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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #110067 > unrolled thread

10.12 to 10.13 ?

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

Contents

  10.12 to 10.13 ? heron stone <heron@invalid.invalid> - 2017-11-15 20:04 -0800
    Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-11-16 05:17 +0000
    Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Mallocy <null@mail.mn> - 2017-11-16 08:02 +0000
      Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-11-17 08:43 +1300
        Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2017-11-17 18:20 -0600
          Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-11-18 15:10 +1300
            Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-11-18 04:23 +0000
        Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2017-11-17 22:28 -0700
          Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-11-18 19:20 +1300
            Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-11-19 04:12 +0000
              Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2017-11-18 22:42 -0700
              Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-11-19 12:01 -0500
                Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? android <here@there.was> - 2017-11-19 18:33 +0100
                Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2017-11-19 10:38 -0700
                  Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-11-19 16:48 -0500
                Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-11-19 18:49 +0000
                  Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-11-19 15:06 -0500
                    Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-11-20 03:02 +0000
                      Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-11-20 12:58 -0500
                        Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-11-20 20:28 +0000
                          Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-11-20 17:31 -0500
                Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-11-19 19:03 +0000
                  Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-11-19 15:06 -0500
                    Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-11-20 06:58 +0000
                      Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-11-20 12:59 -0500
                        Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-11-20 20:24 +0000
                          Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-11-20 17:29 -0500
                Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-11-20 09:19 +1300
                  Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-11-20 03:02 +0000
                    Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-11-20 06:59 +0000
          Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-11-18 09:25 -0500
    Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? nj_kruse@me.com (Niels Jørgen Kruse) - 2017-11-16 11:01 +0100
      Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-11-16 18:22 +0000
        Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Mallocy <null@mail.mn> - 2017-11-17 11:18 +0000
    Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2017-11-17 13:11 -0700
      Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-11-18 12:25 +1300
      Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2017-11-17 18:22 -0600
        Re: 10.12 to 10.13 ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-11-18 04:26 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#110148

On 2017-11-20 15:28, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2017-11-20, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2017-11-19 22:02, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2017-11-19, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-11-19 13:49, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-11-19, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2017-11-18 23:12, Lewis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Folders can have their own window in the OS X Finder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, they cannot. Never have been able to in OS X and still
>>>>>>> can't in macOS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are you on about?
>>>>>
>>>>> They are talking the fact that in classic Mac OS the Finder
>>>>> supported spatial awareness due to the fact that users could rely
>>>>> on a one-to-one relationship between a folder in the file system
>>>>> and the position, size, view, and look of the resulting Finder
>>>>> window you would see when you opened it. In modern versions of
>>>>> macOS, the Finder instead uses a browser-based design which doesn't
>>>>> retain those spatial properties in a way that users can count on.
>>>>> It is all explained well enough here:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://archive.arstechnica.com/paedia/f/finder/finder-3.htm>
>>>>
>>>> Got it.  I do find Finder opening irritating on occasion.  I'm
>>>> working on the main screen and need a Finder window ... that open on
>>>> the side screen.  ... drag.  (Literally).
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, if you open a Finder window, size it, open another it's the
>>>> same size.  Makes occasional file management easier-ish.
>>>
>>> Not always, which is the point.
>>
>> I just did it 5 times in a row.
> 
> I have *way* better things to do than getting into a debate about facts
> that are already documented elsewhere on the net.

Not debating.  Just not seeing what is described (in one quickly done test).

-- 
"My Twitter has become so powerful that
  I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."
..Donald Trump

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

#110124

In message <J6WdnVS9ZNRwJYzHnZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-11-18 23:12, Lewis wrote:

>>> Folders can have their own window in the OS X Finder
>> 
>> Nope, they cannot. Never have been able to in OS X and still can't in
>> macOS.

> What are you on about?  Finder is displayed in a window.  If that is at 
> folder level, then it's a Finder window for that folder.

Perhaps had you bothered to read the rest of the message.


-- 
BILL: I can't get behind the Gods, who are more vengeful, angry, an
dangerous if you don't believe in them!
HENRY: Why can't all these God just get along? I mean, they're
omnipotent and omnipresent, what's the problem?

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

#110128

On 2017-11-19 14:03, Lewis wrote:
> In message <J6WdnVS9ZNRwJYzHnZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2017-11-18 23:12, Lewis wrote:
> 
>>>> Folders can have their own window in the OS X Finder
>>>
>>> Nope, they cannot. Never have been able to in OS X and still can't in
>>> macOS.
> 
>> What are you on about?  Finder is displayed in a window.  If that is at
>> folder level, then it's a Finder window for that folder.
> 
> Perhaps had you bothered to read the rest of the message.

Oh yes - very contradictory.  You can't write a clear reply, I guess.


-- 
"My Twitter has become so powerful that
  I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."
..Donald Trump

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

#110139

In message <kemdnQxcdazBeYzHnZ2dnUU7-d9QAAAA@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-11-19 14:03, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <J6WdnVS9ZNRwJYzHnZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2017-11-18 23:12, Lewis wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Folders can have their own window in the OS X Finder
>>>>
>>>> Nope, they cannot. Never have been able to in OS X and still can't in
>>>> macOS.
>> 
>>> What are you on about?  Finder is displayed in a window.  If that is at
>>> folder level, then it's a Finder window for that folder.
>> 
>> Perhaps had you bothered to read the rest of the message.

> Oh yes - very contradictory.  You can't write a clear reply, I guess.

*MY* post was clear, you chose not to read it.



-- 
I noticed that but was still trying to work out a way of drawing it to
everyone's attention that would be sufficiently satisfying, combining
maximum entertainment value for readers with maximum humiliation for you.
   -- Laura

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

#110142

On 2017-11-20 01:58, Lewis wrote:
> In message <kemdnQxcdazBeYzHnZ2dnUU7-d9QAAAA@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2017-11-19 14:03, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <J6WdnVS9ZNRwJYzHnZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-11-18 23:12, Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Folders can have their own window in the OS X Finder
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, they cannot. Never have been able to in OS X and still can't in
>>>>> macOS.
>>>
>>>> What are you on about?  Finder is displayed in a window.  If that is at
>>>> folder level, then it's a Finder window for that folder.
>>>
>>> Perhaps had you bothered to read the rest of the message.
> 
>> Oh yes - very contradictory.  You can't write a clear reply, I guess.
> 
> *MY* post was clear, you chose not to read it.

No.  You left a dangling bit of muck there.  Should have qualified it.


-- 
"My Twitter has become so powerful that
  I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."
..Donald Trump

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

#110145

In message <SuednWNQWaN7io7HnZ2dnUU7-dOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-11-20 01:58, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <kemdnQxcdazBeYzHnZ2dnUU7-d9QAAAA@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2017-11-19 14:03, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <J6WdnVS9ZNRwJYzHnZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-11-18 23:12, Lewis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Folders can have their own window in the OS X Finder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, they cannot. Never have been able to in OS X and still can't in
>>>>>> macOS.
>>>>
>>>>> What are you on about?  Finder is displayed in a window.  If that is at
>>>>> folder level, then it's a Finder window for that folder.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps had you bothered to read the rest of the message.
>> 
>>> Oh yes - very contradictory.  You can't write a clear reply, I guess.
>> 
>> *MY* post was clear, you chose not to read it.

> No.  You left a dangling bit of muck there.  Should have qualified it.

You read one sentence and ignored the rest.

You are free to have the last word now.

-- 
It's against my programming to impersonate a deity.

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

#110147

On 2017-11-20 15:24, Lewis wrote:
> In message <SuednWNQWaN7io7HnZ2dnUU7-dOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2017-11-20 01:58, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <kemdnQxcdazBeYzHnZ2dnUU7-d9QAAAA@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-11-19 14:03, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <J6WdnVS9ZNRwJYzHnZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2017-11-18 23:12, Lewis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Folders can have their own window in the OS X Finder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, they cannot. Never have been able to in OS X and still can't in
>>>>>>> macOS.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What are you on about?  Finder is displayed in a window.  If that is at
>>>>>> folder level, then it's a Finder window for that folder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps had you bothered to read the rest of the message.
>>>
>>>> Oh yes - very contradictory.  You can't write a clear reply, I guess.
>>>
>>> *MY* post was clear, you chose not to read it.
> 
>> No.  You left a dangling bit of muck there.  Should have qualified it.
> 
> You read one sentence and ignored the rest.
> 
> You are free to have the last word now.

I charge more than that cowboy!

-- 
"My Twitter has become so powerful that
  I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."
..Donald Trump

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

#110129

On 2017-11-19 17:01:32 +0000, Alan Browne said:
> On 2017-11-18 23:12, Lewis wrote:
>>> 
>>> Folders can have their own window in the OS X Finder
>> 
>> Nope, they cannot. Never have been able to in OS X and still can't in
>> macOS.
> 
> What are you on about?  Finder is displayed in a window.  If that is at 
> folder level, then it's a Finder window for that folder.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/dfcd54iaz428mjg/Screen%20Shot%202017-11-19%20at%2011.57.46.png 
> 

Just Lewis being the usual moronic know-nothing. It *is* very easy to 
open folders in separate Finder windows - I gave the simple 
instructions to do it.

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

#110138

On 2017-11-19, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> On 2017-11-19 17:01:32 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>> On 2017-11-18 23:12, Lewis wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Folders can have their own window in the OS X Finder
>>> 
>>> Nope, they cannot. Never have been able to in OS X and still can't in
>>> macOS.
>> 
>> What are you on about?  Finder is displayed in a window.  If that is at 
>> folder level, then it's a Finder window for that folder.
>> 
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/dfcd54iaz428mjg/Screen%20Shot%202017-11-19%20at%2011.57.46.png 
>
> Just Lewis being the usual moronic know-nothing. It *is* very easy to 
> open folders in separate Finder windows - I gave the simple 
> instructions to do it.

*WHOOSH*

-- 
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]

#110140

In message <f7euudFqgh5U2@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2017-11-19, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-11-19 17:01:32 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>>> On 2017-11-18 23:12, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Folders can have their own window in the OS X Finder
>>>> 
>>>> Nope, they cannot. Never have been able to in OS X and still can't in
>>>> macOS.
>>> 
>>> What are you on about?  Finder is displayed in a window.  If that is at 
>>> folder level, then it's a Finder window for that folder.
>>> 
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/dfcd54iaz428mjg/Screen%20Shot%202017-11-19%20at%2011.57.46.png 
>>
>> Just Lewis being the usual moronic know-nothing. It *is* very easy to 
>> open folders in separate Finder windows - I gave the simple 
>> instructions to do it.

> *WHOOSH*

Appropriate fore all of that troll's idiotic posts.

-- 
These are the thoughts that kept me out of the really good schools. --
George Carlin

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

#110103

In article <1nfnn48.15nmnlc1ykv5puN%nmassello@yahoo.com>, Neill
Massello <nmassello@yahoo.com> wrote:

> My memory is that 10.3 was the point at which I felt that OS X had
> reached feature and usability parity with OS 9 -- with much greater
> stability, of course. But I do occasionally long for the days when every
> Finder folder had its own window. 

it still does if you set it that way.

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

#110074

heron stone <heron@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> is there any really significant advantage
> for me to install 10.13
> 
> i'm pretty sure that most of the apps i depend on
> work with high sierra
> 
> i was concerned about the new file system but
> since i have all hard drives and the internal
> fusion drive, i guess i don't have to deal with it
> 
> is there any reason NOT to upgrade

I had issues with Sierra versions before 10.12.6, that Time Machine
backup disk images would get corrupted. I read complaints that this
issue jumped to High Sierra.

I am staying clear of High Sierra for now.

-- 
Mvh./Regards,    Niels Jørgen Kruse,    Vanløse, Denmark

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

#110076

On 2017-11-16, Niels Jørgen Kruse <nj_kruse@me.com> wrote:
> heron stone <heron@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> is there any really significant advantage
>> for me to install 10.13
>> 
>> i'm pretty sure that most of the apps i depend on
>> work with high sierra
>> 
>> i was concerned about the new file system but
>> since i have all hard drives and the internal
>> fusion drive, i guess i don't have to deal with it
>> 
>> is there any reason NOT to upgrade
>
> I had issues with Sierra versions before 10.12.6, that Time Machine
> backup disk images would get corrupted. I read complaints that this
> issue jumped to High Sierra.

No such problems here on multiple machines.

-- 
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]

#110083

On 2017-11-16, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2017-11-16, Niels Jørgen Kruse <nj_kruse@me.com> wrote:
>> heron stone <heron@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> is there any really significant advantage
>>> for me to install 10.13
>>> 
>>> i'm pretty sure that most of the apps i depend on
>>> work with high sierra
>>> 
>>> i was concerned about the new file system but
>>> since i have all hard drives and the internal
>>> fusion drive, i guess i don't have to deal with it
>>> 
>>> is there any reason NOT to upgrade
>>
>> I had issues with Sierra versions before 10.12.6, that Time Machine
>> backup disk images would get corrupted. I read complaints that this
>> issue jumped to High Sierra.
>
> No such problems here on multiple machines.
>
ditto: no problem with TM™ since Lion

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

#110090

heron stone <heron@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> is there any really significant advantage
> for me to install 10.13
> 
> i'm pretty sure that most of the apps i depend on
> work with high sierra

Don't assume, make sure. Almost everything that works in 10.12 also
works in 10.13, but you may find small annoyances with some apps. I
jumped in shortly after the release of 10.13.1, but I should have waited
a bit. I have upgraded most of the software that broke or bruised and
have accepted the loss of, for example, Drive Genius. But a few small
glitches remain. 

> i was concerned about the new file system but
> since i have all hard drives and the internal
> fusion drive, i guess i don't have to deal with it

APFS is the biggest new thing in 10.13, but not the only one. 

> is there any reason NOT to upgrade

There is always reason to treat change with caution -- the "if it ain't
broke" maxim. If you are somewhat adventurous, go for it. If you want
almost *no* surprises or problems, wait. 

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

#110092

Neill Massello <nmassello@yahoo.com> wrote:

> heron stone <heron@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > is there any really significant advantage
> > for me to install 10.13
> > 
> > i'm pretty sure that most of the apps i depend on
> > work with high sierra
> 
> Don't assume, make sure. Almost everything that works in 10.12 also
> works in 10.13, but you may find small annoyances with some apps.

Also major problems with some older applications.

Two compatibility problems with 10.13 have stalled me:

FileMaker Pro 11 (and 12 and 13) crash frequently. I need time to
convert a critical database to FileMaker Pro 16 and redesign several
layouts, but I have more urgent things to deal with first. (An old OS in
a VM is not an acceptable workaround in this case as the database is
used by other people and I don't want to force a complex solution on
them.)

Keynote 5.x (from iWork '09) can't do presentations. I hadn't seriously
tried later versions because they had missing features, but once I have
the last meeting in November out of the way I should have plenty of time
to get used to the latest version before meetings resume.

Both work fine in 10.12.6. Both are unsupported versions so there won't
be any application updates, but there is a possibility Apple might tweak
something in later High Sierra updates. 10.13.1 didn't help. I haven't
had time to try a prerelease 10.13.2 yet.

> I jumped in shortly after the release of 10.13.1, but I should have waited
> a bit. I have upgraded most of the software that broke or bruised and have
> accepted the loss of, for example, Drive Genius. But a few small glitches
> remain.

I did a test upgrade to High Sierra using a spare Mac with a clone of my
main computer (with an SSD so I could also test APFS), and ran several
of my most important applications to see how well they worked. I still
have many to go. Having the second computer is useful for side-by-side
comparisons (apart from performance considerations because it is an
older model).

Last year when Sierra was released, I didn't have that spare computer
yet, but I did a similar test by cloning my internal drive to a spare
hard drive, booting my main computer from that drive, upgrading it to
Sierra and testing everything. That revealed annoyances with several
older applications which weren't fixed until about 10.12.3, but I was
able to live with the remaining ones once 10.12.1 fixed some problems
and I found workarounds for others.

(That particular set of applications work fine in 10.13.)

> > i was concerned about the new file system but
> > since i have all hard drives and the internal
> > fusion drive, i guess i don't have to deal with it

Yet.

Apple was planning to enable APFS for fusion drives but pulled it before
High Sierra was released. If they resolve the remaining issues quickly
enough, they might auto convert fusion drives to APFS in a subsequent
minor update of High Sierra. If you do have any applications which have
compatibility problems with APFS, you might not notice until you get
bitten by a later software update.

The situation is less clear for hard drives: Apple might never auto
convert them to APFS, or might do that for the startup drive in a later
minor version of High Sierra, or leave it until a future major version.

I doubt Apple will auto-convert non-startup drives because they have no
way of knowing if you also use the drive with Macs running older OS
versions that can't handle APFS.

Time Machine drives are almost certainly going to stay on HFS+ for the
duration of High Sierra. When Apple does get TM-on-APFS working, they
might not bother with the complex task of converting an existing HFS+ TM
drive to APFS (untangling the hard links) - it would make more sense to
use APFS on new TM backup drives and keep using HFS+ on existing ones
(which also addresses the case of an existing TM drive being shared with
other Macs running older OS versions).

> APFS is the biggest new thing in 10.13, but not the only one. 

Neither of my show stoppers were due to APFS. They also happen on HFS+.

I haven't noticed any APFS-specific compatibility problems with my
applications (in limited testing), apart from obvious ones like disk
repair utilities.

> > is there any reason NOT to upgrade
> 
> There is always reason to treat change with caution -- the "if it ain't
> broke" maxim. If you are somewhat adventurous, go for it. If you want
> almost *no* surprises or problems, wait. 

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#110094

Neill Massello <nmassello@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > i was concerned about the new file system but
> > since i have all hard drives and the internal
> > fusion drive, i guess i don't have to deal with it

> APFS is the biggest new thing in 10.13, but not the only one. 

> > is there any reason NOT to upgrade

> There is always reason to treat change with caution -- the "if it ain't
> broke" maxim. If you are somewhat adventurous, go for it. If you want
> almost *no* surprises or problems, wait. 

Ditto. Mac OS High Sierra v10.3 is still new, so it will have issues. A 
very important part before doing big changes like this: BACKUP AND 
OFTEN. Also, it's good to have multiple backups. I always run into 
issues, small and big. Nothing major though like a drive corruption. :)

-- 
Quote of the Week: "I go out of my way to avoid stepping on ants." --Terry McGovern, daughter of Senator George and Eleanor McGovern, subject of the book "Terry by her father"
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\          Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
 / /\ /\ \                 Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /    Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
    ( )     ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

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

#110099

On 2017-11-18, Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
> Neill Massello <nmassello@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> i was concerned about the new file system but since i have all hard
>>> drives and the internal fusion drive, i guess i don't have to deal
>>> with it
>
>> APFS is the biggest new thing in 10.13, but not the only one. 
>
>> > is there any reason NOT to upgrade
>
>> There is always reason to treat change with caution -- the "if it
>> ain't broke" maxim. If you are somewhat adventurous, go for it. If
>> you want almost *no* surprises or problems, wait. 
>
> Ditto. Mac OS High Sierra v10.3

No. macOS 10.3 was called Panther. It's macoS v10.13 High Sierra; 

-- 
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] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web