Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Seeds Second Beta of macOS High Sierra to Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thus far I have had no success despite numerous attempts and methods in both the HFS+ filesystem and APFS. 1) Upgrading from a Sierra partition I created and fully updated to 10.12.6 Developer Beta 4. 2) Fresh installation on to a separate partition 3) From a Bootable USB installer I had created. Installer starts fine. Progress bar freezes, screen goes black then one Beep. Have found from the Developer Preview 2 installer that it is unable to verify firmware.
I believe the error lies in the osInstall.mpkg
Last edited:
But will it ever be enabled? If the new file system has encryption on by default, doesn't make much sense.
Other issue I found is that in iMessages macOs is not recognising numbers that have the country code added by iOS that is not saved in the contact directly, so the contacts that I do not have with the country code saved on macOS iMessages I see phone numbers instead of the name. Also if I try to start a conversation it will fail stating that the number is not registered with imessage because the country code is missing
First beta installed great on my 11" MacBook Air. Tried to install beta 2 this morning and the install won't finish. The progress bar is so close to the end...but nothing happens. Guess I'll let it sit for the rest of the day and see what happens.
FileVault is enabled on my converted APFS drive on my 13" MBP 2016 TB. I had FieVault enabled before I installed MacOS High Sierra. Haven't had any problems thus far.
I formatted the drive, so I lost FileVault from Sierra. I tried to turn it on with no success and I thought that it was due to the fact that APFS is always encrypted
i don't know...with all theses issues i think id rather them work a few of the bugs out with the developers first
On my MBA, I downloaded the installer, created a bootable thumb drive and reinstalled. It fixed whatever was broken. It is fine now. The MBP is running but borderline flaky. Think I will try the same trick on it.
The fact users are willing to run alpha/beta code on their primary machine and then complain when things "break" or the experience is "poor" is interesting to me.
I see comments about people "bashing" MS for how long it took them to release Win10. They perhaps should factor in that MS has to account for a ridiculous amount of hardware configurations, which requires driver compatibility, while also incorporating new features and extended functionality. Linux also has to do the same as well.
Apple has to account for fewer hardware variables since its a controlled ecosystem, end to end. Also, let's not forget that Sierra vs High Sierra is really not all that different other than APFS. Last I checked, Apple ignored their filesystems for how long????
Let look at Linux, how many filesystem upgrades have occurred and how aggressive was their release timing?
Apple has needed a modern copy on write filesystem for a very long time. They have been using HFS since 1998..... In 2002 they introduced journaling to HFS to add more stability and recovery for failures. Most other filesystems introduced this years in advance.
In the meantime, ext3, ext4, xfs, btrfs, zfs and even ntfs all improved substantially year over year. Let's not forget that MS is now building ReFS for release soon.
I enjoy using MacOS, because of the limited hardware variables and Apple controlling the entire ecosystem end to end it makes for a very reliable platform. If they made it Open Source it probably would be even better than it is currently, but that would mean Apple letting go of full control and that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Then again, Microsoft is now the leader in Open Source projects, who would have thought, so I guess miracles do happen?
I see comments about people "bashing" MS for how long it took them to release Win10. They perhaps should factor in that MS has to account for a ridiculous amount of hardware configurations, which requires driver compatibility, while also incorporating new features and extended functionality. Linux also has to do the same as well.
Apple has to account for fewer hardware variables since its a controlled ecosystem, end to end. Also, let's not forget that Sierra vs High Sierra is really not all that different other than APFS. Last I checked, Apple ignored their filesystems for how long????
Let look at Linux, how many filesystem upgrades have occurred and how aggressive was their release timing?
Apple has needed a modern copy on write filesystem for a very long time. They have been using HFS since 1998..... In 2002 they introduced journaling to HFS to add more stability and recovery for failures. Most other filesystems introduced this years in advance.
In the meantime, ext3, ext4, xfs, btrfs, zfs and even ntfs all improved substantially year over year. Let's not forget that MS is now building ReFS for release soon.
I enjoy using MacOS, because of the limited hardware variables and Apple controlling the entire ecosystem end to end it makes for a very reliable platform. If they made it Open Source it probably would be even better than it is currently, but that would mean Apple letting go of full control and that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Then again, Microsoft is now the leader in Open Source projects, who would have thought, so I guess miracles do happen?
Yep lots of experience with same MB (I assume it's the same). I am writing this on a MBP 2010 i7 15" running second developer High Sierra update. My main Mac is a new Mac Pro 6 core and I run the same beta on an external boot SSD as that's my real work machine. It seems fine on the MP. On this old MBP I have a 250 GB SSD internally now, took the HDD out years ago (and the optical) and it is working well... sort of.
If you haven't already, I might suggest you replace an internal HDD if still using one, they were dogs in the first place so an SSD is going to give you a 10x speed up (that's what I got).
My MacPro with the external 10.13 boot was the Mac's original 10.12.5 (at the time) cloned with CCC and updated to 10.3 with all apps and a lot of symlinks of apps' required System level in many cases data folders on an external e.g. iTunes, Photos, FCPro X, Logic Pro X etc. so as to keep the drive boot size down. I also cloned the external so all symlinks could be tested. Both the booting SSD and the external data drive (this is a 6TB TAID 0 over Thunderbolt) are APFS, no issues in my tests. The update to beta 2 has not exhibited any differences but I didn't have any issues in beta 1 anyway. I was thrilled all the symlinks worked perfectly on the new 10.13 APFS boot and its mate, the external RAID 0 also APFS. I half expected a catastrophic failure there!
The MBP on the other hand was a virgin install and I tested both HFS+ and APFS and also converting HFS+ to APFS after the fact ... all worked no problem (remember I have an SSD).
It had two glitches though in all scenarios: Firstly (and I could repeat this) Maps showed garbled images after initial install and boot. Secondly if I shut the lid it would not wake up. Manual sleep was fine but not the lid induced version. Maps was only fixed with a reinstall of the OS via the Recover Partition. Disk Utilities from there had no luck. Now with beta 2 updated Maps was garbled again! Same thing to fix, reinstall over top via RP. The lid still kills the wake up so nothing has changed there. So, like Mac Pro, I have not seen a single difference between beta 1 and 2. Not better not worse.
Got to say I like 10.13 a lot. Especially the no auto play on CNN web site and similar. Great job there Apple!
"Lack of support" for 32 bit apps is still 27 months away (assuming upgrading operating systems on release date and not later.....
Microsoft Office 2011 is no longer supported for High Sierra... I believe the later one is 64 bit is it not? Microsoft has a habit of using stuff that is not suppose to be used as a public interface -- so often new releases of the OS -- Microsoft has had to patch the suite for use. This has happened with Microsoft Office 2011 and as it is no longer supported -- it will not be patched.
"iLife"... I thought that was gone a long time ago replaced by individual apps on the app store (which you get for free on a new Mac).... Pages, Numbers, etc. are all 64 bit.
iDVD was discontinued a while ago.
If you are still using discontinued programs, you can still use an older version of macOS/OS X since they tend to be updated with security patches for about 3+ years after release date.
Any discontinued product or version may stop at anytime -- and since they are no longer supported -- they would not be patched ... irregardless of discontinuing support for 32 bit apps.
It's funny. For some reason iDVD would not burn a project on my Mac mini 2014 10.12.x so I turned on my PowerBook G4 17" 2GB ram 10.5.x and accessed the project over the network, created the disk image without any problem. So the code must be more stable on the PPC anyway. Good that these old computers still have a use.
Same error with the Public Beta 1 so its not looking promising. Thinking of getting a second Mac a 2015 21.5" 4k Retina iMac things should be ok then.
