macOS Sierra Is Now Available For Download (engadget.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

macOS Sierra Is Now Available For Download (engadget.com)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @10:40AM from the new-OS-versions dept.

Dave Knott writes: Apple's latest desktop operating system, macOS Sierra, is now available for download. In addition to the Siri virtual assistant hitting the desktop for the first time, the free update includes features like a universal clipboard, revamped Messages, a storage optimization tool, and Apple Pay on the web.Engadget has also tested the new operating system and gave it a fairly positive review. It notes that Siri integration is "useful, if you already use Siri," and that iCloud and storage improvements have "practical benefits for everyone." But at the same time, the publication found that Siri "isn't always smart enough."

149 of 202 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Awesome!!! by Type44Q · 2016-09-20 10:43 · Score: 1

Can I leave UEFI enabled or do I need to set my BIOS boot mode to legacy/CMS??
1. Re:Awesome!!! by armanox · 2016-09-21 00:15 · Score: 2
  
  ....ummm what? Like SGI, Apple never used the legacy BIOS declaring it to be old and obsolete. However, secure boot was never a thing on Apple hardware (or SGI hardware either).
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Re: Wine by ModernGeek · 2016-09-20 10:52 · Score: 1

GNU's Not Unix!

--
Sig: I stole this sig.
universal clipboard wtf by vux984 · 2016-09-20 10:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

universal clipboard sounds like a complete security disaster for any sort of family use. Dad hits copy to copy/paste something on his laptop at the office, and the kids upstairs doing their homework go to paste something into a document on the ipad upstairs have that content dumped into the document...
What is the worst that could happen? Who wanted this? Who is so damned lazy that they couldn't paste whatever they wanted into a file that's synced the cloud, or a note that's synced with their device, or sent themselves an email or drafted an email... or any of a bunch of things you actually have to take an active step to sync.
I don't want crap automatically syncing between devices i own. There are a things like photos and documents that I want synced between certain folders on certain devices... but my clipboard? FFS -- my passwords are in the clipboard half the time when using apps like password safe etc... lets just squirt that into the web without thinking about it...
1. Re:universal clipboard wtf by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-20 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  I don't want crap automatically syncing between devices i own.
  Turn it off then. Would probably take less time than it did to compose that little rant of yours.
2. Re: universal clipboard wtf by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-20 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  i believe contents of the clipboard are transferred using Handoff, point to point transfer locally.
  so no internet is involved and it won't work if you're not physically present.
3. Re:universal clipboard wtf by nine-times · 2016-09-20 11:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Dad hits copy to copy/paste something on his laptop at the office, and the kids upstairs doing their homework go to paste something into a document on the ipad upstairs have that content dumped into the document.
  Well it's not quite as bad as that. It only works if they're both signed in using the same iCloud account. So you'll only have a problem if Dad and Son are signed into the same iCloud account on their devices. Even then... I have Sierra and an iPhone, and I can't figure out how the feature is supposed to work. I certainly haven't done it accidentally.
4. Re:universal clipboard wtf by berj · 2016-09-20 11:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  1) nothing goes to the internet.
  2) nothing will go to a machine/account that isn't signed in to the same icloud account.
  3) Calm down.. just turn Handoff off and you're good.
5. Re:universal clipboard wtf by seoras · 2016-09-20 11:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's what having separate user accounts is for.
  There's no way I'd let my kids use anything that I was logged into.
  Your just asking for disaster.
  Airdrop has never worked well for me although hand off works very nicely.
  Uni-Clip sounds good, in theory, although I've yet to try it out.
  I'm still on El Capitan & iOS9 until the dust settles and the major bugs have been fixed.
6. Re:universal clipboard wtf by windwalkr · 2016-09-20 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's what having separate user accounts is for.
  Now if only they actually supported user accounts on the iOS devices..
7. Re:universal clipboard wtf by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-20 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  How does it get between machines logged-in to the same iCloud account if not through the Internet?
8. Re:universal clipboard wtf by vux984 · 2016-09-20 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  So you'll only have a problem if Dad and Son are signed into the same iCloud account on their devices.
  This is how most people run their family tablets/kitchen computers/etc. Kids don't usually start getting their own logins until *they* own the devices and/or reach teenage years etc. And even then computers and devices in shared spaces; most people just use a common login rather than multiple accounts because that's hassle.
9. Re:universal clipboard wtf by vux984 · 2016-09-20 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  That's what having separate user accounts is for.
  Seriously. Nobody wants that hassle.
  
  There's no way I'd let my kids use anything that I was logged into.
  Yeah, my main laptop is protected by password etc and the kids aren't even allowed to use it; ditto my main desktop.
  but my old laptop is now the living room laptop, and the kids can watch youtube and play games on it, and search the web etc. And I *prefer* it to just have one login that is shared by all users.
  And I don't even think twice about the living room ipad... hell i never even use it. But all my OSX devices are on the same itunes account becuase that way purchases/apps are shared; the music is available to all users, etc, etc.
  Most families setup devices this way, and kids don't get their "own" accounts until they are older.
10. Re:universal clipboard wtf by vux984 · 2016-09-20 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand why you would like to log in onto work computer and home computer with same login? THAT is beginning of security disaster!
  I wouldn't use the same login as the imac at home.
  (Although you know a ton of people absolutely would.)
  But even in MY case, my wifes macbook pro, my macbook pro, and my daughters iphone, and the kids ipad in the living room all use the same itunes/icloud account so that music, and app purchases, etc are shared. This is how a lot of families are setup in my experience; especially husband and wife; or families with young kids. Older teens start to want their own accounts but before that a lot of this stuff is simply shared for simplicity.
11. Re: universal clipboard wtf by vux984 · 2016-09-20 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  i believe contents of the clipboard are transferred using Handoff, point to point transfer locally.
  so no internet is involved and it won't work if you're not physically present.
  Still going to happen to families. Dad in the home office, kid in the living room immediately above. Mom in the living room, kids in the rec-room immediately below... etc etc.
  This just seems dumb in much the same way windows 10 wifi password sharing was dumb.
12. Re:universal clipboard wtf by brantondaveperson · 2016-09-20 15:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Most people are wrong.
  Create apple ID accounts for your kids, and gift them apps if they need stuff. Create gmail accounts for your kids, so they can have their own email addresses. Put credit card information in neither, of course. Put two factor on everything, because kids always choose crap passwords, and make sure you store those passwords somewhere safe because kids can't remember anything. This makes life far, far, simpler. Having one account seems simple at first, but rapidly becomes a nightmare.
  The idea of having my kids signed into my apple ID on their devices (which they have to have for school, by the way, before you start telling me that kids shouldn't own iPads etc) is a terrible one. A friend of mine managed to allow her kid to run up huge bills, precisely because she'd used her own apple ID on her kids ipad, and the kid bought $500 of in-game nonsense without her knowledge.
13. Re:universal clipboard wtf by brantondaveperson · 2016-09-20 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  Airdrop has never worked well for me
  Me neither. What is up with that feature? It's a total disaster.
14. Re:universal clipboard wtf by brantondaveperson · 2016-09-20 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  the music is available to all users, etc, etc.
  The kids strongly dislike the music I listen to, and the feeling is (somewhat) mutual.
15. Re: universal clipboard wtf by LanceMcGrath · 2016-09-20 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  You know that with family sharing, you don't need to use the same account to share purchases and music, right?
16. Re:universal clipboard wtf by Yaztromo · 2016-09-20 16:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  How does it get between machines logged-in to the same iCloud account if not through the Internet?
  Bluetooth and/or local WiFi. The WiFi login isn't used for communication between the devices, but only for pairing the devices together locally (that is, the devices find each other via Bluetooth and/or WiFi on the local network. A handshake is done to verify that both have successfully authenticated against the same account ID on iCloud. Then local communications is permitted. iCloud isn't involved in the data transfer, nor in the setup of a communications channel between devices).
  Yaz
17. Re:universal clipboard wtf by Dog-Cow · 2016-09-20 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't upgrade to Sierra yet, so I haven't tried it, but I've been wanting this feature forever*.
  * as defined by the length of time I've owned a device with iPhoneOS (now iOS).
18. Re:universal clipboard wtf by FatdogHaiku · 2016-09-20 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Dad hits copy to copy/paste something on his laptop at the office, and the kids upstairs doing their homework go to paste something into a document on the ipad upstairs have that content dumped into the document.
  So, doing a quick screen grab from your favorite porn site may end up in a quarterly report in addition to being the intended wallpaper file...
  Hilarity ensues!
  Also, a possible new application for the term "bottom line"...
  Oh, Bonus Points if you can get all the members of the board to twist their heads sideways in unison.
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
19. Re: universal clipboard wtf by Dog-Cow · 2016-09-20 16:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  A lot of things seem dumb until you actually learn about it and stop spouting from ignorance. Use the feature. Learn how it works, and then rant about it. I know it's not the slashdot way, but at least you'll seem less dumb.
20. Re:universal clipboard wtf by Dog-Cow · 2016-09-20 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  Then don't leave iCloud logged in on their devices. Ta Da!
  If you're going to be a stupid idiot, that's your business. But please leave us normal people our useful features. Thanks.
21. Re: universal clipboard wtf by vux984 · 2016-09-20 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  Is that how you made your decision about windows 10 misfeatures too?
  Sometime you don't need to try something to realize its just bound to lead to unintended disclosures. And there are so many actual ways of intentionally moving data between devices that this simply isn't necessary.
22. Re:universal clipboard wtf by vux984 · 2016-09-20 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  "run their families". (Families are not a business. They aren't "run".)
  the actual sentence clause was "run their family's computers/tablets/etc".
  As in the 'running' (or setup and management if you prefer) of the computers and devices used by members of the family.
  
  I don't think it's fair to those of us with a brain [...]
  
  to have you pretending that you belong in the group? You're right. It's not fair.
23. Re:universal clipboard wtf by guruevi · 2016-09-20 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  How does the kid buy $500 of in-game crap, you need the AppleID password for making purchases and each purchase gets a notification.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
24. Re:universal clipboard wtf by jbolden · 2016-09-20 22:01 · Score: 2
  
  Why would the kid's iPad be synced with the father's account? Apple offers children and family accounts so you can set an iPad up with an account for a minor.
25. Re:universal clipboard wtf by jbolden · 2016-09-20 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  Apple doesn't encourage that usage pattern. They have family setups for kids.
  As far as common login / login on a computer, if the family is sharing one login then they are sharing one account they are one person with one set of data. That's the case for all computers. There are "guest" setting for shared computers you don't use a standard login you use a guest type account and that won't have the syncing.
26. Re:universal clipboard wtf by Aaden42 · 2016-09-21 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  You're logging in wrong...
  Apple accounts are per-person. If you're sharing them, all kinds of cross-linked badness will happen. Dad uses the main account & kids have family accounts (with limits & allowances set). All purchases are shared, but pasteboard & assorted iCloud storage is kept separate. There's no good reason to be sharing accounts.
  The shared pasteboard is useful, and I love it. Browsing slashdot on my phone, have to type a rant-y reply... Type on Mac, copy/pasta & paste into phone.
27. Re:universal clipboard wtf by Aaden42 · 2016-09-21 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  It's almost like by doing research and asking questions we can learn how these magic lightning boxes work and dispel the Fear (uncertainty & doubt) of the Unknown...
28. Re:universal clipboard wtf by Aaden42 · 2016-09-21 02:03 · Score: 2
  
  Settings -> iCloud
  Handoff is tied to the iCloud account. If you leave your iCloud account logged in on your kid's phones, they have access to your photos, mail, contacts, calendar, notes, Safari history & bookmarks, notes, credit cards (via Wallet), keychain passwords, and every document that any iCloud enabled app has ever stored for you from either your phone or computer. You maybe don't want to do that...
  Setup family accounts, and let them login to their own. Everyone shares purchases, and everyone has their own sandbox for storage, Handoff, etc.
29. Re: universal clipboard wtf by serviscope_minor · 2016-09-21 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds good to me. Everything connected via synergy shares a clipboard. I've often thought about writing a program to share clipboards between android and X, but never got around to it. Though honestly, the android clipboard mechanism seems somewhat clunky compared to the ancient X11 mechanism with the ICCCM protocol and MIME types (that combination has been used together for a very long time).
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
30. Re:universal clipboard wtf by Aaden42 · 2016-09-21 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Couple of bad things with Airdrop...
  First is that there's two completely different technologies called Airdrop that don't interop. First was old-Mac Airdrop that only worked on Macs. Then iOS Airdrop which was different. Then new Macs started using new-Airdrop, but they required newer Bluetooth hardware than lots of old Macs had, so the old Macs still used old-Mac Airdrop & didn't interop with new Macs or iOS. Clusterfsck in other words...
  Handoff uses the newer Bluetooth hardware (so no old Macs), but at least it's the same on all the iOS & Mac versions that claim to support it & designed to interop across platforms. I think the hybrid BT/Wifi tricks they pull also make it more likely for devices to find each other than the old-Mac pure network based approach used to.
31. Re:universal clipboard wtf by ruir · 2016-09-21 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  You do not need to gift them apps. You create a family group, and they can use all your apps. You use your own account to buy apps for them.
32. Re:universal clipboard wtf by vux984 · 2016-09-21 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Apple accounts are per-person. If you're sharing them, all kinds of cross-linked badness will happen. Dad uses the main account & kids have family accounts (with limits & allowances set). All purchases are shared, but pasteboard & assorted iCloud storage is kept separate. There's no good reason to be sharing accounts.
  Ok, here's another example. My parents (aka the kids grandparents. Dad has an iphone, and ipad, and mac. They all use one account because they're all his.
  He and my mom use the ipad in the living room all the time. And the grandkids and guests use the ipad all the time as well when visiting.
  There's all kinds of opportunity for unwanted clipboard sharing to result. The kids are over while he's working in the office downstairs for example.
  
  Dad uses the main account & kids have family accounts (with limits & allowances set)
  Most families simply don't set up their devices this way. Its more work and what does a 6 year old need with his own apple account just to play with his mom or dads or grandfathers ipad?
  
  The shared pasteboard is useful, and I love it. Browsing slashdot on my phone, have to type a rant-y reply... Type on Mac, copy/pasta & paste into phone.
  Because simply posting it from your mac was too hard? All they had to do to make this sensible was add a key... ctrl-cmd-c on the mac to copy to clipboard and sync it to icloud; cmd-c for a regular copy to local only. On ios same thing add a 2nd popup command next to copy for icloud copy.
  Same functionality, but then it never happens unintentionally.
  The idea that everything you copy and paste should try by default to find some other nearby authorized device to sync to is idiotic. For how often you need it (not much), it should be something you explicitly activate.
33. Re:universal clipboard wtf by SScorpio · 2016-09-21 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  This is the same company that told millions of people they hold their phone wrong.
34. Re: universal clipboard wtf by cheesybagel · 2016-09-21 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  You're holding it wrong.
35. Re:universal clipboard wtf by angel'o'sphere · 2016-09-21 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not giving kids their own account on the parents machine is the dumbest thing I ever heared.
  You must be a windows user?
  Setting up an account for my little brothers (my father married again and I have two brothers 40 years younger than me) is less than a minute work.
  And: the kids can not destroy your computer with a single mouse click or download software/music/video that bancrupts you ... sorry: you are an idiot!
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
36. Re:universal clipboard wtf by vux984 · 2016-09-21 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  Not giving kids their own account on the parents machine is the dumbest thing I ever heared.
  ORLY?
  
  Setting up an account for my little brothers (my father married again and I have two brothers 40 years younger than me) is less than a minute work.
  Less than a minutes work. For you. After you thought about it.
  Most people don't give a second thought to this shit. So the system needs to cope with how people actually use stuff. A solution that only /. user would think of is not a solution at all.
  How many parents hand their kids their phones and ipads to play games on? Pretty much all of them. All the time. That's the world we live in. So manufacturers that want to make consumer friendly shit need to consider how consumers actually are going to use the stuff.
  
  And: the kids can not destroy your computer with a single mouse click or download software/music/video that bancrupts you ... sorry: you are an idiot!
  This isn't about me specifically. And yeah, the average kitchen computer or living room laptop is a disaster area. That's reality. In my case, I maintain separate equipment for important work, but not everyone has 20+ computers in there house. My parents for example have an iphone, and ipad, and a mac mini. And when the kids come over they're allowed to play games on the ipad. (But no they don't create a separate apple id for when the grandkids come to visit; and they don't obsessively sign in and out of icloud.) That's just normal people using ipads the way normal people use ipads: couch toys.
37. Re:universal clipboard wtf by brantondaveperson · 2016-09-29 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  I did try that, but I could never get it to work properly. Maybe it's time I tried again.
38. Re:universal clipboard wtf by ruir · 2016-09-30 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  My wife uses my apps, and it works ok.
Pity my MacPro can't run it by Kryptonut · 2016-09-20 10:57 · Score: 1

Being a MacPro (3,1)....you know, it only has 8 Xeon cores, 32GB and Samsung Evo 850 SSD's. But no, it's not "allowed" to run the latest OS anymore.
1. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by nine-times · 2016-09-20 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just about whether it's powerful enough, but whether Apple wants to support hardware that old, including all the drivers, and testing it thoroughly on those machines. You're talking about a model that's 8 years old.
2. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Kryptonut · 2016-09-20 11:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You obviously have no idea how much these machines costed when they were released - especially fully loaded. Why should I not expect it to be supported longer, given the premium they demand on the Mac Pro machines?
  Forced obsolescence of a perfectly capable, useful (and expensive) machine makes the Hackintosh camp a lot more appealing (mainly because of the apps I already have that are Mac only). Not to mention, the current Mac Pro's are very limited in how they can be customised after purchase.
  The (1,1) and (2,1) Mac Pros were retired because they had 32-bit EFI and the new OS's needed 64-bit EFI....a technical limitation. Most of the Macs I've had that have lost support have been because of a technical limitation (be it RAM limits, 32-bit only processors, Power CPU's). This instance is just plain greed.
  Microsoft obviously don't think the hardware is obsolete as Windows 10 runs flawlessly on mine in bootcamp for the Windows only stuff I do.
3. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Kryptonut · 2016-09-20 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, considering all the unofficial guides to install Sierra on a Mac Pro (3,1) make no mention of needing to install drivers for it (unless you have a 3rd party graphics card), which suggests they're already in the OS.
  These aren't iMacs that people check their Facebook and send a few e-mails on, they're Pro machines - designed for a completely different environment and completely different workloads. Given that, why shouldn't they be supported longer too?
4. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Yvan256 · 2016-09-20 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  And yet it's still much more powerful than my 2010 Mac mini, which is allowed to run macOS Sierra with its old 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo.
5. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Fwipp · 2016-09-20 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like you should buy Microsoft, then.
6. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by DavidRavenMoon · 2016-09-20 12:07 · Score: 2
  
  I have an Early 2009 24" iMac. It has 64-bit EFI and CPU. No dice. But a late 2009 works. There are ways to install it however. Apple released 4 iMacs in 2009. They must have changed the motherboard a few times. The 2012 MacPro I use at work can run it. Have to wait to see if the apps I use are compatible. But if not, El Capitan runs great.
  
  --
  -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
7. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by DavidRavenMoon · 2016-09-20 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  These aren't iMacs that people check their Facebook and send a few e-mails on, they're Pro machines - designed for a completely different environment and completely different workloads. Given that, why shouldn't they be supported longer too?
  Yeah... remember the G5? When I worked at Sony Music they had a pile of them in a storage room. All perfectly capable, but obsolete, nonetheless. But your MacPro isn't going to stop working. It just can't run macOS Sierra.
  
  --
  -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
8. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Kryptonut · 2016-09-20 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because Windows will run all the Mac only copies of software I already have - some of which are only distributed on the Mac App Store. Good call.
9. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Kryptonut · 2016-09-20 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I still have an aluminium PowerBook G4 in my garage. But the reason it....and the G5 machines became obsolete was because they switched architectures....and they had numerous heat related issues with the G5. I still remember the photoshopped pictures of the 5 inch thick PowerBook G5's.
  Still, I accepted that my PowerBook G4 would be unsupported with the Intel switch because they'd reached severe limitations with the PowerPC architecture.
  The main reason I'm pissed is that this particular "obsolescence" is not due to technical issues.
  I know my Mac Pro won't stop working....but I paid a premium for the machine and in a couple of years time, some of the Mac only software I use may not even run on El Capitan, despite the machine itself having higher specs than a lot of the "newer" machines that can run latest software.
10. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Chmarr · 2016-09-20 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure about the 64-bit EFI part? From what I've read that was the delineating factor: Apple have removed the 32-bit EFI support (because it truely is a bitch to have to maintain both).
11. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Kryptonut · 2016-09-20 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, only the (1,1) and (2,1) Pros had the 32-bit EFI, the (3,1) was the first to have 64-bit EFI. People on the (1,1) and (2,1) Pros had to use a modified boot.efi to fool the the OS into booting the 64-bit kernel if they wanted to run El Capitan (unsupported).
12. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by ColdWetDog · 2016-09-20 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno. I have a 3,1 MacPro which works for everything but 4K video. It won't make the cut to 'macOS' but it's running El Capitan. OTOH, the new OS really doesn't offer anything I'm terribly interested in and this machine is going on 7 years old. Yeah, it was expensive, but it has been working for ... 7 years. That's not bad. It will continue to work for a while longer. Adobe Creative Suite still runs. Autodesk stuff still runs.
  You paid a premium and got a premium amount of work out of it.
  It is really likely that this may be my last Mac since the new MacPros are really, really dumb and won't be viable machines for nearly as long a period of time. Nobody is going to make new video cards for them and the stock ones are pretty long in the tooth already. Thunderbolt stuff exists but it's never going to mainstream.
  It's sad. Don't like Windows. 10 can be beaten into a sort of OK OS but still lacks a lot of polish compared to OS X.
  Now, off my lawn. Time for a nap.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
13. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Kryptonut · 2016-09-20 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Oops, you're talking about that iMac? Here we go, this lists the EFI's for different machines
14. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by macs4all · 2016-09-20 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  I know my Mac Pro won't stop working....but I paid a premium for the machine and in a couple of years time, some of the Mac only software I use may not even run on El Capitan, despite the machine itself having higher specs than a lot of the "newer" machines that can run latest software.
  Although I do agree that it sucks when a still-functioning Mac (or iOS device) falls off the end of the list (I finally just "lost" support for my iPhone 4s and iPad2), and in this particular case it SEEMS unwarranted, I also believe that the Hackintosh community will come out in short order with a Bootloader and whatever KEXTs are necessary to get your baby rockin' Sierra. After all, the same things that make this model SEEM like it ought to run Sierra will make it all the easier for someone to actually make that happen.
15. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-20 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  BTW, Apple SUPPORTS other hardware that's older and no where as good as the mentioned XEON based Mac Pro. They've dropped support for all the pro systems, but not the consumer models.
  
  You're right, Apple is not a charity and I've used their system long enough to know they can be complete fucks to last years model. Apple could just sell newer OS updates and still continue supporting Macs going back years, like they used to... But that's no longer their business model. Their new business it getting fools locked into subscription services on hardware that can not be upgraded.
  
  Apple apologists these days are fools... And here's a big FUCK off to them, since they've helped this company transgress.
16. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Dog-Cow · 2016-09-20 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's Apple's fault that you have decided, years after the fact, that your purchase was, retroactively, a waste. It may be Apple's fault that support was dropped (really, who else could be at fault?), but that doesn't change the value of the computer at the time of purchase.
17. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Dog-Cow · 2016-09-20 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Can you name a single model released in the past 12 months that not supported by Sierra?
  Didn't think so.
18. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Dog-Cow · 2016-09-20 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  You are an idiot if you purchase hardware today for the OS that might exist in the future. It doesn't matter what it costs. Either that price is acceptable at the time of purchase, or it's not. Whining that 7 years later Apple releases an OS without support is just whining.
19. Re: Pity my MacPro can't run it by guruevi · 2016-09-20 21:11 · Score: 1
  
  The DDR2 memory running at 800MHz would be an indication that it's quite obsolete. Regardless, you CAN install macOS Sierra on a MacPro 3,1. It requires you to copy some files from El Capitan into your installer but it's not impossible.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
20. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by nine-times · 2016-09-20 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  That only supports what I said: It's not about whether the machine is powerful enough. It's whether Apple wants to consider investing in supporting old machines.
  But you you're telling me you can install it anyway, but it'll just be unsupported? What are you complaining about then?
21. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by um...+Lucas · 2016-09-21 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Try running windows 10 on a 2010 vintage computer, ok? Let us know how that goes.
22. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by um...+Lucas · 2016-09-21 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm thinking that Apple's (and my own) concept is that people who spent the premium on Pro hardware because of their ability to handle bigger workloads, those people probably upgraded at some point in the last 7 or 8 years. I'm sure a few people will chime in from the woodwork to say otherwise, but exceptions don't make the rule.
23. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Aaden42 · 2016-09-21 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not positive, but I think if you replace your Bluetooth / WiFi card, you may be able to get this working on older Macs. That was the case with Airdrop when it originally came out. Need something with the appropriate cocktail of BT versions & extensions. Haven't looked at forcefeeding Sierra onto my MacPro1,1 yet, but will likely grab a newer BT card when the time comes. Ditto my MacBookPro5,5.
  Anybody know which cards will fit & have the necessary feeps?
24. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-09-21 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just about whether it's powerful enough, but whether Apple wants to support hardware that old, including all the drivers, and testing it thoroughly on those machines. You're talking about a model that's 8 years old.
  Isn't it odd that a 8 year old Mac is still perfectly fine, but every one that is still being sold is hopelessly antiquated?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
25. Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it by nine-times · 2016-09-22 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't it odd that a 8 year old Mac is still perfectly fine, but every one that is still being sold is hopelessly antiquated?
  I'm not sure what you mean. Is it just a complaint that Apple doesn't always update their hardware often? By your own logic, that complaint makes no sense. If the 8 year old Max is perfectly fine, then the "antiquated" Mac that still has last year's technology should still be perfectly fine.
  Here's something that's worth understanding: You can generally tell how long a hardware vendor expects you to keep their equipment in service by how long their longest available warranty is. For most Apple hardware, the longest warranty available is 3 years. For mobile devices, it's 2. Dell's default warranty, for example, is also 3 years, but they'll sell you an upgrade for 5. Dell's signaling that they expect you to get a new computer every 3-5 years, while Apple is signaling that you should be upgrading every 3 years or so.
  Now obviously you don't *have to* upgrade that often. Apple still supports older devices with their software releases, but obviously certain kinds of support start dying off after that time. The first thing that happens is that the warranty is over, so they won't fix it for free. After that, they may fix it for an extra fee, but eventually that goes away, and they simply refuse to even try to fix it. That often happens around the time they stop manufacturing replacement parts.
  But eventually, everyone discontinues support for everything. If you can get Windows 10 installed on your 8 year old Dell workstation, Dell isn't going to stop you. At the same time, Dell isn't going to go through any trouble to help you do it. It's the same thing.
If you're running the GM and can't DL it by SensitiveMale · 2016-09-20 10:58 · Score: 1

delete your GM application and then you can DL the new version.
Reinstall over the old version.
1. Re:If you're running the GM and can't DL it by Aaden42 · 2016-09-21 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Did they change anything from the GM? Why would I want to do that? GM usually means done-deal.
2. Re:If you're running the GM and can't DL it by SensitiveMale · 2016-09-21 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  They released a second GM a week later.
Re:This shit again? by OrangeTide · 2016-09-20 11:02 · Score: 1

Ha Ha funny. You almost got me.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Worse than Win10 for Privacy defaults by Etcetera · 2016-09-20 11:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've got to imagine that some of this stuff is not going to go down well with corporate users, unless they can lock it down real tight.
"Here, we'll automatically upload stuff to the Cloud and remove it from your local computer if we don't think you need it."
"You can have us permanently store your voice and background conversations and run it through our linguistic analysis AI even if you're not dictating anything."
With all of the other privacy and security issues surrounding smartphones, making laptops more smartphone-like doesn't seem like a benefit.

--
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
1. Re:Worse than Win10 for Privacy defaults by rubycodez · 2016-09-20 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  yes it does, my employer gives choice between Dell laptop with Windows or MacBook Pro. I'll take a Unix(tm) over Windows any day
2. Re:Worse than Win10 for Privacy defaults by kruug · 2016-09-21 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  This is the same solution for Windows 10, but when Apple does it, it's ok?
3. Re:Worse than Win10 for Privacy defaults by Etcetera · 2016-09-21 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  I've got to imagine that some of this stuff is not going to go down well with corporate users
  MacOS has corporate users?
  Actually, yeah it does. Probably more on corporate tech than corporate corporate, but it's there.
  From what I've observed, Macs have generally fewer runtime and operational issues, but more configuration issues for IT to deal with.
  
  --
  Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
4. Re:Worse than Win10 for Privacy defaults by rubycodez · 2016-09-21 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  Please explain what I can't do in the common shells on a mac vs. other Unix(TM). Or in python or Ruby.
  Oh, you can't do it? I guess we know where the retardation is here.
5. Re:Worse than Win10 for Privacy defaults by thegarbz · 2016-09-21 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  Access sharepoint without your server falling over trying to parse a sane looking request :)
6. Re:Worse than Win10 for Privacy defaults by rubycodez · 2016-09-22 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  True story, at my last job the sharepoint server self-destructed. We had full backups of system and database. Even with Microsoft support the thing could not be recovered and year of data of client data was lost (was an IT VAR that did also service and support). Why would anyone buy a system that destroys information irretrievably? what a piece of shit.
  anyway, my only interaction with sharepoint at present job is via browser and it acts "normally" anyway (slow bloated piece of badly designed shit)
7. Re:Worse than Win10 for Privacy defaults by brantondaveperson · 2016-09-22 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Plenty. And it's a far more pleasurable experience, not least because since our organisation dropped Exchange and Outlook and moved to google mail (lord save us....), we are left with exactly zero decent options for email from Windows. On a mac, Mail and Calendar integrate with the google stuff so well that I never have to use the browser-based versions at all. On Windows, what choices do I have? Everything I've tried so far basically sucks.
"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by UnknownSoldier · 2016-09-20 11:28 · Score: 4, Informative

I see in System Preferences, Security & Privacy, General, that Apple no longer thinks you have the right to run downloaded programs.
The "( ) Anywhere" option has been completely hidden.

Allow apps downloaded from
( ) Mac App Store
( ) Mac App Store and identified developers
( ) Anywhere <-- Now hidden!?
WTF !
Thankfully there is a way to disable this crap.

sudo spctl --master-disable
Reference:
http://apple.stackexchange.com...
1. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by berj · 2016-09-20 11:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Nothing in this update stops you from running unsigned apps if you so choose. You just can't (easily) set it to the default.. which is a good thing.
  If you want to run an unsigned app you you can just right click on the icon, select "open", respond to the dialog presented saying that you want to open this unsigned app.. and then every other time you open that app you can just double click on the icon.
  Easy peasy.
2. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by Yvan256 · 2016-09-20 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  I've already had to do this for the last two OS X versions.
3. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by berj · 2016-09-20 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  The difference being in the previous versions you could turn off gatekeeper entirely from the System Preferences.
  In sierra you can't do that. You have to either disable it on the command line (a bad idea IMHO) or just whitelist each unsigned app the first time you use it by using the process I outlined above.
4. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by DavidRavenMoon · 2016-09-20 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  How many unsigned apps would you have anyway? I used to keep Gatekeeper disabled, but now I don't. It's not a big deal. I think I had to allow apps like twice.
  
  --
  -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
5. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by dfghjk · 2016-09-20 12:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "You just can't (easily) set it to the default.. which is a good thing."
  I see no reason why this is a good thing.
  "Easy peasy."
  Not really. Certainly not "intuitive", definitely not "it just works".
  Once upon a time computers could be used to run the software of your choice. This is yet another step away from that. Not a good thing.
6. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by berj · 2016-09-20 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that there aren't many... I have very few that I use regularly.. three I think.
  Ever since gatekeeper became a thing I've had it on "App Store and Identified developers". Works really well.
  In general for the average user? god only knows. Hopefully even fewer but you never know what garbage people will download. Which is why it's great that Apple has done things the way it has in Sierra.
7. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by real+gumby · 2016-09-20 12:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I agree pretty shocking: Apple made sure there was a way for knowledgable users to do what they like while reducing the chance that less experienced users could get unwittingly pownd by accidentally downloaded apps. The nerve!
8. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by UnknownSoldier · 2016-09-20 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  > You just can't (easily) set it to the default.. which is a good thing.
  Treating power users like they are imbeciles is never a good thing.
  i.e.How many casual users would even know to what to change it to let alone find it? So what exactly have you accomplished by hiding it ??? Apple pulls this shenanigans by hiding the "Advanced" gamma settings -- you have to hold the option key to reveal it. They could have done the same thing here -- at least it wouldn't be that bad compared to this clusterfuck.
  Forcing people to jump through extra unnecessary hoops is shitty UI design.
9. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by macs4all · 2016-09-20 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  I see in System Preferences, Security & Privacy, General, that Apple no longer thinks you have the right to run downloaded programs.
  The "( ) Anywhere" option has been completely hidden.
  
  Allow apps downloaded from
  ( ) Mac App Store ( ) Mac App Store and identified developers ( ) Anywhere <-- Now hidden!?
  WTF !
  Thankfully there is a way to disable this crap.
  
  sudo spctl --master-disable
  Reference: http://apple.stackexchange.com...
  Still supports Right-Click "Run Anyway"; so quitchetbitchin'. This is actually MUCH safer for ALL Users, while still allowing Power Users to do what they need to.
10. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by macs4all · 2016-09-20 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  The difference being in the previous versions you could turn off gatekeeper entirely from the System Preferences.
  In sierra you can't do that. You have to either disable it on the command line (a bad idea IMHO) or just whitelist each unsigned app the first time you use it by using the process I outlined above.
  Even as far back as Yosemite (IIRC), the "Run Anything" setting in Gatekeeper would only "stick" for 30 days. Then it reverted back to the next-higher- setting. So, IMHO, this just closes a relatively ill-thought-out Security/Convenience tradeoff.
11. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by macs4all · 2016-09-20 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that there aren't many... I have very few that I use regularly.. three I think.
  Ever since gatekeeper became a thing I've had it on "App Store and Identified developers". Works really well.
  In general for the average user? god only knows. Hopefully even fewer but you never know what garbage people will download. Which is why it's great that Apple has done things the way it has in Sierra.
  Ya know, it would be one thing if you had to grant special access every-single-launch of an Application; but FFS, if you can't be bothered to do a simple right-click ONCE for an App, then you DESERVE to be pwned!!!
12. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by macs4all · 2016-09-20 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  > You just can't (easily) set it to the default.. which is a good thing.
  Treating power users like they are imbeciles is never a good thing.
  i.e.How many casual users would even know to what to change it to let alone find it? So what exactly have you accomplished by hiding it ??? Apple pulls this shenanigans by hiding the "Advanced" gamma settings -- you have to hold the option key to reveal it. They could have done the same thing here -- at least it wouldn't be that bad compared to this clusterfuck.
  Forcing people to jump through extra unnecessary hoops is shitty UI design.
  No; it's PRACTICAL UI Design. But you obviously only consider what us right for YOU.
13. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by macs4all · 2016-09-20 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  I agree pretty shocking: Apple made sure there was a way for knowledgable users to do what they like while reducing the chance that less experienced users could get unwittingly pownd by accidentally downloaded apps. The nerve!
  And they get EXCORIATED for it by the FREETARDS. Gotta laugh.
14. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by Dog-Cow · 2016-09-20 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  The one app I have to approve manually the most often is Xcode betas. Ironic, I've always thought.
15. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by Dog-Cow · 2016-09-20 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  Once upon a time, malware wasn't a thing. Then once upon another time, malware was a thing and there were no real defenses against it. Times change, grandpa.
16. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by Dog-Cow · 2016-09-20 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike you, Apple probably has way more data on how many users use each setting. The only person treating others as imbeciles is you.
17. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by UnknownSoldier · 2016-09-20 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  The _use_ case is EVERYONE.
  * Beginner don't even know about it in the first place -- having the option does nothing for them.
  * Power users can change it. I mean the code was _already_ there in 10.11.
  How the fuck is _removing_ it practical when it alienates some of the users???
18. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by NotAPK · 2016-09-20 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  The less an option is used the easier it needs to be to find.
  There's nothing worse than having to do something every 1-2 years and not being able to remember the command or see the option.
  Hiding options is just plain ridiculous. I think Apple's reputation for smart, intuitive, and clever UI design has well and truly disappeared.
  Computer controls must be *discoverable* to be useful. Go read some of the UI research papers. You'll be surprised that many were written in the 60s and 70s when human-computer interfaces were very new and a lot of effort went into understanding how best to design them.
19. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by TheRaven64 · 2016-09-20 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  Treating power users like they are imbeciles is never a good thing.
  The intersection of the set of people who can be described as power users and the set of people for whom entering a single command on the command line is too hard is probably zero.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
20. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by macs4all · 2016-09-21 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  You're not doing yourself any favors
  So see the ANONYMOUS COWARD.
21. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by macs4all · 2016-09-21 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  Because Apple runs the ecosystem. They are trying to gradually shift towards a situation where software distributed in the ecosystem to non-power users is regulated by Apple. That way Apple doesn't get slammed with viruses. If you as a developer are going to be distributing applications to end users not capable of making good choices about their software then you need to register with Apple.
  And it doesn't even COST anything to become a Registered Dev anymore. You don't have to sell your stuff through the Apple Sore or ANYTHING, other than provide a way to be contacted!. So, there simply isn't a LEGITIMATE reason for a Dev. To NOT do it.
22. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by macs4all · 2016-09-21 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  The _use_ case is EVERYONE.
  * Beginner don't even know about it in the first place -- having the option does nothing for them. * Power users can change it. I mean the code was _already_ there in 10.11.
  How the fuck is _removing_ it practical when it alienates some of the users???
  Your non-argument is laughable.
23. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by berj · 2016-09-21 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  When you double click on an unsigned app you get a dialog telling you that you are trying to open an app from an unidentified developer. Can't miss it.
  Then there is a little help button at the bottom of the dialog. Can't miss it.
  Click on the help button (as you do when you want help with something) and it tells you *precisely* what to do to whitelist that app in 3 simple steps (basically the same three steps I outlined way up there).
  Can't miss it.
  How much more discoverable do you want it than that? Do you want a genie to magically pop up next to you and tell you what to do instead of the pop up dialog?
24. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by ilsaloving · 2016-09-21 02:53 · Score: 2
  
  I can see VERY easily why this is a good thing. Because people don't know any better. Even worse, people that *think* they know better but actually don't. There was a fracas (last year or early this year, I think...) where idiot developers downloaded pirated copies of xcode that ended up being bundled with malware. And the apps they created ended up on the App Store until Apple figured out what was going on. And these developers didn't even know because they had completely disabled gatekeeper. If gatekeeper had been running, they would have been warned that their copy of xcode was dodgy.
  If you're not smart/experienced enough to figure out how to run an unsigned application then you are, by definition, not smart/experienced enough to make the judgement call that a given piece of software is safe to use.
  I am a very experienced computer user, and I *still* leave Gatekeeper enabled. Because if I run an application that I expect should be signed, but it isn't, I damn well want to know. Disabling Gatekeeper is just plain moronic, IMO.
  As long as they don't completely take away the ability to run unsigned applications, I see no issue with them making it more difficult to do so. It's a heck of a lot easier for me to field questions like, "Why can't I run this comet cursor app I downloaded from this porn site?" than "How come all the documents on the server are suddenly gibberish?" or "Why is my computer suddenly sending spam?"
25. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by NotAPK · 2016-09-21 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  But why has the option to always allow non-signed applications been removed/hidden from the settings?
  The other posters here are referring to a command line "fix" to allow them.
  You do realise that you're being slow-boiled like the apocryphal frog do you not?
26. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by UnknownSoldier · 2016-09-21 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Your fallacy is assuming UI design is about quantity.
  Good UI design is scalable across the inexperienced TO the experienced. THAT's what you are missing.
  * In 10.11 one simply changed the option. Done. End of story.
  * In 10.12 one is forced to jump through extra hoops. There was nothing wrong with having it a dialog. Moving the explicit choice (dialog button) to an implicit choice (command line) is idiotic.
27. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by berj · 2016-09-21 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  This is all just much ado about nothing.
  The setting was removed so as not to allow people to mindlessly set their computer into a much less secure state.
  The idea that right clicking on each new app *ONCE* and clicking on a button *ONCE* to whitelist that app is somehow an infringement on ones rights (as the original post I replied to opined) or some great conspiracy to lull us into a false sense of security at which point apple will magically make it so that only App store apps can be run on our computers as you seem to be opining is just... well.. absurd.
  You're free to get your knickers in a wad over whatever you like.. but this is the very definition of making a mountain out of a mole hill.
28. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by berj · 2016-09-21 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Myself, I think assuming that power users are incapable of right clicking on an icon, clicking a button and then moving on with their day is treating them like imbeciles.
  But who am I to judge?
29. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by NotAPK · 2016-09-21 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't make sense when I can still:
  - delete all of my files from the HDD.
  - uninstall all the software I need to use.
  - delete/corrupt system files and render the system unable to boot.
  - format the primary disk.
  - hit the computer repeatedly with a hammer until it fails to operate.
  - throw the fucking computer out the window, walk down stairs, and set fire to it.
30. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by berj · 2016-09-21 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure what your point here is but...
  1) can't do that without disabling SIP
  2) can't do that without disabling SIP (or at least the software that comes pre-installed with the OS)
  3) probably can't do that without disabling SIP
  4) can't do that without booting from an external disk or in recovery mode
  5) wear eye protection
  7) don't burn your house down
  But anyway... how are any of these things equivalent to or easier than requiring a couple extra steps when launching an unsigned app the first time?
31. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by Aisha.Washington · 2016-09-23 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah! You tell 'em!
  Can you believe these people? They don't think that everyone should have to pay $100 to Apple to have their programs run on the platform. As if anyone would want to run software written by a bunch of poors!
  Hey Grandpa, I bet you don't even tithe to the church, do ya? Well, we pay 30% to our God for each and every product we sell, and we like it that way! After all, we're the generation with more of daddy's money than ever, and were taught young and taught often that corporate slavery was the true path to happiness. We didn't just buy it, we turned it into a lifestyle!
  Get with the program, gramps, Appleness is next to Godliness, and if you don't wanna fall in line, get to stepping with the other relics who think they own their computers. As for us, well, I gotta tell ya, taking it up the dumper from the corporate cock ain't as bad as it sounds.
  Apple loves you. Apple loves me. Apple died for your sins. And this is how you thank them!
  Retire already and let us get on the corporate fascism without all your naysaying micoaggressions!
32. Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now by Aisha.Washington · 2016-09-23 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and it has nothing to do with Apple being paid $100 to "identify" developers, nor getting a 30% cut of all product sold. Nothing! It has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH IT! Don't you understand, Apple loves you! Apples loves me! They died for your sins and only want wants best for us. Why must you resist? Why must people always resist that which is best for them? Corporate America knows. It knows what it best for you. You just don't deserve their love. Heathens.
Optimized storage by ugen · 2016-09-20 11:34 · Score: 1

Please tell me "optimized storage" can be turned off wholesale. If there is one thing I definitely don't need it's a "whole bunch" more of background processes uploading random files to the remote server and deleting them from my local drive. I will manage what I store and where, thank you very much.
I guess I am sounding like an old fart I am, but MacOS is going too far in dumbing it down.
1. Re:Optimized storage by DavidRavenMoon · 2016-09-20 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it can.
  
  --
  -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
2. Re:Optimized storage by bug_hunter · 2016-09-20 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can tell it's off by default.
  
  http://www.macrumors.com/2016/...
  
  Don't worry, Apple's arrogance is large... but finite.
  
  --
  It's turtles all the way down.
3. Re:Optimized storage by Yaztromo · 2016-09-20 15:14 · Score: 2
  
  Please tell me "optimized storage" can be turned off wholesale. If there is one thing I definitely don't need it's a "whole bunch" more of background processes uploading random files to the remote server and deleting them from my local drive. I will manage what I store and where, thank you very much.
  I guess I am sounding like an old fart I am, but MacOS is going too far in dumbing it down.
  During the first post-install reboot, the OS configuration assistant asked me if I wanted to enable this (well, at least the part that makes your desktop available to other Macs and iOS devices via iCloud). For the rest I had to find the configuration in "About this Mac" -> Storage (which seems an odd place to put such a thing).
  Yaz
4. Re:Optimized storage by ilsaloving · 2016-09-21 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike Microsoft, Apple tends to leave features like this disabled by default.
It uses the Handoff framework by pond0123 · 2016-09-20 12:30 · Score: 2

No dirty jokes please!
The TL;DR of this means that the devices must be on the same iCloud account, cooperate with Handoff, be in close proximity geographically and it'll only leave data available for a short period of time after being copied.
https://www.macstories.net/stories/macos-sierra-the-macstories-review/#universal-clipboard
Obviously a fan site, but contains useful details on the actual implementation and behaviour. As with any online system there is a security concern, but it doesn't strike me as anymore of a "security disaster" than anything else in iCloud, especially things like the super-useful, but clearly risky, iCloud Keychain. Apple's accounts must be extraordinarily attractive to hackers, a major goldmine; one day there will doubtless be an extremely serious breach; but so far, it's all been infrequent and minor. They've a poor track record with stability of their "cloud enabled" software, but the iCloud security track record is quite alright compared to the rest of the industry.
1. Re:It uses the Handoff framework by vux984 · 2016-09-20 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  The TL;DR of this means that the devices must be on the same iCloud account
  The default for most couples or family's with small kids.
  
  be in close proximity geographically
  Pretty much a given within a household. The home office, bedrooms, and living room all tend to be within a couple dozen feet.
  
  cooperate with Handoff
  Does that limit the potential for issues somehow?
  
  and it'll only leave data available for a short period of time after being copied.
  
  Oh, so its like those disappearing message apps! That'll be fine then. /sarcasm.
  I'll grant its not as bad as I feared, but this is still a whole series of accidents waiting to happen.
2. Re: It uses the Handoff framework by Rosyna · 2016-09-20 19:14 · Score: 2
  
  Again, why aren't you using Family Sharing? There's zero reason to be sharing your iCloud account. Especially since it gives everyone access to to things like email.
  It also seems you need to read up on Handoff. The range of Handoff is about 10 meters (33 feet). All devices must be in this range for Handoff to work.
  Handoff (which was added in iOS 8 and Mac OS X 10.10) also shares which webpage you are viewing and which apps you are using to devices logged in with the same Apple ID and in that range. So you have no legitimate reason to suddenly complain about the Universal Clipboard all of a sudden.
  If you don't like the security of Handoff due to ignorance, then disable Handoff on your devices. Hell, if one specific shared device must be logged in with the same Apple ID (because you don't know better), then disable Handoff solely on that device.
3. Re: It uses the Handoff framework by vux984 · 2016-09-21 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be giving this advice to me personally... why don't *I* disable handoff? why don't *I* setup family sharing?
  This isn't going to affect me. I'm already pretty careful about what I have syncing to the cloud, and I jump trhough all the hoops so my pcs don't login with microsoft accounts, and OSX doesn't log in with an apple id etc. I sync my android phone to my own owncloud instance etc. I'm not personally at risk here.
  This is going to affect people out there who aren't system admins, who don't read sites like this. This will affect people like my father. Because he'll have all this stuff on, and then when the grandkids are sleeping over playing with his ipad in the living room and he's doing something downstairs in his home office. He's not going to disable handoff because he's not going to even think about it. He's not going to setup his own ipad with a different icloud account just because sometimes his grandchildren or my mother uses it. etc.
  You are approaching the problem like a sys-admin; identifying ways to mitigate it. But you have to assume that most people aren't going to do this.
4. Re:It uses the Handoff framework by pond0123 · 2016-09-21 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'll grant its not as bad as I feared, but this is still a whole series of accidents waiting to happen.
  Which is another way of saying "damn, I've received a response explaining the technology and it doesn't work at all like I thought, but this is the internet and I refuse to be wrong about anything so I'll complain about imaginary edge cases that haven't happened and are so fringe that even comp.risks hasn't bothered with it".
5. Re: It uses the Handoff framework by pond0123 · 2016-09-21 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  the living room and he's doing something downstairs in his home office
  And you've immediately chosen to selectively forget what you already replied to earlier, proving you're just a troll.
  CLOSE PROXIMITY. As in, order of a metre.
6. Re: It uses the Handoff framework by vux984 · 2016-09-21 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  And you've immediately chosen to selectively forget what you already replied to earlier, proving you're just a troll.
  
  What are you on about? What did I "forget"?
  In my initial example I said work/home; but later learned about the proximity requirement. So I revised it to different rooms in a house... which is still ripe for issues.
  
  CLOSE PROXIMITY. As in, order of a metre.
  Really? Because Apple themselves just say handoff has to be within bluetooth range to work, and according to Apple that's 10 meters, or 33 feet. So...
  a) you are out by an order of magnitude.
  b) 10 meters is plenty for devices to interact between adjacent rooms, or rooms separated by a floor or 2.
7. Re: It uses the Handoff framework by pond0123 · 2016-09-21 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you're completely right, it's a disaster and people will have their porn coming up on their kids' iPads left right and centre. Apple are idiots and you're a champion for being the only person to notice this obvious security issue.
  Happy now? Good. Let's move on.
8. Re:It uses the Handoff framework by vux984 · 2016-09-21 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Which is another way of saying "damn, I've received a response explaining the technology and it doesn't work at all like I thought
  Pretty much yes.
  
  but this is the internet and I refuse to be wrong about anything
  I'm happy to wrong, and I was way off initially in how it worked. Its a lot less bad than I feared.
  This isn't about a stubborn refusal to be 'wrong'. This is simply a remaining issue.
  
  so I'll complain about imaginary edge cases that haven't happened and are so fringe
  Because two different people living in the same house in different rooms using devices that are on the same wifi and icloud account is an imaginary edge case? Really? Everyone i know with apple devices does this all the time.
  Even comp.risks hasn't bothered with it? Are you sure?
  The clipboard is already the source of all kinds of leaks on a shared computer. Have you ever sat down at a public computer and hit "Ctrl-V" sometimes you get something the previous user didn't intend to leave behind for you to find. So, yeah, its not even a new problem, because almost nobody thinks about the clipboard; its invisible.
  As for wider recognition of clipboard mobility issues; its already well recognized that there are security risks with the clipboard and remote desktop type solutions with clipboard sharing. (Where malware on the remote access client can both potentially scrape sensitive information from the server's clipboard, or harm the server by injecting malicious content into clipboard (e.g. you copy a bash script to the clipboard, the malware recognizes a bash script has been copied and add's script steps to do something else so that when you paste it on the server the malware's script gets run. This is all old hat. Plenty of ink has been spilled about clipboard sharing on remote desktop services / citrix; and desktop virtual machines (desktop hyperV, VirtualBox, etc) and using it to get out to the host machine.
  Universal clipboard opens these same sorts of cans of worms between handoff units. An infected ipad your grandkids use could now potentially scrape all your passwords out of the clipboard as you copy and paste them on your main computer that you much more careful with.
  Not to mention simply inadvertent unwanted disclosures between users. Whether its porn ending up handed off to the kids on the ipad; or some draft communication to your lawyer ending up getting dumped on the kitchen mac-mini. Or whatever.
  So I still argue that you should have to take an affirmative action to activate handing off the clipboard.
9. Re: It uses the Handoff framework by vux984 · 2016-09-21 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Apple are idiots
  Nah it just takes 'courage' to automatically sync your clipboard to your other devices that you may or may not be using.
10. Re: It uses the Handoff framework by Rosyna · 2016-09-21 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't "automatically sync" it. Like many other things involving Handoff, it sets a promise. It tells devices in close proximity that there is data available.
  Said data isn't actually transferred until used. This significantly reduces the amount of bandwidth (and thus power) involved when no other device actually cares about the Handoff data being advertised.
11. Re: It uses the Handoff framework by Rosyna · 2016-09-21 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I was giving it to you personally because you kept using your weird personal configuration in all of your examples.
  A rational person would just use Family Sharing and be done with it.
12. Re: It uses the Handoff framework by vux984 · 2016-09-22 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  My 'weird' personal configuration is pretty much the norm.
  My kids play with my ipad. I didn't setup separate accounts for each kid just so they could play templer run on my ipad.
  My parents let my kids play with their ipad when they go to visit. They don't have separate accounts.
  My brother's 4 year old daughter plays with his ipad all the time. He didn't set up a separate account for her.
  My neighbors 2 daughters just use their families ipad on their mom's account.
  My wife's friend with a 10 year old autistic daughter has an ipad she exlusively uses ... it's "her ipad". Even that is not on family sharing. She doesn't have her own account. They just use the mom's account.
  Your assertion that a rational person would just use family sharing is ridiculous. Nobody does that. Not until the kids are old enough to have their own phones or something... and even then if the kids get an android then they still don't need their own icloud account to use the family ipad.
Sierra by Dwedit · 2016-09-20 12:44 · Score: 1

Does this mean we now have a sadistically difficult operating system complete with 1-900 number to call for advice?
1. Re:Sierra by Neo-Rio-101 · 2016-09-20 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  Macos Sierra is a point-and-click adventure. That's for sure.
  
  --
  READY.
  PRINT ""+-0
Re:anyone know if it works in virtualbox? by myid · 2016-09-20 13:06 · Score: 1

Create a bootable external drive of Sierra. It's slower than putting Sierra onto your main drive, and some things might work differently than if it were on your main drive. But it's a way to test out Sierra without committing to it.
Re:anyone know if it works in virtualbox? by berj · 2016-09-20 13:10 · Score: 1

Not sure about virtual box but it definitely works in Parallels.
Personally my preferred method for testing mac OS updates and betas is to install it on an external drive (USB 3.0 if you want somewhat decent performance) and boot from that drive for my testing.
Re:And it's trashing people's Macs by macs4all · 2016-09-20 13:52 · Score: 1

And like most Apple releases, there are reports of it bricking people's Macs, where it will restart to install, and then not do anything.
If it does install, there are also reports of it slowing your computer, and of it breaking wifi drivers on some Macs.
Sadly none of this has really hit the tech press yet, but as more people upgrade and have it kill their Mac, expect to hear more about it.
And this differs from every other major new OS release, how, exactly?
Re:anyone know if it works in virtualbox? by mister_playboy · 2016-09-20 14:01 · Score: 1

Virtualbox officially only supports macOS guests on Apple hardware.
Copypasta from Virtualbox's manual:

3.1.1. Mac OS X guests
Starting with version 3.2, VirtualBox has experimental support for Mac OS X guests. This allows you to install and execute unmodified versions of Mac OS X on supported host hardware.
Whereas competing solutions perform modifications to the Mac OS X install DVDs (e.g. different boot loader and replaced files), VirtualBox is the first product to provide the modern PC architecture expected by OS X without requiring any "hacks".
You should be aware of a number of important issues before attempting to install a Mac OS X guest:
Mac OS X is commercial, licensed software and contains both license and technical restrictions that limit its use to certain hardware and usage scenarios. It is important that you understand and obey these restrictions.
In particular, for most versions of Mac OS X, Apple prohibits installing them on non-Apple hardware.
These license restrictions are also enforced on a technical level. Mac OS X verifies whether it is running on Apple hardware, and most DVDs that that come with Apple hardware even check for an exact model. These restrictions are not circumvented by VirtualBox and continue to apply.
Only CPUs known and tested by Apple are supported. As a result, if your Intel CPU is newer than the build of Mac OS X, or if you have a non-Intel CPU, it will most likely panic during bootup with an "Unsupported CPU" exception. It is generally best to use the Mac OS X DVD that came with your Apple hardware.
The Mac OS X installer expects the harddisk to be partitioned so when it does not offer a selection, you have to launch the Disk Utility from the "Tools" menu and partition the hard disk. Then close the Disk Utility and proceed with the installation.
In addition, as Mac OS X support in VirtualBox is currently still experimental, please refer also to Chapter 14, Known limitations.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
Re:anyone know if it works in virtualbox? by SvnLyrBrto · 2016-09-20 14:21 · Score: 1

I've never tried it in VirtualBox, but it runs in VMware and Parallels. Mind you, it doesn't run well in either. I don't think either one feeds it the GPU acceleration or memory that it needs. But for basic functionality testing and experimentation, it's adequate. Just don't expect to get much real work done on it.

--
Imagine all the people...
Re:This shit again? by rubycodez · 2016-09-20 14:44 · Score: 1

The truth is NeXT used all these at various times: NeXTSTEP, NeXTstep, NeXTStep, and NEXTSTEP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
good grief by rubycodez · 2016-09-20 15:06 · Score: 2

since Lion in 2011 a new OS every year instead of every two. Is this supposed to generate market hype or something? I'd rather have more stability, security and QA work
windows 10 runs on older X86-64 bit systems by Joe_Dragon · 2016-09-20 17:13 · Score: 1

windows 10 runs on older X86-64 bit systems and they have if just basic drivers for older video cards and it's not like it's hard to buy a new video card for your dual cpu 64 bit system with 4-8GB + ram. Hell you can run the latest Linux distros just fine on 3-6 year old 64 bit high end systems.
Re: "Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources no by Rosyna · 2016-09-20 19:26 · Score: 1

There is a help button in the dialog that appears when an app is missing a signature that tells you *exactly* how to permit the launch. Is it too much to expect a user to know to click the help button?
Re:And it's trashing people's Macs by macs4all · 2016-09-21 00:19 · Score: 2

And this differs from every other major new OS release, how, exactly?
Apple has a very limited hardware and software set, so there's no excuse for their QA to fail to catch bugs like that. It's that simple.
While macOS doesn't approach the breadth of possible hardware that W or L is typically installed-on, If you look at all the available models and their BTO options across all the supported years, it's still WAY too many to test. So, although your argument had a LITTLE validity back in the 1980s and early '90s, it has long since devolved into an unsupportable (no pun) meme.

Oh, and there are a metric buttload of both W and L systems that have issues every single time those OSes are updated; but you tend not to hear about them, because W or L breaking things, or orphaning things, is so commonplace simply isn't "news".

And do you want to know a secret? If you take a look at the REAL Windows Approved (supported) Hardware List (which Linux probably doesn't even have), it is actually pretty small compared with all the hardware those OSes get installed on. And if your hw isn't on that list, it is simply CHANCE if it HAPPENS to work. There is absolutely NO "testing" of those combinations, either. So, your entire premise is fallacious.
Re:anyone know if it works in virtualbox? by armanox · 2016-09-21 00:31 · Score: 1

That's correct - there are no GPU drivers for OS X in VirtualBox or VMware. OS X has always fallen back to software rendering of everything when it does not have a GPU driver that supports the features it wants (which was really bad on PPC trying to use Expose and the like on some of the really early G3/G4 machines)

--
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Yeah, I found out the hard way. by jeffb+(2.718) · 2016-09-21 07:58 · Score: 1

I've been trying to get around to installing 10.11 (El Capitan) on my daughter's hand-me-down early-2008 Macbook Pro. (It's been on 10.6 to support some older software.) What with family emergencies, it's taken me a while to get everything cloned onto a new SSD and ready for the upgrade.
Last night, I finally got everything put together, and went off to the App Store to pull down the El Cap upgrade.
Nope.
Since Sierra was released yesterday, El Capitan no longer existed, at least as far as App Store searches were concerned.
"Well," I thought to myself, "I didn't really want to pull Sierra yet, since it's brand-new and unproven. But I guess we could give it a try."
Again, nope. Sierra quite reasonably has dropped support for this eight-plus-year-old machine. It's not an option.
So, not only can I not install the newest OS release on this machine -- I can't even get to the most recent release that IS supported on this machine. It's as though it never existed.
Fortunately, I found a workaround -- I'd "bought" El Cap for another machine, and so it was still available in my "purchased items" on my own App Store account. By using that account, I was able to pull down the full image.
I've gotta tell you, though -- finding out that I'd missed the El Cap availability by a few hours, and that as far as Apple was concerned I could rot on 10.6 forever, did NOT give me warm fuzzies about the company. I've been a Mac user for over 30 years (!), but on days like this, I find that as much embarrassing as anything else.
1. Re:Yeah, I found out the hard way. by angel'o'sphere · 2016-09-21 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh ...
  You can download ALLL old releases of Mac OS from apples web site, can't be so hard to google for it.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
2. Re:Yeah, I found out the hard way. by jeffb+(2.718) · 2016-09-22 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh...
  You can buy 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8 from Apple for I think USD20 each.
  You can download El Cap from your Purchased Items list if you've previously "purchased" it; that's what I ended up doing.
  As of this moment (10:13 PDT on 22 Sep 2016, two days after Sierra's release), Apple's own page on "older versions of OS X" says, and I quote directly, "The most recent version of OS X is El Capitan (10.11)." If you click on the relevant link, though, you go to the Sierra page. 10.9 or 10.10? It's as though they never existed, at least on this page.
  You can apparently download some earlier versions from Apple's developer site if you buy into their developer program. Maybe they're available at the free level, or maybe they aren't available any more at all; if I can dredge up my old developer credentials, I'll look into it.
  You can also Google up a bunch of purported download links from non-Apple sites. Please feel free to use one of those if it strikes you as a good idea; none for me, thanks.
  When I started using Macs, I was happy to spend hours digging around in printed documentation, Usenet postings, and MacsBug to figure out how to make something work. It was a hobby, and one I enjoyed. Today, I want to spend my time using the machines to do stuff, not trying to find corners that Apple hasn't finished sweeping clean.
Re:And it's trashing people's Macs by myid · 2016-09-21 10:08 · Score: 1

... there are reports of it bricking people's Macs ...
I've found reports of Macs being bricked by earlier releases, but I haven't found any articles of yesterday's official release bricking Macs.
Re:anyone know if it works in virtualbox? by angel'o'sphere · 2016-09-21 13:50 · Score: 1

Mac OS X 10.6 was the last one that distinguishes between client and server OS.
So you can install all os versions beyond that in any combination of host and virtual box.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.