade (which will fail). But if the SSD is in read-only mode, that failure shouldn’t produce a bricked computer.
Right now, it’s far too early to know what will really happen, since M1 systems are all less than a year old. I hope Apple did some accelerated-wear testing to make sure that this scenario doesn’t brick customer computers, but if they have, they haven’t said anything to us about it.
To digress, slightly. News is out, of course regarding Apple’s T2 chip re: Monterey OS install.
Does this carry a version change, i.e. 12.1.x?
My system is running Monterey 12.1 Beta which I updated from 12.01 using the beta version that was available in the App Store (not via software update) just a day or two before Apple relabelled it, simply, Monterey.
I am writing this from my Monterey testing installation on a separate partition, which I quite easily also installed user account from my Big Sur partition, thanks Migration Assistant.
Software Update declares my Mac “is up to date – Mac OS Monterey beta 12.1”
If your Mac is configured for beta-track updates, Software Update will try to install the latest beta releases. This will continue until you explicitly choose to exit the beta program.
See: Beta program: Unenroll Your Devices
This won’t revert any beta software that’s already been installed, but you will no longer receive Beta updates. Instead, you’ll get the normal released updates, once they progress beyond what you already have installed.
With regard to the hub issue, I was pleasantly surprised to find that my old USB hub that I was using with my late 2013 MBP seems to work just fine in Monterey with my new MBP Pro M1 Pro (awkward to write Pro twice - what’s a good acronym?) using an inexpensive Thunderbolt-Ethernet adapter that includes 3 USB ports also. Ethernet also works fine.
Seems necessary to upgrade your Computer Science degree before upgrading your macOS these days.
I upgraded my MBP 2018 to Monterey.
I have been waiting (and rightly so) to upgrade the OS on my 2017 iMac. I recently upgraded the NVME SSD to a 1 TB unit and from what I read here it seems I will run into trouble because of the firmware issue. I don’t have to spell out that replacing the original SSD is a pain in the … on this machine. I would rather not have to open it up again. Is there a chance that a new installer will provide a workaround for this without having to replace the SSD?
Several people on the Apple discussion board have reported problems involving external SSD devices and extremely long (10–20 minute) boot times. I have the OS installed on the Trash Can’s internal drive, but my home folder is on an external SSD. Booting after the installation of Monterey stalled completely, until I disconnected the SSD. That got me to the login screen. I reconnected the SSD and logged in, but it was 30 minutes before I saw the desktop, and then my home folder appeared to have been trashed.
To make a long story short, the installer had removed all read/write permissions from the root of the SSD, so that at login time, the OS had created a phantom volume at the mount point for my user folder. I hacked my way out of that problem. I can now boot and login with the SSD attached and my home directory is back.
However, although the boot time is normal, the login time (between entering my password and seeing the desktop) is still in the tens of minutes.
If you use an external SSD for the OS or your home folder, better wait until 15.0.2 or later.
Any idea whether this also is the case for non-Apple internal NVME SSD’s?
In my case I replaced the 28 GB NVME SSD from the Fusion Drive with a 1 TB OWC drive.
I tried to upgrade earlier last week to Big Sur from Catalina, but had problems downloading it, and when I finally got one that would run, I got an error that it couldn’t proceed. So I just quit to try another day. As it turned out, this was a good thing, because I saw a posting on MacInTouch a day or so later about the Monterey upgrade bricking some folks computers. He referenced a similar problem with Big Sur which led to this page: https://mrmacintosh.com/macos-upgrade-to-big-sur-failed-stuck-progress-bar-fix-prevention/
This reports that the problem is due to having over 20,000 files in a specific system directory as reported in this thread. I tried running the command in #2 on that page to see how many of those files I had, but it never returned a number, even after letting it run overnight. I then tried running the command in #2 to delete the files, but had the same result.
I next followed a link on that page to this one: Spotlight mdworker.shared file flooding system log; removal stops search index from working properly? | Page 4 | MacRumors Forums
I tried the commands in the posting by auxbuss to first see how many files I had (over 250,000…) then to remove them. I then ran the first command again and got a file or directory not found message, so I was sure they were gone.
The bottom line is that I was finally able to download and install Big Sur, although I had the same problems with the download as before. I finally worked through them by restarting the computer and running it again.
But one of the first things I did after it was up and running was replace the really ugly display wallpaper…
Another slight digression
I got a confirmation from OWC that Monterey and Aura Pro X2 don’t get along without the OEM-SSD Swapification-Method to install Monterey, (and actually by backwards extension: Big Sur, and Catalina(?)) to be compatible with
firmware v. 4220.127.116.11.0.
Here is my question: Did Apple ever actually post a notification to this effect?
I only ever garnered info on this issue by way of subsequent articles at various boards
I run my own DNS server on Redhat Linux on VMware. This spring I did a total renewal of the DNS server and a lot had happened regarding security. Maybe macOS checks if your local DNS server is up to date on security?
OWC has an article confirming the issue with non-Apple SSDs and the need for firmware updates using the original Apple SSD.
If you don’t have any apps that require Monterey (I can’t think of any at this time), then there’s no rush. Take your time and upgrade when you feel it is stable.
At minimum, I’d wait until reading that the current issues (especially the bricked system problem) have been solved and that no other critical bugs have surfaced. I have no idea what the version number will be at that time, but that’s what I’d wait for.
Sure, Apple would like everybody to upgrade immediately, but your primary goal is (I assume) a stable platform for your apps, not a showcase for Apple’s latest OS.
I am just a simple end-user. Non-techy but non-idiot also. but… I’m terrified to upgrade. I have a Mac Book Pro 2020 running Big Sur 11.6. I have no problems. Should I wait until the next iteration is available?
I have the same question about my iphone and 15.1 (I have 14.8.1)
Thank you, David. I’ll wait.
Thanks for the info. It seems I could upgrade to Monterey as I performed the upgrade from Catalina to Big Sur before I switched the NVME SSD’s.
Or am I wrong?
Anyway! I’ll wait till at least 12.1 to take the leap.
Me too. Gonna wait.
I have a system running Monterey 12.1 Beta, (just fine) and/but still waiting before allowing the official release kick in
… but I’m an admitted worry-wort
I’ve never opened a MBPro past iteration 2015.
Did you have to solder in a new drive in the 2017?
Well, jmhbpc, not as much of a worry wort as I am… I’m waiting till 12.1 is official b/f doing anything. I come by the worry honestly tho. As I’m sure you do also… (A bit off topic, I know).
I got a new 4TB USB-C backup drive for my M1 Max (1TB storage, 850gb used) machine. I partitioned it into a pair of 2TB partitions, one for TimeMachine. Then I pointed TimeMachine to that partition. TimeMachine ran quite quickly (compared to the previous machine and its FW800 backup drive.) But it didn’t complete. The message was “not enough storage” and DiskUtility showed 1.8tb used on the backup device. I ran DiskUtility->Repair on the drive, just in case, and restarted backups. Same message. So then I started excluding stuff from backups. Eventually TimeMachine completed, the storage was reset down from 1.8tb down to the expected 600gb. I re-enabled the rest of my files, and now TimeMachine is behaving as expected. A bit more than 1TB is shown in use on the backup partition.
Time Machine on Monterey seems to be a bit buggy as well. I discovered this last night when I enabled Time Machine on my new MBP, opting to start from scratch. A few hours later, Time Machine was no longer running, but it said it was still waiting to complete the first backup. I’ve restarted Time Machine multiple times, but Time Machine never finishes the first backup.
I searched the web this morning and found others that have encountered this seemingly common problem with Monterey, so if you rely on Time Machine as your main backup, you have another reason to hold off on upgrading.
Apple is reportedly aware of the issue and working on a fix. (Supposedly, this is yet another bug first reported during beta testing that somehow escaped Apple’s attention.)
Does anyone have any knowledge on how much space one needs for an in-place Monterey install ? - here’s a situation - A customer with Mojave has a MBP with a 256g ssd in it. - She had about 12 g left of Freespace with the Monterey Install downloaded already - We dug around her drive and removed about 40 gig and at reboot it appeared to have about 79 g free. Run Monterey installer and everything seems groovy - but at the last bit - it reports an error and presents less than 9 gig available. Also, the Main Drive (after subsequent reruns) gets its name appended by .drive with each retry. Of course, by now, i’m nuking and repaving, but this experience reminds me of Leopard (which was the worst! ). Anyone know what is actually needed “freewise” or will it all be Nuke and Pave for these close quarters.(clearly, i don’t trust the OS reporting-) As a side comment - do you think Next Year’s OS will be OS13? or OS12.1?
So, can anyone help me. I upgraded my two computers to OS 12.01. The difference is that one was a clean install. Problem is that I cannot for the life of me get my old HP Laserjet 1020 to work on the clean install machine. I tried copying the driver from the laptop with the same OS but no luck. I spent way too long searching how to hack this but I rarely use Terminal so wasn’t so successful. Does anyone have a suggestion??? I’ve gotten a work around to set the printer on the laptop to be shared on the network but I’d like to print directly from the Desktop.
I take it you tried the straightforward Add Printer steps in System Preferences?
well…of course. This isn’t my first computer!
Might Gutenprint help? I have no sense of what official drivers might be available, or why the various ones like Generic PostScript Printer wouldn’t work.
I’m still very much of the opinion that Monterey is a work in progress. Last night I was using Capture One 21 and tried to import some images from an SD card (using the built in card reader in the new M1 MBP). C1 displayed about a dozen images before freezing. I force quit C1 and opened the card in the Finder to find there were no images available (disturbing given these were photos of my son’s graduation). I tried importing into Photos without success, Pathfinder displayed no images and my favourite photo recovery tool crashed trying to launch.
After restarting the machine I was able to open the card in the Finder, all the images were there, and Capture One was able to import everything normally. I was going to blame C1 for the issue but I can’t get past the Finder/Pathfinder not being able to recognise images on the card.
I also see considerable lags between files copied across servers, disks, devices and iCloud - the machine never seems to be ‘in proper sync’ (if that makes sense). There’s clearly still some issues with Monterey (or APFS) - I just hope there’s some updates coming soon which may help sort them out.
I agree. Monterey is not fully baked yet. Quite a few issues.
Update. I got fed up with 30 minute logins. I read someone who suspected that Monterey problems with SSD drives might be caused by drives formatted HFS+ instead of APFS. Having insufficient faith in Time Machine, I bought a new 2TB SanDisk Extreme SSD, same make and model as my old one, formatted it APFS, and cloned my old home directory onto it. Happily, this fixed the problem completely, either because of the new drive or the new format.
For those members in Australia, has anyone else have problems with viewing the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) radar pages on both Safari and Firefox, on a mbp14? Safari initially displays only the observations if you had previously had any of the ‘Map features’ check boxes selected, I don’t get to see the radar images. If I clear all the check boxes before closing the site, and them selecting the site again the radar images display and the check boxes will now work as normal, until the next time I goes back to the site. Firefox won’t even access the BOM site at all irrespective of turning https on or off. Everything works fine on my iPad (15.2) and other macs not running Monterey.
There is also a problem NT News digital print editions page.
I agree with trilo and tommy it will take a while for things to settle down.
Join the discussion in the TidBITS Discourse forum