somebody free climbed El Capitan last week
dude's freaking nutz imo.
(but posting to show the Yosemite->El Capitan connection)
Ya, freaking nuts.... without ropes I would no longer be here....
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.
What's New in macOS High Sierra: APFS, Metal 2, Photos Improvements, Safari Autoplay Blocking and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ya, freaking nuts.... without ropes I would no longer be here....
Mission impossible sequel.somebody free climbed El Capitan last week
dude's freaking nutz imo.
(but posting to show the Yosemite->El Capitan connection)
That has nothing to do with the filesystem, and everything to do with the filesystem driver. Any filesystem can be made to support TRIM, on any SSD. It's up to Apple whether or not they want to enable it by default.
The thing that scares me about APFS is that every upgrade since Mavericks for me has been a Bag o Hurt. Apple's Migration program is just buggy as hell with every upgrade. When iCloud first came out, all of my MAIL passwords got accidentally erased. And even mail server info was lost from Mavericks to Yosemite and Yosemite to El Capitan. Sierra is actually the first upgrade that didn't ruin my MAIL program's basic functionality without me having to do a LOT of post upgrade unnecessary fixing. When Apple shows this APFS update as so simple and harmless, I just cringe at what my experience will ultimately be. Maybe I'm unlucky. I dunno. I do have ECC memory and an SSD drive, so in theory, I shouldn't worry, but...
APFS is like when you upgraded your MacBook Pro to a hybrid, SSD or maxed out the RAM, but free
[doublepost=1497823139][/doublepost]
Are you on an old Mac Pro?
So, I started a new backup of 6GB this morning around 7AM. It is now 6PM and is still going. The status stayed on "2 hours remaining" for 4 hours, and has been on "Almost an hour remaining" for about 2 hours. This time estimate has always been squirrely, but it's ridiculous for this variability. If it would take only the 2 hours, that's one thing. But 11 and still going?
Sorry to say, but Time Machine is for crap. I could walk the bits the 8 feet between my Mac and NAS faster than this.
Have you tried using an external hard drive with Time Machine? Any other systems connecting to your NAS? Any strange processes running on your Mac? Has the NAS been added to Spotlight's Privacy tab? While Time Machine isn't a modern miracle, the performance you're experiencing is terrible. When I've had issues like that, it's due to some other activity interfering with the normal operation.
My NAS is an external hard drive, and yes, I did use TM with it directly. No other systems are connected directly to it, but there are 2 other Macs and 1 Yoga which use it for backups over wifi at times. Activity Monitor doesn't show any odd processes running. There is a kernel_task taking up 11-13 percent of the CPU sometimes, but I don't know what it is. I assume it's some part of TM. Memory usage is low. Networking is a little spikey but not much. Data send/receive is spikey, too, but not much. Overall, the system isn't being very taxed by TM, which is the only thing running on it, aside from Firefox now. I don't know enough about system internals to know what to look for in the console. Wifi is 11n.
I still think there's an issue with TM. There is no way it should take now 12 hours for this little amount of data.
Can someone tell me if this is in Sierra.. it totally blew my mind when I noticed it in high Sierra!
If you select multiple files and right click, there’s a rename all files option, which brings up a find/replace text dialogue you can use to batch rename stuff..
If that’s been in MacOS for years I missed it somehow, haha. It’s great!
If you select multiple files and right click, there’s a rename all files option, which brings up a find/replace text dialogue you can use to batch rename stuff..
If that’s been in MacOS for years I missed it somehow, haha. It’s great!
It's in Sierra. I don't know if further back though. I don't seem to remember noticing it before now.
Will I be able to read-write an external HD with APFS on a Snow Leopard machine?
Last edited:
This is an interesting question that might affect me too. I often boot into target disk mode to move files to an older Mac, sometimes even one that's PowerPC for updating purposes. So yes, I'm curious to know what Mac OS versions will balk at reading an APFS drive.
Shouldn't be an issue. As it is, there's no problem transferring files to, say, a FAT32-formatted flash drive from HFS+.
[doublepost=1497857267][/doublepost]
I hope this isn't what Apple is saying as their reason for not implementing end-to-end checksums. My 2012 rMBP's internal SSD was corrupted 2 times within 2 years. I have no idea which of my files were affected, but the OS got wrecked. IDK what was wrong, the SATA connection maybe? Obviously their error correction isn't the magic solution.
Also, what does ZFS have to do with ECC memory?
Last edited:
Anybody running High Sierra on a MBP Late 2016 (15-inch) who can tell me if Metal 2 fixes the UI lag in Mission Control and elsewhere when a lot of windows are open?
Yes if the application requires that the volume be case-insensitive. HFS+ is case-insensitive by default, but AFPS is not. I know Photoshop has issues with case-sensitive volumes. But in general, this is rarely an issue. I know someone who used case-sensitive HFS+ with tons of third-party stuff and only had problems with Photoshop and Steam, nothing else. And it's not hard for devs to fix this.
Besides this minor issue, I don't think there could be other problems, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
[doublepost=1497858373][/doublepost]
That's not really what the pros wanted. They wanted to be able to upgrade it, or at least repair it. A tower form factor is nicer for various reasons. Also, some don't care about GPUs and would rather have a dual-CPU-socket motherboard so it can pack more CPU power.
Last edited:
It is in El Cap as well. I ran into it accidentally 6 months ago on that version (Mac Pro 2008 - which I still have in use).
[doublepost=1497870763][/doublepost]
There is no generic "pro". The iMac Pro will probably be great for many, but there is still a need for the Mac Pro of "modular" design. The reason is simple, Apple tends to design their mass market computers to fit a preconceived purpose that is applicable to a wide audience. There are lots of very small niches of users -- who for various reasons can't really use one of the other "general" computers. There is no single mass audience for it, it has to fit each of those uses that do not fit into the existing product line... and therefore it must be as configurable as possible.
- i.e. Single or Dual Xeon
- at least up to 128GB of memory
- room for up to two full size graphics cards
- room for at least two more full PCIe slots for things like SAS controllers, Tensor Processor Unit etc.
- Room for U.2 drives (several) for high speed storage
- hopefully shorter by an inch so that "ears" can be attached and it rack mounted.
- Hard drives are better served in their own enclosure anyways, so not a big deal to leave those legacy slots out.
Apple should take the viewpoint that they don't know what it will be used for, just make a computer that can pretty well be used for anything requiring full power and configurability.
Last edited:
I am in the minority here, but I feel like Apple has kind of skipped the last couple macOS updates. I get there is a lot of changes going on under the hood, but to a user like (again, minority, not much intensive work) me, it just seems very bland lately. I decided to retire macOS and use iOS only moving forward. Maybe with the changes instituted the last couple years, there are larger changes coming in the future.
Honestly it has been too many years that there are mostly just refinements under the hood. Yosemite, El Capitan, Sierra and High Sierra didn't introduce any memorable feature, just a few cosmetic changes or refinements here and there. I hoped that High Sierra would be different but it really isn't 
what are you expecting?Honestly it has been too many years that there are mostly just refinements under the hood. Yosemite, El Capitan, Sierra and High Sierra didn't introduce any memorable feature, just a few cosmetic changes or refinements here and there. I hoped that High Sierra would be different but it really isn't
because for me, there are a handful of features that arrived in the mentioned OSes that have completely changed the way i work.. for the better.
i gather you just don't use them therefore nothing memorable?
I think they are expecting a Windows 8 moment - lots of changes - lots of excitement.
Users often forget that the "under the hood" improvements might not be exciting on release because "they don't see them", but then when some developer takes advantage -- they heap the praise on the 3rd party -- not realize that the "under the hood" changes made it possible within a budget that allowed it to come to market.
The only thing I could see really as a "user" improvement is for the Apple devices to work as they are independently, but also work well together as some sort of mesh operating system allowing something like iPad Pro and Mac to work as they are one system..... when paired.
I hope that once the migration to APFS is complete, Disk Utility will still support HFS for a while.
Many of us will have HFS volumes and older external disks to deal with.
I will convert the internal drives in my Macs to APFS because both are SSD and I want to take advantage of native encryption.
But I have an external Time Machine drive and a media storage drive that are ~7 TB. Granted that is not much compared to what some Mac users have, but I'm just worried that converting large drives could be risky and time-consuming.
Many of us will have HFS volumes and older external disks to deal with.
I will convert the internal drives in my Macs to APFS because both are SSD and I want to take advantage of native encryption.
But I have an external Time Machine drive and a media storage drive that are ~7 TB. Granted that is not much compared to what some Mac users have, but I'm just worried that converting large drives could be risky and time-consuming.