Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Yosemite!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    on the landline, Mr. Smith
    Posts
    7,787

    Default Yosemite!

    Wow, 10.10 is here. Snuck up on me a bit, been busy. Just installed it on the first test box: A 2010 i7 MBP.

    First thoughts -

    New "flat" look will take some getting used to. Is it better or worse? Time will tell, and personal preferences will vary. I like it overall as I am a fan of clean and simple, but reserve the right to use it for a month or so to decide.

    New System Pref Pane: Extensions.

    New Safari is notably faster, and different interface. Will have to use it for while to decide if it is better...or just different.

    Running nicely on the 3 year old machine with only 2 GB of RAM. Not bad!

    More to come, please add your thoughts here too.

    A nice summary of the long article here:

    The visual changes are also why Yosemite may feel like a more significant upgrade than Mavericks. For people who value being on the cutting edge of both fashion and technology, this will make Yosemite more attractive. For others, it will inspire some additional upgrade caution. Among the biggest curmudgeons, Mavericks may even become the new Snow Leopard: the last “good” release before Apple ruined everything.

    In truth, Yosemite’s new look is not a signifier of any particular fitness (or lack thereof) for upgrade purposes. The standard rules apply. Don’t upgrade until all the applications you care about are compatible. Make sure you have good backups. Point-zero releases are always a little more risky. Wait for version 10.10.1 if you’re nervous.

    I’ve been upgrading all my Macs sooner after each OS X release for the past several years and have not regretted it. When it comes to stability, it feels like Apple is really hitting its stride with these yearly releases. Mavericks has been very solid for me. I’m optimistic about the long-term stability and compatibility prospects for Yosemite. As for bugs like the Mavericks Gmail problems, I have some hope that the public beta program has helped root them out before release.
    "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    on the landline, Mr. Smith
    Posts
    7,787

    Default

    Interesting file system info:

    After installing Yosemite, our simple HFS+ volume has now become the lone Logical Volume in a newly created Core Storage Logical Volume Group....

    Core Storage was introduced in OS X 10.7 Lion, ostensibly to support the new, vastly improved FileVault, Apple’s whole-disk encryption system. Given the lamentable state of file system technology at Apple, Core Storage was a beacon of hope in 2011. OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion came and went in 2012 without any advancement on the file system front, but Apple had a surprise in store for us before the year was out: Fusion Drive, also powered by Core Storage.

    Here we are in 2014, and HFS+ is still going strong. Yet here’s Core Storage once again, this time without any obvious purpose. Examination of the listing above reveals that installing Yosemite does not automatically enable FileVault encryption, and Fusion Drive isn’t involved at all in a single-volume installation scenario.

    FileVault, Fusion Drive, and the diskutil man page provide ample evidence of Core Storage’s capabilities and purpose, but technical information has been hard to come by. As far as I’m aware, there is no direct, public API for Core Storage, so a lack of external technical documentation is not surprising. The limited implementation details about Core Storage provided by Apple make clear that it does include features found in many modern file systems: redundant storage of metadata ("ditto blocks" in ZFS parlance) and copy-on-write B-trees (shades of Btrfs)—diminished though they may be by the eventual layering of HFS+ on top of Core Storage.
    Given that Core Storage is a prerequisite for both FileVault and Fusion Drive, and given that FileVault encryption is now offered as an option during system setup, the boring explanation for this move is that it just makes sense to apply Core Storage by default—if only to avoid a second reboot needed to convert the volume to Core Storage if the user chooses to enable FileVault during the OS installation process.

    But I don’t like the boring explanation. In the absence of any contradictory truths, I choose to believe that this default application of Core Storage is at least partially intended to lay the groundwork for a future in-place conversion of HFS+ volumes to a new, superior file system from Apple. (And if you think I’m Charlie Brown to Apple’s football-holding Lucy on this topic, remember that persistence is sometimes rewarded…)

    [Update: Here’s one contradictory truth. Core Storage is not applied to all installation targets. For example, installing onto an external hard drive will not convert the volume to Core Storage.]

    Hmmm.....so perhaps there is some movement for a new(er) file system. After teasing us with the possibility of ZFS......only to change directions and abandon their ZFS work (and have some of the key team members leave for other ZFS projects), it is good to see some movement. Towards something new...I hope!
    "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Grangeville, ID USA
    Posts
    9,142

    Default

    Looks like there are considerable hurdles to upgrading to Yosemite when BootCamp is present. I tried last night and the installer loops back and says can't cause Bootcamp would be deleted. Silly, no excuse for the OS to effect the bootcamp partition. Looks like the best most reasonable path is to backup the Bootcamp partition with WinClone, then delete the partition, install Yosemite with a FAT32 partition, repartition to NTFS and drop the WinClone backup on it. Messy.

    Lots of stuff lately seems un-Appleish. USB 3 bus and all its quirks. Thunderbolt and all the weird sleep stuff. Bootcamp and only support for limited Windows versions. Bootcamp drivers that don't include full keyboard maps, or display brightness. They get the big stuff and seem to miss a lot of small.
    molṑn labe'
    "I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil."
--Ben Franklin

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Grangeville, ID USA
    Posts
    9,142

    Default

    Got through all the upgrading to Yosemite and Windows 8.1. Believe it or not, Windows does a better job of setting up an upgrade with the download saved. When the Apple updater to Yosemite stopped because of the Bootcamp partition, the installer disappears and the 5+ GB installer has to be downloaded again. When the Windows update stopped because a Bootcamp driver needed updating, after doing the Bootcamp drivers the Windows updater continued where it left off. Very nice on Microsoft part, bad on Apple.

    Method I used to update when Bootcamp was blocking the install.

    Since Yosemite install destroys the Bootcamp partition the method I used was 1) made a Winclone backup, then 2) used Bootcamp Assistant to delete the Bootcamp partition. 3) Did the update, 4) used Disk Utility to add a FAT32 partition to my internal flash drive in the MacPro and then 5) restored Windows using Winclone. Winclone is SLICK!

    Everything is up and running fine. Computer has some weird delays - little stuff like typing a bunch of characters into this forum window and having them appears a couple seconds later. Indications to me that Yosemite is all that efficient yet. I turned off Spotlight, so hopefully it isn't that.

    More to follow.

    Rick
    molṑn labe'
    "I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil."
--Ben Franklin

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    on the landline, Mr. Smith
    Posts
    7,787

    Default

    Delays.....I see them mostly when waking from sleep. Takes quite a while: up to maybe 30 seconds some times. Wondering if it might be anemic 2GB in this test box. Biggest gripe so far.

    More testing to come.

    Good to hear WinClone is still going strong. a real life saver.
    "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Grangeville, ID USA
    Posts
    9,142

    Default

    Weirdest delay I get is that when I open an old email it can take 30, 40 or more seconds to populate the email itself. It pops right up who it came from and went to and the subject and date lines, then takes a long time to pull the body. Very weird.

    I guess a 2013 MacPro is overwhelmed. In most other non Apple applications behavior is normal. Just some of the Apple stuff. Oh, and typing on the new Safari - I am still seeing a delay now and then.

    Rick
    molṑn labe'
    "I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil."
--Ben Franklin

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    81

    Default

    I read somewhere that Yosemite updates the firmware of the computer, making any reversion to Mavericks difficult. It's not the reversion I'm concerned about but the ability to run my older OSs:

    In my 2008 Mac Pro (8-core), I also have a Snow Leopard drive, a Mountain Lion OS which is mainly for document storage with an OS thrown in as an extra bonus.

    1) I don't want to lose access to those boot drives if this new firmware update rejects them. Is this true about the firmware thing, and would installing Yosemite present a problem such as this?

    I recently set up a new main drive with Mavericks that I use now. I named it Yosemite as I intended it would become the updated Yosemite OS after I had cloned it as Mavericks to an empty drive just in case.

    If this firmware thing is true and will botch things up, I may stay on Mavericks as it is running fine. Ditto if Yosemite would be pushing it for a 2008 Mac Pro. So my question if I stay with Mavericks is:

    2) Would changing the hard drive's name (Yosemite) back to Mavericks (in the event it will never become Yosemite) screw up any file paths where I should just leave it as Yosemite, or do they adjust?

    3) Anyone try Yosemite on a 2008 Mac Pro?

    Thank you.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Grangeville, ID USA
    Posts
    9,142

    Default

    I will be adding Yose to a 2009. Don't have a 2008 any longer...


    Drive name matters not. The OS will adjust - only place might be some sym links you can fix. I copy OS installs all the time to drives with different names - they pretty much work identically regardless of what they are called.
    molṑn labe'
    "I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil."
--Ben Franklin

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Thanks Ricks. What about the firmware thing...would that pose any problem to me being able to still boot from the internal disks with older OS such as Snow Leopard, if needed?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ricks View Post
    I copy OS installs all the time to drives with different names - they pretty much work identically regardless of what they are called.
    The names Yosemite and Mavericks was just for me to keep track of which was which, at a glance.

    I know the OS doesn't care about what the drive is called... I just didn't want path problems since paths are associated with the current name if the name is changed midstream.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    on the landline, Mr. Smith
    Posts
    7,787

    Default

    Don't think there is anything to the firmware rumor.

    Firmware is literally s separate beast, it is handled model by model, based on hardware. Similar to BIOS updates on a PC.

    Will boot to couple older OSes to confirm no issues.

    ---

    Did my test box update with an existing Win 7 boot camp install.....no issues here. Just a test OS install, so I could blow it up, but it still boots and looks fine.
    "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •