Any thoughts on macOS 13 Ventura?

[Colstan]

I’m confused by stage manager on mac. How do you open a new app into a given stage? Do you need to let it create a new stage and then drag it into the desired stage?

That's the way I do it. After opening a new application, I drag it to the stage in which I want to keep it. Also, you can drag items from one stage to another.

I keep only a mounted drives and a scrap folder (that doesn’t get Time Machine backups) on the desktop. But I’d like to be able to interact with them while windows are open, and ventura has a checkbox that is supposed to let me do that, so it would be nice if it works.

This is exactly what I do. I have a few drive icons on the right side of the desktop, not a jumbled mess like some people do. Toggling the "Desktop items" selection works as expected, for me. Like I mentioned above with Background Sounds, there still seem to be some issues with System Settings that are getting blamed on other features. It's hard to say, but I'm able to interact with my drive icons without issue. For what it's worth, here's what my Stage Manager settings look like:

 

[Cmaier]

That's the way I do it. After opening a new application, I drag it to the stage in which I want to keep it. Also, you can drag items from one stage to another.

This is exactly what I do. I have a few drive icons on the right side of the desktop, not a jumbled mess like some people do. Toggling the "Desktop items" selection works as expected, for me. Like I mentioned above with Background Sounds, there still seem to be some issues with System Settings that are getting blamed on other features. It's hard to say, but I'm able to interact with my drive icons without issue. For what it's worth, here's what my Stage Manager settings look like:

View attachment 18662

Hmm. I must be experiencing some sort of bug. I’m guessing a reboot may solve it, but I’ll try that tomorrow.

Once stages are set up, I’m finding it generally pretty useful. Without stages I rely on multiple desktops. That paradigm is pretty much burned into my workflow, but stages seem to work about as well (other than the aforementioned glitch).

 

[Colstan]

Hmm. I must be experiencing some sort of bug. I’m guessing a reboot may solve it, but I’ll try that tomorrow.

When in doubt, reboot! You could also try putting it in rice, which seems to be the cure all for everything on Reddit.

Once stages are set up, I’m finding it generally pretty useful. Without stages I rely on multiple desktops. That paradigm is pretty much burned into my workflow, but stages seem to work about as well (other than the aforementioned glitch).

Some Ventura features I wasn't sold on, but it took only a couple of hours to integrate Stage Manager into my workflow. I've now got a mishmash of Expose, Mission Control, Spaces, Spotlight, Stage Manager and the Dock mixed into something resembling window management. I organize everything in a way that probably only works for me, but it's great to have choices.

I see a lot of new Mac users who try to make macOS work like Windows, in particular demanding the "Snap" feature. I never saw much of a use for it, but on the rare occasion that I do have to use Windows, it makes me miss my Mac even more. I often find it amusing how Windows users try to force the Mac to work under Microsoft's design conventions, since many of them have never known any other way.

 

[throAU]

I’m confused by stage manager on mac. How do you open a new app into a given stage? Do you need to let it create a new stage and then drag it into the desired stage?

Also., regardless of whether i check the box in settings, my desktop items are invisible in stage manager unless i click the desktop.

That confused me too.

Basically once you have both of the apps (or windows of an app) open, you can drag one of the ones from the side into the main view and then they are grouped.

i.e., switch to one of them, and drag the other from the left side into the main view whilst switched to the one you want to group with it.

 

[throAU]

Also., regardless of whether i check the box in settings, my desktop items are invisible in stage manager unless i click the desktop.

You can mouse over the left edge of the screen and the stages should appear. There's a tweak in settings to have them "always" (sort of, unless covered) visible called (confusingly): "Recent Applications" which toggles recent stages being constantly displayed on the left edge. This is off by default I think.

 

[MEJHarrison]

I still have my M1 MBA but now that Ventura is out and I can test on the M1 MBA first, I will probably sell it. I kept it instead of trading it in because the M2 MBA was too new to trust that it would be compatible and working with everything I need. Now that I've been using it for several months, the M2 MacBook Air is pretty much perfect.

I work with someone looking to upgrade a 2017 (I think) MacBook Pro and was looking at the new M2 Air. So I sent him this quote to further temp him.

 

[Yoused]

You can mouse over the left edge of the screen and the stages should appear.

That is messed up. My Dock lives over there, always visible. How does stages work with the dock on the letf? Or is that option gone now?

 

[throAU]

That is messed up. My Dock lives over there, always visible. How does stages work with the dock on the letf? Or is that option gone now?

I’m not sure. I leave my dock on the bottom as I use side by side monitors

But I agree it needs to be more customisable. I think they’ll improve on stage manager a lot over the coming months but we shall see.

It’s clearly very early but so far it works for me reasonably well despite the rough edges. Definitely not for everyone though and especially not yet.

Probably why you need to go out of your way to turn it on and there’s not much promotion of it yet.

 

[Cmaier]

I’m not sure. I leave my dock on the bottom as I use side by side monitors

But I agree it needs to be more customisable. I think they’ll improve on stage manager a lot over the coming months but we shall see.

It’s clearly very early but so far it works for me reasonably well despite the rough edges. Definitely not for everyone though and especially not yet.

Probably why you need to go out of your way to turn it on and there’s not much promotion of it yet.

It certainly works much more cleanly on the Mac vs on iPad.

I do wish that opening a new app opened it into the current stage, but that nit affects setting up a stage and not so much using the stage.

 

[sgtaylor5]

Then do not throw shit on the desktop. I cleaned off my desktop and keep it wholly undecorated (except for the picture(s)). One reason I dislike MSW and all the installers that just have to clutter the desktop.

@jbailey: I only have to justify a purchase with myself and the wife No one else cares.

@Yoused: I wish, additionally, that program installers would put their special folders in Application Support like a normal Mac program does. On Windows, there's AppData. I don't care if your program is cross-platform; leave my Documents folder alone!

 

[theorist9]

I can't install it until my school gets their VPN and security apps working with Ventura, which I'm guessing will be January. Some of my other apps, as well as the OS itself, will probably also benefit from that shakout period. Though, in the meantime, I'd be curious to hear if there's a perceptible difference in performance vs. Monterey (responsiveness, etc.) on Intel Macs.

 

[Colstan]

I can't install it until my school gets their VPN and security apps working with Ventura, which I'm guessing will be January. Some of my other apps, as well as the OS itself, will probably also benefit from that shakout period. Though, in the meantime, I'd be curious to hear if there's a perceptible difference in performance vs. Monterey (responsiveness, etc.) on Intel Macs.

I haven't seen any performance difference, at least in day-to-day tasks, after upgrading from Monterey to Ventura on my 2018 Mac mini. Nor have I seen any perceptible difference in the applications or games that I have tried. The only difference that I've noticed are with the actual feature changes. Perhaps there are some differences on the Apple Silicon side, but I'd imagine that much of the Intel support is mostly set in stone and Apple is just waiting until they can finally deprecate it. When that will be is anyone's guess, but I'm assuming as soon as they think they can get away with it without a massive outcry among holdouts, such as myself.

My guess, and this is purely a guess, has always been that there will be two more new versions of macOS for Intel after Ventura, then two years of partial security support after that, and thusly the final chapter of the Intel era will come to an end.

 

[Yoused]

My guess, and this is purely a guess, has always been that there will be two more new versions of macOS for Intel after Ventura, then two years of partial security support after that, and thusly the final chapter of the Intel era will come to an end.

I am going to guess one. The next OS update will be the final one with Intel binaries in it. Intel came in with Tiger (10.4) and PPC was dropped for Snow Leopard (10.6). There may be support by special request for some late-to-the-game Intel Mac owners, but I think Apple is close to getting ready to cut the cord.

 

[Nycturne]

Could very well be right. 4 years worth of dual releases would be pretty much in line with the Intel switch.

That said, it’d be nice if Apple actually got their Intel hardware off x86 before dropping it.

 

[Cmaier]

Could very well be right. 4 years worth of dual releases would be pretty much in line with the Intel switch.

That said, it’d be nice if Apple actually got their Intel hardware off x86 before dropping it.

I doubt anyone is buying a Mac Pro nowadays without knowing what they are in for

 

[Colstan]

That said, it’d be nice if Apple actually got their Intel hardware off x86 before dropping it.

I doubt anyone is buying a Mac Pro nowadays without knowing what they are in for

As someone who is now puttering about with a lowly 2018 Mac mini featuring a Core i3 and 128GB SSD, I'm perfectly happy for Apple to continue to sell Intel Macs in 2023. Right now, I have no idea when I'm going to replace it, or what Mac it will be with, so the longer x86 drags out, the more likely Apple will continue to develop new versions of macOS for Intel. Even if I do decide to make the transition to Apple Silicon sooner rather than later, my old Macs are handed down to non-tech relatives, so they will perhaps get support longer than if Apple had been able to finish at the two-year transition line that they had originally planned.

After my recent challenges, I've decided to sit tight, and just wait to see what gets released. Apple may release a new Mac in March that is so irresistible that I can't help myself. Alternatively, I've gotten extremely cautious, so it's also entirely possible that I wait out the entire lifetime of this Mac mini and then decide what to do, once the partial security patches end, and the final nail is driven into Intel's coffin.

Could very well be right. 4 years worth of dual releases would be pretty much in line with the Intel switch.

I'll have gotten much more useful life out of this Mac mini than expected, because it was originally supposed to be a two-year "stopgap". Assuming that my speculated 2+2 year remaining lifespan for Intel Macs is correct, I could get as many as eight years out of it, which is wild to think, and certainly not my original intention. The longer I drag my feet, the more impressive the upgrade will be when I finally do it.

 

[theorist9]

From the videos I've seen about Stage Manager (SM), it seems like a nice feature for those using a single small screen (laptop or iPad).

But I'm not sure how well it would work for me, because I use three monitors in an extended desktop configuration, and I'm not very disciplined about where I throw up new windows.

With Mission Control, with a single action, I can see all the windows in a given app, or all the windows total, across all my monitors at once. By contrast, SM doesn't currently have the capability to set up a single SM that works across all monitors. If it did, I might anchor SM to the LHS of my L monitor. Instead, IIUC, when you activate SM, you get a separate SM for each monitor. Thus if you don't know what montitor the window you want is on, you'd might have to check all three SM's before you found it.

 

[Colstan]

But I'm not sure how well it would work for me, because I use three monitors in an extended desktop configuration, and I'm not very disciplined about where I throw up new windows.

I'm the opposite. I'm very disciplined about window management, but more than one monitor would drive me batty. I can see why that might be disorienting with Stage Manager.

From the videos I've seen about Stage Manager (SM), it seems like a nice feature for those using a single small screen (laptop or iPad).

I use it on a 21.5-inch UltraFine. If I were to upgrade to a larger monitor, even a 32-inch, I'd still use it because it's useful for actually managing windows, not saving space, in my case. I've typically got three Spaces inside Mission Control open, and I'm OCD about which programs "live" in each. So, being able to switch between each grouping makes it easier to deal with. However, I can see why that would be troublesome on a multi-monitor setup.

 

[theorist9]

I'm the opposite. I'm very disciplined about window management, but more than one monitor would drive me batty. I can see why that might be disorienting with Stage Manager.

I use it on a 21.5-inch UltraFine. If I were to upgrade to a larger monitor, even a 32-inch, I'd still use it because it's useful for actually managing windows, not saving space, in my case. I've typically got three Spaces inside Mission Control open, and I'm OCD about which programs "live" in each. So, being able to switch between each grouping makes it easier to deal with. However, I can see why that would be troublesome on a multi-monitor setup.

I suppose I should say I'm *usually* not disciplined. The exception would be when I have a project where all the windows I need can be displayed at once on three monitors. E.g., suppose I need four windows, and two can be displayed half-screen, and the other two require full-screen. In that case, I'll carefully arrange them across my three monitors, so everything I need is displayed simultaneously, which is very nice (and efficient).

[I should really get a fourth monitor, since I have a lot of tasks that need four montitors for everything to be displayed simultaneously (and readably). I'd probably place the fourth one above my central (main) monitor.]

But more commonly, what will happen is I'll be working on a project and then realize oh I need this file, so I'll open up that file; then I'll realize I need another file, so I'll open up that file; eventually I'll have a couple dozen different secondary windows open. But then I'll realize that I need to go back to the file I opened a couple of hours ago. In that case I'll just use Mission Control to explode all the files I opened in that app, and select it to bring it forward.

 

[Buntschwalbe]

I've approached some new behaviour in ventura concerning disk encryption and time machine backups.

I encrypted a new hdd with apples disk utility (apfs) to use it as a backup disk. The disk could only be mounted successfully with a password. then i allocated it to be my timemachine backup, but didn't check the option for an encrypted backup (as the disk was already encrypted). After a successful timemachine backup, the disk lost its encryption status, e.g was readable without any password.
This behaviour is new in ventura; as far as i now i never encountered this on previous mac OS. It's not a big change, but important to keep in mind as you possibly loose the encryption of your backups.