El Capitan does not see USB devices

[pws442]

After El Capitan upgrade, Windows 7 VM shows No USB Devices Connected. Usually there are 4-5 devices there. I am running 4.3.30 (Why is it not .32 or 5.x?) on my Macbook Pro.

[brycesteiner]

Try the latest version 5.0.6
Be sure to uninstall from the terminal first. It should be much better than what you are attempting now.

[Marl]

I had the same problem and hadn't received a prompt about the latest version of VB; I was still running 5.0.0. I am relieved to know that it was an earlier VB incompatibility with El Capitan rather than a device fault.

I have just downloaded 5.0.6 and was mightily relieved to find everything was back to normal.

[michaln]

I had the same problem and hadn't received a prompt about the latest version of VB; I was still running 5.0.0. I am relieved to know that it was an earlier VB incompatibility with El Capitan rather than a device fault.

Let's make one thing clear please -- it was El Capitan being incompatible with existing OS X applications (VirtualBox, VMware, etc.), not the other way around. It's a bit difficult to make applications compatible with future operating systems. It's usually a no-brainer to make new operating systems compatible with existing applications, but OS vendors sometimes choose not to do so.

[loukingjr]

Let's make one thing clear please -- it was El Capitan being incompatible with existing OS X applications (VirtualBox, VMware, etc.), not the other way around. It's a bit difficult to make applications compatible with future operating systems. It's usually a no-brainer to make new operating systems compatible with existing applications, but OS vendors sometimes choose not to do so.

Sorry to totally disagree michaln but if that were true, Windows 95 applications would still be running on Windows 10 machines, PowerPC applications would still run on OSX, there would be no allowance for taking advantage of new hardware etc.

I do agree somewhat that It's a bit difficult to make applications compatible with future operating systems. I would say it's impossible.

[michaln]

Sorry to totally disagree michaln but if that were true, Windows 95 applications would still be running on Windows 10 machines, PowerPC applications would still run on OSX, there would be no allowance for taking advantage of new hardware etc.

Many if not most (32-bit) Windows 95 applications do in fact run on Windows 10 machines. 32-bit Windows 10 can even still run old 16-bit applications. Windows 10 still has a "Windows 95" compatibility mode, and I'm not sure what you think it's for if not running Windows 95 applications. Sure, not everything runs, and old apps can't necessarily take advantage of new hardware -- we're also not talking about 20 year old apps here, we're talking about versions current when El Capitan was developed.

I'm not saying Apple can't or shouldn't break existing applications. They can and do! But please let's not pretend that it's not Apple's conscious choice to do so, and that app developers can only play catch-up.

[loukingjr]

Michaln, you make it sound like Apple deliberately changes their OS just to break existing applications and I don't think you actually believe that. Plus don't forget, Apple developers had to rewrite nearly all their own applications to work with El Capitan.

[michaln]

Michaln, you make it sound like Apple deliberately changes their OS just to break existing applications and I don't think you actually believe that.

That depends on how you understand the term "deliberately". Microsoft generally puts a good deal of effort into keeping new Windows versions compatible with existing applications, and that's really something that goes back to the early days of DOS. Apple generally does not do that. I don't know if that's the same as "deliberately breaking existing applications". I also don't know if there's a way to tell based on the user-visible end results.

It's a different philosophy, different approach. Both have their merits and drawbacks.

[loukingjr]

I'll agree that Apple makes no effort to make sure existing apps still run on their latest OS. I for one, would rather have a better OS and wait for a compatible version of an app I may use such as VirtualBox. I also know not to update an OS until I'm sure apps I need to work run on it. But that's just me.

[michaln]

That's a very reasonable approach.

I think the problem is that many OS X users come from Windows and expect that new OS versions don't break existing software as a rule. They upgrade the OS as soon as they possibly can and get a nasty surprise.

[loukingjr]

And many end-users of PCs don't back up or read manuals etc. It used to be people that use computers had an interest in them. The majority of users now think of them as an appliance. It's unfortunate.

[loukingjr]

p.s. speaking of things breaking, Microsoft apparently didn't make sure Windows 10 didn't break VirtualBox nor did Fedora make sure one could install the GAs in Fedora 23.

[michaln]

Microsoft's track record with Windows 10 isn't in keeping with previous releases, that is true. Fedora is a completely different kettle of fish, every new release is supposed to break everything.

[loukingjr]

Microsoft's track record with Windows 10 isn't in keeping with previous releases, that is true. Fedora is a completely different kettle of fish, every new release is supposed to break everything.

lol kind of like ArchLinux.

[brycesteiner]

I had the same problem and hadn't received a prompt about the latest version of VB; I was still running 5.0.0. I am relieved to know that it was an earlier VB incompatibility with El Capitan rather than a device fault.

I have just downloaded 5.0.6 and was mightily relieved to find everything was back to normal.

I'm glad to see that this fixed the problem!