Re: What's the Verdict on FileVault?

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DAAC71...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
<nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
> FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead, additional
> complexity, and additional opportunities for errors. What is the
> group's experience?

do it

[Andre G. Isaak]

> --
> Nelson

I've never had any issues with FileVault. The only processing overhead
you'll notice is during the initial encryption of the drive, and even
that's very minimal. When you first turn it on it will take quite awhile
to do the initial encryption (assuming your drive isn't virtually
empty), but you can work as normal during this period.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[Ant]

Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
> FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead, additional
> complexity, and additional opportunities for errors. What is the
> group's experience?

What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
a bad idea. :(
--
Quote of the Week: "The constant creeping of ants will wear away the stone." --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (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.

[Krzysztof Mitko]

On 2017-02-28, Ant <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote:
> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
>> FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead, additional
>> complexity, and additional opportunities for errors. What is the
>> group's experience?
>
> What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
> a bad idea. :(

MBP 13" unibody mid-2012 with SSD: no issues, no noticeable changes in performance.

--
A spokesman said: “Would you like to buy some of my spokes?”

[nospam]

In article <slrnobaknd....@MacBook-Pro.local>, Krzysztof Mitko

<inv...@kmitko.at.list.dot.pl> wrote:

> >> So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
> >> FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead, additional
> >> complexity, and additional opportunities for errors. What is the
> >> group's experience?
> >
> > What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
> > a bad idea. :(
>
> MBP 13" unibody mid-2012 with SSD: no issues, no noticeable changes in performance.

recent enough for hardware encryption support.

[Lewis]

In message <0001HW.D4DAAC71...@news.astraweb.com> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
> FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead,

Nope, not that anyone would ever notice.

> additional complexity,

None, at all.

> and additional opportunities for errors.

Same opportunities for errors.

> What is the group's experience?

All my boot drive on all my machines have FileVault with the exception
of an old Mac mini server that has *zero* personal information on it.

--
We all need help with our feelings. Otherwise, we bottle them up, and
before you know it powerful laxatives are involved.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <M9Gdne-1hoaHzCjF...@earthlink.com>,

ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) wrote:

> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
> > FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead, additional
> > complexity, and additional opportunities for errors. What is the
> > group's experience?
>
> What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
> a bad idea. :(

In response to the above I should revise my first reply.

Don't use FileVault on Pre-Lion systems. FileVault had an entirely
different implementation on those systems which did have potential
problems and which would interfere with Time Machine.

Speaking of Time Machine, if you're using FileVault make sure you also
have a good backup strategy since the NSA won't be able to provide you
with backups anymore ;-)

[Alrescha]

On 2017-02-28 09:26:25 +0000, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> said:

> What is the group's experience?

I have used FileVault since it was originally introduced. It has never
caused me any problems that were not caused by myself (version 1 got a
little strange if the disk filled up underneath it).

As others have pointed out, FileVault 2 is much preferred. The
original had its useful aspects, but FV2 is a much better place to be.

A.

[Jolly Roger]

Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
> FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead, additional

> complexity, and additional opportunities for errors. What is the
> group's experience?

FileVault 1 was introduced in macOS 10.3, and encrypts only the Home
directory into an encrypted disk image that the system mounts when the user
logs in, which often turned out to be problematic. I would avoid it.

FileVault 2 was introduced in 10.7 and uses full disk encryption. It's a
simpler design that is faster and less problematic. Its highly recommended.

If you just want to encrypt a few files in 10.6, why not just create an
encrypted disk image (in Disk Utility) and put the files in 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

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DAFD0D...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
<nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >
>
> Hmm. I'm using Snow Leopard and Time Machine so that's a "No"?

why are you still using snow leopard???

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DAFC8C...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson

<nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >> So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
> >> FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead, additional
> >> complexity, and additional opportunities for errors. What is the
> >> group's experience?
> >
> > What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
> > a bad idea. :(
> >
>

> MacBook Pro (A1226) (15-inch, Mid/Late 2007, 2.4/2.2 GHz)

there will be a noticeable speed hit if you use file vault.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <0001HW.D4DAFD0D...@news.astraweb.com>,
Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 07:36:14 -0500, Andre G. Isaak wrote
> (in article <agisaak-4D2CF9...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>):

> Hmm. I'm using Snow Leopard and Time Machine so that's a "No"?

FileVault in Snow Leopard doesn't actually encrypt your disk. Instead,
it maps your home directory to an encrypted disk image. Time machine
can't back up said image while it's mounted, so it won't back up your
home directory while you're actually logged in to your account.

Also, while I don't know if this is a legitimate worry, I'm reluctant to
use a disk image for frequent day-to-day use since if the image file
somehow becomes damaged you end up losing *everything* (though the image
files used are actually sparse bundles rather than a single file --
still, each of those chunks potentially contains a great many individual
files).

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <280220171302076582%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

Not that I've ever noticed (using FileVault 2)

André

[nospam]

In article <agisaak-C88CB5...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,

Andre G. Isaak <agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:

> > > >
> > > > What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
> > > > a bad idea. :(
> > > >
> > >
> > > MacBook Pro (A1226) (15-inch, Mid/Late 2007, 2.4/2.2 GHz)
> >
> > there will be a noticeable speed hit if you use file vault.
>
> Not that I've ever noticed (using FileVault 2)

macs that old lack hardware support for the encryption used in
filevault so it has to be done in software, resulting in a very
noticeable speed hit.

[Jolly Roger]

A good question.

[Alan Browne]

On 2017-02-28 04:26, Nelson wrote:
> So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
> FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead, additional
> complexity, and additional opportunities for errors. What is the
> group's experience?
>

Minor hit on speed, major advantage on security. I've never encountered
an error due to it.

One day you'll discard that drive. Discard the decryption key and the
data there is essentially noise.

--
"If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then
recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics."
..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.

[Wade Garrett]

On 2/28/17 4:26 AM, Nelson wrote:
> So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
> FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead, additional
> complexity, and additional opportunities for errors. What is the
> group's experience?
>

Been using it for years; never a problem. Initial disk encryption may
take a while; after that, you don't know it;s there.

--
The day Al Gore was born, there were 7000 polar bears on earth. Today,
only 26,000 remain.

[gtr]

On 2017-02-28 23:51:02 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> On 2017-02-28 04:26, Nelson wrote:
>> So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
>> FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead, additional
>> complexity, and additional opportunities for errors. What is the
>> group's experience?
>>
>
> Minor hit on speed, major advantage on security. I've never
> encountered an error due to it.
>
> One day you'll discard that drive. Discard the decryption key and the
> data there is essentially noise.

Can you wait until the day before you discard it and encrypt it then?

[TickleMe Elmo]

Partisan politics, ain't it the bee's knees?

What is your evidence? Don't look now, but I think Snit has a serious mancrush on Jerry Stuckle.

This is something the mainstream media never covers. You're clueless! Linux offers the least to the least.

Oh goodness, that is just tons of tripe. Marek created at least twenty virtual machines in the last year or so. Let us all have a moment of silence as we honor his accomplishments! You do realize everyone knows you are just trolling, Snit? So Marek focuses on his ego. The herd does not complain. If you have file.txt open in a editor such as vim and you want to change its name to d.doc via a GUI menu item whilst moving goal posts, that might be useful, if only to guarantee the watcher scripts do not collide.

Linux offers the least of everything to the average user.


Do not click this link!!
http://www.stadsnat.oresundskraft.se
http://www.stadsnat.oresundskraft.se
Jonas Eklundh

[Alan Browne]

Sure. But might as well encrypt it from the start. It does not cost
you anything performance wise that you would notice unless you are
massively (to a ridiculous degree) reading and writing data non stop all
day long. It's transparent.

[Bernd Fröhlich]

Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> a locked-down
> computer that can only install apps via the App Store

I can understand most of your reasons not to upgrade, but this one is
plain wrong.
You can install Apps from anywhere you want in Sierra.

[Krzysztof Mitko]

On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:55:56 -0500, Bernd Fröhlich wrote
> (in article <1n27nxb.1budjmt1377iyqN%be...@eaglesoft.de>):

> My understanding is that you need some kind of security receipt. Is
> that not true?

You can manually add exception at the first run - ctrl-click, open,
confirm.

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DC04D7...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson

<nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >>> Hmm. I'm using Snow Leopard and Time Machine so that's a "No"?
> >>
> >> why are you still using snow leopard???
>

> Why are you not?

because it's very old, no longer supported and most apps require at
least mavericks or yosemite, if not later.

> > A good question.
>
> And one I've answered before :) Snow Leopard meets my needs and I have
> yet to see a benefit in the newer systems that would justify the cost
> in both time, aggravation, and dollars to upgrade. Not to mention
> there are "features" I would pay _not_ to have. Upgrading the system
> is the least of the problems. It is upgrading all the apps that I find
> off-putting. Plus losing the ones that rely on Rosetta.

there is no cost. upgrading is completely free.

you do lose rosetta, but that's about it. however, any app that hasn't
been updated to run on intel is abandonware and is not getting bug
fixes or security.

> There is also the issue of data. It has already become painfully
> difficult to open files created with older versions of Filemaker, Word,
> Excel, etc. Along with the application upgrades, I would have to
> upgrade all these older formats.

nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue.

> I know that all these things are do-able and that there are ways around
> the problems. But what do I gain? A crappy interface, a locked-down
> computer that can only install apps via the App Store,

nonsense. there is no lockdown. you can install apps from anywhere you
want without issue.

> Applescript
> riddled with bugs, Big Brother Apple constantly communicating with my
> computer and trying to force me to use their "cloud" so that I can
> connect to all the "Social Networks" that I abhor?

nobody is forcing anything.

> Synching between all
> the iToys that I don't own?

how would it sync to something you don't own?

> A bunch of new bugs which will probably
> never be addressed because Cook has lost interest in the Mac?

tim cook has not lost interest in the mac. more bullshit.

apple is actively working on mac os and mac hardware, and unlike snow
leopard, sierra is getting bug fixes and security fixes.

> Opinions and needs differ, I know. But until I can find a compelling
> argument to upgrade I won't.

opinions and needs may differ, except that yours are based on
completely bogus information.

[nospam]

In article <H9ydncKw6bmPWSvF...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> >>> So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
> >>> FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead, additional
> >>> complexity, and additional opportunities for errors. What is the
> >>> group's experience?
> >>>
> >> Minor hit on speed, major advantage on security. I've never
> >> encountered an error due to it.
> >>
> >> One day you'll discard that drive. Discard the decryption key and the
> >> data there is essentially noise.
> >
> > Can you wait until the day before you discard it and encrypt it then?
>
> Sure. But might as well encrypt it from the start. It does not cost
> you anything performance wise that you would notice unless you are
> massively (to a ridiculous degree) reading and writing data non stop all
> day long. It's transparent.

he has an older mac where there is a very noticeable cost in
performance.

either way, encrypting from the start is wise.

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DC41CF...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson

> My understanding is that you need some kind of security receipt. Is
> that not true?

the developer provides it.

you just download and install.

[Jolly Roger]

Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:01:40 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <ehm394...@mid.individual.net>):

>
>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <0001HW.D4DAFD0D...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
>>> <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. I'm using Snow Leopard and Time Machine so that's a "No"?
>>>
>>> why are you still using snow leopard???
>

> Why are you not?

>
>>
>> A good question.
>
> And one I've answered before :) Snow Leopard meets my needs and I have
> yet to see a benefit in the newer systems that would justify the cost
> in both time, aggravation, and dollars to upgrade. Not to mention
> there are "features" I would pay _not_ to have. Upgrading the system
> is the least of the problems. It is upgrading all the apps that I find
> off-putting. Plus losing the ones that rely on Rosetta.
>

> There is also the issue of data. It has already become painfully
> difficult to open files created with older versions of Filemaker, Word,
> Excel, etc. Along with the application upgrades, I would have to
> upgrade all these older formats.

All well and good, but... Meanwhile your operating system is not being
updated to patch the plethora of security holes that have been found in it
and all of the more recent versions, which means you are vulnerable to many
long-standing security exploits. Not good.

> I know that all these things are do-able and that there are ways around
> the problems. But what do I gain?

A much more secure OS, for one.

> A crappy interface

People who say this make me giggle. As those of us who have used Macs from
the beginning know, Apple constantly tweaks the UI. And through all these
years I've never had something as trivial as interface widget appearance
stop me from getting shit done with any computer. Just doesn't happen in my
life. It's a non-issue people use to complain.

> a locked-down
> computer that can only install apps via the App Store

That has never been true. You are misinformed. Apple doesn't stop you from
running anything you want.

>,Applescript
> riddled with bugs,

AppleScript has always had bugs, yes even in Snow Leopard. In many ways it
has improved. Automator is very handy too.

> Big Brother Apple constantly communicating with my
> computer and trying to force me to use their "cloud"

iCloud is completely optional. And it's opt-in.

> so that I can
> connect to all the "Social Networks" that I abhor?

iCloud has virtually nothing to do with social networking. And all social
networking features are opt-in.

> Synching between all
> the iToys that I don't own?

Again optional.

> A bunch of new bugs which will probably
> never be addressed because Cook has lost interest in the Mac?

Nonsense. Bugs are being fixed constantly, and you ignore the fact that the
ancient Snow Leopard will never see another bug fix!

> Opinions and needs differ, I know. But until I can find a compelling
> argument to upgrade I won't.

Fine with me, but you should know most of your reasons above (with the
exception of the hassle of upgrading apps) are based on misinformation.

[David B.]

On 01/03/2017 16:00, nospam wrote a great response! :-)

--
"Do something wonderful, people may imitate it." (Albert Schweitzer)

[David B.]

On 01/03/2017 16:03, Jolly Roger wrote a great response too! :-)

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:55:56 -0500, Bernd Fröhlich wrote
> (in article <1n27nxb.1budjmt1377iyqN%be...@eaglesoft.de>):
>

> My understanding is that you need some kind of security receipt. Is
> that not true?

It's untrue. You can run anything you want.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:51:23 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <ehlkjr...@mid.individual.net>):

>
>> FileVault 1 was introduced in macOS 10.3, and encrypts only the Home
>> directory into an encrypted disk image that the system mounts when
>> the user logs in, which often turned out to be problematic. I would
>> avoid it.
>>
>> FileVault 2 was introduced in 10.7 and uses full disk encryption.
>> It's a simpler design that is faster and less problematic. Its highly
>> recommended.
>>
>> If you just want to encrypt a few files in 10.6, why not just create
>> an encrypted disk image (in Disk Utility) and put the files in it?
>

> That's a good suggestion.

I've done it for many, many years. It's very simple to setup and use.
Double-click the disk image file to mount it, access the files within
the mounted disk image, then just eject the disk when you are done. Your
files stay securely encrypted, and the disk image file can be placed
anywhere in the file system (or even on a network drive for shared
access). Works great.

> I think there are also third party disk drivers that lock the disk
> without encrypting the whole thing.

Not worth the added complexity and trouble IMO.

> I'm not looking to protect myself from the CIA. Just looking to not
> have personal journals, etc. laying around after my death.

So use an encrypted disk image. It only takes about a minute to create
one.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 20:24:22 -0500, gtr wrote
> (in article <o957s6$9lg$1...@news.albasani.net>):

> Death comes like a thief in the night. If I was around to encrypt it,
> I'd just do a secure erase.

Yep.

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DC7D20...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson

> To me that's like saying before you can talk on your phone you just
> have to turn around 3 times and click your heels. No problem.

where in the world did you get that idea?

there is *no* difference in installing third party apps in snow leopard
versus now. download whatever you want, drag to the apps folder (or run
the installer if any) and use the app.

no extra steps required.

[Patty Winter]

In article <0001HW.D4DC04D7...@news.astraweb.com>,
Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

> Snow Leopard meets my needs and I have
>yet to see a benefit in the newer systems that would justify the cost
>in both time, aggravation, and dollars to upgrade. Not to mention
>there are "features" I would pay _not_ to have. Upgrading the system
>is the least of the problems. It is upgrading all the apps that I find
>off-putting. Plus losing the ones that rely on Rosetta.

Nelson, while I certainly defend your continued use of SL, I think the
upgrade issue might not be as troublesome as you think. For example, I
was surprised to find out last year that my old Adobe Creative Suite 5
ran just fine on my new MacBook with Yosemite (now upgraded to Sierra).
So I didn't have to buy that ridiculous subscription-based suite or
find an alternative from another developer.

>There is also the issue of data. It has already become painfully
>difficult to open files created with older versions of Filemaker, Word,
>Excel, etc. Along with the application upgrades, I would have to
>upgrade all these older formats.

I'm using MS Office 2011 on my MacBook and it reads .doc files just
fine. I think the only files you wouldn't still be able to read are
ones made in Word 1x-5x; I converted a bunch of those a couple of
months ago before getting rid of my old Power Mac 9500. Probably a
similar situation with Excel, but I don't use that enough to remember.
I only had a few FM files, which I think I exported for possible future
use in another program. I upgraded files from MacWorks, MacDraw, MacPaint,
etc. Yes, it took a while, but I have the files I need now.

>I know that all these things are do-able and that there are ways around

>the problems. But what do I gain? A crappy interface, a locked-down
>computer that can only install apps via the App Store, Applescript
>riddled with bugs, Big Brother Apple constantly communicating with my
>computer and trying to force me to use their "cloud" so that I can
>connect to all the "Social Networks" that I abhor? Synching between all
>the iToys that I don't own? A bunch of new bugs which will probably

>never be addressed because Cook has lost interest in the Mac?

A couple of things annoy me about the newer interfaces, but some of
those can be changed. For example, I put the scroll direction back
to what I was used to. Which aspects don't you like?

I don't know what you mean about Apple trying to force you to use
iCloud. I rarely log into it on my MacBook and I certainly don't
get nag notices from Apple about that. Therefore, you aren't required
to sync devices if you don't want to. (And if you don't own any mobile
products, then of course that would be a non-issue for you anyway.)

Most of the apps I have on this MacBook I brought over from my iMac,
but even if I had to get the others from the App Store, so what?
Are there some developers whose products you want who don't offer
those products through official Apple channels?

I can't speak to Applescript as I don't use it.

I'm finally upgrading my iMac because it's getting more difficult
to do things on it with Snow Leopard, especially online. I wish
that web designers didn't use bells and whistles that aren't
compatible with older browsers, but I also realize that, for example,
financial institutions are implementing better security tools that
require newer versions of web browsers, so that's a good thing. I'm
tired of getting messages that the browser I'm using is no longer
supported, or of having it crash. Even Eudora is starting to turn
against me; as I'm cleaning out old mail, it's being inconsistent
about opening links in a browser and gives me an error message when
I try to open a message in the browser. Clearly I have hurt its
feelings, and I'll miss it, but it's time for me to move on.

Again, I'm not going to haughtily criticize you for staying with
SL as some posters here have done, but you might want to seriously
consider starting to prepare for an OS upgrade. You can do your
file conversions over a long period of time so that it isn't such
an onerous prospect. Good luck!


Patty

[Lewis]

In message <0001HW.D4DC41CF...@news.astraweb.com> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:55:56 -0500, Bernd Fröhlich wrote
> (in article <1n27nxb.1budjmt1377iyqN%be...@eaglesoft.de>):

> My understanding is that you need some kind of security receipt. Is
> that not true?

Not true.


--
Two, Four, Six, Eight! Time to Transubstantiate!

[Patty Winter]

In article <0001HW.D4DC82C6...@news.astraweb.com>,
Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:00:25 -0500, nospam wrote
>(in article <010320171100258438%nos...@nospam.invalid>):

>
>> and most apps require at
>> least mavericks or yosemite, if not later.
>

>Apps which appeared after those versions, perhaps. But I haven't seen
>a compelling novel app (on the order of, say, Excel or Photoshop) that
>would drive an upgrade.

You can use Office 2011 and Creative Suite 5 on newer versions of Mac OS.

>> there is no cost. upgrading is completely free.
>

>Upgrading the OS perhaps. The App vendors are not so magnanimous.

Just checking--have you gone into System Profiler to verify how many
PowerPC apps you actually have? It may be fewer than you think. I only
found, I think, four that I actually cared about. One of those was Eudora,
which I'll be replacing with the free Apple Mail in the new OS. I'll have
to buy a new app to track my bank accounts. As for AppleWorks and FileMaker,
I've either converted, exported, or dumped those files.

>> you do lose rosetta, but that's about it. however, any app that hasn't
>> been updated to run on intel is abandonware and is not getting bug
>> fixes or security.
>

>Every bug they fix, they introduce two more. And besides the OS
>upgrade introduces a host of new bugs because of the change in the OS
>itself. Rather the bugs I know than the ones I don't :)

You're being hyperbolic about bugs.

>> nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue.
>

>For someone so often wrong, you certainly speak with great certainty.
>Have you ever tried to open a Filemaker 3 file with the current
>version? Try it and stop back to let us know what happened.

Yeah, "nospam" must be looking at a limited timeframe to make a
statement like that.

>> nonsense. there is no lockdown. you can install apps from anywhere you
>> want without issue.
>

>https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-sierra-tidbits-apple-file-
>system-raid-support-and-more.1977440/page-5

Someone else replied to your comment saying that you can install apps
from other sites as long as they have the proper Apple authorization,
so that may not be an issue for you after all. (Although I don't see
how it would keep you from getting the apps you need anyway.)


>> nobody is forcing anything.
>
>If you already have one, you probably don't realize how many times
>someone who doesn't gets prompted to create one. If you turn on Little
>Snitch, you are deluged with constant requests to connect to the Apple
>Mothership.

Is this some application that you're currently using on SL? If so, then
how would the situation be any more annoying if you upgrade your OS? It
doesn't even sound like an Apple program, so I don't know why it would
want you to connect to Apple's servers rather than ones from its own
developer.

>> opinions and needs may differ, except that yours are based on
>> completely bogus information.
>

>Well, thank you for disabusing me.

I think you may be jumping to some unwarranted conclusions, but you
certainly aren't wrong about having to convert some older files and
buy some new programs.


Patty

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:00:25 -0500, nospam wrote
> (in article <010320171100258438%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
>

>> In article <0001HW.D4DC04D7...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
>> <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Hmm. I'm using Snow Leopard and Time Machine so that's a "No"?
>>>>>
>>>>> why are you still using snow leopard???
>>>
>>> Why are you not?
>>
>> because it's very old
>

> So am I :) Old is not a reason to upgrade per se.

The lack of updates is definitely a reason to upgrade - especially if
you are concerned with security (everyone should be). And we all know
how crappy the web browsing experience is on such ancient operating
systems. Sure, you can run an old version of Firefox, but even that has
dropped support for 10.6:

<https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Install-and-Update/Firefox-support-has-ended-for-Mac-OS-X-10-6-10-7-and-10-8/ta-p/32725>

Web browsing is what very often forces people to finally upgrade their
operating system; but security updates are way more important.

>> no longer supported
>
> Heh. Like the current version is?

So the current version of macOS is no longer supported? Something tells
me you are *very* confused or maybe just trolling.

>> you do lose rosetta, but that's about it. however, any app that
>> hasn't been updated to run on intel is abandonware and is not getting
>> bug fixes or security.
>

> Every bug they fix, they introduce two more.

Apple's internal metrics show bug counts have steadily *decreased* over
time.

> And besides the OS upgrade introduces a host of new bugs because of
> the change in the OS itself. Rather the bugs I know than the ones I
> don't :)

Buggy old software won't keep working with newer operating systems
without also updating said buggy old software. And that's been the case
long before Snow Leopard, too. Nothing new here. : )

>>> I know that all these things are do-able and that there are ways
>>> around the problems. But what do I gain? A crappy interface, a
>>> locked-down computer that can only install apps via the App Store,
>>
>> nonsense. there is no lockdown. you can install apps from anywhere
>> you want without issue.
>

> https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-sierra-tidbits-apple-file-
> system-raid-support-and-more.1977440/page-5

From that thread:

"If you want to "proceed anyway" -- you right click or option click the
file and open it -- instead of entirely disabling gatekeeper."

Very simple. Right-click the app, choose Open. DONE. Meanwhile enjoy the
additional protection you get from the feature. Apple isn't preventing
you from doing whatever you want with your computer.

>>> Applescript riddled with bugs, Big Brother Apple constantly
>>> communicating with my computer and trying to force me to use their
>>> "cloud" so that I can connect to all the "Social Networks" that I
>>> abhor?
>>
>> nobody is forcing anything.
>

> If you already have one, you probably don't realize how many times
> someone who doesn't gets prompted to create one.

I have many machines running the latest operating system that do not
have iCloud or social media configured on them. There are no constant
prompts as you suggest. You're making stuff up.

> If you turn on Little Snitch, you are deluged with constant requests
> to connect to the Apple Mothership.

Nope. I use Little Snitch, and the only connections made are associated
with specific features that are enabled. Apple's not spying on anyone.

> All the default behaviors assume you want to be part of the Appleverse
> and it takes a lot of effort to opt out.

No. That's a flat-out lie. iCloud, social media, etc are all OPT-IN.

>>> Synching between all the iToys that I don't own?
>>
>> how would it sync to something you don't own?
>

> It wouldn't. The point is that's a function I don't need and hence
> will not be upgrading to get.

Yes, you're using an optional opt-in feature that you won't use to
justify not upgrading yet you are ignoring all of the other stuff you
get and would use, including very important security features and bug
fixes. If that's what you mean to do, fine - it is what it is.

>>> A bunch of new bugs which will probably never be addressed because
>>> Cook has lost interest in the Mac?
>>
>> tim cook has not lost interest in the mac. more bullshit.
>
>> apple is actively working on mac os and mac hardware, and unlike snow
>> leopard, sierra is getting bug fixes and security fixes.
>

> More bullshit.

Just because you say so? NO SALE:

<http://www.computerworld.com/article/3175658/apple-mac/macs-do-more-than-ipads-says-apples-tim-cook.html>

[nospam]

In article <o975if$jc8$2...@dont-email.me>, Patty Winter

<pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:

> > Snow Leopard meets my needs and I have
> >yet to see a benefit in the newer systems that would justify the cost
> >in both time, aggravation, and dollars to upgrade. Not to mention
> >there are "features" I would pay _not_ to have. Upgrading the system
> >is the least of the problems. It is upgrading all the apps that I find
> >off-putting. Plus losing the ones that rely on Rosetta.
>
> Nelson, while I certainly defend your continued use of SL, I think the
> upgrade issue might not be as troublesome as you think. For example, I
> was surprised to find out last year that my old Adobe Creative Suite 5
> ran just fine on my new MacBook with Yosemite (now upgraded to Sierra).
> So I didn't have to buy that ridiculous subscription-based suite or
> find an alternative from another developer.

subscription may not be for you, but there's nothing ridiculous about
it. for most people, it's *less* expensive than buying outright and
provides *much* more functionality.

>
> I'm finally upgrading my iMac because it's getting more difficult
> to do things on it with Snow Leopard, especially online. I wish
> that web designers didn't use bells and whistles that aren't
> compatible with older browsers,

too few users still using older browsers to bother, especially given
that maintaining support would adversely affect the user experience for
everyone else. it makes no sense to release a substandard product just
to appease a tiny minority of users.

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DC850B...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson

<nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > As those of us who have used Macs from
> > the beginning know
>

> Does owning one of the first prototypes count?

you don't.

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DC82C6...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson

<nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >>>>> Hmm. I'm using Snow Leopard and Time Machine so that's a "No"?
> >>>>
> >>>> why are you still using snow leopard???
> >>
> >> Why are you not?
> >

> > because it's very old
>
> So am I :) Old is not a reason to upgrade per se.

when it no longer works properly, it is.

> > no longer supported
>
> Heh. Like the current version is?

the current version is not only supported but actively being developed
and improved.

> > and most apps require at
> > least mavericks or yosemite, if not later.
>

> Apps which appeared after those versions, perhaps. But I haven't seen
> a compelling novel app (on the order of, say, Excel or Photoshop) that
> would drive an upgrade.

then you haven't looked very hard.

> >>> A good question.
> >>
> >> And one I've answered before :) Snow Leopard meets my needs and I have
> >> yet to see a benefit in the newer systems that would justify the cost
> >> in both time, aggravation, and dollars to upgrade. Not to mention
> >> there are "features" I would pay _not_ to have. Upgrading the system
> >> is the least of the problems. It is upgrading all the apps that I find
> >> off-putting. Plus losing the ones that rely on Rosetta.
> >
> > there is no cost. upgrading is completely free.
>

> Upgrading the OS perhaps. The App vendors are not so magnanimous.

some are, some aren't.

you're also getting new functionality, which isn't normally free.

> > you do lose rosetta, but that's about it. however, any app that hasn't
> > been updated to run on intel is abandonware and is not getting bug
> > fixes or security.
>

> Every bug they fix, they introduce two more. And besides the OS

> upgrade introduces a host of new bugs because of the change in the OS
> itself. Rather the bugs I know than the ones I don't :)

nonsense.

> >> There is also the issue of data. It has already become painfully
> >> difficult to open files created with older versions of Filemaker, Word,
> >> Excel, etc. Along with the application upgrades, I would have to
> >> upgrade all these older formats.
> >
> > nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue.
>

> For someone so often wrong, you certainly speak with great certainty.
> Have you ever tried to open a Filemaker 3 file with the current
> version? Try it and stop back to let us know what happened.

filemaker 3?? wtf??

that's over 20 years old. why all of a sudden do you want to read it
now??

> >> I know that all these things are do-able and that there are ways around
> >> the problems. But what do I gain? A crappy interface, a locked-down
> >> computer that can only install apps via the App Store,
> >
> > nonsense. there is no lockdown. you can install apps from anywhere you
> > want without issue.
>

> https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-sierra-tidbits-apple-file-
> system-raid-support-and-more.1977440/page-5

and?

that's just a bunch of people's (mostly uninformed) opinions in a forum.

the fact is that apple is not blocking anyone from installing anything.

there may be an extra step so that the user knows that they're
installing an app that carries additional risks, but that's a good
thing. they can accept the risk and install or decide not to accept it.


the choice is *theirs*.

> >> Applescript
> >> riddled with bugs, Big Brother Apple constantly communicating with my
> >> computer and trying to force me to use their "cloud" so that I can
> >> connect to all the "Social Networks" that I abhor?
> >
> > nobody is forcing anything.
>

> If you already have one, you probably don't realize how many times

> someone who doesn't gets prompted to create one. If you turn on Little

> Snitch, you are deluged with constant requests to connect to the Apple
> Mothership.

nope. little snitch catches outgoing traffic, which is typically to the
developer of the apps, not apple.

> All the default behaviors assume you want to be part of the Appleverse
> and it takes a lot of effort to opt out.

it takes no effort to opt out since you're already out. the effort is
to opt *in*.

> >> Synching between all
> >> the iToys that I don't own?
> >
> > how would it sync to something you don't own?
>

> It wouldn't. The point is that's a function I don't need and hence
> will not be upgrading to get.

then don't use it.

> >> A bunch of new bugs which will probably
> >> never be addressed because Cook has lost interest in the Mac?
> >
> > tim cook has not lost interest in the mac. more bullshit.
>
> > apple is actively working on mac os and mac hardware, and unlike snow
> > leopard, sierra is getting bug fixes and security fixes.
>

> More bullshit.

it's not bullshit.

apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was
ten years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars.

if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing.

there are rumours of new macs in the pipeline, also something that
would not be happening if apple abandoned the mac

mac os continues to be developed with a new version to be released in a
few weeks, currently in beta.

> >
> >> Opinions and needs differ, I know. But until I can find a compelling
> >> argument to upgrade I won't.
> >
> > opinions and needs may differ, except that yours are based on
> > completely bogus information.
>

> Well, thank you for disabusing me.

any time.

[nospam]

In article <o976im$jc8$3...@dont-email.me>, Patty Winter

<pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:


> >> nonsense. there is no lockdown. you can install apps from anywhere you
> >> want without issue.
> >
> >https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-sierra-tidbits-apple-file-
> >system-raid-support-and-more.1977440/page-5
>
> Someone else replied to your comment saying that you can install apps
> from other sites as long as they have the proper Apple authorization,
> so that may not be an issue for you after all. (Although I don't see
> how it would keep you from getting the apps you need anyway.)

there is *no* need for apple authorization whatsofuckingever to run
something.

where do people come up with this shit?

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-01, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> In article <0001HW.D4DC82C6...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Upgrading the OS perhaps. The App vendors are not so magnanimous.
>
> Just checking--have you gone into System Profiler to verify how many
> PowerPC apps you actually have? It may be fewer than you think. I only
> found, I think, four that I actually cared about. One of those was
> Eudora, which I'll be replacing with the free Apple Mail in the new
> OS. I'll have to buy a new app to track my bank accounts. As for
> AppleWorks and FileMaker, I've either converted, exported, or dumped
> those files.

Good suggestion!

>>> nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue.
>>
>>For someone so often wrong, you certainly speak with great certainty.
>>Have you ever tried to open a Filemaker 3 file with the current
>>version? Try it and stop back to let us know what happened.
>
> Yeah, "nospam" must be looking at a limited timeframe to make a
> statement like that.

I don't get that response either. Try opening an AppleWorks file in
Sierra sometime. Not gonna happen. : )

>>> nonsense. there is no lockdown. you can install apps from anywhere
>>> you want without issue.
>>
>>https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-sierra-tidbits-apple-file-
>>system-raid-support-and-more.1977440/page-5
>
> Someone else replied to your comment saying that you can install apps
> from other sites as long as they have the proper Apple authorization,
> so that may not be an issue for you after all. (Although I don't see
> how it would keep you from getting the apps you need anyway.)

Actually, you can install anything from anywhere. To launch an unsigned
app, you just right-click the app and choose Open. It's no obstacle.

>>> nobody is forcing anything.
>>
>>If you already have one, you probably don't realize how many times
>>someone who doesn't gets prompted to create one. If you turn on
>>Little Snitch, you are deluged with constant requests to connect to
>>the Apple Mothership.
>
> Is this some application that you're currently using on SL? If so,
> then how would the situation be any more annoying if you upgrade your
> OS? It doesn't even sound like an Apple program, so I don't know why
> it would want you to connect to Apple's servers rather than ones from
> its own developer.

There are no constant requests. And iClould and social networking
features are completely opt-in. He's making it up.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-01, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>

> Again, I'm not going to haughtily criticize you for staying with
> SL as some posters here have done

It's one thing to avoid upgrading for factual and good reasons; but it's
a whole other thing to make factually incorrect statements as reasons
for avoiding an upgrade. Most of the critical reactions I see in this
thread are simply correcting false assumptions and statements, which is
a lot different than "you suck for not upgrading". : ) I've got Snow
Leopard running on a couple machines here out of necessity (old machines
that can't run anything newer); but I am well aware of the security
implications and other trade offs, and use them for very limited and
specific things. I also make damned sure they aren't running services
that are exposed to the internet, due to the lack of support and updates.

[JF Mezei]

I too was a reluctant move from Snow Leopard to Yosemite.

Overall, I would have much prefered to stay with Snow Leopard from a UI
and stability point of view. And you have to spend time to disable
plenty of Yosemite undesirable features (autosave etc) and remember that
the 3rd button on window totle bars no longer maximises the window, you
have to so alt and then do it.

BUT.

Yosemite and later brings Messages and Facetime, updated Preview which
handes some documents better (some PDF formats woudln't work in Snow
Leopard Preview).

Safari in SL hasn't been updated and can't be updated, although Firefox
still works as I recall.

Lightroom as purchased today, requires later than Snow Leopard (or it
could have been another piece of software I needed).

There was also other software that you use once (for instance,
downloading STRM elevation data requyired an app that wouldn't run on
SL). And as time progresses, more and more won't work on SL.

I am now pondering more to Sierra because Yosemite has too many
video/window server bugs that frequencly hang my fancy Mac Pro and can,t
render video at 24fps. (this si new from the last security update).

The big loss from Snow Leopard is MT News Watcher. The other apps that
were Rosetta based, I managed to do without. (improved Pages and
Previoew handling of Word made using the PPC binaries for Word no longer
required).

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:03:21 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <eho9m9...@mid.individual.net>):

>>
>> All well and good, but... Meanwhile your operating system is not being
>> updated to patch the plethora of security holes that have been found in it
>> and all of the more recent versions, which means you are vulnerable to many
>> long-standing security exploits. Not good.
>

> FUD. How many people do you suppose are out there writing code to
> penetrate Snow Leopard. I'm probably safer than you are :)

No, you definitely are not safer. You lack many of the latest security
protections, and the apps and services you are running haven't ben
patched for many years. Attackers don't target Snow Leopard
specifically; they target things like web browser vulnerabilities and
system services that have not been patched against exploits. The longer
the exploits are known, the more people try to take advantage of them.

>> Fine with me, but you should know most of your reasons above (with the
>> exception of the hassle of upgrading apps) are based on misinformation.
>

> You are missing the point I am trying to make. The fact that things
> are optional or opt-in may be an argument against not upgrading but
> they are not an argument _for_ upgrading. That is what I find missing.

You're seeing only what you want to see. That much is clear. So be it.
I'm not here to try to talk you into upgrading; but I'll definitely
correct misinformation you've uttered - for other readers.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-03-01 14:43, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Leopard running on a couple machines here out of necessity (old machines
> that can't run anything newer); but I am well aware of the security
> implications and other trade offs,

As an aside: most of the security holes are generally for new features.
So older OS are often more secure (if they were patched for the
functions they provided).

In other words, a Snow Leopard with 4 years worth of security updates is
likely more secure than brand spanking new Sierra fresh out of the lap
with new untested features.

Where older OS fail is that often evolving protocols provide new
security function/encryption which would not be available under the
older OS. Those improve pricacy, not security per say. (aka: difference
between gaining illegal access to a machine/visus/trojan and being able
to intercept traffic because of use of older protocols.

[nospam]

In article <58b72881$0$61855$c3e8da3$e074...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > Leopard running on a couple machines here out of necessity (old machines
> > that can't run anything newer); but I am well aware of the security
> > implications and other trade offs,
>
> As an aside: most of the security holes are generally for new features.
> So older OS are often more secure (if they were patched for the
> functions they provided).

no

> In other words, a Snow Leopard with 4 years worth of security updates is
> likely more secure than brand spanking new Sierra fresh out of the lap
> with new untested features.

no

> Where older OS fail is that often evolving protocols provide new
> security function/encryption which would not be available under the
> older OS. Those improve pricacy, not security per say. (aka: difference
> between gaining illegal access to a machine/visus/trojan and being able
> to intercept traffic because of use of older protocols.

no

[Jolly Roger]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-03-01 14:43, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Leopard running on a couple machines here out of necessity (old machines
>> that can't run anything newer); but I am well aware of the security
>> implications and other trade offs,
>
> As an aside: most of the security holes are generally for new features.
> So older OS are often more secure (if they were patched for the
> functions they provided).
>
> In other words, a Snow Leopard with 4 years worth of security updates is
> likely more secure than brand spanking new Sierra fresh out of the lap
> with new untested features.

Nope. Snow Leopard runs insecure browsers, apps, and services that have
been patched in later systems. And the longer an exploit is out in the
wild, the more likely you are to be hit with it as automated attach tools
propagate the attack to exploit the unpatched holes. Also you are ignoring
the very real and impactful security *additions* in recent operating system
releases as if they hold no value. That's just absurd.

[Alrescha]

On 2017-03-01 19:04:00 +0000, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> said:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:57:27 -0500, David B. wrote
> (in article <_3DtA.12589$KO....@fx18.fr7>):

>
>> On 01/03/2017 16:03, Jolly Roger wrote a great response too! :-)
>

> Who are you? The Peanut Gallery?

The Mac universe (not uniquely) contains a pathological level of
self-congratulatory groupthink.

A.

[Patty Winter]

In article <eholr2...@mid.individual.net>,

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>On 2017-03-01, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>>
>> Someone else replied to your comment saying that you can install apps
>> from other sites as long as they have the proper Apple authorization,
>> so that may not be an issue for you after all. (Although I don't see
>> how it would keep you from getting the apps you need anyway.)
>
>Actually, you can install anything from anywhere. To launch an unsigned
>app, you just right-click the app and choose Open. It's no obstacle.

Oh yes, I remember doing that once a while back. So the App Store isn't
an issue at all.

>> Is this some application that you're currently using on SL? If so,
>> then how would the situation be any more annoying if you upgrade your
>> OS? It doesn't even sound like an Apple program, so I don't know why
>> it would want you to connect to Apple's servers rather than ones from
>> its own developer.
>
>There are no constant requests. And iClould and social networking
>features are completely opt-in. He's making it up.

Yeah, I don't understand what's going on there. I use iCloud occasionally
but never get prompts to do so.


Patty

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DCAFCA...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson

<nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
> > apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten
> > years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars.
> >
> > if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing.
>

> Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to
> see you have a sense of humor after all :)

no humour. what i wrote is correct.

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DCB454...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson

<nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >>> As those of us who have used Macs from
> >>> the beginning know
> >>
> >> Does owning one of the first prototypes count?
> >
> > you don't.
>

> I was imprecise. I don't own one and didn't.

that's what i said.

> But I had access to one
> through a company I worked for by virtue of an NDA. I was in charge of
> developing a proposal for how we might enter the Home Computer market.

there were a tiny handful of companies that had mac prototypes before
it was released (i think around 20). whatever nda you had in 1983 has
long since expired and chances are, so has the company. what company
was it?

> And when the original model came out, I bought one for myself and
> others for my staff.

that would have been a production model, not a prototype.

> At the time, it was quite impressive. Before
> that I owned an Apple ][e the company bought me. So I think I qualify
> as someone who has "used Macs from the beginning".

you might, but not due to 'owning one of the first prototypes'.

[Patty Winter]

In article <0001HW.D4DCB835...@news.astraweb.com>,
Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>For the life of me I cannot think of one application that would make
>the tedious effort worth it. As you know, you can't go directly from
>Snow Leopard to Sierra. You have to at least go through Lion.

Nope, you can jump directly to El Capitan, then decide if you want
to go to Sierra from there:

https://support.apple.com/snowleopard


>Were
>you able to go directly from Lion to Sierra? Did the Mail, Calendar,
>and Address Book data convert seamlessly? Start to finish how long did
>it take?

Haven't done it yet, but am close. I've downloaded the El Cap installer
that's linked from the above page. I'm just about done cleaning up my
old mail (wasn't required, but I wanted to do that), then I'll make a
couple of backups as recommended by people here (Time Machine and Super
Duper).

I'll be using Emailalchemy or Eudora Mailbox Cleaner to convert my mail
to the Apple Mail format. Calendar and Address Book should convert fine
since they're Apple's own apps, but perhaps someone else here can speak
to that.


Patty

[Patty Winter]

In article <0001HW.D4DCC2A2...@news.astraweb.com>,
Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>Is your plan to upgrade in place or to install a fresh copy of El
>Captain and then use Migration Assistant?

I'm just going to run the El Cap installer.


>I could swear I read one had
>to upgrade to Lion first.

I don't recall the sequence of events. Someone else here will undoubtedly
know whether that changed as soon as Mountain Lion was released or not
until some release after that. Anyway, it isn't true now.


>I went through an earlier migration where I skipped an intervening OS.
>I found that it screwed up those Apple apps. For example the calendar
>data didn't convert correctly. I found I had to go through the
>intermediate OS to get it to work. Maybe they have wised up to that by
>now. One can always hope :)

I don't even use Calendar on my iMac any more because it doesn't sync
with my iPhone, which is where I really need appointment information.


Patty

[David Empson]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2017-03-01, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> > In article <0001HW.D4DC82C6...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >> nospam wrote:
> >>> nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue.
> >>
> >>For someone so often wrong, you certainly speak with great certainty.
> >>Have you ever tried to open a Filemaker 3 file with the current
> >>version? Try it and stop back to let us know what happened.
> >
> > Yeah, "nospam" must be looking at a limited timeframe to make a
> > statement like that.
>
> I don't get that response either. Try opening an AppleWorks file in
> Sierra sometime. Not gonna happen. : )

That particular case works for me: AppleWorks 6 WP/SS files open in
Pages 4.3 or Numbers 2.3 (the iWork '09 versions, not the current
versions).

Not so good for AppleWorks/ClarisWorks 5 or earlier (need a copy of
AppleWorks 6 to convert them), nor for AppleWorks draw or paint
documents (which can be managed by copying their content into another
document type while running AppleWorks 6), nor AppleWorks databases (as
far as I know, they are a dead end short of exporting textual data and
doing a lot of hard work or possibly AppleScript to get images out of
them, and needing to recreate layouts/reports manually).

Also note that LibreOffice and friends can directly open many AppleWorks
document types. I haven't tested it heavily.

FileMaker Pro 3-4 is a red herring because that version doesn't run on
Snow Leopard either. Whichever version Nelson is running could convert
those databases to the version 5-6 or 7-11 format.

FileMaker Pro 5-6 databases can be converted to the latest version (12+)
using any of version 7-11 as an interim step. Version 11 still works on
Sierra (albeit not officially supported), and is available as a free
trial. (Version 11 can also convert those FileMaker Pro 3 files.)

Some cleanup work may be needed on scripts, and it is often better to
redesign the database to use features in modern versions, but at least
you can run the converted old database and have it handy for data
extraction and comparison.

Small matter of needing to buy a current version, so there is the
financial disincentive, but losing access to old documents is not a
valid argument in this case.

In cases where software has been abandoned or has no easy/affordable
solution for document conversion, a VM running Snow Leopard Server is
one way to keep running the old software.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[David Empson]

Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 13:57:20 -0500, Patty Winter wrote
> (in article <o975if$jc8$2...@dont-email.me>):

>
> >
> > In article <0001HW.D4DC04D7...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>

> [Snip]

> >
> > Again, I'm not going to haughtily criticize you for staying with
> > SL as some posters here have done, but you might want to seriously
> > consider starting to prepare for an OS upgrade. You can do your
> > file conversions over a long period of time so that it isn't such
> > an onerous prospect. Good luck!
>

> Patty,
>
> Thank you for your perspective. I followed your upgrade journey here a
> while back. I have a copy of Sierra installed on an iMac and have
> experimented with it. I don't like it. Sometimes I have to use it to
> get by a Security Certificate problem with a web site or, as you, say
> some new do-dad that crashes the older browsers. Usually it is
> advertising and tracking. Other than that, Snow Leopard is like a
> comfortable old shoe.
>
> I have a lot of custom Applescripts which would have to be tested and
> re-debugged and work-arounds created. At least that is what I have
> gleaned from others' experience on the Applescript listserv.

>
> For the life of me I cannot think of one application that would make
> the tedious effort worth it. As you know, you can't go directly from
> Snow Leopard to Sierra. You have to at least go through Lion.

The recommended upgrade path is Snow Leopard -> El Capitan -> Sierra.

Snow Leopard -> Lion -> Sierra would work, but Lion is not free.

El Capitan is free, and it is still possible to "Get" El Capitan from
App Store via a link in a support artile.

https://support.apple.com/HT206886

> Were you able to go directly from Lion to Sierra? Did the Mail, Calendar,
> and Address Book data convert seamlessly? Start to finish how long did it
> take?

Lion can upgrade directly to Sierra.

Last year I helped several people upgrade from Snow Leopard to El
Capitan in one step, and they had no problems with Mail, Calendar or
Address Book data.

I would not expect to see problems in those areas with a Lion to Sierra
upgrade, and timing should be similar.

The time required for the Snow Leopard to El Capitan upgrades (with
installer already on hand, and precautionary full backup of the computer
already done) were:

- Install El Capitan: about 45 minutes on a Mac with an SSD, more like
an hour and a half on a Mac with a hard drive.

- Upgrade Calendar: varies depending on amount of data, but might take a
few minutes.

- Upgrade Address Book: not even noticeable.

- Upgrade Mail: takes a fair amount of time if you have a lot of mail,
maybe in the order of an hour in big cases. The conversion goes through
multiple stages due to several changes in the database format in interim
versions.

- Converting from iPhoto to Photos might also take several minutes, and
if your current version is old enough, requires a separate utilty to do
an interim upgrade of your iPhoto library.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[David Empson]

Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:49:15 -0500, David Empson wrote
> (in article <1n29d21.1cnird4gaevy3N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>):

>
> > FileMaker Pro 3-4 is a red herring because that version doesn't run on Snow
> > Leopard either. Whichever version Nelson is running could convert those
> > databases to the version 5-6 or 7-11 format.
>

> Of course I don't run those versions :) But I have databases in those
> formats that I haven't opened in a while. To get them to open I had to
> download a copy of fmp 11, convert them to that format, then fmp 12
> would convert them to the current format.
>
> The context of the question was a counterexample to nospam's assertion
> that all new apps can open older files.

Then come up with a more reasonable example. There is a well documented
conversion path for older FileMaker Pro documents.

> I also have a bunch of old Word files that the current version won't
> open.

It may in fact open them, just not by double-clicking the document in
Finder (or drag and drop to the application icon). Try File > Open.

> I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't looked
> at Excel or PowerPoint or Appleworks/Clarisworks. Then there's MacDraw
> :)

Excel and PowerPoint should be similar to Word.

I mentoned AppleWorks/ClarisWorks options. I have no experience with
MacDraw, but AppleWorks may be an appropriate go-between.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-01, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>

> In article <0001HW.D4DCB835...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>For the life of me I cannot think of one application that would make
>>the tedious effort worth it. As you know, you can't go directly from
>>Snow Leopard to Sierra. You have to at least go through Lion.
>
> Nope, you can jump directly to El Capitan, then decide if you want
> to go to Sierra from there:
>
> https://support.apple.com/snowleopard

I'd recommend El Capitan over Lion, for sure - way less buggy.

> I'll be using Emailalchemy or Eudora Mailbox Cleaner to convert my mail
> to the Apple Mail format. Calendar and Address Book should convert fine
> since they're Apple's own apps, but perhaps someone else here can speak
> to that.

As a precaution, you might want to go into each app, and do a File >
Export > Archive of the database. You can import those archives into the
new versions if the migration doesn't bring the data in (which it should
without issue).

[Lewis]

In message <0001HW.D4DC82C6...@news.astraweb.com> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:00:25 -0500, nospam wrote

> (in article <010320171100258438%nos...@nospam.invalid>):

>> In article <0001HW.D4DC04D7...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
>> <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>

>>>>>> Hmm. I'm using Snow Leopard and Time Machine so that's a "No"?
>>>>>
>>>>> why are you still using snow leopard???
>>>
>>> Why are you not?
>>
>> because it's very old

> So am I :) Old is not a reason to upgrade per se.

For operating systems it certainly is.

>> no longer supported

> Heh. Like the current version is?

Yes, the current version is supported. That's the point.

But, of course, the primary reason to upgrade is security. Your OS
cannot run a modern secure browser, for example, so you are vulnerable.
If you do not care about your data and the security of your computer,
then by all means, stick with Snow Leopard.

> All the default behaviors assume you want to be part of the Appleverse
> and it takes a lot of effort to opt out.

Ridiculous. It takes one dialog where you don't enter your iCloud ID.

--
Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to
state I finally won out over it.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-01, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>

> In article <0001HW.D4DCC2A2...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>I went through an earlier migration where I skipped an intervening OS.
>>I found that it screwed up those Apple apps. For example the calendar
>>data didn't convert correctly. I found I had to go through the
>>intermediate OS to get it to work. Maybe they have wised up to that by
>>now. One can always hope :)

I haven't ever had migration assistant mess up this stuff. Then again,
Nelson was likely using a *really* old version - perhaps one of the
initial versions from 10.4 or so - and there have been a lot of bug
fixes and updates since then. Anything past 10.6 just works in practice.

> I don't even use Calendar on my iMac any more because it doesn't sync
> with my iPhone, which is where I really need appointment information.

It will sync with your iPhone in later versions and does so seamlessly.
Same goes for contacts, notes, etc. It's *very* nice.

[Lewis]

In message <0001HW.D4DC850B...@news.astraweb.com> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:03:21 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <eho9m9...@mid.individual.net>):

>> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:01:40 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
>>> (in article <ehm394...@mid.individual.net>):
>>>
>>>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> In article <0001HW.D4DAFD0D...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson

>>>>> <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm. I'm using Snow Leopard and Time Machine so that's a "No"?
>>>>>
>>>>> why are you still using snow leopard???
>>>
>>> Why are you not?
>>>
>>>>

>>>> A good question.
>>>
>>> And one I've answered before :) Snow Leopard meets my needs and I have
>>> yet to see a benefit in the newer systems that would justify the cost
>>> in both time, aggravation, and dollars to upgrade. Not to mention
>>> there are "features" I would pay _not_ to have. Upgrading the system
>>> is the least of the problems. It is upgrading all the apps that I find
>>> off-putting. Plus losing the ones that rely on Rosetta.
>>>

>>> There is also the issue of data. It has already become painfully
>>> difficult to open files created with older versions of Filemaker, Word,
>>> Excel, etc. Along with the application upgrades, I would have to
>>> upgrade all these older formats.
>>

>> All well and good, but... Meanwhile your operating system is not being
>> updated to patch the plethora of security holes that have been found in it
>> and all of the more recent versions, which means you are vulnerable to many
>> long-standing security exploits. Not good.

> FUD. How many people do you suppose are out there writing code to
> penetrate Snow Leopard. I'm probably safer than you are :)

You are probably more delusional. Older OS are prime targets for
hackers as that is often how they get into much more secure systems, but
first getting credentials from old systems with known security holes.

--
Psychic convention cancelled due to unforeseen problems.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:25:38 -0500, Nelson wrote
> (in article <0001HW.D4DCC2A2...@news.astraweb.com>):

>
>>> Nope, you can jump directly to El Capitan, then decide if you want
>>> to go to Sierra from there:
>>>
>>> https://support.apple.com/snowleopard
>

> I figured out my confusion. Sierra can only reach back as far as Lion,
> so you have to be at least there. But you can jump to El Captain. In
> any event, you have to do an intermediate upgrade before upgrading to
> Sierra. I wonder what the relative merits of
>
> Snow Leopard - Lion - Sierra vs
> Snow Leopard - El Captain - Sierra
>
> are.

I highly recommend El Capitan over Lion because since Lion was much more
of a transitional release with its share of bugs.

> Have you seen this page:
> http://lowendmac.com/2016/macos-sierra-on-low-end-macs/
>
> Looks like I might have some issues with my wi-fi card and trackpad.

Personally, I wouldn't bother trying to upgrade an unsupported machine
to Sierra with the patch tool unless as a last resort, because there
will very possibly be stability and compatibility issues at play.

[Lewis]

In message <58b72881$0$61855$c3e8da3$e074...@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-03-01 14:43, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Leopard running on a couple machines here out of necessity (old machines
>> that can't run anything newer); but I am well aware of the security
>> implications and other trade offs,

> As an aside: most of the security holes are generally for new features.

No, that's not at all true.

> So older OS are often more secure (if they were patched for the
> functions they provided).

No, that's not at all true.

> In other words, a Snow Leopard with 4 years worth of security updates is
> likely more secure than brand spanking new Sierra fresh out of the lap
> with new untested features.

No, that is just a baldfaced lie.

> Where older OS fail is that often evolving protocols provide new
> security function/encryption which would not be available under the
> older OS. Those improve pricacy, not security per say. (aka: difference
> between gaining illegal access to a machine/visus/trojan and being able
> to intercept traffic because of use of older protocols.

Where older OS fail is where they have multiple known attack vectors
that will never be patched.

--
Ah we're lonely, we're romantic / and the cider's laced with acid / and
the Holy Spirit's crying, Where's the beef? / And the moon is swimming
naked / and the summer night is fragrant / with a mighty expectation of
relief

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:30:09 -0500, nospam wrote
> (in article <010320171430094777%nos...@nospam.invalid>):

>
>> apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten
>> years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars.
>>
>> if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing.
>

> Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to
> see you have a sense of humor after all :)

Spit on this one: Today's MacBook Pros have some of THE fastest storage
available on *any* mainstream laptop, and there are plenty of other
innovations and improvements being made as well. If you want to ignore
all of the real improvements and claim there has been no progress, fine.
Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it when reality says
otherwise.

[Lewis]

In message <58b72518$0$43705$c3e8da3$5e5e...@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> I too was a reluctant move from Snow Leopard to Yosemite.

> Overall, I would have much prefered to stay with Snow Leopard from a UI
> and stability point of view. And you have to spend time to disable
> plenty of Yosemite undesirable features (autosave etc)

Autosave is an undesirable feature? Fuck, you are dumb.

--
> I miss the old days. I haven't killed anyone in years.

That's sad.

[Lewis]

In message <0001HW.D4DCC7F6...@news.astraweb.com> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:25:38 -0500, Nelson wrote
> (in article <0001HW.D4DCC2A2...@news.astraweb.com>):

>>> Nope, you can jump directly to El Capitan, then decide if you want
>>> to go to Sierra from there:
>>>
>>> https://support.apple.com/snowleopard

> I figured out my confusion. Sierra can only reach back as far as Lion,
> so you have to be at least there. But you can jump to El Captain. In
> any event, you have to do an intermediate upgrade before upgrading to
> Sierra. I wonder what the relative merits of

> Snow Leopard - Lion - Sierra vs

Costs money for Lion

> Snow Leopard - El Captain - Sierra

Free.

--
if you ever get that chimp off your back, if you ever find the thing
you lack, ah but you know you're only having a laugh. Oh, oh here we
go again -- until the end.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:01:40 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <ehm394...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <0001HW.D4DAFD0D...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson
>>> <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. I'm using Snow Leopard and Time Machine so that's a "No"?
>>>
>>> why are you still using snow leopard???
>>

>> A good question.
>
> You know, every time I mention that I am still using Snow Leopard, you
> guys ask me why.

If I've asked you that question before, I've long forgotten. Sorry.
While I can try to remember that I've asked you this before, I can't
make any guarantees. My memory has never been the greatest, and I'm only
getting older. ; ) In the future, if I ask you again, feel free to tell
me and I'll shut right up. : )

> I politely tell you, and then you fall over yourselves in a frenzy to
> tell me why I am an idiot.

That's very disingenuous. Correcting misinformation isn't telling you
why you are an idiot. There can be very good reasons for sticking with
Snow Leopard, just like there can be not so good reasons. Some of the
reasons you have given aren't very good reasons. And some of the things
you have said as justification for not upgrading are flat-out false.
You'd really rather nobody correct you when you are wrong? None of that
has anything to do with disrespecting you or making you out to be an
idiot.

> Why do your care

Are you asking me personally? When I see someone saying "I'm sticking
with 10.6" I think to myself: "Wow. I can't imagine what I would lose if
I went back to 10.6." There's no way I would want to put up with the
security holes, the lack of new features I use daily, and so on on my
main desktop workstation. And I'd hate for anyone to do so for the wrong
reasons, because they are only hurting themselves. So I care enough to
ask the question and comprehend the answer. It has nothing to do with
anything other than that.

> I have a theory :) Because you have swallowed the bait of endless,
> pointless upgrades. And the idea that they might have been
> unnecessary and that you were suckers creates a state of cognitive
> dissonance in your minds which can only be relieved by heaping
> opprobrium on me.

Nope. You're way off. As I've mentioned, I have a couple machines that
run 10.6 24/7. They aren't my main desktop machines. They are limited
to certain tasks, and are strictly controlled - no services open to the
internet. But I also have more modern machines running the latest and
greatest, and those are my main workstations. There are a whole lot of
features in the modern versions that just plain don't exist in 10.6. And
a *lot* of them have to do with added security.

[Jolly Roger]

David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-01, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>>> In article <0001HW.D4DC82C6...@news.astraweb.com>,
>>> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> nospam wrote:
>>>>> nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue.
>>>>
>>>> For someone so often wrong, you certainly speak with great certainty.
>>>> Have you ever tried to open a Filemaker 3 file with the current
>>>> version? Try it and stop back to let us know what happened.
>>>
>>> Yeah, "nospam" must be looking at a limited timeframe to make a
>>> statement like that.
>>
>> I don't get that response either. Try opening an AppleWorks file in
>> Sierra sometime. Not gonna happen. : )
>
> That particular case works for me: AppleWorks 6 WP/SS files open in
> Pages 4.3 or Numbers 2.3 (the iWork '09 versions, not the current
> versions).
>
> Not so good for AppleWorks/ClarisWorks 5 or earlier (need a copy of
> AppleWorks 6 to convert them), nor for AppleWorks draw or paint
> documents (which can be managed by copying their content into another
> document type while running AppleWorks 6), nor AppleWorks databases (as
> far as I know, they are a dead end short of exporting textual data and
> doing a lot of hard work or possibly AppleScript to get images out of
> them, and needing to recreate layouts/reports manually).

Exactly. And that was just one example.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-02, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <58b72518$0$43705$c3e8da3$5e5e...@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> I too was a reluctant move from Snow Leopard to Yosemite.
>
>> Overall, I would have much prefered to stay with Snow Leopard from a UI
>> and stability point of view. And you have to spend time to disable
>> plenty of Yosemite undesirable features (autosave etc)
>
> Autosave is an undesirable feature?

"GET OFF MY LAWN, AUTOSAVE!!" ; )

[Jolly Roger]

Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 20:11:08 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <ehp9pb...@mid.individual.net>):

>
>> On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:30:09 -0500, nospam wrote
>>> (in article <010320171430094777%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
>>>
>>>> apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten
>>>> years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars.
>>>>
>>>> if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing.
>>>
>>> Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to
>>> see you have a sense of humor after all :)
>>
>> Spit on this one: Today's MacBook Pros have some of THE fastest storage
>> available on *any* mainstream laptop, and there are plenty of other
>> innovations and improvements being made as well. If you want to ignore
>> all of the real improvements and claim there has been no progress, fine.
>> Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it when reality says
>> otherwise.
>

> I was spitting at the touchbar "something that was ten years in the
> making..."
>
> Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys?

Ah. You're misunderstanding the technology in use. Apples implementation is
anything but just a standard implementation of soft keys. Instead, the
Touch Bar is actually a separate (but integrated) multitouch device running
on a custom ARM-based SoC called the Apple T1 similar to the SoC in the
Apple Watch with a secure enclave and Touch ID sensor for biometric
authentication, Apple Pay support, and so on. It's way more than just soft
keys, and way more flexible and useful. You can think of it as an embedded
iOS device running right along side macOS. Apple indeed has been working on
this technology for a long, long time. Here's a decent (but dated) review:

<https://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch-bar-macbook-pros-reviewed/>

[dorayme]

In article <1n29fne.1hbf0fz17i7bq1N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,

dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> The recommended upgrade path is Snow Leopard -> El Capitan -> Sierra.

I upgraded an external HD SL to Yosemite and then to Sierra. Don't
recall going via El C but maybe I did. I *think* I remember a notice
on the Yosemite offering an upgrade to Sierra.

--
dorayme

[Savageduck]

I went SL-> Mavericks -> Yosemite -> El Capitan.
I have yet to pull the trigger on a move to Sierra on this Mid-2010 iMac.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-03-01 19:04, David Empson wrote:

> - Converting from iPhoto to Photos might also take several minutes, and
> if your current version is old enough, requires a separate utilty to do
> an interim upgrade of your iPhoto library.

After I upgraded to Yosemite, launching iPhoto '09 would pop up "upi
must upgrade" with a link to the App Store where you can get the last
version of iPhoto. (I personally prefered iPhoto '09, but the new one
has maps working agaib).

This will upgrade the database, and from there, you can stay or move to
the less functional Photos app (won't let you call an external editor
for instance).

I **ASSUME** that launching iPhoto'09 on Lion, YOsemite, El Capitan or
Sierra will yield the same result as above and the update to iPhotos is
still possible.

If others have info that says this doesn't work anymore starting from
version X, this may affect which interim version you go through.

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DCD147...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson

<nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > FileMaker Pro 3-4 is a red herring because that version doesn't run on Snow
> > Leopard either. Whichever version Nelson is running could convert those
> > databases to the version 5-6 or 7-11 format.
>

> Of course I don't run those versions :) But I have databases in those
> formats that I haven't opened in a while. To get them to open I had to
> download a copy of fmp 11, convert them to that format, then fmp 12
> would convert them to the current format.

if you haven't opened those files in a while (where 'a while' is 20+
years), then they're not particularly important.

that means they're hardly a reason to stay with snow leopard, and you'd
probably have difficulty working with them in snow leopard too.

> The context of the question was a counterexample to nospam's assertion
> that all new apps can open older files.

i didn't say all. there are always edge cases.

> I also have a bunch of old Word files that the current version won't

> open. I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't looked

> at Excel or PowerPoint or Appleworks/Clarisworks. Then there's MacDraw
> :)

plenty of apps can read legacy microsoft formats, which means that word
files can be easily opened in sierra without any issue whatsoever.

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DCEA13...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson

<nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >>> apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten
> >>> years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars.
> >>>
> >>> if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing.
> >>
> >> Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to
> >> see you have a sense of humor after all :)
> >
> > Spit on this one: Today's MacBook Pros have some of THE fastest storage
> > available on *any* mainstream laptop, and there are plenty of other
> > innovations and improvements being made as well. If you want to ignore
> > all of the real improvements and claim there has been no progress, fine.
> > Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it when reality says
> > otherwise.
>

> I was spitting at the touchbar "something that was ten years in the
> making..."
>
> Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys?

the touchbar is way the hell more than just soft keys.

it's actually controlled by a custom apple-designed arm chip running a
variant of watchos and integrated with macos.

it's literally, a second computer inside the macbook.

in addition to the touchbar, there's the insanely fast ssd, *four* 40
*gigabit* ports, a wide gamut dci-p3 display and quite a bit more.

to say that apple has abandoned the mac is sheer ignorance.

[JF Mezei]

BTW moving from Snow Leopard to Yosemite as an upgrade did a very good
job at preserving my system's personality, tweaked settings, enabled
services, disabled services etc.


I am under the impression that migration assistant tends to focus on
apps and user files and settings, not on system settings.



Another caveat which may or may not affect you: beyond Yosemite is SIP,
and the installation will zap files from certain unix directories and
place them into a "these files were in adirectories you are no lonegr
allowed to touch" folder. (can't remember exact name).

So if you use OS-X at Unix level, you may have number of add-ons that
were placed in directories where Apple no longer allows them to be there.

If the interim upgrade is Lion, this won't happen, but if it is El
Capitan, it will happen.

Also, starting with Yosemite, kernel extensions are checked at boot and
disabled if the OS isn't happy with them. With SIP, the installer will
kick out any unapproved kernel extension into that folder above.

You may not have any such problems, but good to know in case you scratch
you head because of problems.

[nospam]

In article <58b7b21c$0$41968$c3e8da3$3a1a...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> BTW moving from Snow Leopard to Yosemite as an upgrade did a very good
> job at preserving my system's personality, tweaked settings, enabled
> services, disabled services etc.

apparently it didn't do anything about your personality :)

[David B.]

On 01/03/2017 20:52, Alrescha wrote:
> On 2017-03-01 19:04:00 +0000, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> said:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:57:27 -0500, David B. wrote
>> (in article <_3DtA.12589$KO....@fx18.fr7>):
>>
>>> On 01/03/2017 16:03, Jolly Roger wrote a great response too! :-)
>>
>> Who are you? The Peanut Gallery?
>
> The Mac universe (not uniquely) contains a pathological level of
> self-congratulatory groupthink.

She doesn't REALLY care! ;-)

--
"Do something wonderful, people may imitate it." (Albert Schweitzer)

[David Empson]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-03-01 19:04, David Empson wrote:
>
> > - Converting from iPhoto to Photos might also take several minutes, and
> > if your current version is old enough, requires a separate utilty to do
> > an interim upgrade of your iPhoto library.
>
> After I upgraded to Yosemite, launching iPhoto '09 would pop up "upi
> must upgrade" with a link to the App Store where you can get the last
> version of iPhoto.

That was the case until to March 2015, but iPhoto was pulled from App
Store in early April 2015, when Apple released OS X 10.10.3 with Photos
included.

Since then, the only way you can get a version of iPhoto which will run
on Yosemite or later (9.6.x) is if you already had iPhoto in your Apple
ID's purchase history prior to April 2015.

The ways you could have got it on your purchase history were:

- Buy iPhoto from App Store on OS X 10.6.6 or later, between about mid
2011 (when it was introduced) and March 2015 (when it was pulled).

- Buy a new Mac which came with Lion (10.7), Mountain Lion (10.8),
Mavericks (10.9) or Yosemite (10.10) preinstalled, between about mid
2011 and March 2015. It came with a bundled copy of iPhoto with a
licence that could be "accepted" in App Store, which linked iPhoto to
your Apple ID.

- Already have iPhoto 9.x from iLife '11, either bundled with a new Mac
or the retail edition (both available from about about October 2010 to
mid 2011), and upgrade to Mavericks between about October 2013 and March
2015. App Store would offer you a Mavericks-compatible version: iPhoto
9.5 or 9.5.1. iPhoto 9.0 through 9.4.x won't launch on Mavericks. iPhoto
8.x works and wasn't offered a free upgrade to 9.5.x.

- Have any version of iPhoto (not sure how far back, but assuming you
are right then at least iPhoto 8.x was included, and I know iPhoto 9.x
was), and upgrade to Yosemite between about October 2014 and March 2015.
App Store would offer you a Yosemite-compatible version: 9.6 or 9.6.1.
iPhoto versions prior to 9.6 (including 8.x and earlier) will not launch
on Yosemite or later.

Someone upgrading to Mavericks or later now, with iPhoto 9.4.x or
earlier and no iPhoto in their App Store purchase history, will not be
offered a compatible version of iPhoto.

For Yosemite or later, they will have to stop using iPhoto, because they
cannot get the only version which will launch.

> (I personally prefered iPhoto '09, but the new one has maps working
> agaib).
>
> This will upgrade the database, and from there, you can stay or move to
> the less functional Photos app (won't let you call an external editor
> for instance).
>
> I **ASSUME** that launching iPhoto'09 on Lion, YOsemite, El Capitan or
> Sierra will yield the same result as above and the update to iPhotos is
> still possible.

You assume wrong.

Firstly, Lion and Mountain Lion never offered a free upgrade to the App
Store version of iPhoto. Those who had iLife '11 (with iPhoto 9.x) were
able to get software updates to later minor versions of iPhoto, up to
iPhoto 9.4.3. I don't know if those are still offered. (iPhoto 8.x and
earlier did not get any software updates for compatibility or new
features on Lion or later.)

Secondly, an upgrade from iPhoto 8.x (iPhoto '09) to the App Store
version (9.x) was only ever offered on Yosemite, not earlier major
versions, and then only until March 2015.

> If others have info that says this doesn't work anymore starting from
> version X, this may affect which interim version you go through.

If you have iPhoto 9.6.1 (from App Store), it will run on Yosemite, El
Capitan or Sierra.

If you have an older version of iPhoto on those OS versions and can't
get a later version because iPhoto isn't in your App Store purchase
history, you can't run iPhoto, but you could move to Photos.

Photos will convert an iPhoto 9.x library to a Photos library, and
possibly also iPhoto 8.x. For earlier versions, Photos points you in the
direction of an Apple utility which you can download and run, which will
upgrade older iPhoto libraries to a newer format which can then be
imported by Photos.

If you don't want to use Photos and would rather use a different tool
for managing your photo library, it may be easier to export your photos
out of iPhoto while still running an older OS version, because you will
not be able to launch the older version of iPhoto after upgrading to
Yosemite or later.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[David Empson]

The recommended upgrade path _now_ is SL -> El Capitan -> Sierra.

SL -> (any one in-between major version) -> Sierra is possible if you
have the in-between version, i.e. any of Lion, Mountain Lion, Mavericks,
Yosemite or El Capitan.

El Capitan is still available from App Store (given the link to the
hidden page, which is available from the web page I referenced earlier).

Mavericks and Yosemite aren't available any more, unless already in your
App Store purchase history.

Lion and Mountain Lion are still available but are not free (purchase
from the online Apple Store which gives you an App Store redemption
code).

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[dorayme]

In article <020320170050451170%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

Or yours.

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article <1n2a3iz.147faim4gag91N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,

dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1n29fne.1hbf0fz17i7bq1N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> > dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> >
> > > The recommended upgrade path is Snow Leopard -> El Capitan -> Sierra.
> >
> > I upgraded an external HD SL to Yosemite and then to Sierra. Don't
> > recall going via El C but maybe I did. I *think* I remember a notice
> > on the Yosemite offering an upgrade to Sierra.
>
> The recommended upgrade path _now_ is SL -> El Capitan -> Sierra.
>
> SL -> (any one in-between major version) -> Sierra is possible if you
> have the in-between version, i.e. any of Lion, Mountain Lion, Mavericks,
> Yosemite or El Capitan.
>

Yes, I had upgraded to Yosemite a while before.

> El Capitan is still available from App Store (given the link to the
> hidden page, which is available from the web page I referenced earlier).
>
> Mavericks and Yosemite aren't available any more, unless already in your
> App Store purchase history.
>
> Lion and Mountain Lion are still available but are not free (purchase
> from the online Apple Store which gives you an App Store redemption
> code).

--

dorayme

[David Empson]

Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 19:04:16 -0500, David Empson wrote
> (in article <1n29fne.1hbf0fz17i7bq1N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>):
>
> [Snip]
>
> Dave,
>
> What is your take on installing El Capitan over Snow Leopard vs a clean
> install followed by Migration Assistant?

Neutral.

You'd have to install El Capitan in either case, because you can't
upgrade OR migrate directly from Snow Leopard to Sierra.

(Apple's documents on migration compatibility are ambiguous but I've
tested it recently and Sierra does not offer a volume with a Snow
Leopard system as a migration source. I have done migration and upgrade
from Snow Leopard to El Capitan so can confirm they work.)


For applications, clean install should be similar to migration while
omitting applications (manually reinstalling selected applications in
either case). You can't select which applications get migrated - it is
all or none.

For things installed in the system areas (/System, /Library and the Unix
folders), recent OS versions pick out known incompatible software which
may cause problems and moves it to an "Incompatible Software" at the
root, for either migration or upgrade.

After an upgrade, or migration with applications, any applications which
are not able to launch on the new system will still be there, but their
icon will have a white "no entry" badge on top of it. This can be a
handy reference to work out what you need to replace.

A better plan is to do a trial upgrade on a clone of your system to see
what doesn't work, then replace/upgrade applications while still running
the old system, where possible, e.g. if you were running Microsoft
Office 2004, you could install Office 2011 while still running Snow
Leopard, and it will keep working on El Capitan, wheras Office 2004
would stop working.

If you get hold of iWork '11 for dealing with at least some AppleWorks
documents, you could install it while running Snow Leopard, then update
it to Pages 4.3, Numbers 2.3 and Keynote 5.3 (manually, since Software
Update stopped offering the minor updates) once running El Capitan.

On the other hand, if you need a new version of FileMaker Pro, no recent
version will run on Snow Leopard so you'd have to install it after
upgrading. Version 6 or earlier simply won't run on a later system
(PowerPC only). Version 8.5 or earlier might work but have serious
problems. I haven't tried 9 or 10 on recent systems. Version 11 works on
Snow Leopard and in my experience on Sierra but is not officially
supported. Version 13 and later won't run on Snow Leopard. Version 15 is
the only one which officially supports Sierra.


In my case, I haven't bothered with a clean install since 10.2 Jaguar
(which came on my 2002 PowerBook G4). I've upgraded to each major
version since then, migrated to new computers four times (one was a
temporary replacement when my PowerBook G4 died), and possibly at least
one other migration along the way with a hard drive replacement.

There were a few compatibility problems along the way with third party
software, but I only recall one (obscure) that caused problems for the
rest of the system, and I was able to track it down.

Replacing abandoned software was more of an issue: I delayed upgrading
to Lion for several months because I was still using Eudora with no
viable replacement. I eventually gave in and moved to Apple Mail.


When helping other people, I've used migration in some cases but more
often done upgrades, whichever was more convenient. General pattern has
been migration if they are getting a new computer or replacing a drive,
upgrade on the same drive otherwise (after ensuring there is a backup).

I haven't encountered any significant differences in the end result.


--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Lewis]

In message <1n29d21.1cnird4gaevy3N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>> On 2017-03-01, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>> > In article <0001HW.D4DC82C6...@news.astraweb.com>,
>> > Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> nospam wrote:
>> >>> nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue.
>> >>
>> >>For someone so often wrong, you certainly speak with great certainty.
>> >>Have you ever tried to open a Filemaker 3 file with the current
>> >>version? Try it and stop back to let us know what happened.
>> >
>> > Yeah, "nospam" must be looking at a limited timeframe to make a
>> > statement like that.
>>
>> I don't get that response either. Try opening an AppleWorks file in
>> Sierra sometime. Not gonna happen. : )

> That particular case works for me: AppleWorks 6 WP/SS files open in
> Pages 4.3 or Numbers 2.3 (the iWork '09 versions, not the current
> versions).

If you are fortunate enough to still have Pages '09, yes. But as far as
I know, you cannot INSTALL Pages '09 on a Sierra Mac because the
installer is PPC and Pages installs more than jsut the Application
(though, for the simple expedience of conversion, you probably only need
the App, and that is recoverable from opening the packages on the disc.

And, you also need a disc unless you had the foresight to keep a DMG
around for the last 8 years. And an optical drive, of course.

I had an image file of iWork '09 for a long time but I believe i lost it
in a catastrophic two-raid failure a few years ago (yes, two different
RAIDs failed, one while it was restoring the other. Many things were lost
that didn't have off-site backups. None were important, but some where
annoying).

--
And she was looking at herself
And things were looking like a movie
She had a pleasant elevation
She's moving out in all directions

[Lewis]

In message <58b7b21c$0$41968$c3e8da3$3a1a...@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> I am under the impression that migration assistant tends to focus on
> apps and user files and settings, not on system settings.

I can see why you would be. It's not like one of the top-level
catagories in Migration Assistant is "Settings" or anything.

Oh, wait.

Really, read sometime.

> Another caveat which may or may not affect you: beyond Yosemite is SIP,
> and the installation will zap files from certain unix directories and
> place them into a "these files were in adirectories you are no lonegr
> allowed to touch" folder. (can't remember exact name).

Perhaps "These files were in directories you should never ever have
accessed"?

/usr/local/ exists for a reason.

> So if you use OS-X at Unix level,

And you are a know-nothing fool

> you may have number of add-ons that were placed in directories where
> Apple no longer allows them to be there.

--
"Why, you stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking... NERFHERDER!"
"Who's Scruffy looking?"

[Lewis]

In message <ehpb3p...@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2017-03-02, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <58b72518$0$43705$c3e8da3$5e5e...@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>> I too was a reluctant move from Snow Leopard to Yosemite.
>>
>>> Overall, I would have much prefered to stay with Snow Leopard from a UI
>>> and stability point of view. And you have to spend time to disable
>>> plenty of Yosemite undesirable features (autosave etc)
>>
>> Autosave is an undesirable feature?

> "GET OFF MY LAWN, AUTOSAVE!!" ; )

My wife recently recently lost several hours of work because she didn't realize
that MS Office, alone of every app on her computer, did not autosave.

One more reason for her to hate Microsoft Office.

I told her "Do the work in Pages, then export to Word (or rtf or pdf) as
the last step." But that's got its own annoyances.


--
I mistook thee for thy better Hamlet Act III scene 4

[Lewis]

In message <ehp8t1...@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2017-03-01, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>>

>> In article <0001HW.D4DCB835...@news.astraweb.com>,
>> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>For the life of me I cannot think of one application that would make
>>>the tedious effort worth it. As you know, you can't go directly from
>>>Snow Leopard to Sierra. You have to at least go through Lion.

>>
>> Nope, you can jump directly to El Capitan, then decide if you want
>> to go to Sierra from there:
>>
>> https://support.apple.com/snowleopard

> I'd recommend El Capitan over Lion, for sure - way less buggy.

There is no reason that anyone should run 10.7 or 10.8 or 10.9.

No no, let me stop you right there, There is *no* reason.

>> I'll be using Emailalchemy or Eudora Mailbox Cleaner to convert my mail
>> to the Apple Mail format. Calendar and Address Book should convert fine
>> since they're Apple's own apps, but perhaps someone else here can speak
>> to that.

> As a precaution, you might want to go into each app, and do a File >
> Export > Archive of the database. You can import those archives into the
> new versions if the migration doesn't bring the data in (which it should
> without issue).

It's a sensible idea on the 0.01% chance the data migration fails if you
are doing an update in place and you don't have other backups.

--
We are born naked, wet and hungry; then it's all downhill.

[Lewis]

In message <0001HW.D4DCEA13...@news.astraweb.com> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 20:11:08 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <ehp9pb...@mid.individual.net>):

>> On 2017-03-01, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:30:09 -0500, nospam wrote
>>> (in article <010320171430094777%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
>>>
>>>> apple just released new macbooks with a touchbar, something that was ten
>>>> years in the making and took a lot of r&d dollars.
>>>>
>>>> if they were abandoning the mac, they'd have done nothing.
>>>
>>> Thanks for that:) I spit my coffee on the screen laughing. Good to
>>> see you have a sense of humor after all :)
>>
>> Spit on this one: Today's MacBook Pros have some of THE fastest storage
>> available on *any* mainstream laptop, and there are plenty of other
>> innovations and improvements being made as well. If you want to ignore
>> all of the real improvements and claim there has been no progress, fine.
>> Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it when reality says
>> otherwise.

> I was spitting at the touchbar "something that was ten years in the
> making..."

Facts are facts.

> Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys?

10 years for a ARM based subsytem that is full integrated into the OS,
along with a secure enclave for TouchID and a top-notch OLED display,
yes. About 10 years.

> You guys.

Says the person who has no idea what he's talking about.

--
If you could do a sort of relief map of sinfulness, wickedness and
all-round immorality, rather like those representations of the
gravitational field around a Black Hole, then even in Ankh-Morpork the
Shades would be represented by a shaft. In fact the Shades was
remarkably like the aforesaid well-known astrological phenomenon: it had
a certain strong attraction, no light escaped from it, and it could
indeed become a gateway to another world. The next one.

[Lewis]

In message <0001HW.D4DD874B...@news.astraweb.com> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:49:19 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <ehpj1v...@mid.individual.net>):

> I don't care if they implemented it with a Quantum Computer an a
> diamond screen. Functionally, it's little more than glorified soft
> keys.

Says the person who has used it how often? Zero times? Oh right.

--
'Yes, but humans are more important than animals,' said Brutha. 'This
is a point of view often expressed by humans,' said Om. (Small Gods)

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-02, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:49:19 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <ehpj1v...@mid.individual.net>):
>> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>

>>> Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys?
>>
>> Ah. You're misunderstanding the technology in use. Apples implementation is
>> anything but just a standard implementation of soft keys. Instead, the
>> Touch Bar is actually a separate (but integrated) multitouch device running
>> on a custom ARM-based SoC called the Apple T1 similar to the SoC in the
>> Apple Watch with a secure enclave and Touch ID sensor for biometric
>> authentication, Apple Pay support, and so on. It's way more than just soft
>> keys, and way more flexible and useful. You can think of it as an embedded
>> iOS device running right along side macOS. Apple indeed has been working on
>> this technology for a long, long time. Here's a decent (but dated) review:
>>

><https://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch-
> bar-macbo
>> ok-pros-reviewed/>
>
> I don't care if they implemented it with a Quantum Computer an a
> diamond screen. Functionally, it's little more than glorified soft
> keys.

That's a flat-out lie. Show me soft keys that can do biometric
authentication in arguably the most secure and privacy-preserving manner
on any consumer-grade device. You can't because there is no other as
secure that protects your biometric data the way Apple does. You're
trolling.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-02, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <58b7b21c$0$41968$c3e8da3$3a1a...@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> I am under the impression that migration assistant tends to focus on
>> apps and user files and settings, not on system settings.
>
> I can see why you would be. It's not like one of the top-level
> catagories in Migration Assistant is "Settings" or anything.
>
> Oh, wait.
>
> Really, read sometime.

I had the exact same reaction. Of *course* Migration Assistant migrates
system settings. Duh. Honestly, I don't know why the guy bothers to open
his mouth.

>> Another caveat which may or may not affect you: beyond Yosemite is SIP,
>> and the installation will zap files from certain unix directories and
>> place them into a "these files were in adirectories you are no lonegr
>> allowed to touch" folder. (can't remember exact name).
>
> Perhaps "These files were in directories you should never ever have
> accessed"?
>
> /usr/local/ exists for a reason.

Anyone who has been around *nix for more than a year knows full well the
standard location for user-level command-line software installs is
/usr/local as a best practice. But JF Mezei doesn't *want* to use
/usr/local, you see! He wants to install stuff into protected system
directories intermingled with system binaries and libraries, because
potentially compromising your system is a right all admins have, yo -
best practices and standards be damned! And of course he assumes the
rest of us feel the same way. : D Nope.

Most command-line *nix software already installs into /usr/local by
*default*. You have to go out of your way to install elsewhere, as JF
Mezei has clearly done.

Bottom line: Install into /usr/local and SIP won't be a problem. Very
simple.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-02, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <ehpb3p...@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-03-02, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> In message <58b72518$0$43705$c3e8da3$5e5e...@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>> I too was a reluctant move from Snow Leopard to Yosemite.
>>>
>>>> Overall, I would have much prefered to stay with Snow Leopard from a UI
>>>> and stability point of view. And you have to spend time to disable
>>>> plenty of Yosemite undesirable features (autosave etc)
>>>
>>> Autosave is an undesirable feature?
>
>> "GET OFF MY LAWN, AUTOSAVE!!" ; )
>
> My wife recently recently lost several hours of work because she didn't realize
> that MS Office, alone of every app on her computer, did not autosave.
>
> One more reason for her to hate Microsoft Office.

Ugh. Yep. Been there, done that. Glad I don't have to use Office much
these days.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-02, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

Yep! : ) Probably a waste of time, but then it takes only a few seconds
and you can toss them in the trash afterward.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-03-02, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:10:46 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <ehqug6...@mid.individual.net>):

>
>> On 2017-03-02, Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:49:19 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
>>> (in article <ehpj1v...@mid.individual.net>):
>>>> Nelson <nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Give me a break. 10 years? For soft keys?
>>>>
>>>> Ah. You're misunderstanding the technology in use. Apples
>>>> implementation is anything but just a standard implementation of
>>>> soft keys. Instead, the Touch Bar is actually a separate (but
>>>> integrated) multitouch device running on a custom ARM-based SoC
>>>> called the Apple T1 similar to the SoC in the Apple Watch with a
>>>> secure enclave and Touch ID sensor for biometric authentication,
>>>> Apple Pay support, and so on. It's way more than just soft keys,
>>>> and way more flexible and useful. You can think of it as an
>>>> embedded iOS device running right along side macOS. Apple indeed
>>>> has been working on this technology for a long, long time. Here's a
>>>> decent (but dated) review:
>>>>
>>> <https://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch-
>>> bar-macbo
>>>> ok-pros-reviewed/>
>>>
>>> I don't care if they implemented it with a Quantum Computer an a
>>> diamond screen. Functionally, it's little more than glorified soft
>>> keys.
>>
>> That's a flat-out lie.
>

> It's a judgement not a lie.

No, it's a lie. Soft keys don't do secure biometric authentication, and
they typically aren't multitouch capable with high-quality OLED displays
either. Claiming the Touch Bar is little more than glorified soft keys
is pure hyperbole.

> You really should be more careful with your hyperbole and vitriol.

You should take your own advice! You've been spewing hyperbole ever
since people wondered why you were sticking with 10.6!

>> Show me soft keys that can do biometric
>> authentication in arguably the most secure and privacy-preserving manner
>> on any consumer-grade device. You can't because there is no other as
>> secure that protects your biometric data the way Apple does. You're
>> trolling.
>

> You surely cannot be claiming that the raison d'être of the touch bar
> is preserving biometric data.

The truth is the Touch Bar has multiple "reasons for being" (functions),
one of the major ones being secure and private biometric authentication.
It includes a secure fingerprint sensor and a significant portion of the
custom SoC is *dedicated* to just that. I realize it would be convenient
for you to ignore this functionality as if it holds no value, along with
the rest of the functionality that sets it apart from typical "glorified
soft keys"; but that's not the reality of the situation. I don't expect
you to like or fawn over the Touch Bar; but you could at least try not
to spread lies and misinformation about it to justify your position that
it has little value beyond "glorified soft keys". We should strive for
the truth, always.

[nospam]

In article <slrnobg9q8....@snow.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>
> There is no reason that anyone should run 10.7 or 10.8 or 10.9.
>
> No no, let me stop you right there, There is *no* reason.

yes there is. some macs can't run anything past 10.7. other than that,
no.

[nospam]

In article <ehqug6...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger

<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> > I don't care if they implemented it with a Quantum Computer an a
> > diamond screen. Functionally, it's little more than glorified soft
> > keys.
>
> That's a flat-out lie. Show me soft keys that can do biometric
> authentication in arguably the most secure and privacy-preserving manner
> on any consumer-grade device. You can't because there is no other as
> secure that protects your biometric data the way Apple does. You're
> trolling.

you can also drag buttons from the main display onto or off of the
touchbar.

it's basically a second display.

you can even play lemmings and pacman on it:
<https://www.macrumors.com/2016/12/12/macbook-pro-lemmings-pac-man-touch-
bar/>

it's way the hell more than just soft keys.

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.D4DDB6D5...@news.astraweb.com>, Nelson

<nel...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >> I don't care if they implemented it with a Quantum Computer an a
> >> diamond screen. Functionally, it's little more than glorified soft
> >> keys.
> >
> > That's a flat-out lie.
>

> It's a judgement not a lie. You really should be more careful with
> your hyperbole and vitriol. Although I can understand how you may have
> picked up the habit from others in this group.

it's flat out false. when someone states false information, they are
lying.

> > Show me soft keys that can do biometric
> > authentication in arguably the most secure and privacy-preserving manner
> > on any consumer-grade device. You can't because there is no other as
> > secure that protects your biometric data the way Apple does. You're
> > trolling.
>

> You surely cannot be claiming that the raison d'être of the touch bar
> is preserving biometric data.

it's one of its major functions, given that the touchbar includes a
touchid sensor and arm chip with secure enclave.

it's much more than just softkeys.

[Lewis]

the only UNIX util that I've installed OUTSIDE of /usr/local/ since 1987
was postfix, for many years, but since Postfix 3.x, even it lives in
/usr/local/

(Not on OS X, I use headless FreeBSD for servers)

Hm... Apache 1.x might have lived in /etc/ also, but it moight have
simply been ln -s /usr/local/etc/httpd /etc/

> Bottom line: Install into /usr/local and SIP won't be a problem. Very
> simple.

Yep.

--
"He is a self-made man and worships his creator." - John Bright

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-03-02 03:47, David Empson wrote:

> That was the case until to March 2015, but iPhoto was pulled from App
> Store in early April 2015, when Apple released OS X 10.10.3 with Photos
> included.

Thansk to your previous messages, I was able to go back to my install
history.

iPhoto 8.1.1 2009-12-09
iPhoto 8.1.2 2010-03-31
iPhoto 9.6.1 2015-10-01
<key>date</key>
<date>2015-10-01T02:54:53Z</date>
<key>displayName</key>
<string>iPhoto</string>
<key>displayVersion</key>
<string>9.6.1</string>
<key>packageIdentifiers</key>
<array>
<string>com.apple.pkg.iPhoto_AppStore</string>
</array>
<key>processName</key>
<string>storedownloadd</string>

Note: the previous 2 (8.1.x) were via "SoftwareUpdate" instead of
"storedownloadd"



(2015-10-01 is the dates I updated my desktop from SL to Yosemite, but
had done my laptop before. However, if I had simply moved iPhoto from
laptop to desktop, it would not be in the install log for my desktop.

But my experience is that when I launched the old iPhoto, the app
launched (from an OS point of view) but then displayed information about
needing and update and giving clickable link to app store and then the
app quit. (Not sure what sort of magic is involved, or whether the
Yosemite install update the iPhoto'09 app) to cause it to behave that way).

The App Store "purchased" entry for iPhoto has a Oct 19 2014 date.

(As I recall , iLife 09 came with new machines. But I had to buy iWork 09.)

> For Yosemite or later, they will have to stop using iPhoto, because they
> cannot get the only version which will launch.

Unless they have a friend with the right version :-)

But I suspect, based on the dates you mention (April 2015) and my
experience (Oct 2015) that launching iPhoto'09 in Yosemite will still
give you a link to the more recent iPhoto app on App Store.

> Photos will convert an iPhoto 9.x library to a Photos library, and
> possibly also iPhoto 8.x.

Semantics, but Photos builds its database from an iPhoto one, leaving
the iPhoto database intact.

This has the nice capability of trying out Photos and if you don't like
it, return to iPhoto.

[Patty Winter]

In article <ehp96a...@mid.individual.net>,

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>On 2017-03-01, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>

>> I don't even use Calendar on my iMac any more because it doesn't sync
>> with my iPhone, which is where I really need appointment information.
>
>It will sync with your iPhone in later versions and does so seamlessly.
>Same goes for contacts, notes, etc. It's *very* nice.

Oh yes, I'm well aware that the issue with iCal (sorry that I said
Calendar) is that it can only sync with the now nonexistent MobileMe,
and that as soon as I upgrade the OS I'll have the more modern Calendar
and gain iCloud sync capability. It will be nice to have my meetings
and appointments on my iMac again!


Patty

[Lewis]

Oh right.

There is no reason that anyone should run 10.8, 10.9, or 10.10.


--
"640K ought to be enough RAM for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981