Apple Is Releasing macOS High Sierra On September 25 (techcrunch.com) 95
After updating its website for the iPhone launch event, Apple has confirmed that macOS High Sierra will be released on September 25th. TechCrunch provides a brief rundown of the major changes, most of which are under the hood: The Photos app is still receiving some new features to keep it up to date with the iOS version. There are more editing tools, you can reorganize the toolbar and you can filter your photos by type. If you're a Safari user, my favorite change is that there is a new feature in the settings that lets you automatically block autoplaying videos around the web. Many websites have abused autoplaying video, it's time to stop it. And then, there's a new file system that should make your Mac snappier if you're using an SSD. Mail is compressing messages, Metal 2 should take better advantage of your GPU, Spotlight knows about your flight status, etc. The free update to macOS High Sierra will be available in the Mac App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Mac OS still have spyware and forced updates?
Since it never had either to begin with; I'd say "No", it doesn't.
Oh, and when did you stop beating your wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend?
AFS? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
SSDs will be automatically converted to APFS, HDDs and fusion drives won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps in a production environment you'll evaluate the new OS and its changes in a test environment first, and fix any issues with your applications and processes before (blindly) upgrading production systems? You know, basic common sense stuff ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: AFS? (Score:1)
And iOS 'apps' come only from the walled garden and thust are far more scrutinized and built along far more rigid guidelines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which doesn't say very much about their interaction with the filesystem, especially when you consider that the most complex filesystem interactions on macOS come from system services that are shared with iOS, not from third party apps.
That's simply ridiculous, and just proves you are an idiot.
Hundreds of thousands of 3rd party iOS Apps (literally!) make use of Apple's FS. It's actually kind of required if you save any Preferences, etc. And that's not to mention all the "database-y" Apps, the DAW-Apps, etc, etc. that make HEAVY use of Apple's FS.
The one thing I might worry about is Time Machine, which is by far the most complex FS user (and has permissions that normal user code doesn't have for precisely this reason) and has been largely rewritten for APFS (fortunately, simplifying a lot of what it does and reusing code paths in the FS that are well tested in iOS).
And that's why Time Machine, just like every other non-boot-volume Drive, is NOT being converted. In fact, Apple has acknowledged that they pretty much have to rewrite TM from the ground-up for AP
Choice (Score:2)
Now I know that Microsoft have been shoving their own choices down everyone's throats lately, but Apple has always done this. Apple's attitude is, "It's our way, or the highway."
Re: (Score:2)
You are comparing a 'toy OS' to workstation systems with heavy use of user scripting and programming.. iOS and OSX are not the same thing. Why do you hate choice?
iOS and macOS are EXACTLY the same at the FS-level, and share the same Darwin Core.
The same thing that makes Android users claim that Linux is the most popular OS because Linux and Android are the same at their core, is the same thing that would support my argument above.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't deploy till you test it on a spare machine.
Because everyone can afford a spare machine. FUCK YOU.
You don't need a spare machine. Just a spare drive with a Time Machine backup.
If you can't afford $100 for a 4 TB external, then you have no business having ANY computer.
Or, just don't upgrade your computer with High Sierra until you find out whether there are "horror stories".
Jeezus people are stupid!
Re: AFS? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't afford an external 4TB drive, you shouldn't have a computer?
I've always known you were an asshole, but that is the most cuntish thing I recall you saying.
You're such a Jobs wannabe, fucking asshole and all. Fucking douche.
Ok, then let's mitigate it a bit:
If you don't have a backup, you shouldn't own a computer, or at least you shouldn't whine about data-loss when it happens.
And BTW, I don't have a backup for my computer, either.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have a backup of some kind, then you are just waiting for a component failure / malware / file system problem to destroy all your data anyway.
Back up your fucking shit if it's so precious to you. And don't be an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
or how about this: Make a fucking backup before you update the god damn operating system. You know, like you should have been doing for all operating system upgrades, ever, if you care about the contents of your system.
Re: (Score:2)
What I do with my MacBooks is replace the hard drive, install the newest OS and apps on the new drive, stick the old drive in an enclosure and migrate my user data.
That way, if anything goes wrong I can just stick the old drive back in the Mac. If everything goes right, I have a snapshot backup from before the migration.
Re: (Score:2)
I skip the hardware swapping (which you can't do on newer MacBooks anyway) and instead use this:
hdiutil create -srcfolder / -nocrossdev -format UDZO -o
asr imagescan --filechecksum --source
Then, if something goes to crap, I can boot from the recovery volume (or the Internet by holding 'n' at boot) drop to a terminal and restore with:
/path/to/network/mount/backup.dmg --target /Volumes/Macintosh\ HD --erase --nover
asr restore --source
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that they didn't offer an opt out likely means there's no reason not to change over.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they didn't offer an opt out likely means there's no reason not to change over.
If you feel squeamish, now's the time to invest in a Time Machine drive, FFS.
If you can't be bothered to spend $100 for that, then you don't really care, or you really DO trust Apple...
The FUCKING End!
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you need to invest in a time machine drive?
If you value your data, then you already have one. If you don't, then it wouldn't particularly matter of the upgrade destroyed your data.
However you are no more likely to lose your data during the upgrade than at any other time. This has already been done once, on iPhones. And there was no issue with people losing data.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you need to invest in a time machine drive?
If you value your data, then you already have one. If you don't, then it wouldn't particularly matter of the upgrade destroyed your data.
However you are no more likely to lose your data during the upgrade than at any other time. This has already been done once, on iPhones. And there was no issue with people losing data.
I agree with all of your points.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if you're so worried, then you shouldn't upgrade ot High Sierra then on your production systems. Which is never a bad idea since the bugs on a .0 release of an OS are huge. You can hold off until .1 or .2 is released which should fix a bunch of the biggest issues.
Apple will retain suppo
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdote: I've been running the public beta for a while now and it's been great. APFS is noticeably faster on my aging (early-2011) MacBook Pro, and it's been at least as good as Sierra in every way. I think it's shaping up to be Snow Leopard 2.
Which totally doesn't negate your point: no one has to upgrade to the new OS release, especially on launch day. But if you were ever going to do such a thing, in my experience this seems like a good release to try it on.
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdote: I've been running the public beta for a while now and it's been great. APFS is noticeably faster on my aging (early-2011) MacBook Pro, and it's been at least as good as Sierra in every way. I think it's shaping up to be Snow Leopard 2.
Especially since it is essentially the Swan's Song for 32 bit Applications... ;-)
Which totally doesn't negate your point: no one has to upgrade to the new OS release, especially on launch day. But if you were ever going to do such a thing, in my experience this seems like a good release to try it on.
Time Machine. Time Machine. Time Machine. And no, NEVER install a new OS from ANYONE on day one. That's just stupid.
That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got two separate Time Machines: a frequent stream to a local NAS that gets backed up to the Internets, and an external USB drive I update a couple of times a month.
But for real, High Sierra beta feels more solid than Sierra.whatever. I'm not a fanboy, but this is a good one.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got two separate Time Machines: a frequent stream to a local NAS that gets backed up to the Internets, and an external USB drive I update a couple of times a month.
But for real, High Sierra beta feels more solid than Sierra.whatever. I'm not a fanboy, but this is a good one.
Glad to hear that!
I'm still rockin' Mavericks on my 2012 nrMBP, and would like to join in the fun before my laptop becomes un-upgrade-able...
Only thing is, I will lose my Logic Pro 9, which is the last version that can easily run 32-bit plugins; most notably, the most-excellent VB3, which the developer refuses to re-compile for 64 bit...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's master is Apple. Therefore, it does what Apple wants.
...except, of course, making the decision to upgrade for you. If you want the version with the new shiny, go for it. If not, that's OK too.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're missing the point.
This is an Apple device. It's master is Apple. Therefore, it does what Apple wants. The dirty unwashed user be damned. The unholy shalt not reject what Jobs has been gracious enough to have given them from beyond the grave. They will embrace APFS with open arms.
That or expect the device to stop working once Apple's code removes the HPFS+ filesystem driver support from system startup as a "security" measure.
Is it wrong to upgrade a production system like that without an opt-out (better opt-in) option? Yes. Does Apple care? No. But that's what you get when it must "just work" you get system upgrades that "just happen" and you have to hope that everything else keeps working.
You're a sick, Apple-Hating, two-faced punk; who would ABSOLUTELY post in another thread that HFS+ is a shit, 20 year old FS that is far beyond the point of needing replacement.
Don't lie. I KNOW you would do EXACTLY that.
Oh, and it will be at least a DECADE before Apple even Deprecates HFS+, if ever. HISTORY (rather than Histrionics) has repeadtedly shown THAT's actually the way they roll.
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing the point. Changing the file system 'in-situ' without offering an opt-out is flat out fucking stupid on Apple's part. It should be offered as an option, not jammed down your throat on production systems.
Two words: Time Machine.
Re: (Score:2)
SSDs will be automatically converted to APFS, HDDs and fusion drives won't.
I think you can still also opt-out with SSD boot volumes, too.
And it is only Boot-Volumes that are automatically converted under any circumstances.
And a zillion iOS users running iOS 10.3.3 have been rockin' APFS for months, with NO horror-stories; so I think Apple is being quite responsible here.
Re: AFS? (Score:1)
Microsoft has been one of the major developers on Mac since 1984 when the Mac came out. Excel was originally a Mac only spreadsheet that was then ported over to Windows. Word was a gui based program on Mac years before the first version of Word for Windows came out. If anybody knows how to be a third party developer on Mac it is Microsoft. Latecomers like Adobe are more worrisome.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has been one of the major developers on Mac since 1984 when the Mac came out. Excel was originally a Mac only spreadsheet that was then ported over to Windows. Word was a gui based program on Mac years before the first version of Word for Windows came out. If anybody knows how to be a third party developer on Mac it is Microsoft. Latecomers like Adobe are more worrisome.
Exactly!
And anyone who knows that also knows that MS Office for Mac is a COMPLETELY separate codebase from the Windows version, and when they tried to just do a "Mac Port" (Word 6) of the Windows version, they ended up with a COMPLETELY unusable Application that left MS scrapping that idea IMMEDIATELY!
In fact, VisualBASIC started as "Microsoft BASIC for Macintosh", and it was pretty damned sweet; until MS decided to simply DROP it. Then, about a year later, it was "magically reborn" as VisualBASIC; but for
Re: (Score:1)
There was also a version of Visual Basic for MS-DOS, scary as that seems now. It lets you form-draw and create code behind the forms on plain vanilla MS-DOS. The graphical elements (buttons, boxes, etc.) are rendered in the 'graphical box' characters in the plain vanilla (non-graphical) charcacter set on an IBM MDA card. I have the full Professional version in my collection.
There are apocryphal stories from back in the time that Microsoft was selling applications for both the Mac and the IBM-PC about the
Re: (Score:2)
There was also a version of Visual Basic for MS-DOS, scary as that seems now. It lets you form-draw and create code behind the forms on plain vanilla MS-DOS. The graphical elements (buttons, boxes, etc.) are rendered in the 'graphical box' characters in the plain vanilla (non-graphical) charcacter set on an IBM MDA card. I have the full Professional version in my collection.
There are apocryphal stories from back in the time that Microsoft was selling applications for both the Mac and the IBM-PC about the application developers needing to hide the Macs when the guys from IBM showed up and hide the PCs when the guys from Apple showed up. It's mentioned in 'The Making of Microsoft' by Daniel Ichbiah published in 1993. It's quite an interesting read, copies for under $5 including shipping can be bought here [abebooks.com]. (not an affiliate link, I get NOTHING if you buy from one of these booksellers.)
Fascinating! I new nothing about the "VisualBASIC for MS-DOS"!!!
Thanks for the history lesson!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
there's nothing special about SSDs that makes APFS any more attractive than on a spinning disk
Yes there is, APFS is a copy-on-write filesystem. This means that you end up with a lot of fragmentation for frequently modified files. This doesn't matter for SSDs, because random reads are not much more expensive than sequential, but it can really hurt performance on spinning rust.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read that it will be for Macs with SSDs.
Re: (Score:1)
As I recall, it was an option. Why would you not want to do it, though?
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter, so long as it works? It's been in production some time now.
Safari worth a damn yet? (Score:2)
My chief complaint about Safari has been the lack to specify domains that are allowed to display popups. While I get that popups are bad, some sites still persist in their usage and some of those sites I'd like to allow without having to resort to scripts and JSON. Until then I'll continue to happily use Firefox.
Also... Taking cover for admitting to being a Firefox user. Really Slashdot, I can understand some of the hate.
Re: (Score:2)
My chief complaint about Safari has been the lack to specify domains that are allowed to display popups. While I get that popups are bad, some sites still persist in their usage and some of those sites I'd like to allow without having to resort to scripts and JSON. Until then I'll continue to happily use Firefox.
Also... Taking cover for admitting to being a Firefox user. Really Slashdot, I can understand some of the hate.
Off-topic much?
Re: Safari worth a damn yet? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're the new apk... so I wouldn't throw rocks if I were you.
Topic is new OS. New features or lack thereof is on topic.
Now fuck off.
So you really think that a rant against Safari in a Thread discussing APFS isn't off-topic?
Re: (Score:2)
I used to use Firefox, and got fed up and switched to Chrome. Now I'm fed up with Chrome and it's unbelievable memory footprint, and I'm back to Firefox.
Why does every browser suck in different ways on OS X?
PGP / GPG in mail (Score:2)
How about something useful like GPG/PGP in mail. Rather than have to wait for some third party to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice user name.
https://gpgtools.org/ [gpgtools.org] doesn't do it for you?
Re: PGP / GPG in mail (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GPGtools is great, but it was broken for four months when MacOS 10.12 (Sierra) Mail changed how it handled plugins.
But I thought that one of the advantages of F/OSS was that issues get addressed quickly, due to the "many eyes" (and "many hands") effect...
Re: PGP / GPG in mail (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It worked, then Apple changed how it works and broke it.
So you think it's perfectly fine to blame the non-paid OSS developers? Jesus fucking Christ you're a dick.
Just STFU and stop spamming us.
LOL! That's a laugh!
Who's following Who around, spewing bile over every one of my Posts?
And I believe that Apple fixed the issue in Mail. It just took the GPG maintainers a bit to respond to that, from what I read. TRULY Sorry if I was incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: PGP / GPG in mail (Score:2)
People still use gpg?
People do a lot of things, regardless of your scorn and derision. Good reasons for using gpg could be listed, but fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about something useful like GPG/PGP in mail. Rather than have to wait for some third party to do it.
Your wait has been over for a few years now...
Here's a nice how-to on using GPG Tools with macOS Mail:
https://help.runbox.com/using-... [runbox.com]
Re: Can you say iErrection? (Score:2)
Do Not Want (Score:2)
I'm good. No need for pointless system updates that are designed for newest Macs.
Re:Do Not Want (Score:4, Interesting)
Your choice. Based on everything I'm reading, their new file system seems to be worth the price of admission alone. Course, if you don't have an SSD then it won't do much for you.
But if that's the case, I'd recommend you spend the money to replace your storage with SSD. The performance difference is overwhelming, especially when you need to use bloat-tastic applications like Microsoft Office. (It takes a good minute or so to load from a spinning rust disk. Even on SSD it still takes 5-10 seconds.)
Re: Do Not Want (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*facepalm*
Did you seriously compare the launch times for Office for Windows against Office for Mac? And not even the same application?
You DO understand that they are completely different code bases, yes? And that Office on Windows takes advantage of always-running libraries in Windows, similarly to what IE does, to artificially speed up their load times?
Furthermore, this is a problem I noticed consistently across several different machines, so no, it's not about my "shit being broken". The fact is, Offic
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's because it's on a 20+ year old file system. Now only if Apple would do something about that.
Oh, wait...