Apple's new macOS 14.5 update is out but brings only bug fixes

AppleInsider

Apple has released macOS Sonoma 14.5, but it comes with very few visible updates.

Following a round of beta test releases, which began in early April 2024, Apple has now publicly released macOS 14.5. AppleInsider always recommends waiting at least a few days before updating, to give time for other users to discover bugs -- as they did with macOS 14.4.

After that, it's best to install the new version in order to be sure of having the latest security updates.

As with that last macOS 14.4 update, though, there are close to no visible differences in the new version. While macOS Sonoma 14.4 added new emoji, Apple has said only that this macOS 14.5 has bug fixes.

Specifically, certain FaceTime users have been unable to answer or reject a call. It was to do with notifications not displaying the Accept or Decline buttons, and this has been fixed.

It's not known how many users were affected by that FaceTime bug, but it wasn't enough or sufficiently widespread to have been independently reported. Even so, the second bug fixed in macOS 14.5 unquestionably affected fewer users still.

Those users have to have been iPadOS developers electing to make a Mac version of their app. Under certain circumstances that Apple does not detail, when a user double-clicked to launch what's known as a "Mac (Designed for iPad) app," it could open the wrong app.

This, too, has reportedly been fixed in the new release.

Apple's free macOS Sonoma 14.5 update is now rolling out across the world, and will generally come pre-installed on new Macs. Existing Mac users will be prompted to update at some point, but can also elect to initiate the download sooner by going to System Settings, General, and Software Update.

Alongside the macOS Sonoma update are updates for Monterey, Ventura and Sonoma. Monterey gets an update to version 12.7.5, Ventura has been updated to 13.6.7, and Sonoma is now version 14.5.



Read on AppleInsider

charlesn

2.5GB update for only "bug fixes?"

coolfactor

charlesn said:

2.5GB update for only "bug fixes?"

Yes, when it replaces existing files of that size.

I miss my Mac SE with its 20MB hard drive.

mjpbuy

 I am happy to have only bug fixes...at this pint in the lifecycle of 14.x..

I miss my Mac Plus - 1.44k floppies , yes two. One for the OS and one for the Apps !

appleinsideruser

mjpbuy said:

 I am happy to have only bug fixes...at this pint in the lifecycle of 14.x..

I miss my Mac Plus - 1.44k floppies , yes two. One for the OS and one for the Apps !

Yes, and a 3rd for your data! That created some long toasting sessions — well that’s what we used to call the process of repeatedly swapping micro diskettes. I used to quite like the rhythm of the repeated eject noise; unless a deadline was looming!!

dewme

I like bug fixes, especially when they don't introduce new bugs. They need to maintain a good balance between pushing out new features versus improving the stability and robustness of what is already out there.

I personally think Apple has been pushing a bit too hard on the new features front, as evidenced by the last few major macOS releases going out the door with a number of Big-Wow WWDC features being missing from the initial release. Some end up straggling along to nearly the halfway point of the major release cycle, or longer. Pre announcing a bunch of new features and having some of them delayed for a long time puts a lot of pressure on the development team to work on those features that have already been promised at a time when they're starting to get feedback and bug reports from the release that did go out the door.

Not setting expectations appropriately sucks for everyone involved, from the development team, to partners, and to end customers who are sometimes waiting not so patiently for what was promised and didn't get delivered. I've never been a fan of "Coming Soon" promises. I'd actually prefer that the features that are in danger of not making the first cut be held back from announcement. When they do get finished, surprise me with an unexpected bonus in mid-cycle. But that's not the hype-based model that marketing and project management seems incapable of leaving behind, along with its trail of disappointed customers and burned out developers.

mpantone

This is why I've stopped installing Apple software upgrades when they come out in the fall. It was about 7-8 years ago that I noticed Apple's software QA starting to slip so I started delaying the upgrades, first by a month, then another month, etc. More frequently I've been waiting until Q2 the following year, upgrading sometime in April.

This year is different. I will upgrade my Apple devices to their current operating system versions in June during the week before WWDC. That pretty much ensures that version of the operating system code is mature and won't be receiving anything more than bug fixes and security patches.

So yes, I have a couple of iPhones running iOS 16, an iPad mini running iPadOS 16 and my Mac mini on Sonoma. So the day I upgrade I don't really suffer from all annoying bugs that the average Apple user sees if they are installing updates shortly after they are available. For me this is a much more pleasant user experience, much less frustration.

There was one exception. I ran Mojave for over 20 months, skipped Crapalina, and went directly to Big Sur. I installed Crapalina several times on test drives and walked away unimpressed each time. So I never ran Crapalina as a daily operating system. Downgrading an iOS installation is very difficult so I really need to be convinced that the upgrade will produce a better user experience.

I'm wavering on iOS 17 at this point. Is this the year I skip an iOS upgrade? The only problem is a lot of developers only writing code for the last couple generations of iOS...

michelb76

charlesn said:

2.5GB update for only "bug fixes?"

Not just that, but just the bare minimum of bugfixes even. 2.5GB for some minor code changes. Why not pack 50-100 bugfixes in a patch? There's plenty to choose from.

magman1979

"but brings only bug fixes"

I love how this is given a subliminal negative connotation when in fact this is SO needed and actually a VERY positive thing! Not EVERY release has to focus on NEW NEW NEW!!!

dewme

Without quoting a few of the previous comments I would argue that Apple’s quality process has never been better than it is now. They now test everything at many more levels than they’ve ever done in the past. They also run automated testing on every check-in and always maintain the code base in a releasable state. They’ve never had as many eyeballs scrutinizing their code as they now have. Their beta testing has ever been as far ranging, broad, and inclusive as it now is. Pretty much anyone can be a beta tester, which was unheard of in the past. 

If Apple’s quality process is supposedly so great, why are they still experiencing issues, anomalies, and bugs? Easy answer: 

COMPLEXITY. 

Despite having so many layers of testing, introducing new code into an already massively large and complex code base never makes the quality situation better. Some of the core code is probably 10-20 years old. Some code may be older than the engineers working on it today. Adding a new feature to any already complex and potentially fragile code base opens up numerous opportunities for latent bugs to finally be exposed in addition to the additional complexity brought in with the new features. 

No matter how hard the team tries, they can never catch up if the complexity and fragility of the system keeps going up with each new feature, both in the new features being introduced and the changes needed in the underlying operating system to account for hardware changes. Trust me, adding additional capabilities in the hardware to allow for greater parallelism and concurrency never meshes well with programmers who are still struggling with the fundamental challenges of developing reliable multithreaded applications with single core machines. The compilers tend to lag behind the hardware, especially in terms of optimization. 

It’s like those who are involved with following strict quality and testing requirements, from individual developers whacking out code that had been “fully” tested at their level to system testers looking at overall functionality that can be tested as part of regression testing, everyone is in an inclined treadmill with the incline angle constantly getting steeper and steeper with each new feature. 

It’s actually quite amazing that Apple’s software is as reliable as it is under the strain of constant feature and functionality introduction. But it’s actually doing rather well under the circumstances. 

I have all of my Macs, iPads, iPhones, and Windows PCs running all of the time, 24x7x365 and have done so for since I acquired them several years ago, at least going back to 2010. They are all on UPS power and it’s very rare that any Mac restarts, crashes, or shuts down unexpectedly. Even Windows 10 and 11 have proven to be nearly as reliable as my Macs. I do let all of them sleep, and I keep everyone running the latest OS available for the machine in question. When I touch a key or move the pointing device they always spring back to full-on and are ready to respond. 

Everyone who’s leery of moving to new versions or constant upgrades and feature updates are effectively enforcing their own limits on complexity growth. If you are intolerant of rolling the dice on your system’s availability it’s not a bad idea to scrutinize any changes that bump up the complexity. Security and critical bug fixes, sure, you should heed the warnings to avoid known threats. New features can be unknown threats. Like investing in financial markets, you need to be comfortable with your personal and professional risk tolerance. 

Quit blaming the quality process and people all of the time. A more accurate finger of accusation needs to be pointed at those who are over promising features and delivery dates and ultimately forcing the quality process, capabilities, and capacities far beyond their limits. The QA processes have improved significantly over time, but enough to keep up with the demands placed on them by unrealistic management and marketing, especially when those same folks are ignoring the development teams requests for stabilization cycles to improve the robustness of what’s already committed to code. 

sflocal

Tonight I may be re-installing macOS Monterey on my 2020 10-core i9 iMac.   Upgrading from Monterey to Sonoma has been the most disaster-prone, bug-ridden MacOS I've ever used.  It's like Apple decided that Intel-based Macs no longer deserve any attention.  Every point-release update of MacOS Sonoma has resulted in random crashes, shutdowns and system instabilities.  It's at a point where I can't trust my very expensive 2020 iMac from a reliability standpoint.  I get that Intel Macs will not get all of the new fancy functions that only M(x)-based Macs have, but for chrissakes at least put out a stable product for a supported Mac, or don't bother.  MacOS Monterey is the last reliable/stable MacOS for Intel Macs.  Apple really went downhill with QC.

My M2 MacBook Pro has zero issues with Sonoma.

liborio

is out but brings only bug fixes

only??
Fixing bugs is the only thing Apple should to do for the next 6 months.
There are basic bugs from Ventura still in Sonoma, and summing up new ones.

Do not misunderstand, I'm not saying having widgets in the desktop isn't a huge jump to the future vs 2005 Widgets in Tiger... ahem...