They have a whole session on it later in the week. The purpose of the keynote is to lay out themes for the general public. APFS isn't ready for the general public and until it is and they can demonstrate tangible benefits (e.g. faster backups, rollback) they won't mention it in keynotes. Heck, it might not even be issued in final form until the next version of MacOS.
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.
macOS Sierra Tidbits: Apple File System, RAID Support, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please. This was the World Wide Developers Conference. A new file system announcement would have brought down the house. Those guys have been screaming for it since before you were born.
[doublepost=1465918797][/doublepost]
Good luck with that.
If you're a digital hoarder, then back it up to your external drive as soon as your done with it. Problem solved.
I'd rather have "Back to My Mac" accessible on iOS.
In fact, that's just what I've wanted for years and assumed they would mean when they began speaking about this.
Now ALL your files are supposed to be on their servers?
Sweet Jesus, I sure hope Apple doesn't get hacked anytime soon.......
Nothing is unhackable, but now, regardless of whether or not you use iCooud Drive to this extend, your Apple ID is more than ever a desirable target to get hacked.
If Apple really tried to be a privacy leader they would not propose centralizing your files to a third party, but give you more of a personal cloud approach.
Again, Back to My Mac getting hacked can have a similar impact on your files getting copied by identity thieves, but there's still quite the difference, especially as it depends on ME leaving my computer on or off.
Oh well...
Also, Time Capsule could make for an amazing cloud...
Well, in the end it's about making money and giving you that much value with your Time Capsule seems to conflict with oh so green and privacy-aware Apple's income flow.
Glassed Silver:ios
Mr. Torvalds can explain you why there's a need for a new FS:
http://www.cio.com/article/2868393/...s-is-probably-the-worst-file-system-ever.html
"Anywhere" Dropped From Gatekeeper
Apple has removed the Gatekeeper option to allow apps to be downloaded from "anywhere" by default in System Preferences > Security & Privacy, resulting in a warning dialog when you attempt to open an app from an unidentified developer. "Mac App Store" and "Mac App Store and identified developers" remain selectable.
Apps from unidentified developers can normally be opened by clicking the "Open Anyway" button in System Preferences > Security & Privacy, but the macOS Sierra release notes indicate that this button does not work in the first beta. A workaround solution is to hold down the Control key, click on an application, and choose "open."
If that stays and Apple want's to SCREW their consumers (again!) like this, then I'll be using Yosemite for as long as I can before I give a giant F*** YOU to Apple and switch to Windows.
Can't use the software of MY choice? No thanks, but that is ridiculous. It was bad enough with Apple enforced SIP and pretty much destroyed 3rd party apps like TotalFinder / XtraFinder... but this would essentially be the final straw to jump ship.
Garbage.
For some people the Cult of Apple controls their minds so completely that they'll defend any idea out of Cupertino, no matter how absurd, even if it's not true. Optimized Storage is not going to be mandatory, or even on by default, so there's no need to defend Apple and explain why we'll all be better off letting them drink our milkshake.
Last edited:
In an HD at home i know what i put in there because i decided what to remove and WHEN, here it is the system deciding based on how i access files...very different!
Problem deferred. It's hard, emotional work, to let go of clutter (physical or digital). There is a kind of grieving process that needs to happen, in order to say 'good-bye' to potentialities/hopes/dreams and to face regrets and the fear of loss. Digital clutter is such a challenge because there's always a larger bucket, whereas with physical clutter, aside from using a self-storage solution, we're constrained (to a degree) by the volume of our living environments.
Recently I've had occasion to consider end-of-life realities (for myself and family) including this aspect of clutter, physical and digital. I will offer that taking the time now to do the hard work of getting rid of stuff now will helps relax one's own mind, and take the burden off your beneficiaries.
Sorry, but this is dumb! You assume that every app that does not have code signing is illegal, which is totally wrong. And you really think a determined cracker would not be able to circumvent code signing? Think twice. In case you missed it this was already done on the app store. So in blind faith that every app you run is totally fine it could be the total opposite ...
That article's based on data from Anandtech, where the conclusion was a bit more mixed:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9766/the-apple-ipad-pro-review/4
Last table on that page is the one to look at. Basically the positioning of A9X vs m3 varies depending on the work load, but on average the Intel chip is still faster. That's really impressive, but I don't think it's fair to make the blanket statement that A9X is faster than M3 when it's still losing in overall performance.
This quote from the linked article makes it pretty clear that the author has no idea what the Aandtech data is saying:
That's just completely wrong, really the exact opposite of what the data shows.
Last edited:
I agree with your sentiments about Optimized Storage, but Apple did imply that the data will be end-to-end encrypted, so identity thieves and hackers wouldn't be likely to get anything useful.
That article doesn't tell the average user what is wrong with HFS+. It is written in technical jargon. Is there one that explains in simpler language what its drawbacks are?
Wrong. I'm not defending anything. Getting the 'disk almost full' message is a problem for a huge percentage of users. This is a solution for that, which will be suitable in a large number of cases. All I'm pointing out is that the obvious change in behaviour required—if someone needs to 'work around' it—is to back up externally when you're done, rather than when your system is almost out of space.
Should be illegal. You pay for a product and not be able to do what you want with it?
Core Storage can still compress/decompress before the low level encryption. It makes perfect sense to apply the encryption at the lowest level. I think you are decomposing this backwards thinking the compression is what shouldn't be done by the file system, which it isn't.
[doublepost=1465920501][/doublepost]
It would be better if they just used ZFS rather than making appleZFS
I think they are taking from it what is valuable for them and not what isn't considering it needs to be optimized and work well across all their devices from phone through mac and tv etc. I for one am glad they are refining it to their purpose.
John Siracusa sums it up pretty well:
A Modern File System
Mac OS X’s file system, HFS+, is more than twelve years old, and is itself an extension of the HFS file system, which is almost twenty-five years old. Technology has come a long way since 1985.
Modern file systems include features like snapshots (instantly saving the state of an entire disk), block-level incremental backups (efficiently identifying and copying only the data that has changed since some point in the past), and data deduplication (storing only a single copy of a chunk of data that may appear in many different files). File systems created this century are also much more amenable to concurrent access than HFS+, which tracks files using a single, centralized Catalog File data structure that can only be updated by one process at a time.
But all of this is esoteric technobabble next to the most egregious failing of HFS+: reliability. During my twenty-six years using the Mac, the most likely cause of data loss has been and continues to be file system corruption. I can accept it when a hard disk fails; after all, mechanical devices wear out with use. Software has no such excuse. A new file system would be a practical, obvious, and long-overdue addition to Mac OS X.
Mac OS X’s file system, HFS+, is more than twelve years old, and is itself an extension of the HFS file system, which is almost twenty-five years old. Technology has come a long way since 1985.
Modern file systems include features like snapshots (instantly saving the state of an entire disk), block-level incremental backups (efficiently identifying and copying only the data that has changed since some point in the past), and data deduplication (storing only a single copy of a chunk of data that may appear in many different files). File systems created this century are also much more amenable to concurrent access than HFS+, which tracks files using a single, centralized Catalog File data structure that can only be updated by one process at a time.
But all of this is esoteric technobabble next to the most egregious failing of HFS+: reliability. During my twenty-six years using the Mac, the most likely cause of data loss has been and continues to be file system corruption. I can accept it when a hard disk fails; after all, mechanical devices wear out with use. Software has no such excuse. A new file system would be a practical, obvious, and long-overdue addition to Mac OS X.
Source: <http://www.macworld.com/article/1153576/siracusa_osx.html>
You either didn't bother reading the post you quote or you didn't understand it. This was strictly about pirated apps that normally have a signature. NOT about apps without signature.
This new FS seems to be optimized for solid state drives, so we may see better performane when copying or saving large files. Other advanages may not be directly visible like our data privacy, our information could be better encrypted if someone tries to view the content of the hard drive.