Every tech journalist moans about Macs lacking touch screens, but I really hope it never happens. Touch interfaces and desktop interfaces are fundamentally different and having both just forces a lot of compromise. But it seems like Apple gets that and is just unifying the experience a bit rather than paving the way for touch screen MacBooks, at least I hope.
My wife has a Surface laptop and there are a lot of use cases where it's very natural to use touch. Scrolling when reading long documents is one. Looking at maps (e.g Google Maps) is another. Basically anything that has a lot of scrolling, panning, and zooming.
Drawing annotations is another. For example Slack screen share, whiteboard apps, and so on.
Of course there is the touchpad, but in these cases - especially when we are looking at something together - the touch screen makes more sense as an interface.
Gestures on the screen also tend to be 1:1 so there's more precision for these types of gestures.
For scrolling I've always found a trackpad to be equal, if not better, than a touch screen. They feel nicer and are quicker and more accurate. Obviously not as versatile as a touchscreen though. I'd ben fine with it if it didn't otherwise interfere with the desktop experience, but I can't believe that'll be how it plays out.
Could you please not post in the flamewar style to Hacker News? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. You're welcome to make your substantive points without that.
It sounds like you haven't had that interface. I haven't had a touch screen in nearly 6 years (since my Surface Pro 2 died its final death), and I'm not going to lie, every now and then I still reach up with my ring finger to flick the screen while mashing a function key when doing step debugging.
It's actually quite ergonomic if you have the laptop in your lap. Using the touchpad is more awkward. This is basically what I use the touchscreen on my Thinkpad for.
True but I don't necessarily "work" like that. Generally it's just reading something quickly, and then the touchscreen is really handy.
It's really something that is useful in a small percentage of cases but really helpful in those. I wouldn't want to miss it. Lenovo even does matte touchscreens so there is no disadvantage (I hate glossy screens so Apple isn't an option for me either way). Usually glossy is the tradeoff you make for a touchscreen, but not in this case.
you don't strike me as someone who reads much, so i can understand why you don't see the usefulness of scroll pan zoom on a computer. specifically on large pdf documents with tiny text. maybe I'm getting old, but those tech spec sheets text feel like they are getting tinier.
also not sure why you'd think ppl wave their hands in front of a touch screen all day blocking their view. most ppl are capable of moving their hands out of the way. it's not clear if you've used a smart phone before, but it's the same. though, i imagine if you did, you'd do as you imagine others do with a touch screen.
Well, its got my dad trained to fking jab at my brand new matte scrren and then upon realizing it doesnt work, getting out an ink pen to tap and point on my screen. Ffs. I need a sticker that says "ask before touching".
I had a Chromebook with a touch screen for years and I found it to be a nice feature, particularly for my small kids for whom the mouse was an additional layer of difficulty.
I could see how touch screens would benefit those with a11y issues. We already know mouse control is an issue for many.
While I agree with your point, and have never had any use for the touch screen on my work laptops and don't miss it now that I don't have it, some colleagues love it.
They do many manual things, comparing lists and whatnot (yeah, I know) and they absolutely love being able to directly click things, or scrolling the contents on one side without moving the mouse pointer from the other.
I think the point is that this opens new avenues of interaction with the machine. Of course, there is the risk that things would get overly adapted to touch interactions (even more white space, giant buttons, etc), which I'd hate.
I wish that tech journalists would also take Apple to task for so limiting access to styluses.
Currently using a Wacom One w/ my MacBook 13" as a 3rd display (in addition to a 4K 27") and the stylus is quite nice (bonus that it's the same as for my phone (Galaxy Note 10+) and e-book reader (Kindle Scribe) and it's quite nice to be able to draw/annotate at will --- missing Calligrapher, née Rosetta, which was the handwriting recognition from the Newton MessagePad.
Apple is just going to look ever more out-of-synch as touch becomes ubiquitous, and less innovative as designs such as Lenovo's dual-screen Yogabook 9i reach the market. Once upon a time, the Compaq TC-1000 was described as a product which Apple would make -- what could Apple do in this design space?
Is forcing the user to have a second device for touch, and then not allowing touch to function fully when using Sidecar a valid approach in the marketplace?
If Apple would do a dual-screen device like to the Yogabook 9i which supported the Apple Pencil, and made an iPhone which did as well, I'd sell all of my current devices (except for the Kindle Scribe) and buy in to it.
There is no hard requirement to redesign the whole UI around touch on a laptop. Touch will never be the only or even primary interaction mode on a laptop. It is an alternate mode suitable for some interactions and as a way to “take a break” from the repetitive movements of keyboard/trackpad/mouse.
If you observer people who use a touch-enabled laptop, they will dynamically switch interaction modes depending on the situation. Scrolling the screen, pressing a button, dragging an element, zooming are all actions that lend themselves to touch. It is not an either/or choice. That is why fears of “gorilla arm” are overblown. I also find that switching modes can be a relief when the keyboard or trackpad/mouse gets tiring. It helps to switch up movements to avoid repetitive stress.
my thinkpad (t25) has a touchscreen, of which I am occasionally reminded of by accidentally brushing the screen with a hand. Really have no use for it and don't want to be touching a screen in the first place. It's like putting fingers on your glasses.
His first gripe is the prompt for USB HID devices, where he even has been told the correct answer but attempts to pretend it away. Unfortunately, Apple is right whether or not he appreciates how many people have tried clever attacks – see https://github.com/topics/hid-attacks – but my favorite write up is this one:
How common is it though? This was my beef with Apple too, they add security to the point it was actively getting in my way. I'm sure my house would be more secure if I auto-locked every room and they all had seperate keys but it would also be incredibly annoying.
I don't use a Mac anymore but does Apple also prompt you for plugging in say a Magic Mouse or Keyboard for pairing?
More importantly, it puts you one hack away from arbitrary code execution. That device is a dedicated testing tool but there are tons of USB devices which have vulnerable firmware, and the OS vendor can’t know whether you’d pick up a USB key you find on the ground, buy a gadget off of Craigslist, or maybe you care about security but not enough to stop using Google Chrome and it turns out that one of your attached devices is exploitable via WebUSB/Bluetooth/MIDI/etc. but you won’t learn that until the next time you plug it in to charge it.
Apple does prompt their devices, and if memory serves that’s for the same reason: USB isn’t authenticated so they can’t easily tell that a device claiming to be an Apple keyboard actually is.
I'm aware the tools exist but how actively exploited is it? Prompting you doesn't help in scenarios like buying a compromised gadget off Craiglist or a finding a USB key on the ground. The user is going to accept the prompt anyways to use it to begin with.
Does it prompt you again if the USB devices firmware changes even while it's constantly plugged in?
The only scenario I can see this being helpful is if someone is able to sneak an extra USB device or compromised cable onto your dock/desktop without you noticing but also can't unlock the computer to click OK. I'd imagine for the vast majority of people, even those that leave their computer at work 100% of the time that this is something they'll never encounter except maybe as a prank where the guy in accounting plugs in an extra mouse to mess with you. Perhaps it's worth the option but should it be the default? Even then I'd imagine a lot of people blindly clicking OK anyways...
> The user is going to accept the prompt anyways to use it to begin with.
Some people will but some are going to ask why, changing this from a silent attack to one far more likely to be noticed and reported. That’s especially useful if you’re worried about widespread malware doing something like this to chain from a phone or some kind of IoT device to computers, or a factory in China being compromised but not noticing/caring until infected devices are all over Amazon.
Long term, the protocol needs hardening but things like this help make those kind of problems visible. Apple has a range of users from people who aren’t targeted to those worried about hostile corporations or governments, and as other attacks get harder things like this become more appealing so it’s not surprising to see it getting hardened.
It's difficult to say how common an attack is not having any visibility across other OSs and a hindrance (macOS) in the way. Same type of question with for example Secure Boot.
Objectively we'd be worse off without, OS-ignored.
It’s not foolproof but it gives people the opportunity to notice a problem and ask why something which isn’t a keyboard is trying to be one. The long-term fix is securing the USB protocol but when the deployed device count is measured in billions even a stopgap is useful.
Then don't use a fool picking up USB keys from the ground to argue for this act of a security theater!
> gives people the opportunity to notice a problem
But it doesn't do that because constant nagging dulls the senses. Also, how do you expect the users to learn that he needs to be on the alert for keyboard mimics? Is there an emphasis on this in the warning?
> long-term fix is securing the USB protocol but when the deployed device count is measured in billions even a stopgap is useful.
long-term has already arrived: USB protocol is ancient. Meanwhile the gap is still there post Ventura
> Then don't use a fool picking up USB keys from the ground to argue for this act of a security theater!
I didn't. Note the scenarios I gave included other things. Here's a good list to consider: one of your devices can be compromised in some other way (e.g. an IoT device which uses WiFi normally but charges or gets firmware updates over USB, a device which can be attacked via WebUSB & suborned), you have a friend / family member try to charge something unaware that their phone/tablet/etc. is compromised, or a device which you purchased unaware that it was compromised at the factory or while the previous owner had it.
Note that none of those require malice or targeting: harder variants of this problem would be things like someone dropping a USB drive with your company's logo on it in the parking lot. That's a relatively cheap attack but at least you presumably have professionals working to prevent it whereas most home users do not.
> But it doesn't do that because constant nagging dulls the senses.
Just how frequently do you connect new USB HIDs? The system doesn't re-prompt devices you've used before so it's less “constant nagging” than “a couple of times over the lifetime of the device”.
You appear to be having a very emotional reaction to this change – looking at your comment history shows a lot of anger and at least one time where you're angrily asking that Apple implement the current behaviour. I would suggest taking some time to cool down, think through what this actually does and some of the different scenarios other people have given you, and reconsider whether you really want to take such a strong position.
You did: "the OS vendor can’t know whether you’d pick up a USB key you find on the ground"
> Note the scenarios I gave included other things.
Sure, but also the thing I explicitly called out. Your other two examples fall into my second argument (though question re. the last one - are you certain the exploit necessarily triggers the prompt again for an already approved device?)
> Here's a good list to consider:
It's not a good list since it doesn't address the point that the popups for these would mostly be auto-accepted and even when read carefully would not convey the seriousness of the potential issue. What kind of family members do you imagine that would realize the device is compromised in your scenario of getting this prompt when plugging in for charging?
> Just how frequently do you connect new USB HIDs? The system doesn't re-prompt devices you've used before so it's less “constant nagging” than “a couple of times over the lifetime of the device”.
"Just how frequently do you get OS popups?" is the more relevant measure. Also, you've ignored the second point that is relevant regardless of frequency
> You appear to be having a very emotional reaction to this change – looking at your comment history shows a lot of anger and
Your ability to psychoanalyze is even worse that your ability to explain the supposed security benefits of this measure and...
> at least one time where you're angrily asking that Apple implement the current behaviour.
nope, you misunderstood that as well, didn't ask for it
So I'd suggest you get off the road of ad-hominems - it doesn't advance the argument (and also against HN guidelines)
The point is that most people have an incorrect threat model for USB devices _and_ that devices can be suborned in ways they don't expect. This policy is a compromise designed to deal with all of those problems, not just the one you deride, and if you want to rules lawyer I would suggest considering whether any “strongest plausible interpretation” requires trimming quotes like a creationist, not to mention whether a brusque and cursory dismissal of a security UI decision made by one of the top companies in both disciplines is a substantial contribution.
Here's a good example:
> What kind of family members do you imagine that would realize the device is compromised in your scenario of getting this prompt when plugging in for charging?
One scenario is certainly that the device is left logged in and unlocked and someone just hammers the Allow button without thinking about it but it's not the only one. Here are some obvious alternatives:
1. That friend or family member is just visiting and saw a USB-C port which they plugged their phone into. The device isn't unlocked so they get power but nothing else, and the device is never attacked.
2. That device is still connected but when the owner unlocks it, they see the prompt and deny access because they don't intend to connect their cousin's phone to their work computer, and perhaps tell them not to get them in trouble with their boss by using that port in the future.
3. You buy a USB-rechargeable light and plug it into your computer to charge while you're at your desk. It pops up the prompt and you reconsider what you know about this device because you know a light shouldn't need anything other power. Having seen one of the many movies or TV shows produced in the last 30 years which has a plot detail along these lines, you consider the possibility that it's something nefarious. People have read news stories about things arriving with malware for decades now, it's not especially unrealistic to think some fraction of users will pause when given the chance.
Yes, someone can make mistakes — this is true of every computer security measure, and it's why they're always layered rather than relying on a single check. An OS vendor has to design mechanisms which are suitable for a wide range of people and that's why the UI for this is configurable. Most people will be prompted very infrequently for this but if you have some unusual job where you plug in new USB devices all of the time you can follow the instructions given to turn off the prompt.
> So I'd suggest you get off the road of ad-hominems - it doesn't advance the argument (and also against HN guidelines)
It's not ad hominem to point out the problems with your argument. Multiple people in this thread have been trying to help you better understand the threat being countered and how the situation isn't as simple as your dismissals assume. I would strongly recommend trying to understand why you're not getting more positive reactions — it'll serve you far better than trying to bluster your way through or playing rules-lawyer.
> Now read the entire sentence for the context which you carefully removed for that quote:
There is no context to save it, the mistake remains: in the common situations you describe the poor user will not be helped with the prompt
> The point is that most people have an incorrect threat model for USB devices
Sure
> This policy is a compromise designed to deal with all of those problems
Except it does nothing of the sort. You've ignored this type of question a couple of times, maybe 3rd time is the charm: how would an ignorant user learn of the correct threat model from this prompt?
> if you want to rules lawyer I would suggest considering whether any “strongest plausible interpretation” requires trimming quotes like a creationist, not to mention whether a brusque and cursory dismissal of a security UI decision made by one of the top companies in both disciplines is a substantial contribution.
And I would suggest whether using more inflamatory terms about lawyering/creationist is repeating the same mistake. Also, there is no context to save your quote, so I don't understand which strongest interpretation would help you.
Argument from some company's authority is also rather weak
> One scenario is certainly that the device is left logged in and unlocked and someone just hammers the Allow button without thinking about it but it's not the only one.
Sure, but it's the most common scenario, so it's the one that matters most in evaluating this change!
> 1. The device isn't unlocked so they get power but nothing else, and the device is never attacked.
There is no prompt in this scenario, how is it relevant?
> 2. That device is still connected but when the owner unlocks it, they see the prompt and deny access
You know my response to this already since you referenced it earlier, but didn't understand it and also didn't bother to think about it when I pointed the misunderstanding out. Let me elucidate: this scenario doesn't justify prompts when a device is plugged into an unlocked laptop.
> 3. you know a light shouldn't need anything other power.
You know nothing of the sort, there is "Smart" written on the package, so of course it's expected for it to communicate with the computer! We're living in the future after all where even your toaster has a wi-fi!
> Having seen one of the many movies or TV shows produced in the last 30 years which has a plot detail along these lines, you consider the possibility that it's something nefarious.
Yeah, this is exactly the mythical consumer I argued against - learning about computer security from pc-illiterate TV shows!
> An OS vendor has to design mechanisms which are suitable for a wide range of people and that's why the UI for this is configurable.
This is not suitable for a wide range of people. It's suitable for the tiny minority knowledgable about these type of attacks (and you can't learn about them form the prompt itself, the OS vendor knows best!) while negatively impacting everyone else
> It's not ad hominem to point out the problems with your argument.
That's not what you did, instead you've made up an angry emotional state as the explanation
> Multiple people in this thread have been trying to help you better understand the threat being countered and how the situation isn't as simple as your dismissals assume.
Right after I'm convinced that multiple people can't repeat mistakes
Magic Mouse and Keyboard do not prompt once the relationship has been created over Bluetooth. Once they are disassociated, then you have to re-pair to get them on again.
I think that MacOS is terrific and keeps getting better.
It's well past time to include Pages, Numbers, Keynote, GarageBand and iMovie in the base install image. Also mkv, ogg, opus codecs for QuickTime. I prefer to do as much as I can from the trusted base install. I do not wish to install Homebrew or anything else.
I wish that the base install included a few CLI packages like nmap and bsd-games. Also some public-domain humanities (Snow Leopard included classic paintings) and texts from Project Gutenberg.
Networking needs MAC randomization, plus native OpenVPN and WireGuard support.
There is a new globe symbol on my keyboard which makes me feel like meta-keys are starting to accumulate. That is going in the wrong direction. I do not want a space cadet keyboard. Why did the full-screen command change from Command-F to Globe-F after decades?
iCloud still needs some work. I wish that I could stay logged into iCloud, but disable remote wipe, in case my iCloud account gets hacked.
I do not consider logging into iCloud to be part of "finishing setting up" my computer. In fact, I would like more out-of-the-box visibility into the phoning-home that Mac OS X performs.
With Xcode specifically, I think a computer should be immediately programmable, like a BASIC interpreter used to be included. Especially to encourage young people.
Most computing devices include a web browser with a JavaScript interpreter.
However, it isn't easy for beginners to discover or to learn to use.
But... regardless of any improvements to make programming more discoverable and accessible, I don't foresee a resurgence of interest in end-user programming, because:
1) Apps have made end-user programming obsolete (much like web 2.0 eliminating end-user HTML and JavaScript.)
2) Some computer scientists (Matt Welsh, Bertrand Meyer, et al.) predict that programming will go the way of assembly language as AI systems become capable of writing complex programs.
If (2) comes true, we may see a situation where end users provide prompts to AI systems which generate complete custom programs on demand.
I was responding to "a BASIC interpreter used to be included", pointing out that although BASIC may no longer be shipped with every PC, JavaScript usually is.
Your point is well taken though - JavaScript, while arguably more powerful than BASIC in many ways, usually doesn't allow the same low-level hardware access that Microsoft (and other) BASIC implementations once did. Nonetheless it's often possible to write pretty good, full-screen games in JavaScript with sound, 2D and 3D graphics, network capability, and even game controller support.
And while BASIC could call out to assembly language, JavaScript can call out to WASM.
Not sure about “worst” but I really hate that they’ve made the menu bar taller than the notch on the MacBook Pro— why on Earth would you do that?!
I also don’t love the new settings app or the trend toward highly graphical, touchscreen style bundled apps, but I can ignore most of them so it’s not a huge deal.
The menubar is slightly taller than the notch due to how the human visual system deals with lines close to each other. A curve (notch corner) intersecting with a line (menubar bottom edge) tend to make the line look bent and it looks wrong. Having the bottom edge of the menubar offset from the notch avoids that visual artifact. As a bonus, it keeps the notch from looking like it is pushing into the content area and it makes the notch look a little smaller.
This kind of attention to detail has historically been a hallmark of Apple’s sophisticated design sense. They don’t always go the extra mile on it but when they do, it makes a difference.
I like the navigation of the new Settings app over the older Control Panel but the individual panels seem incomplete. Mac OS is not the same as iOS and I would hope that they spend some time optimizing the controls and layout of those settings apps for Mac OS.
I never noticed any issue on the notch/menu bar before but I notice the wasted pixels on maximised and fullscreen apps. Mac OS doesn't even use those pixels below the notch if you enable auto hide on the menu bar, which I find midly ridiculous.
I generally dislike the trend towards excessive whitespace everywhere and apps that look like web pages. I find it particularly egregious when it's an unavoidable part of the whole OS. I'd love an option for more compact "data dense" layouts in general.
FaceID is much thicker than the lid in a MacBook. The phones are much thicker. If you were to add it, there would need to be a wart on the lid to make space for it.
TouchId works well the the keyboard-oriented interface of a laptop so there is little additional benefit to FaceID. In the iOS implementations, you still need a special button to authorize purchases with FaceID, so it doesn’t help in that situation.
BTW the notch is that size because the model contains a camera and two separate sensors as well as mounting features. It is larger than you might think. It may be possible to reengineer it to be smaller in later versions of the MacBooks.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-Pro-s-notch-hous...
Touch ID does not work well during the winter in northern climates. The lack of humidity leads to dry fingertips that Touch ID does not recognize consistently.
I have 5 finger prints saved - and every couple of weeks Touch ID fails to recognize any due to dry fingers. I’ve just gotten used to entering the numeric passcode instead.
The problem I have with Touch ID is when my fingers are wet, such as after swimming or washing dishes. Face ID works well there, but not when I'm wearing a mask/scarf, so I really wonder what the cost differential would be for adding both.
The feature which as come in handy for me most is that feature to unlock with Apple Watch which covers most of both scenarios but then you need a fairly expensive second accessory which not everyone would otherwise find worthwhile.
Face ID works with both masks and scarves (at the price of less security - it only uses the area around the eyes for auth) — you have to enable it in Settings. This was a feature added during the pandemic when folks started wearing masks.
Seems to be for future face ID. Apple uses the same chassis for years as the manufacturing cost of changing out the chassis every year is unnecessary, especially with Tim Cook's operational background.
It's to allow the fingers someplace safe to apply leverage against when opening the lid.
Which is why I think the screen is so much more fragile then the previous model. Lots of users don't care about placing their fingers in the right spot and stress-wear the LCD.
> at least the settings search bar still works as expected
It actually doesn't. One major difference in usability is that the search field has the focus on launch in System Preferences but not in System Settings.
In general, keyboard navigation in System Settings is a massive downgrade. This is what happens when you model desktop software after mobile.
> ⌘F puts the focus on the search bar. It is a step back in usability but I would hardly call it a major one.
The topic was the usability of the search bar specifically: "at least the settings search bar still works as expected"
I have to press ⌘F first almost every time I open System Settings, because I'm typically going for a setting that isn't readily in view, so I would reaffirm that it's a major difference in usability of the search field. And arguably of System Settings as a whole too, depending on how you use it; with System Preferences, every preference pane is readily accessible on the launch screen, unlike System Settings, where many panes are buried.
> One major difference in usability is that the search field has the focus on launch in System Preferences but not in System Settings.
It literally says that not having the search field with focus on launch is a major difference in usability. I still don't think it is, since it's a single 2-key chord away.
I have already agreed that otherwise it's much worse, I just don't see this particular feature loss on its own as a major one.
I'm glad it's not just me that found the setting app ridiculous. That's being kind. They have also moved startup items out of the users pane. And removing a network service warns you that it can't be undone. So even a ACMT tech is afraid of continuing due to the prompt.
I prefer the navigation of the new Settings app but the layout of the individual panels and the controls seems unfinished and not really optimized for keyboard and for Mac OS conventions.
To me the idea of having to allow devices to connect is completely wrong. I have already undertaken a physical action to connect a device, why would I suddenly change my mind afterwards? The physical act itself IS the permission. What does it help when the OS asks you "are you sure"?
This thread clearly shows that even in 2023 people still don't understand USB attack vectors and still think this is some evil move by Apple to degrade the user experience
I understand what's going on but how does asking the user for permission help? They're just going to click accept, ok, whatever to continue working. I doubt the user will even understand what's going on.
It's not hard for a device to reenumerate with a different device descriptor. With Ventura that needs confirmation, which is probably the right response.
In that case the machine would be locked and no new USB connections should be accepted in locked state?
And if the computer isn't locked during your bathroom break, the "bad actor" can do whatever he wants anyway, including clicking the Ok button after inserting the USB device.
But in general, yeah, an USB popup is the least of Ventura's problems (the much bigger problem is the slow but steady "iOS-ification" of macOS).
> In that case the machine would be locked and no new USB connections should be accepted in locked state?
Until you get back and unlock the device. Or if you have a usb hub it is possible for someone to plug something in without your knowledge while using the device.
I assume the improved USB security is a) response to actual attacks (which Apple understandably doesn't want to publicize), b) fulfilling every more rigorous corporate and government criteria, or c) both.
I'm fine with it. Every thing Apple does to postpone my eventual pwning suits me just fine.
Guessing here but maybe it's supposed to be a security measure. What if you're in an office or public space and you have a hub or dock connected. A malicious actor could plug in an unknown device while you step away from the machine.
I also have Logitech peripherals that connect wirelessly to a USB receiver. I wouldn't want my receiver and machine accepting a connection from an unknown device.
Also the device you plugged in might not be what you thought it was: not just in the “why did this weird dude in the parking garage give me a free USB key?” sense but because these devices have firmware which can be attacked so it could be something like a shared device which was compromised by a person you trust & like 99.99% of people your threat model didn’t extend to not letting them charge their phone / camera / e-reader / etc. on your laptop.
Obviously the better solutions here will involve things line better authentication at the protocol level but the compatibility challenge is enormous with decades of USB showing up everywhere.
Having some kind of device key that will trigger a pop up similar to the SSH host verification on the first connection would be better. No spam every time I connect the phone to charge it and getting a dialog for MITM attempts.
Given the number of devices today that use USB power, I don't think you can assume connecting a device physically means you also want data transfer. For example, I often bring my personal tablet to work so that I don't mix personal stuff onto my business computer. As a result I frequently plug it into the work machine to charge it, so I welcome the fact that I can tell my work computer "no I don't want any data transfers between this device which I intentionally plugged in and the computer"
I do worry about the fact that warning fatigue is a thing but so far I only seem to get the dialog on first connection and after an OS update which seems an ok compromise to me.
Presumably it would alert you that you've been tricked into plugging in a BadUSB or USB Rubber Ducky type device.
But... I'm skeptical it's more than a speedbump. I'm not super familiar with USB but all it might take for a BadUSB/Ducky to get past that is to just provide cloned device ids.
I see the links. They explain nothing - the user will just accept this useless prompt and will not notice the unnoticeable "when you least expected it, typed in a malicious payload right under your nose, ideally quickly enough for you to not even notice."
There’s another important point about switches vs checkboxes in macOS.
On an iPhone, most people will use their right thumb to toggle a switch, so switches are aligned to the right, for easier reach.
On the Mac you’ll use some kind of pointing device to toggle a checkbox, so they are aligned to the left, next to the label, for easier scanning.
But switches in Ventura are aligned to the right, removed from their label. This is purely for aesthetic and consistency reasons, since switches take up much more room. Matching the switch to the label becomes a function of how wide the window is and how many options there are. It makes them harder to work with, both for designers and for users.
I love the new settings app, it makes better use of space than the old one. The old one had the menu as a separate screen, so you'd have to click "into" a section and then click back out to see others. Now I can see both at once!
Even the menu itself is more space-efficient because it's a column of line-items instead of a grid of huge icons, it's great
Interesting. I find the system settings to be one of the worst apps they've ever made. There are a million things wrong with it but one of the craziest is the search bar. Try searching for something like "Camera" or something in the top level like "Displays". I can't even tell what the results are from but they don't come up with what you need.
Now I'm just waiting to see some ads in there like they are doing with settings in iOS.
For me for some reason printers added from the print dialog do not work, printers added from settings work just fine. But generally the update has been pretty good.
To be fair compared to this Windows machine I'm forced to use for work, MacOS is so far ahead I cannot believe it. I just had to reboot because the OS seems have the keyboard stop working every couple of days of uptime. Everything is buggy, flakey and un-slick in the extreme (screen flickering and weird UI tearing everywhere, reboots for the most trivial changes). Little things like UX that are just horrible like connecting Bluetooth devices through to the first character you type on the keyboard on the login screen is ignored. I'd think Linux on the Desktop has to be better at this point.
I really cannot believe it hasn't improved since Windows XP days in any meaningful way and regressed a lot in quite a few.
> "On Ventura, every time you plug in a new USB device to your Mac, a small box pops up, asking for your permission to connect the device."
> "Of course, Apple would tell you that this is for security and safety reasons. BS!"
Do you know what ? It is for security reasons, attacks via thunderbolt are a thing, see for example here:
I'm staying with Monterey on my iMac and MBP. Ventura offers me nothing I need and lots I don't. The security aspects are appealing but not sufficient to get me to change.
Stage Manager is just as weird on the iPad pro. Suddenly I can't have an app full screen without turning stage manager off? So I need to end up switching it on and off all the time.
If you're on a laptop model, you use the laptop's keyboard or mouse. I believe that for desktop models, if there is a keyboard or mouse plugged in at startup, it does not prompt.
> I believe that for desktop models, if there is a keyboard or mouse plugged in at startup, it does not prompt.
Which just underscores how ridiculous this new "security model" actually is if Apple had to put in an exception just to allow baseline required computer peripherals to work correctly.
<offtopic>Since when does medium require an account to read blog articles? Don't think that used to be the case, or are my memories gaslighting me? I'm interested in this article, but don't wanna create an account for medium.</offtopic>
Lots of sites would like to make the paywalls immediate, but they won't get ranked highly on search engines if they don't show the article's content to a web crawler.
So the usual approach is to load the content, then hide it as quickly as possible if an unauthorized human is viewing the page.
