Apple has stopped providing standalone updaters in macOS Big Sur

[andrelabbe]

Maybe people need to have a look at the Content Caching feature built in to macOS.

There is not much choices for the cache content other than 'All, shared, iCloud'
but no info of what exactly is cached and how it will fill up (on demand or in advance) it seems from what I have seen (10.15.7) it is only stat and 'on demand'.
Of course there is may be some 'obscure' cli to check this other than the standard one

Manage content caching from the command line on Mac

On your Mac, use the AssetCacheManagerUtil utility to manage content caching from the command line.

support.apple.com

It is far away of the old cache settings when OSX server was a 'proper' setting but was hungry for storage. I know I filled up storage in no time (at internet speed at the time) with it (you had to use 3rd party to do the same but only sync exactly what you wanted and be flexible but obviously at a cost)

 

[Edhawk]

It isn't any different, the info on the linked page shows it to be identical, just no longer part of the Server App. I am still running the Server App on an old HP server (macOS Sierra 10.12.6) and it works OK. I have a mixed bag of real Mac's and Hack's and my Content Cache is set to a maximum of 500GB, quarter of one of the four 2TB data drives in the server. It should probably be moved to a newer system, as I doubt the Sierra system is caching software for High Sierra, Mojave, Catalina or Big Sur. Just my older systems, which run anything back to Snow Leopard.

This Apple Support link https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/mac-help/mchl3b6c3720/mac gives a list of the software that would be cached for macOS. No one in their right mind would want the Whole Apple repository cached.

The three options when setting the Cache parameters are these:

• All Content: Store software updates and apps downloaded from Apple, and iCloud content on this Mac.
• Only Shared Content: Store only software updates and apps downloaded from Apple on this Mac.
• Only iCloud Content: Store only iCloud content, such as photos and documents, on this Mac.

The important part being the 'Software updates and apps DOWNLOADED from Apple' in the first two options. Means you only need to download the update or app once but you need to do it on the system holding the Content Cache. Or at least that is the intention.

The 'Only Shared Content' looks to me to be the sensible choice, as you only what the software you use on the systems cached.

Assuming your systems are all using reasonably recent software and OS's then that shouldn't take up too much space. Unless you go a bit nuts and download every OS and App, the space requirements should be around 200GB.

If you run a number of older systems, then you could end up caching a lot of software. But maybe the choice then would be to not let the older systems use the caching function, the users would have to deal with their own downloads, assuming there are any updates available for the older systems.

 

[Gogeta-Blue]

welcome to mr cook era
is all about control
what is the point on downloading the same update over and over again
what about if i have a very fast connection on my job and i want to download the updates
so when i get home i just install them
instead of using a painfully slow connection

i know some people will agree others will disagree
but this is another bad move by apple

many people like to make an image of a fully updated mac os installation
after tweaking the system and installing apps
that is what i used to do
always made a carbon copy cloner image
also clone the boot drive to another drive
that i put away and use as a spare in case of any emergency

this move doesn't make sense
unless apple want everybody to connect directly to the app store
in case some of you don't know or are not aware of the situation

apple is being accused of spying, bypassing mac os firewall etc

do you guys really want to know what big sur really stands for
mac os big survilliance

and we always though that windows 10 was bad

there is no reason to do this

some people uses their phone data plan to connect to the internet and if they have the same machine at home

why are users being forced to connect to the apple store

isn't much better to download the file in one computer
then update the other one with the same file to save bandwidth

but of course apple doesn't care about that
is my way or the highway

that's why i took the highway

 

[scottkendall]

that's why i took the highway

And you should stay on that highway far far away from here! The apple spying has thoroughly been addressed/discussed in another topic... As per usual when you make a post you Jump the track...

 

[Gogeta-Blue]

And you should stay on that highway far far away from here! The apple spying has thoroughly been addressed/discussed in another topic... As per usual when you make a post you Jump the track...

hi is you again, always replying with love

sorry i don’t write the thing that you want to hear

but facts are facts, maybe you should do a research

so far is not even a split decision, if you are ok with apple decision about removing the updates, i have no objection, but you have to understand that there are others that are not happy with this change for a few reasons

in my opinion is does more harm than good but of course that is just my opinion and i know i am the minority here

anyway merry christmas and happy new year

 

[Jamesbond007]

I have already been skeptical about Big Sur and previously has decided that I will wait until late 2021 (more or less after the last major system update to Big Sur has been released) to install and run Big Sur. I am franky becoming a bit tired of these annual OS updates on my computers as it does not seem to offer anything remotely useful over the current OS that I am using (It is also one of the main reasons I still refuse to adopt Windows 10 on my PCs.).

Another one of the reasons being, as a user of VMware Fusion using nested virtualization occasionally, the performance of VMware Fusion 12 on Big Sur when using nested virtualization is simply unacceptable :

Abysmal Performance in Fusion 12 after upgrade to macOS Big Sur

After upgrading to macOS Big Sur, performance on my VMs went from great to utterly abysmal. Remedial tasks like opening the Start menu, opening Notepad etc. can now take up to half a minute. Windows are drawn on the screen line-by-line with half second intervals. The host computer is a 2018 Mac...

communities.vmware.com

There are no significant performance degradations if you run VMware Fusion to use nested virtualization on older MacOS versions like Mojave and Catalina. It seems that it is after VMware Fusion adopts Apple's hypervisor framework on Big Sur that the performance plummets.

Now with Apple apparently deciding that there will be no more standalone updaters for Big Sur system updates (and perhaps the later Security Updates?), I consider the situation unacceptable, and my mind is made up that I won't upgrade to Big Sur. I will continue with MacOS Sierra / High Sierra / Mojave / Catalina, until such a time when running MacOS on Intel hardware is no longer tenable (and when that time comes I will probably simply go back to Windows full time). I will also no longer consider getting an Apple Silicon Mac, as they can only run Big Sur (and later). I shall see if Apple will reverse this decision in the future, and if so I might also reconsider.

According to Howard Oakley on The Eclectic Light Company :

Last Week on My Mac: Begging from Apple

We don’t know when Apple decided to introduce Big Sur’s SSV, but even now it hasn’t told users it won’t be releasing standalone updates for 11.0.1 or 11.1.

eclecticlight.co

The reason for this decision is apparently due to difficulties with the Signed System Volume (SSV) introduced with Big Sur. I particularly don't like the fact that Apple has apparently made this decision without bothering to inform Mac users. I agree with Howard Oakley who said "Those who, in the past, have relied on standalone installers to update multiple Macs or in any other workflow have just been abandoned, left to plead their case for reinstatement of a longstanding service."

I will also "plead my case" through Apple Feedback, but frankly I don't think Apple will change its mind, at least not with Big Sur.

I shall continue to watch this situation closely. I have nothing more to say on this matter unless and until Apple changes its mind about this.

 

[scottkendall]

I have already been skeptical about Big Sur and previously has decided that I will wait until late 2021 (more or less after the last major system update to Big Sur has been released) to install and run Big Sur.

One of the main reason being, as a user of VMware Fusion using nested virtualization occasionally, the performance of VMware Fusion 12 on Big Sur when using nested virtualization is simply unacceptable :

Abysmal Performance in Fusion 12 after upgrade to macOS Big Sur

After upgrading to macOS Big Sur, performance on my VMs went from great to utterly abysmal. Remedial tasks like opening the Start menu, opening Notepad etc. can now take up to half a minute. Windows are drawn on the screen line-by-line with half second intervals. The host computer is a 2018 Mac...

communities.vmware.com

Why do you need to VM inside your VM? What advantage do you get by running a VM nested?

Now with Apple apparently deciding that there will be no more standalone updaters for Big Sur system updates (and perhaps the later Security Updates?), I consider the situation unacceptable, and my mind is made up that I won't upgrade to Big Sur. I will continue with MacOS Sierra / High Sierra / Mojave / Catalina, until such a time when running MacOS on Intel hardware is no longer tenable (and when that time comes I will probably simply go back to Windows full time).

You can still download it once and install it on how many ever computers you want! What does it matter if you have to download a few extra gigs a few times a year? I really have a hard time understanding the hate about the full installer. When you do an update (the previous method) you're basically patching your system in this method you're installing the OS over the OS each and every time. Does not seem like a huge deal to me but maybe that is because I am from CA land of excess and waste.

I will also no longer consider getting an Apple Silicon Mac, as they can only run Big Sur (and later). I shall see if Apple will reverse this decision in the future, and if so I might also reconsider.

Why would you expect any of the older versions of Mac OS to run on apple silicon? You tell people all day long on this board there are no drivers for Nvidia after HS, and that RX5700 only runs on Catalina or newer, but you thought an old OS would magically get drivers to run on Apple silicon? A SOC that the old OS were not even compiled to run on?

According to Howard Oakley on The Eclectic Light Company :

Last Week on My Mac: Begging from Apple

We don’t know when Apple decided to introduce Big Sur’s SSV, but even now it hasn’t told users it won’t be releasing standalone updates for 11.0.1 or 11.1.

eclecticlight.co

The reason for this decision is apparently due to difficulties with the Signed System Volume (SSV) introduced with Big Sur. I particularly don't like the fact that Apple has apparently made this decision without bothering to inform Mac users. I agree with Howard Oakley who said "Those who, in the past, have relied on standalone installers to update multiple Macs or in any other workflow have just been abandoned, left to plead their case for reinstatement of a longstanding service."

I will also "plead my case" through Apple Feedback, but frankly I don't think Apple will change its mind, at least not with Big Sur.

I shall continue to watch this situation closely.

Why do they have to inform you of anything? Why do people feel such entitlement?

You may download one installer to install it on many computers even the article you linked says as such. Just to test I download Big Sur canceled the installer and made a bootable in my case thunder bolt installer. Took a little over 8 mins to download, and I have the cheap internet!

I think the proper term really should be you can no longer download a 0.X release patch update, rather than saying Standalone installer.

What am I missing?

EDIT:

After fiddling around for a while and getting prohibited signs I realized that it had to be the EFI I prepared for the installer downloaded @pastrychef EFI and replaced mine. Normally I use iMac Pro 1,1 but this time I changed to 19,2 since it truly matches my system much more then iMac Pro 1,1. Now it is installing timer started @ 28 mins. It could have been all these modifications or just one of them!

 

[scottkendall]

hi is you again, always replying with love

sorry i don’t write the thing that you want to hear

but facts are facts, maybe you should do a research

so far is not even a split decision, if you are ok with apple decision about removing the updates, i have no objection, but you have to understand that there are others that are not happy with this change for a few reasons

in my opinion is does more harm than good but of course that is just my opinion and i know i am the minority here

anyway merry christmas and happy new year

Don't aplogisize just write the correct topic in the correct thread. The bottom half of your post albeit not half of the text belongs in another thread where it was thoroughly discussed about the accusations regarding is apple spying?

Not really sure why people care about an extra few gigs on the point release download you only have to do it once per point release not once per machine. Unless they are changing it after 11.1.0! As of now you can still make a USB installer for the OS and install it till the USB drive stops working.

 

[Gogeta-Blue]

the point is that not everybody has fast internet connection, not even on 2020, there are a few reasons for that, some people are cheap, but there are some rural areas that can’t offer fast internet connection, believe it or not, sometimes i go to buiness, to fix computers and the have very slow internet connection

so if you see it as a technican that don’t want to spend hours downloading a simple update, that will only take a few minutes using your home internet connection, so is much faster to download the updates in your home then take the files with you

that way you can do the job much faster

sometimes is not just one pc, so that will take ever more time, finish one computer to then star the other one

but the way it was, was much better, i could update both macs at once

 

[scottkendall]

the point is that not everybody has fast internet connection, not even on 2020, there are a few reasons for that, some people are cheap, but there are some rural areas that can’t offer fast internet connection, believe it or not, sometimes i go to buiness, to fix computers and the have very slow internet connection

so if you see it as a technican that don’t want to spend hours downloading a simple update, that will only take a few minutes using your home internet connection, so is much faster to download the updates in your home then take the files with you

that way you can do the job much faster

sometimes is not just one pc, so that will take ever more time, finish one computer to then star the other one

but the way it was, was much better, i could update both macs at once

Like I said you can download it once and update as many computers till the USB drive dies. Second what are you calling slow internet I have slow internet because I have not found a need for anything faster. It is the slowest cheapest they offer at 227 Mbps or 28.7 MBps. If you are going somewhere with slow internet and you are going to bring files with you then your perfectly fine with your fast @ home internet. I think the main problem with this post is that it says "standalone" that infers that you can not make a USB and install. Instead what is really happening is they are only offering full installs instead of patches. Most of the time when I go somewhere the internet is faster then what I have at my home.