Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #79804 > unrolled thread

Better to wait for 10.11?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Better to wait for 10.11? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-09-11 23:26 +0000
    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-11 19:31 -0400
    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-11 23:38 +0000
      Re: Better to wait for 10.11? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-09-12 01:10 +0000
        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-09-12 17:31 -0400
          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-09-13 20:20 +0000
        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-09-14 23:48 +0000
    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-09-11 16:45 -0700
    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-11 20:00 -0400
      Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-12 00:08 +0000
      Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-12 00:11 +0000
        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-11 20:15 -0400
          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-12 00:26 +0000
        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-11 21:23 -0400
          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-11 21:38 -0400
          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-12 15:50 +0000
            Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-12 15:54 +0000
            Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-12 11:55 -0400
              Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-12 16:04 +0000
            Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-12 13:57 -0400
              Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-12 14:11 -0400
                Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-09-13 11:27 -0600
                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 17:45 +0000
                    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-09-13 13:08 -0600
                    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2015-09-13 19:15 -0700
                      Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-14 14:54 +0000
                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-09-14 12:35 +1200
              Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-13 09:23 +0000
                Re: Better to wait for 10.11? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-09-13 23:41 +1200
                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-13 12:17 +0000
                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-13 12:25 -0400
                    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 12:46 -0400
                      Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 16:59 +0000
                        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-13 15:03 -0400
                          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 19:13 +0000
                        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-13 15:06 -0400
                          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 19:43 +0000
                            Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-09-13 13:14 -0700
                              Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 20:16 +0000
                                Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-09-13 13:18 -0700
                                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 20:21 +0000
                            Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-13 19:33 -0400
                              Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-13 19:35 -0400
                                Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-14 00:54 +0000
                              Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-14 00:53 +0000
                        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> - 2015-09-14 13:19 +0000
                          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-14 14:57 +0000
                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 16:11 -0400
                    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 20:15 +0000
                    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:19 -0400
                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-09-13 14:51 -0600
                    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 21:01 +0000
                      Re: Better to wait for 10.11? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-09-14 12:35 +1200
                        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-14 00:57 +0000
                          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-09-14 01:37 -0600
                            Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-14 14:54 +0000
    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-09-12 12:11 -0600
    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-09-12 17:26 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#79804 — Better to wait for 10.11?

Thinking of upgrading the OS, but at this late date, would it probably be 
better to wait for El Capitan?  I know I should probably wait for the .2 
or .3 release, as the first ones are usually buggy.  Currently running 
10.8.5 with no problems on a Core2Duo iMac/8gigs of ram/20".

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#79805

In article <msvnvp$bgo$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1
<sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:

> Thinking of upgrading the OS, but at this late date, would it probably be 
> better to wait for El Capitan?  I know I should probably wait for the .2 
> or .3 release, as the first ones are usually buggy.  Currently running 
> 10.8.5 with no problems on a Core2Duo iMac/8gigs of ram/20".

download yosemite so it's in your purchased apps so you can obtain it
at a later date for whatever reason. there's no cost in doing so.

then upgrade to el capitan when you feel like it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79806

On 2015-09-11, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> Thinking of upgrading the OS, but at this late date, would it probably be 
> better to wait for El Capitan?  I know I should probably wait for the .2 
> or .3 release, as the first ones are usually buggy.  Currently running 
> 10.8.5 with no problems on a Core2Duo iMac/8gigs of ram/20".

Yosemite has seen many bug fixes already and is quite stable for most
people. No reason to wait, IMO.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79813

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 23:38:41 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:

> On 2015-09-11, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> > Thinking of upgrading the OS, but at this late date, would it probably be 
> > better to wait for El Capitan?  I know I should probably wait for the .2 
> > or .3 release, as the first ones are usually buggy.  Currently running 
> > 10.8.5 with no problems on a Core2Duo iMac/8gigs of ram/20".
> 
> Yosemite has seen many bug fixes already and is quite stable for most
> people. No reason to wait, IMO.
 
Yosemite runs slowly at times on my Core 2 Duo 3.08 GHz 12 GB. Since
the problem is largely with Window Server using a lot of CPU, I 
suspect Yosemite may not play well with this system's ATI Radeon HD 
4670 chipset.

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79827

On 2015-09-11 21:10, John Varela wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 23:38:41 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-11, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
>>> Thinking of upgrading the OS, but at this late date, would it probably be
>>> better to wait for El Capitan?  I know I should probably wait for the .2
>>> or .3 release, as the first ones are usually buggy.  Currently running
>>> 10.8.5 with no problems on a Core2Duo iMac/8gigs of ram/20".
>>
>> Yosemite has seen many bug fixes already and is quite stable for most
>> people. No reason to wait, IMO.
>
> Yosemite runs slowly at times on my Core 2 Duo 3.08 GHz 12 GB. Since
> the problem is largely with Window Server using a lot of CPU, I
> suspect Yosemite may not play well with this system's ATI Radeon HD
> 4670 chipset.

I assume you mean El Capitan in that last bit.

Some time ago I discussed this here with a lot of helpful input from the 
master of verion compatibility, David Empson.  Core 2 Duo is so long ago 
that I fear you won't get the advantage of Metal in El Capitan.

On the other hand, Mavericks and Yosemite played quite well on my SO's 2 
GB Core 2 Duo MBA (2009) before that computer had it's final RAM failure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79851

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:31:17 UTC, Alan Browne 
<alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2015-09-11 21:10, John Varela wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 23:38:41 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-09-11, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
> >>> Thinking of upgrading the OS, but at this late date, would it probably be
> >>> better to wait for El Capitan?  I know I should probably wait for the .2
> >>> or .3 release, as the first ones are usually buggy.  Currently running
> >>> 10.8.5 with no problems on a Core2Duo iMac/8gigs of ram/20".
> >>
> >> Yosemite has seen many bug fixes already and is quite stable for most
> >> people. No reason to wait, IMO.
> >
> > Yosemite runs slowly at times on my Core 2 Duo 3.08 GHz 12 GB. Since
> > the problem is largely with Window Server using a lot of CPU, I
> > suspect Yosemite may not play well with this system's ATI Radeon HD
> > 4670 chipset.
> 
> I assume you mean El Capitan in that last bit.

Read again. I meant Yosemite. And the perfomance problem is largely 
with Window Server using lots of CPU. I've seen that usage go all 
the way to 100% of a CPU, though somewhere in the 40-70% range is 
more common when performance problems appear.

Another symptom: when playing an HD movie at full size, every few 
seconds there will be a little jerk in the motion as if some 
periodic function had just executed. It happens too fast to show up 
in Activity Monitor so I have no idea what that could be.
 
> Some time ago I discussed this here with a lot of helpful input from the 
> master of verion compatibility, David Empson.  Core 2 Duo is so long ago 
> that I fear you won't get the advantage of Metal in El Capitan.
> 
> On the other hand, Mavericks and Yosemite played quite well on my SO's 2 
> GB Core 2 Duo MBA (2009) before that computer had it's final RAM failure.


-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79872

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 01:10:05 +0000, John Varela wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 23:38:41 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-09-11, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:
>> > Thinking of upgrading the OS, but at this late date, would it
>> > probably be better to wait for El Capitan?  I know I should probably
>> > wait for the .2 or .3 release, as the first ones are usually buggy. 
>> > Currently running 10.8.5 with no problems on a Core2Duo iMac/8gigs of
>> > ram/20".
>> 
>> Yosemite has seen many bug fixes already and is quite stable for most
>> people. No reason to wait, IMO.
>  
> Yosemite runs slowly at times on my Core 2 Duo 3.08 GHz 12 GB. Since the
> problem is largely with Window Server using a lot of CPU, I suspect
> Yosemite may not play well with this system's ATI Radeon HD 4670
> chipset.

John,
I am running eComStation 2.1 in Virtual Box, along with CentOS 7 and 6.7 
and Windows XP.  Is that too much in Virtual Machines to make my iMac 
slow down?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79807

In article <msvnvp$bgo$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1
<sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:

> Thinking of upgrading the OS, but at this late date, would it probably be 
> better to wait for El Capitan?  I know I should probably wait for the .2 
> or .3 release, as the first ones are usually buggy.  Currently running 
> 10.8.5 with no problems on a Core2Duo iMac/8gigs of ram/20".

I've been running the public betas of El Capitan for a few months, and
am currently running the Golden Master.  They've flushed out many bugs;
there are a few lingering niggly ones, but nothing that would be a show
stopper or even a slow down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79808

On 15-09-11 19:26, sctvguy1 wrote:
> Thinking of upgrading the OS, but at this late date, would it probably be 
> better to wait for El Capitan? 

If you are a "good" Apple customers without any hacks or special
software, it probably doesn't matter. You've already made it past the
more difficult upgrade (beyond Snow Leopard where many things are changed).

If you have some kernel extensions, going to Yosemite means you need to
find the doc on how to change your NVRAM to disable kernel extemsion
checking.

From Yosemite to El Capitan, this mechanism to enable kernel extensions
is deprecated and you will need a different set of commands to allow
unsigned extensions and access to system directories.

There are 2 philosophies: a single upgrade with all the possible
problems at once.  OR doing 2 upgrades, with the first one causing some
problems which you can fix, and second one cause other problemns which
you fix.

The second approach may take more time overall, but after each upgrade
you are left with fewer problems to fix compared to a single one where
all problems happen at once.

It all depends on how many tweaks and special utilities you have.

Note: going to El Capitan right away may result in some software not yet
being ready for it. You can disable the additional folder protections,
but the upgrade procedure will move or delete files from any directories
that Apple has decided isn't for 3rd party content so even though
disabling those features after the upgrade would allow those apps, the
upgrade procedure itself will zap files used by those apps.

This won't affect GUI apps generally speaking. But would affect UNIX
apps. (for instance the old X11 was located in directories that are to
be forbidden in El Capitan, but the current Xquartz (no longer an Apple
product) have files located in acceptable  directories, bvut still setup
aliases in the old directories, so this may fail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79809

On 2015-09-12, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-09-11 19:26, sctvguy1 wrote:
>> Thinking of upgrading the OS, but at this late date, would it probably be 
>> better to wait for El Capitan? 
>
> If you are a "good" Apple customers without any hacks or special
> software

Oh please, spare us the hyperbole, troll.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79810

On 2015-09-12, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> If you have some kernel extensions, going to Yosemite means you need to
> find the doc on how to change your NVRAM to disable kernel extemsion
> checking.

Bullshit. The kernel extension this troll is mentioning is a third-party
SSD TRIM enabler that is no longer needed since Yosemite has built-in
support for it.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79811

In article <d5h8t6Fmg1gU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > If you have some kernel extensions, going to Yosemite means you need to
> > find the doc on how to change your NVRAM to disable kernel extemsion
> > checking.
> 
> Bullshit. The kernel extension this troll is mentioning is a third-party
> SSD TRIM enabler that is no longer needed since Yosemite has built-in
> support for it.

and it's not really necessary anyway, plus it can be dangerous and
potentially cause data loss if the ssd has a buggy trim implementation,
as some popular ssds do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79812

On 2015-09-12, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d5h8t6Fmg1gU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > If you have some kernel extensions, going to Yosemite means you need to
>> > find the doc on how to change your NVRAM to disable kernel extemsion
>> > checking.
>> 
>> Bullshit. The kernel extension this troll is mentioning is a third-party
>> SSD TRIM enabler that is no longer needed since Yosemite has built-in
>> support for it.
>
> and it's not really necessary anyway, plus it can be dangerous and
> potentially cause data loss if the ssd has a buggy trim implementation,
> as some popular ssds do.

Yes. And many SSDs come with firmware features that effectively negates
the need for TRIM support in the operating system:

<http://blog.macsales.com/21641-with-an-owc-ssd-theres-no-need-for-trim>

The JF Mezie troll has refuse to acknowledge this to this date,
hopelessly stuck in the past, making false claims that TRIM is needed.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79814

On 15-09-11 20:11, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Bullshit. The kernel extension this troll is mentioning is a third-party
> SSD TRIM enabler that is no longer needed since Yosemite has built-in
> support for it.

The changes into Yosemite apply to all unsigned kernel extensions. You
can ridicule me all you want, but this is a fact. There is a mechanism
to disable kernmel extemnsions checking.

And going from Yosemite to El Capitan, the mechanisms all change in
terms of code signing and access to various directories. So you need to
be aware that a number of unix directories will be purged of any files
not supplied by apple and those directories locked. There is a mechanism
to disable this, but it is different from what was used to enable 3rd
party kernel extensions in Yosemite.

I won't comment on your and others insults about TRIM, it only shows you
don't understand how the file system interacts with disk drivers and the
disks themselves.  Wear leveling does not implement TRIM and does not
reduce the need to relocate pages whenever a portion of a page is being
updated by a write.

And Yosemite only enabled TRIM for APPLE branded SSDs.  El Capitan
allegedly includes a utility to enable it for 3rd party and that would
mean that in my particular case, the kernel extension I am using is no
longer needed.

But that does not remove the FACT that if you are using any kernel
extensions, moving to Yosemite and then El Capital will cause some
problems unless you upgrade that 3rd party software to a version that is
from the App store and has signed codes and signed kernel extensions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79815

In article <55f37e97$0$56544$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > Bullshit. The kernel extension this troll is mentioning is a third-party
> > SSD TRIM enabler that is no longer needed since Yosemite has built-in
> > support for it.
> 
> The changes into Yosemite apply to all unsigned kernel extensions. You
> can ridicule me all you want, but this is a fact. There is a mechanism
> to disable kernmel extemnsions checking.

disabling codesigned kernel extensions is stupid.

the only extension that needs codesigning to be disabled is the trim
extension. that extension is no longer needed since trim can be enabled
for third party ssds, however, that can potentially cause data loss if
the ssd's trim implementation is buggy, and quite a few are. in other
words don't even think about it.

> And going from Yosemite to El Capitan, the mechanisms all change in
> terms of code signing and access to various directories. So you need to
> be aware that a number of unix directories will be purged of any files
> not supplied by apple and those directories locked. There is a mechanism
> to disable this, but it is different from what was used to enable 3rd
> party kernel extensions in Yosemite.

all of which is a good thing.

> I won't comment on your and others insults about TRIM, it only shows you
> don't understand how the file system interacts with disk drivers and the
> disks themselves.  Wear leveling does not implement TRIM and does not
> reduce the need to relocate pages whenever a portion of a page is being
> updated by a write.

trim is not needed.

> And Yosemite only enabled TRIM for APPLE branded SSDs. 

nope. 

yosemite can enable trim for *any* ssd, however, it displays a warning
that non-apple ssds have not been tested and you may lose data.

> El Capitan
> allegedly includes a utility to enable it for 3rd party and that would
> mean that in my particular case, the kernel extension I am using is no
> longer needed.

it's in yosemite.

> But that does not remove the FACT that if you are using any kernel
> extensions, moving to Yosemite and then El Capital will cause some
> problems unless you upgrade that 3rd party software to a version that is
> from the App store and has signed codes and signed kernel extensions.

there aren't any unsigned kexts other than the trim enabler.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79816

On 2015-09-12, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-09-11 20:11, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Bullshit. The kernel extension this troll is mentioning is a third-party
>> SSD TRIM enabler that is no longer needed since Yosemite has built-in
>> support for it.
>
> The changes into Yosemite apply to all unsigned kernel extensions. You
> can ridicule me all you want, but this is a fact.

Most kernel extensions are signed, because OS X developers can easily
sign their extensions with an OS X developer certificate. The glaring
exception is a third-party TRIM enabler kernel extension which hasn't
been signed by the developer, and therefore will not load on machines
running 10.9+. And OS X 10.10 comes with built-in TRIM support which
means that extension is no longer necessary.

> There is a mechanism to disable kernmel extemnsions checking.

Disabling kernel extension checking in OS X is *extremely* bad advice to
give other OS users who may not know the implications of doing so -
especially considering TRIM support is built into OS X 10.10.

> And going from Yosemite to El Capitan, the mechanisms all change in
> terms of code signing and access to various directories. So you need to
> be aware that a number of unix directories will be purged of any files
> not supplied by apple and those directories locked. There is a mechanism
> to disable this, but it is different from what was used to enable 3rd
> party kernel extensions in Yosemite.

There's no need for most people to disable it.

> I won't comment on your and others insults about TRIM, it only shows you
> don't understand how the file system interacts with disk drivers and the
> disks themselves.  Wear leveling does not implement TRIM and does not
> reduce the need to relocate pages whenever a portion of a page is being
> updated by a write.

You've been shown to be wrong in the past about this, and you are just
as wrong today. The fact is TRIM isn't necessary with modern SSD models.

Also, OS X 10.10 has built-in TRIM support which means the particular
unsigned kernel extension that you seem to love so much is *not* needed.

> And Yosemite only enabled TRIM for APPLE branded SSDs.

As usual, you are wrong. OS X 10.10 has built-in TRIM support for *all*
SSD makes and models. The unsigned kernel extension you seem to love so
much is *unnecessary*.

> El Capitan allegedly includes a utility to enable it for 3rd party and
> that would mean that in my particular case, the kernel extension I am
> using is no longer needed.

Wrong as usual. The utility is built into OS X 10.10.

> But that does not remove the FACT that if you are using any kernel
> extensions, moving to Yosemite and then El Capital will cause some
> problems unless you upgrade that 3rd party software to a version that
> is from the App store and has signed codes and signed kernel
> extensions.

There are no unsigned kernel extensions other than the useless TRIM
enabler you seem to love so much.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79817

On 2015-09-12, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-09-12, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> But that does not remove the FACT that if you are using any kernel
>> extensions, moving to Yosemite and then El Capital will cause some
>> problems unless you upgrade that 3rd party software to a version that
>> is from the App store and has signed codes and signed kernel
>> extensions.
>
> There are no unsigned kernel extensions other than the useless TRIM
> enabler you seem to love so much.

Also, kernel extensions are not distributed though the App Store.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79818

In article <d5ivukF5al5U3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > And Yosemite only enabled TRIM for APPLE branded SSDs.
> 
> As usual, you are wrong. OS X 10.10 has built-in TRIM support for *all*
> SSD makes and models. The unsigned kernel extension you seem to love so
> much is *unnecessary*.

it became available in 10.10.4.

prior to that, it was not there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79819

On 2015-09-12, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d5ivukF5al5U3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > And Yosemite only enabled TRIM for APPLE branded SSDs.
>> 
>> As usual, you are wrong. OS X 10.10 has built-in TRIM support for *all*
>> SSD makes and models. The unsigned kernel extension you seem to love so
>> much is *unnecessary*.
>
> it became available in 10.10.4.
>
> prior to that, it was not there.

Yes and 10.10.4 is a free update for all 10.10 users.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79820

On 15-09-12 11:50, Jolly Roger wrote:

> running 10.9+. And OS X 10.10 comes with built-in TRIM support which
> means that extension is no longer necessary.

10.0 to 10.10.3 likmited TRIM to only APPLE branded SSDs.

10.10.4 introduced the trimforce command which opened TRIM to 3rd party
drives. I upgraded to 10.0.5 yesterday and used it succesfully. (the
upgrade replaced the hacked/patched disk driver with the vanilla which
disabled TRIM on my drive until I used trimforce to enable it.

And with regards to the TRIM patch being the only unsigned kernel
extemnsion, it may be the only one you are aware of, but that is not
necessarily the only one. There is a lot of older software out there.

Same with unix software placed in various directories which will be
deleted/moved/zapped by the El Capitan upgrade.  You may not be using
such software but for people who do, this is a major piece of work to
scan your system for such software and either manually move it, or check
if a new version is available that places software elsewhere. Disabling
the locking of unix directories after the install does not change the
fact that the installation procedure will zap the software.


> You've been shown to be wrong in the past about this, and you are just
> as wrong today. The fact is TRIM isn't necessary with modern SSD models.

Correct that it is not necessary. Incorrect that it isn't needed. No
matter how sophisticated the SSD is, it cannot know that a file has been
deleted just because a block was overwritten (which happens to be in the
catalogue file).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web