Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > macOS High Sierra

macOS High Sierra (Page 3)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2017, 08:30 PM
 
@P
I've gotta hand it to you, but you were right on the money when you said that EMIB would be a big deal. Although in my defense, who could have foreseen that hell would freeze over and AMD would sell GPUs to Intel?

The new chips have Apple written all over them. Given Apple's high-profile hire of AMD GPU czar Raja Koduri, this partnership seems to be a marriage with a limited expiration date, though … 
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50  (op)
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 01:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The App Store downloaded High Sierra (10.13.1.05) I've been holding off for APFS support for Fusion drives. Anyone with a Fusion drive install HS?
Just did an update from 10.13.0 to 10.13.1 on my HS test partition. It took longer than I expected, but there was no APFS conversion. This is a hard drive partition.

Disk Utility has a "Convert to APFS..." command, but it was disabled for all my system partitions. It was willing to convert a data partition. I don't have another HS partition to check it against. And admittedly, I didn't wipe the partition and do a fresh 10.13.1 install to be absolutely sure.

Best guess: they're not ready on Fusion yet. If they'd whipped the bugs for Fusion drives, I would expect them to go all-in with HDDs too.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@P
I've gotta hand it to you, but you were right on the money when you said that EMIB would be a big deal. Although in my defense, who could have foreseen that hell would freeze over and AMD would sell GPUs to Intel?
Intel is more customer driven than you think. If they develop something like EMIB, it is because some big customer asked for it. That big customer probably also pushed AMD. And yes, we both know who that customer is...

I think AMD sees their future as someone who makes specialized chips, much like the console SOCs. The GPU they’re selling is in all likelihood a high-margin product, and it is something to be proud of. I think AMD needs that too, for recruitment purposes.

The new chips have Apple written all over them. Given Apple's high-profile hire of AMD GPU czar Raja Koduri, this partnership seems to be a marriage with a limited expiration date, though … 
Oh, they absolutely have Apple written all over them.

This partnership has some life in it yet, though - if Intel starts making a GPU now, as seems likely, it will launch in 4 years or so. A lot can happen in four years - back in 2013, AMDs Radeon 290 was toe-to-toe with nVidias much larger and more expensive original Titan, and it looked like they had the upper hand as NVidia cancelled most of their Kepler refresh and delayed the next generation Maxwell cards. Now, AMD has finally launched their much-delayed new high-end card, after ceding that sector for 18 months to NVidia alone, and that high end card is a bit of a dud. NVidia is riding high with record profits and seems unstoppable.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 06:25 PM
 
@P
Agreed. I just couldn’t see AMD partnering with Intel on that. But that shows that Apple will stick with Intel for its Macs for at least another few years. Once Intel’s own GPU is done in about 4 years time, I reckon the shelf life of the AMD-Intel deal will expire. I’m very curious to see how good the first products will be and whether they make it into a laptop in their first revision. (It seems that the estimated combined TDP is about 55 W, which seems a bit hot for a laptop and more suitable for an iMac.)

Regarding NVIDIA vs. AMD in the GPU space, I would add that NVIDIA has made significant inroads into the server compute market, which just like with CPUs is much more profitable than the consumer market. Plus, NVIDIA has been investing in the automotive market with its autonomous driving platform whereas AMD has nothing to compete with that. AMD is in a tough spot, and their Zen-based product gave them a little reprieve — that AMD hopefully uses to improve its whole product line. For example, I haven’t heard much about their ARM-based server efforts anymore, and looking beyond the horizon a little, this is where the next battle will be. Qualcomm just released a serious ARM-based 48-core monster (in terms of die size) fabbed in Samsung’s 10 nm process, so EPYC will not just have to fend off Xeons but also ARM-based chips.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Just did an update from 10.13.0 to 10.13.1 on my HS test partition. It took longer than I expected, but there was no APFS conversion. This is a hard drive partition.

Disk Utility has a "Convert to APFS..." command, but it was disabled for all my system partitions. It was willing to convert a data partition. I don't have another HS partition to check it against. And admittedly, I didn't wipe the partition and do a fresh 10.13.1 install to be absolutely sure.

Best guess: they're not ready on Fusion yet. If they'd whipped the bugs for Fusion drives, I would expect them to go all-in with HDDs too.
OK, I update to HS. I discovered the free Final Cut X (10.1.4) I got from my brother's mega purchase from Amazon is unusable. It looks like I will need to save my pennies and buy the latest version from the app store.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 03:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@P
Agreed. I just couldn’t see AMD partnering with Intel on that. But that shows that Apple will stick with Intel for its Macs for at least another few years. Once Intel’s own GPU is done in about 4 years time, I reckon the shelf life of the AMD-Intel deal will expire. I’m very curious to see how good the first products will be and whether they make it into a laptop in their first revision. (It seems that the estimated combined TDP is about 55 W, which seems a bit hot for a laptop and more suitable for an iMac.)
The Intel/AMD deal will have to die in some way in four years time, but Intel will still need a license for GPU patents for some time longer.

TDP: The combined TDP for the CPU and GPU of the current 15" MBP is 75W. Now, I would argue that it can't actually manage that, as there are situations where running both at max will make one throttle, and it probably only works because max GPU power is rarely combined with max CPU power in the form of vector graphics, but OTOH... One of the early leaked samples has 24 CUs, a 50% increase from the Radeon 560 in the current model. The amount of memory also implies that it is a pretty decent GPU. I could maybe see that all fitting inside 75W, but not 55W.

At the same time, I think that we will see a 100W model (because that is what the older MXM standard could support), but even that won't be enough for the iMac. Remember that the iMacs are at 175-200W combined TDP right now, and the iMac Pro seems set to exceed that.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Regarding NVIDIA vs. AMD in the GPU space, I would add that NVIDIA has made significant inroads into the server compute market, which just like with CPUs is much more profitable than the consumer market. Plus, NVIDIA has been investing in the automotive market with its autonomous driving platform whereas AMD has nothing to compete with that. AMD is in a tough spot, and their Zen-based product gave them a little reprieve — that AMD hopefully uses to improve its whole product line. For example, I haven’t heard much about their ARM-based server efforts anymore, and looking beyond the horizon a little, this is where the next battle will be. Qualcomm just released a serious ARM-based 48-core monster (in terms of die size) fabbed in Samsung’s 10 nm process, so EPYC will not just have to fend off Xeons but also ARM-based chips.
Oh yes, NVidia is doing great in the server market. Maxwell, the design that they revealed in 2014, was the step in the right direction that they needed, and they're building on that now with Pascal and Volta. They do appear to have trouble working with other people though - they have been kicked out of several self-driving car projects, and the latest I heard the reason their GPUs are banned from future Macs is because they refuse to share driver code with Apple.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 04:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The Intel/AMD deal will have to die in some way in four years time, but Intel will still need a license for GPU patents for some time longer.
Becoming an IP shop is not a good place to be unless you are also competitive in the long term. AMD might get squeezed out by Intel and nVidia.
Originally Posted by P View Post
TDP: The combined TDP for the CPU and GPU of the current 15" MBP is 75W. Now, I would argue that it can't actually manage that, as there are situations where running both at max will make one throttle, and it probably only works because max GPU power is rarely combined with max CPU power in the form of vector graphics, but OTOH... One of the early leaked samples has 24 CUs, a 50% increase from the Radeon 560 in the current model. The amount of memory also implies that it is a pretty decent GPU. I could maybe see that all fitting inside 75W, but not 55W.
Don't forget, though, that now CPU and GPU are in close proximity, so it may actually be harder to cool 55 W with one fan than 75 W with two fans. Probably, they will implement some dynamic cooperative throttling so that, say, 55 W are not exceeded even if the CPU or GPU by itself can convert, say, 35 W into heat each.
Originally Posted by P View Post
At the same time, I think that we will see a 100W model (because that is what the older MXM standard could support), but even that won't be enough for the iMac. Remember that the iMacs are at 175-200W combined TDP right now, and the iMac Pro seems set to exceed that.
Once we go past 100 W, I don't see the advantage of putting CPU, GPU and memory onto one chip. The fact that it is smaller might now become a disadvantage, and with desktop designs, you are much less constrained by space anyway. On the desktop, I see the role of AMD's discrete GPU to replace Intel's weaker integrated GPU, and slot in between a “proper” discrete GPU (with more TDP headroom) and Intel's integrated graphics.
Originally Posted by P View Post
Oh yes, NVidia is doing great in the server market. Maxwell, the design that they revealed in 2014, was the step in the right direction that they needed, and they're building on that now with Pascal and Volta.
Don't forget the software-side of the story, it seems CUDA has really been adopted by a few important niche communities to accelerate computations.
Originally Posted by P View Post
They do appear to have trouble working with other people though - they have been kicked out of several self-driving car projects, and the latest I heard the reason their GPUs are banned from future Macs is because they refuse to share driver code with Apple.
I hadn't heard that tidbit, although I am not surprised given their strained relationship with the Linux community. In the automotive sector, I do hope they get their act together, because the SoCs they have on offer are infinitely more powerful than the “entertainment systems” you find even in high-end cars these days.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50  (op)
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 04:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
... and the latest I heard the reason their GPUs are banned from future Macs is because they refuse to share driver code with Apple.
I was under the impression Apple is pissed at nVidia due to patent trolling lawsuits. And they'd presumably be welcomed back as soon as they stopped trying to shake down other parties for unearned cash.

Do you have a link for them refusing to share driver code? That sounds interesting, and distinctly concerning for any OS vendor.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 07:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Do you have a link for them refusing to share driver code? That sounds interesting, and distinctly concerning for any OS vendor.
This is especially troubling given how closely Apple integrates its hard- and software stack, and I can see how this would be a deal breaker for Apple.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Becoming an IP shop is not a good place to be unless you are also competitive in the long term. AMD might get squeezed out by Intel and nVidia.
Nope, that is certainly not good. It is simply a way to delay the inevitable.

Don't forget, though, that now CPU and GPU are in close proximity, so it may actually be harder to cool 55 W with one fan than 75 W with two fans. Probably, they will implement some dynamic cooperative throttling so that, say, 55 W are not exceeded even if the CPU or GPU by itself can convert, say, 35 W into heat each.
Right now, the 13" MBP with Touchbar has two fans and two radiators, each radiator connected by a heatpipe to the same heatsink over the CPU. This is what Apple could do with these chips. The 15" has a very similar setup, except that there are two heatsinks - one each for CPU and GPU. This means that if the CPU is going full blast and the GPU is idling, all of the cooling capacity can go to the CPU - somewhat similar to how it works in the trashcan Mac Pro.

But this setup has a major problem, which I think is what caused Apple to abandon the trashcan design: Intel's thermal throttling algorithm. Intel will not throttle at a fixed temperature - it will actually throttle sooner if the temperature rises while the CPU uses only a little power. This may sound insane, but Intel's logic is that if the cooling system cannot keep the CPU cool when it is using very little power, then the cooling system is broken and it needs to throttle to compensate. The problem is when something else is heating up the heatsink. If the CPU is mostly idling while the GPU is running hot, the temperature on the heatsink can increase to the point where the CPU starts to throttle. This will starve the GPU, causing it to slow down from a lack of data to work on. The only way to make this work is that make sure that the temperature of the heatsink always stays below the LOWER throttling temperature, which means a lot of extra cooling.

The fix it probably exactly what you say - have the two chips communicate with each other about their power usage and thermal needs. EMIB can be a way to do that.

Once we go past 100 W, I don't see the advantage of putting CPU, GPU and memory onto one chip. The fact that it is smaller might now become a disadvantage, and with desktop designs, you are much less constrained by space anyway. On the desktop, I see the role of AMD's discrete GPU to replace Intel's weaker integrated GPU, and slot in between a “proper” discrete GPU (with more TDP headroom) and Intel's integrated graphics.
This idea is for laptops only for now, agreed. Intel will put them in a NUC as well (Mac mini-sized computer), but that's it.

Don't forget the software-side of the story, it seems CUDA has really been adopted by a few important niche communities to accelerate computations.
I know. I never could understand why it is used over OpenCL, but it seems people begun learning CUDA and using nVidia cards and just didn't want to switch when - surprise, surprise - OpenCL ran worse on nVidia cards.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 08:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I was under the impression Apple is pissed at nVidia due to patent trolling lawsuits. And they'd presumably be welcomed back as soon as they stopped trying to shake down other parties for unearned cash.

Do you have a link for them refusing to share driver code? That sounds interesting, and distinctly concerning for any OS vendor.
Rumor only, Apple would never share that information.

The general idea was that patent trolling was what kicked this off, but nVidia has stopped trolling now (because they lost badly against Samsung), so that argument doesn't apply anymore. If nVidia were OK again, Apple would put one of their cards as an option in the iMac to keep them happy - especially as they could fit something like a 1070 in there on thermals, and AMD didn't have anything to match that until the very delayed Vega release. There must be something else holding it up, and this has emerged as the new most likely answer.

As Oreo says, nVidia's actions regarding Linux drivers lend some support to this. Part of the secret source of how Maxwell achieved its efficiency increase (dynamic tiling) was figured out by David Kanter of RealWorldTech. AMD has now tried to implement the same thing in Vega with limited success, and nVidia may be worried that their driver source might leak details of how they did it. Note that Apple never used Maxwell graphics. Even when they stuck by nVidia, they used the previous generation (Kepler) for much longer than made sense.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2017, 06:50 PM
 
@P
Regarding AMD, I am still surprised that Apple didn’t just buy them a while back. Even the CPU- and GPU-related IP seems completely worth it on its own.

About NVIDIA drivers, I can’t help but think that Apple’s ventures into building its own GPU also contributed to that: surely there was scuttlebutt about Apple’s effort in the industry long before they became accepted as plausible by the mainstream (e. g. when friends and family were hired by Apple). NVIDIA might have felt that it would hand them valuable ideas on how to make their own graphics chips and graphics drivers faster.

Not to re-heat the Macs running ARM discussion, but rumor is that the iPad Pro gets an 8 = 3 fast + 5 slow core SoC. I would really like someone to run the new SPECmarks on the A11 or A11X and compare that to Intel’s offerings. (Why doesn’t Anandtech do that anymore? Are there any other sites that do?)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 07:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@P
Regarding AMD, I am still surprised that Apple didn’t just buy them a while back. Even the CPU- and GPU-related IP seems completely worth it on its own.
It is totally worth it. The even more likely buyer is MS, actually (both for the Xbox and for the Surface business), but they won't do it. There is a poison pill in the x86 licensing agreement, so AMD loses its x86 license if they change owners. The possible workaround is to spin off RTG (Radeon Technology Group, who makes the graphics cards) with a license back to AMD and sell that to someone, but I think AMD keeps that as the last resort.

There is also a small chance that someone could buy AMD if they made a deal with Intel first so Intel does not execute its right to terminate the x86 license. I don't know what sort of leverage you'd need to do that, though.

About NVIDIA drivers, I can’t help but think that Apple’s ventures into building its own GPU also contributed to that: surely there was scuttlebutt about Apple’s effort in the industry long before they became accepted as plausible by the mainstream (e. g. when friends and family were hired by Apple). NVIDIA might have felt that it would hand them valuable ideas on how to make their own graphics chips and graphics drivers faster.
Oh, absolutely. Raja Koduri, former head of RTG and star of the first post on this page, was at Apple for a few years before moving back to AMD. I'm pretty sure nVidia keeps track of guys like him.

Not to re-heat the Macs running ARM discussion, but rumor is that the iPad Pro gets an 8 = 3 fast + 5 slow core SoC. I would really like someone to run the new SPECmarks on the A11 or A11X and compare that to Intel’s offerings. (Why doesn’t Anandtech do that anymore? Are there any other sites that do?)
I want that too. I'm not sure why Anandtech stopped, but I suspect it is because Anand Lal Shimpi himself left and sold the company (to go do competitive analysis at Apple) and the new owners don't want to spend the reporter time it would take to do one of his deep analysis posts. It is a real hole in the market place right now.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2017, 08:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
It is totally worth it. The even more likely buyer is MS, actually (both for the Xbox and for the Surface business), but they won't do it. There is a poison pill in the x86 licensing agreement, so AMD loses its x86 license if they change owners.
If Apple were to buy AMD, they could just do it for the talent and the patents. Just imagine an ARM-based server chip, that'd be right up AMD's alley. The GPU guys could be sprinkled in where needed, Apple's GPU division or the groups who design the various other coprocessors.
Originally Posted by P View Post
The possible workaround is to spin off RTG (Radeon Technology Group, who makes the graphics cards) with a license back to AMD and sell that to someone, but I think AMD keeps that as the last resort.
What about a cross-licensing deal where post-acquisition-AMD gives all (or the important bits) of its GPU-related IP and retains the right to make x86 cores?
Originally Posted by P View Post
I want that too. I'm not sure why Anandtech stopped, but I suspect it is because Anand Lal Shimpi himself left and sold the company (to go do competitive analysis at Apple) and the new owners don't want to spend the reporter time it would take to do one of his deep analysis posts. It is a real hole in the market place right now.
It's quite sad, because those were the reviews I looked forward to the most. Especially now I'd like to see a better, more nuanced comparison than Geekbench between a MacBook Pro and an iPhone 8/X. (That's a pretty insane sentence to write.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
And.reg
The Mighty
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Well the sports issue was within arm's reach but they closed up shop and kicked me out. And I'm out of toilet paper.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2017, 09:45 AM
 
And here is another example of the limited power of Siri:

This one time, at Boot Camp, I stuck a flute up my PC.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2017, 09:37 PM
 
     
mindwaves
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2017, 10:14 PM
 
Weird, I just "upgraded" my Mac yesterday to it. I have had no major issues with this release, just one of my messaging programs would hang when enlarging images. I updated the app and all is OK.
{{{ mindwaves }}}
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 04:38 AM
 
It's patched already.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 05:04 PM
 
The patch breaks file sharing. Luckily, there's a fix for that.
     
reader50  (op)
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 06:18 PM
 
Looks like a fix-permissions step got skipped in the rush to get the security update out.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 06:26 PM
 
Yeah. This whole thing has been oddly sloppy for Apple.
     
And.reg
The Mighty
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Well the sports issue was within arm's reach but they closed up shop and kicked me out. And I'm out of toilet paper.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 08:27 PM
 
Oh my gosh if only Steve Jobs was still CEO and saw this going on... He'd be going Gordon Ramsay at those meetings...

And with that, I think that I've proven my point, year after year, that the OSs have lots of obvious bugs that Apple does not care to fix, and should be publicly recognized. (And let's not forget all of the bugs in iOS, including one in the Calculator app, which is a very big deal for my students since I teach tech math and algebra and calculators are required on their finals.)
This one time, at Boot Camp, I stuck a flute up my PC.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2017, 10:51 PM
 
Aaaaaand it's back.
(Seriously, WTF is going at Apple?)
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017, 04:30 AM
 
That is an excellent question to ask this week, with the original bug and iPhones crashing due to notification bugs, but that particular thing is a bit overblown. Installing updates out of order makes the fix to be undone, but the only way to get that is to be on 10.13.0, get the autopatch and then update to 10.13.1. Who does that? Not enough of an attack surface for an attacker to bother with.

And anyway, the patch will auto-install again soon enough.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017, 04:44 AM
 
Nevertheless, it is an oversight, and they should have replaced the 10.13.1 update here to integrate the patch.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017, 06:41 AM
 
Certainly, but compared to the oversight of leaving this bug in there since the first public beta, this one is minor.

It seems Apple has decided to change its testing regimen to focus on more beta testing and less of unit testing and regression testing. Clearly that isn't working out.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
reader50  (op)
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 01:49 AM
 
Possible bug in Disk Utility under HS. This was done under HFS+, macOS 10.13.2, with 150+ GB of free HDD space.

I have a vanilla disk image, read/write - though it is encrypted. I've resized it larger in the past. This time, Disk Utility initially showed it as 818 KB in the size selector. I shrugged it off and selected 225 MB. It took quite awhile, and ended up 57 GB. If I choose resize image again, the size selector comes up as 225 MB, and if I choose "go", it immediately indicates success. Real size, still 57 GB.

I ended up creating a new image at 250 MB, just so I won't have to resize again soon. Cloned the old volume to the new, and deleted the 57 GB monster. But that was weird.
     
And.reg
The Mighty
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Well the sports issue was within arm's reach but they closed up shop and kicked me out. And I'm out of toilet paper.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2018, 01:32 PM
 
How do I get the music controls in the Touch Bar to always reference the YouTube video that is playing so that I can Play/Pause even if I do not bring Safari window to the foreground/active state? I used to be able to do this in 10.12. But since going to 10.13, it's not consistent.
This one time, at Boot Camp, I stuck a flute up my PC.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2018, 01:22 PM
 
It’s never been that way on my machine, ever. Bought it with Sierra installed.
     
And.reg
The Mighty
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Well the sports issue was within arm's reach but they closed up shop and kicked me out. And I'm out of toilet paper.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2018, 02:31 PM
 
Well then how come, when I'm in Safari with YouTube tab and then two others not YouTube, and with iTunes open, the right triangle toward the right on the Touch Bar does not always play what is in iTunes, and the iTunes controls are not consistently available? How come the little bar graph in a circle icon sometimes does not display either? I should be able to have control over my iTunes music from the Touch Bar, but instead of that, I have control for a YouTube video (and even then, the Play button sometimes doesn't do anything anyway!), and I have to click on the iTunes dock icon and press Play manually to get it to play music. Why is it like that?
This one time, at Boot Camp, I stuck a flute up my PC.
     
And.reg
The Mighty
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Well the sports issue was within arm's reach but they closed up shop and kicked me out. And I'm out of toilet paper.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2018, 09:32 PM
 
And here are some problems that I have with Safari's "history":

1. Why does Safari keep a few days of history even though I have explicitly told Safari to remove these items after one day?



2. And why, when I select one of these items to a YouTube link, either from earlier today or another day, does Safari actually not load that webpage but a different one?
This one time, at Boot Camp, I stuck a flute up my PC.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2018, 02:25 AM
 
Maybe you are using different settings on different devices? Your history is usually synced over iCloud, and if you have a different history retention setting on your iPhone, that may actually override this setting. Or, it could just be a bug
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50  (op)
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2018, 03:53 AM
 
10.13.3 update applied. Still no APFS conversion on my HDD system. I do have multiple partitions, which may deter the auto converter.

Has anyone with HDD or Fusion seen an auto APFS conversion yet?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2018, 05:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by And.reg View Post
And here are some problems that I have with Safari's "history":

1. Why does Safari keep a few days of history even though I have explicitly told Safari to remove these items after one day?



2. And why, when I select one of these items to a YouTube link, either from earlier today or another day, does Safari actually not load that webpage but a different one?
1) Things are removed 24 hours after you viewed them last, but if you went to say this exact thread every day for five days, it would show up in the list five times.

2) Well, that is hard to answer without seeing the exact link, but Google does funny things with its servers.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
And.reg
The Mighty
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Well the sports issue was within arm's reach but they closed up shop and kicked me out. And I'm out of toilet paper.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2018, 07:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
1) Things are removed 24 hours after you viewed them last, but if you went to say this exact thread every day for five days, it would show up in the list five times.
Not in previous iterations of macOS that I can recall from my memory. If you tell Safari, clear this list after 24 hours, you can't go back to see anything two days old or three days old or more than three days old.

Yes I do have iCloud and iPhone with syncing, but that still doesn't provide transparency to explain this "mystery" setting.
This one time, at Boot Camp, I stuck a flute up my PC.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2018, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
10.13.3 update applied. Still no APFS conversion on my HDD system. I do have multiple partitions, which may deter the auto converter.

Has anyone with HDD or Fusion seen an auto APFS conversion yet?
You absolutely, positively, do NOT want APFS running on a rotating hard drive.

http://docs.macsysadmin.se/2017/video/Day3Session4.mp4
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2018, 09:30 PM
 
Nice link, Spheric, thanks!
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50  (op)
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2018, 02:32 AM
 
If a way is provided or created to add file checksums, I absolutely want APFS running on my HDDs. I'll take the performance hit in exchange for the peace of mind. File checksums aren't going to appear on HFS+.

When we transitioned from OS9 to OSX, we took a speed hit. It was inevitable on single-threaded tasks, going from a mostly single-threaded OS to a natively multi-threaded OS. Faster systems and more cores presently made the concern moot.

When we transitioned from PPC to x86, there was a performance hit. The new Intel code wasn't as optimized, and had a few more bugs. Time fixed that one too.

Initial performance penalties with APFS on HDDs aren't worth writing them off. Now when the price of flash finally corrects, making HDDs uneconomic, then we can write them off.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2018, 03:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
If a way is provided or created to add file checksums, I absolutely want APFS running on my HDDs. I'll take the performance hit in exchange for the peace of mind. File checksums aren't going to appear on HFS+.
Agreed. I use spinning platter hard drives for my backups, and speed is only a tertiary concern.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
When we transitioned from PPC to x86, there was a performance hit. The new Intel code wasn't as optimized, and had a few more bugs. Time fixed that one too.
I would say this was “fixed immediately” since Intel CPUs were soooo much faster than the G4 that was in all of the mobile Macs at the time.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Initial performance penalties with APFS on HDDs aren't worth writing them off. Now when the price of flash finally corrects, making HDDs uneconomic, then we can write them off.
APFS is still in its early stages. Especially for a file system I 100 % take robustness and slow, steady improvements over overaggressive optimizations. And I don't mind if all the optimization Apple applies primarily help systems with SSDs. Although now Apple's reluctance to switch away from spinning platter storage with its iMacs comes back to roost. If they had used only SSDs in iMacs since, say, 2013, only a small amount of systems would use them still.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2018, 03:33 AM
 
I think that the design of the iMac Pro, which doesn't even have space for spinning discs, foreshadows the end of them in Macs. The issue is that NAND and RAM prices have been trending up lately, so now is a bad time to switch.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2018, 04:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I think that the design of the iMac Pro, which doesn't even have space for spinning discs, foreshadows the end of them in Macs. The issue is that NAND and RAM prices have been trending up lately, so now is a bad time to switch.
I think this is a problem that money could have and can solve: iMacs don't really sell that well that they make a dent in the market, so we are just arguing about price. The writing was on the wall much earlier, and they should have switched over to an all SSD line-up as soon as the mobile Macs did. We can argue whether they should have offered a Fusion drive as an option, but by default it should have come with a 256 GB SSD. I would have really liked to spec my dad's 2014 iMac with an SSD, but because he needed his computer for his business, he needed one now and didn't have time to wait for a custom configuration with an SSD. That still bugs me today.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50  (op)
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2018, 05:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I would say this was “fixed immediately” since Intel CPUs were soooo much faster than the G4 that was in all of the mobile Macs at the time.
You're right of course. I was thinking of desktops - and forgot we never had the PowerBook G5.
Originally Posted by P View Post
The issue is that NAND and RAM prices have been trending up lately, so now is a bad time to switch.
I really thought the market would correct before now. But we're approaching 3 years of increased Flash/RAM prices. Even if new factories take a couple years to come online, a bunch of them should have before now. Plus 3D NAND, plus density increases from process transitions, plus 3-bit NAND and the release of 4-bit NAND. Prices should have plunged by now. Instead they're holding steady for the past few months.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
... they should have switched over to an all SSD line-up as soon as the mobile Macs did.
Apple switched from CRT to LCD with the sunflower iMac. Before it became economic to do so. No doubt it was for ascetic reasons, which do not apply to SSDs.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2018, 06:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I really thought the market would correct before now. But we're approaching 3 years of increased Flash/RAM prices. Even if new factories take a couple years to come online, a bunch of them should have before now. Plus 3D NAND, plus density increases from process transitions, plus 3-bit NAND and the release of 4-bit NAND. Prices should have plunged by now. Instead they're holding steady for the past few months.
Sure, NAND prices are higher than expected, but lets say that this increases the cost of an iMac to Apple by $100 for the entry-level configuration — would that matter even if Apple increased the iMac's prices accordingly? I don't think so.

IMHO they made the same mistake by sticking to 16 GB as the entry-level storage configuration in iPhones for too long — so that some people couldn't upgrade. I'm sure it raised the average selling price, but over the long haul, I think it had a detrimental effect.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Apple switched from CRT to LCD with the sunflower iMac. Before it became economic to do so. No doubt it was for ascetic reasons, which do not apply to SSDs.
I wouldn't say it was entirely for aesthetic reasons, LCDs were better in many ways: they were sharper and over time, you could easily make the display of the lampshade iMac bigger (the largest one had a 20 inch display if memory serves).

But you made an astute observation: Apple chose to switch to LCDs with the iMac before it was economically optimal. And they should have done the same with SSDs — which simply provide a superior user experience.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2018, 06:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
10.13.3 update applied. Still no APFS conversion on my HDD system. I do have multiple partitions, which may deter the auto converter.

Has anyone with HDD or Fusion seen an auto APFS conversion yet?
I have a Fusion drive, but I have not checked. Call me naive, I would hope Apple would announce that 10.13.X has APFS conversion for HDD and Fusion drives.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2018, 07:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
If a way is provided or created to add file checksums, I absolutely want APFS running on my HDDs. I'll take the performance hit in exchange for the peace of mind. File checksums aren't going to appear on HFS+.

When we transitioned from OS9 to OSX, we took a speed hit. It was inevitable on single-threaded tasks, going from a mostly single-threaded OS to a natively multi-threaded OS. Faster systems and more cores presently made the concern moot.

When we transitioned from PPC to x86, there was a performance hit. The new Intel code wasn't as optimized, and had a few more bugs. Time fixed that one too.

Initial performance penalties with APFS on HDDs aren't worth writing them off. Now when the price of flash finally corrects, making HDDs uneconomic, then we can write them off.
The consequences of running APFS on a rotating hard drive at this point don’t seem like „speed hit“, but more like „grinding halt“.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2018, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I really thought the market would correct before now. But we're approaching 3 years of increased Flash/RAM prices. Even if new factories take a couple years to come online, a bunch of them should have before now. Plus 3D NAND, plus density increases from process transitions, plus 3-bit NAND and the release of 4-bit NAND. Prices should have plunged by now. Instead they're holding steady for the past few months.
Pretty sure that it's a cartel, at least for RAM. RAM manufacturers have had a rough few years before the recent spike, so likely they are colluding - again.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2018, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think this is a problem that money could have and can solve: iMacs don't really sell that well that they make a dent in the market, so we are just arguing about price. The writing was on the wall much earlier, and they should have switched over to an all SSD line-up as soon as the mobile Macs did. We can argue whether they should have offered a Fusion drive as an option, but by default it should have come with a 256 GB SSD.
I think the reason Apple did not move to flash by default in the iMac is that they have a not insignificant number of people with massive libraries on the main drive - whether it is photos or something illegal that they have downloaded, a lot of people have big drives that are mostly full. A 256 GB flash drive is good enough for most people, but Apple's obsession with avoiding any real downgrades in the specs means that they would have had to put in a 1TB SSD in a lot of configurations, and 1TB drives are expensive. This is why I hoped for a Fusion drive standard. With that, Apple could move the 27" to a 2.5" HDD as well, freeing up a lot of space in that case.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2018, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I think the reason Apple did not move to flash by default in the iMac is that they have a not insignificant number of people with massive libraries on the main drive - whether it is photos or something illegal that they have downloaded, a lot of people have big drives that are mostly full. A 256 GB flash drive is good enough for most people, but Apple's obsession with avoiding any real downgrades in the specs means that they would have had to put in a 1TB SSD in a lot of configurations, and 1TB drives are expensive. This is why I hoped for a Fusion drive standard. With that, Apple could move the 27" to a 2.5" HDD as well, freeing up a lot of space in that case.
Not just pics and downloads. The universe is full of iMacs in design studios with masses of content. 256GB internal storage would make many many designers days miserable.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2018, 06:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Not just pics and downloads. The universe is full of iMacs in design studios with masses of content. 256GB internal storage would make many many designers days miserable.
I understand this very well: The only time I had trouble migrating from one Mac to another was when I got my first 13" MacBook Pro with only 256 GB. But especially in an iMac this could have been mitigated by upgrading all configurations to a Fusion Drive (which I see as less preferable, but alright). Or to offer the user the option to put in an additional hard drive (and not combine that into a Fusion Drive). But not putting in any SSD storage was a mistake, only mitigated by the fact that most people don't buy desktops anymore.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2018, 05:10 AM
 
A design studio would know to upgrade its Macs from the base storage, I think, so the 256GB argument probably doesn't apply for them. A Fusion Drive of a 1 or 2TB 2.5" drive and the full 128GB flash would have been an excellent compromise.

I sometimes get seduced into building tiny computers with a wimpy CPU. One such I did was a Zotac Zbox with an AMD Bobcat CPU (think Intel Atom but not as terrible). The device got one of the first hybrid drives, 2.5" spinning disc with a laughable 4GB flash cache. Even that was enough that it felt snappy. I eventually sold that thing for cheap to a coworker, and he booted it up again recently (has mostly been iPad only in the last few years, but needed a real desktop for something). It still works, and feels snappy. Even a little bit of flash goes a long way.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,