Sounds like a great place to hide something in plain sight.
A soccer ball with a transmitter that isn't supposed to have one would stand out. However, a soccer ball that has a *different* transmitter than it came with would be much harder to identify.
Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure, but why? Why did *BSD die? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 20 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD effectively lost all of its market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?
The record is unambiguously clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
Yet, he was able to beat the smartest woman on the Planet in the race to become President. We could all be so lucky to be a failed billionaire present with a supermodel wife.
Still waiting on the Russia evidence. How many Mueller indictments were there for Russian COLLUSION so far? None? Oh yea, lets indict a couple of russian ham sandwiches that will never show up in court to show some value for the millions spent covering up the incompetence of the Clinton campaign (Yes, yes, we all know that Putin personally prevented Hillary from campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan).
Watergate investigation took 4 years.
Clinton investigation took 6 years.
Mueller has only taken about 18 months.
And we taxpayers have spent more money flying Trumpoid down to Mar-a-Lago and providing SS protection there, just so he can GOLF than the Mueller investigation has cost so far.
If you take the input, transmit it to the server, apply it there, update the game world and stream back the results, you'll see noticable latency.
To hide such latency, games often run the game logic locally. It's not authoritative, but well..most of the time it works well enough. Console gamers already get a crappy experience so I don't expect people to complain.
I'm with you.
Wasn't one of the main ideas behind PERSONAL computers that many small, local computers would actually be more powerful than one gigantic, hulking mainframe/clusterfuck?
I mean, sending stuff like x/y/z coordinates of players and 'missles' seems a LOT more lightweight on the communication path and the multiplayer "management" servers, than does having everyone running zillions of Remote Desktop sessions on some Collossus SuperClusterFuck Datacenter.
Sounds like Apple didn't read the docs properly... Based on the time frame for developing the laptop and the timeframe for the i9, they probably did most of the work using older CPUs and then swapped out near the end without remembering to check for the increased turbo mode heat dissipation.
That's entirely possible, depending when they had access to Development Samples of the i9 variant used, and when the Datasheet was updated.
But it still sounds like Intel was trying to hit a particular TDP and gamed the specs to paint a prettier picture than was likely encountered in real-world use.
"Sure sounds like an engineering oversight on Intel's part to me."
You are still assuming that the part does not meet the TDP specified, rather than Apple failing to load the correct V-F curves for that SKU via firmware.
V-F curves?
Voltage/Frequency???
Well, whatever it was, the Patch seems to have pretty much fixed the issue:
The spec was Intel's fault. Releasing a laptop to the public without as much as a simple performance test is very much Apple's fault any way you cut it.
I'm sure Apple did plenty of performance testing; but apparently not enough.
Where did you get all that from? The articles you linked to only say
While there were many theories as to what was causing the throttling, Apple has discovered that there was a missing digital key in the firmware that impacted the thermal management system, driving down clock speeds under heavy thermal loads. This is what has been addressed in today's update.
No idea what a "digital key" is in this context. Maybe they mean an entry in the thermal management lookup table, like a key/value pair or something.
From the first linked MacRumors article:
"While Intel increased the core count of the CPU, they did not increase the thermal design power (TDP), or the amount of dissipated power manufacturers should plan to have to cool for a proper CPU design. This is an issue because this number usually reflects normal usage, and does not account for turbo modes. It's also likely it can exceed the draw of previous four core CPUs given the similarity of clock speeds and process nodes they are featured on. "
Sounds like Intel messed-up in their docs. Should Apple have caught it in testing? Maybe yes, maybe no.
And as I said elsewhere, if that is true, then they're doing crypto objectively wrong. If the user isn't in control over the key — if part of the key comes from hardware and cannot be changed — then there is no way for users to know whether other parties are in possession of the key that they cannot change. Unchangeable keys have no place in legitimate crypto, period.
And, of course, if the key is changeable, then it is incorrect to claim that the T2 chip's encryption makes the connector useless; rather, the way that they are choosing to use it makes it useless, which is not the same thing, and basically brings us back to a five cent connector and a few lines of code.
Your argument conveniently ignores the fact that, if the logic board is working enough that the Mac can be placed inTarget Disk Mode, the data CAN be retrieved by someone with the user key. So Apple IS handling it exactly right.
Apple has been doing crypto for several years now, and has the whole on-device key thing down pretty well (ask anyone trying to get into an iPhone). The downside being that, if something happens to the device, no one can access the data, period.
I absolutely agree that backups are important, and that people should back up religiously. I also know that sometimes, bad things happen to good people, and that when people get really unlucky and they discover to their horror that their computer died, and that it mysteriously hadn't been backing up for the last two weeks, those folks are very grateful for that five cent connector inside the Mac that enables the Apple Genius to copy their data to an external hard drive, and won't be too happy with Apple for cheaping out on a five-cent connector.
It wasn't a matter of Apple "Cheaping out". It was because the T2 chip's encryption made the connector useless.
"It was actually Intel's fault. They didn't change the TDP for the 6-core CPUs."
The i9 SKU was intentionally designed to have the same TDP as the 4-core i7 SKU.
Not changing the TDP isn't a mistake, it's the entire point. None of the MacRumors articles you link to support your implication that not changing the TDP was a fault.
"These conditions may be presenting themselves due to the new six-core design of the i9 CPU featured here. While Intel increased the core count of the CPU, they did not increase the thermal design power (TDP), or the amount of dissipated power manufacturers should plan to have to cool for a proper CPU design. This is an issue because this number usually reflects normal usage, and does not account for turbo modes. It's also likely it can exceed the draw of previous four core CPUs given the similarity of clock speeds and process nodes they are featured on. "
Sure sounds like an engineering oversight on Intel's part to me.
So don't say "Time Machine works" unless you can guarantee that it always works 100% of the time. I do use Time Machine, but I also know people who have lost data because Time Machine didn't work for them.
Time Machine skips backups for open files. Historically, this meant that if you left iPhoto (at the time) open during all your backups, your photos would never get backed up. IIRC, later versions of iPhoto and, subsequently, Photos, worked around that, but who knows if third-party apps do the same for their libraries. Bundles are bad, m'kay?
Time Machine skips/Library (unless they have changed that recently), so if you have a web server configured with the historical default root directory (/LibraryWebServer/Documents), your web server is not getting backed up at all.
If you're doing backups to a local hard drive, it is inconvenient enough that users back up much less frequently, which means users are likely to lose several days' data (or even several weeks' data) every time.
If you're doing backups to a NAS, you can only back up while you're on a network that can "see" that NAS, which means that while traveling, you can lose all the data you created/accumulated during your trip.
And so on. There are countless tales of woe from people who lost countless hours of work because they relied exclusively on Time Machine for their backups. That's why most people familiar with Time Machine recommend regularly performing a second set of backups with some entirely different mechanism, such as online backups with CrashPlan or regular cloning with Carbon Copy Cloner. Given how unlikely it is that people will religiously do the latter, that basically leaves the former. As far as I'm concerned, regular online backups are absolutely mandatory with these new systems if your data has any value to you at all. So in effect, owning these new Mac laptops just got more expensive by $120 per year for as long as you own the hardware.
And if your house gets hit by lightning while your TM drive is powered-up, it really doesn't matter WHAT it has backed-up or not, does it? Does that make it "Not Work". Of course not.
As for the/Library or Open Files exclusions, I can't find any reference to that being the case. Is that perhaps old news?
Since you should be doing backups anyway, regardless of your computer platform or model, that $120 (which of course is just a snapshot of the cost of one particular backup service) is not at ALL specific to these models or even to Macs in general.
BTW, BackBlaze is only $5/mo (or $50/yr or $95/2 yr). for unlimited cloud-based backup. IMHO, that is a perfect adjunct to a TM backup, and being cloud-based (which normally I don't like), it is available virtually everywhere and everywhen. So, with something like that, we are talking about as little as $3.95/mo for always on, always available, CONTINUOUS backup (you can even retrieve versions of files for up to 30 days). If your data ain't worth the cost of a cup of Starbucks coffee per month, you simply don't care about it.
It's amazing how remorseful companies are when they get caught doing something silly:|
Here's a thought:
Fix it before you release it to the public and you won't have to apologize and tarnish your reputation.
It was actually Intel's fault. They didn't change the TDP for the 6-core CPUs. MacRumors has a more complete (and less biased) Report, encompassing three Articles:
Considering that this "Apple Craze" has been going on for more than 40 years, I kind of doubt it.
Ummm, just no. The iPhone came out in '07 and that's probably the start of the craze. If you want I'll be kind and give you '01 for the pod but before that apple were very much a niche computer company that arty types raved on about but no one else really gave a shit. So, less than half that at best.
It all depends on what the definition of "Craze" is, now doesn't it?
For me, the start of the Apple Craze began in May, 1976, when I first laid-hands on my Apple 1. It was the first computer I ever touched, and like a Duck imprinting on a bicycle-pump as its Mother (don't judge!), I was hooked. Of course I have used many other computers (using a W7 laptop at work to type this); but, unless there was absolutely no other choice, I don't think I would actually OWN anything but an Apple computer. I would call that a "craze". (Yes, I know, or just "crazy").
I was referring to the cost of data recovery if the logic board fails.
I agree that the T2 probably isn't all that expensive.
Oh, sorry. I (obviously) misunderstood...
I think that their will be 2 "paths" to data recovery (3, if you count a Time Machine backup)
1. Logic board is failed in some way; but is "up" enough to put the sick computer in "Target Disk Mode"
2. Logic board non-responsive.
In the case of #1, then a savvy User or Apple Genius (yeah, I hate the term, too!), can hook up a temporary (or permanent) Thunderbolt-Equipped Mac to be the Target of the sick computer's data, and then use the macOS "Migration Assistant" to initiate the Transfer. Then that computer can be attached to an external Drive and Time Machine used to store the data while the sick computer is repaired (and then the "Temporary Storage" computer's original Data can be Restored from ITs Time Machine Backup. When that is complete, the Time Machine backup Drive can be hooked up to the repaired computer, and Migration Assistant can be used to Restore the SDD contents. Not spectacularly efficient; but it should work.
In the case of #2, without a Time Machine backup, you're hosed. Just like anyone would be with a catastrophic disk failure and no backup. Let's face it: If your house gets hit by lightning and your computer is hooked up to ANYTHING, it's probably ALL toast. That's why doing a periodic (weekly/monthly?) backup of the Time Machine Drive to a removable drive (that is stored elsewhere when not actively engaged in the "backup of the backup") is essential for critical applications. Or, forego the use of Time Machine in favor of a conventional GFS type backup, with rotating media (raw HDDs and a USB/TB Sled). Or, you can simply disconnect your Time Machine Drive most of the time, and only hook it up nightly/weekly, and it will "catch up".
Here are some other suggestions for Mac Backup strategies. I kind of like the one using periodic Time Machine backups, along with continuous Cloud-based BackBlaze backup. for $5/mo for Unlimited, encrypted storage, BackBlaze sounds like a pretty good deal. And I like the idea that you can have your data mailed to you on a USB key or a 4 TB drive if you're in a hurry to Recover. Normally I don't like Cloud solutions; but this seems like a pretty solid system:
I'm sure it depends on the disk not dying that you have your backups on.
mac users probably upgrade faster than most and thus dont cross the 5 years rotational disk death threshold, where disks are far more likely to die after year 5.
All backups need to be tested. I just lost a drive, and i went to copy data to another drive to restore it, and that drive which was just as old and had no previous signs of failing, suddenly started re-allocating sectors like crazy and the speed dropped right off till it is now unreadable. It was probably failing for quite some time (nothing in event logs though..), but the act of dumping 500gb to it killed it for good.
Luckily i have lots of backups and the important stuff is also mirrored to the cloud services, and offsite physical copies once a month, so i didnt lose any data. But two drive failures can and does happen, especially with environmental conditions as a trigger like this crazy hot summer we are having.
If you're that worried, backup to a RAID, or use CarbonCopyCloner or rsync and backup your backup. The guy that I was taking about uses a LaCie RAID as his Time Machine target. If suffered a single HDD failure about 5 years ago without data loss, and after the RAID rebuild, we swapped-out the other 3 drives, one at a time, just because...
The T2 chip is a relatively small, Apple ARM SoC. I believe it controls the TouchID fingerprint sensor, the TouchBar, and now SSD encryption. It as first debuted in the iMac Pro last December.
Remember, Apple gets these at "cost". No paying extortionous License Fees to Qualcomm. No paying for Intel or Samsung's profit margins.
I would bet that Apple's landed cost (minus R&D) is likely less than $10. Since it also does other things, the extra cost for the encryption engine is most like $2.
Slashdot Mirror
the Watergate break in was in 1972. Nixon resigned in 1974. 2 years.
Ken Starr was appointed special counsel in 1994. Clinton was impeached in 1998. 4 years.
Why make up dumb shit?
You appear to be correct about Watergate; but you are REALLY off on The whole Clinton saga:
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
the Watergate break in was in 1972. Nixon resigned in 1974. 2 years.
Ken Starr was appointed special counsel in 1994. Clinton was impeached in 1998. 4 years.
Why make up dumb shit?
I wasn't making shit up; just misremembering something I saw a few months ago. Didn't take the time to re look it up while at work.
I also note that you didn't refute my statement regarding the cost...
Sounds like a great place to hide something in plain sight.
A soccer ball with a transmitter that isn't supposed to have one would stand out. However, a soccer ball that has a *different* transmitter than it came with would be much harder to identify.
Good thought!
Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure, but why? Why did *BSD die? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 20 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD effectively lost all of its market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?
The record is unambiguously clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
Fact: BSD is D E A D
Sorry. You are mistaken:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just open that page and do a search for BSD.
This is a non story its a feature of the soccer ball.
That was before the Russians re-flashed the code in it.
I know! People were so mad at the left last time that they lost by negative 3 million votes!
Perfect!
Yet, he was able to beat the smartest woman on the Planet in the race to become President. We could all be so lucky to be a failed billionaire present with a supermodel wife.
Still waiting on the Russia evidence. How many Mueller indictments were there for Russian COLLUSION so far? None? Oh yea, lets indict a couple of russian ham sandwiches that will never show up in court to show some value for the millions spent covering up the incompetence of the Clinton campaign (Yes, yes, we all know that Putin personally prevented Hillary from campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan).
Watergate investigation took 4 years.
Clinton investigation took 6 years.
Mueller has only taken about 18 months.
And we taxpayers have spent more money flying Trumpoid down to Mar-a-Lago and providing SS protection there, just so he can GOLF than the Mueller investigation has cost so far.
So kindly STFU and FOAD, toadie.
If you take the input, transmit it to the server, apply it there, update the game world and stream back the results, you'll see noticable latency.
To hide such latency, games often run the game logic locally. It's not authoritative, but well..most of the time it works well enough. Console gamers already get a crappy experience so I don't expect people to complain.
I'm with you.
Wasn't one of the main ideas behind PERSONAL computers that many small, local computers would actually be more powerful than one gigantic, hulking mainframe/clusterfuck?
I mean, sending stuff like x/y/z coordinates of players and 'missles' seems a LOT more lightweight on the communication path and the multiplayer "management" servers, than does having everyone running zillions of Remote Desktop sessions on some Collossus SuperClusterFuck Datacenter.
Or am I missing something?
Sounds like Apple didn't read the docs properly... Based on the time frame for developing the laptop and the timeframe for the i9, they probably did most of the work using older CPUs and then swapped out near the end without remembering to check for the increased turbo mode heat dissipation.
That's entirely possible, depending when they had access to Development Samples of the i9 variant used, and when the Datasheet was updated.
But it still sounds like Intel was trying to hit a particular TDP and gamed the specs to paint a prettier picture than was likely encountered in real-world use.
"Sure sounds like an engineering oversight on Intel's part to me."
You are still assuming that the part does not meet the TDP specified, rather than Apple failing to load the correct V-F curves for that SKU via firmware.
V-F curves?
Voltage/Frequency???
Well, whatever it was, the Patch seems to have pretty much fixed the issue:
https://www.macrumors.com/2018...
It was actually Intel's fault.
The spec was Intel's fault. Releasing a laptop to the public without as much as a simple performance test is very much Apple's fault any way you cut it.
I'm sure Apple did plenty of performance testing; but apparently not enough.
Where did you get all that from? The articles you linked to only say
While there were many theories as to what was causing the throttling, Apple has discovered that there was a missing digital key in the firmware that impacted the thermal management system, driving down clock speeds under heavy thermal loads. This is what has been addressed in today's update.
No idea what a "digital key" is in this context. Maybe they mean an entry in the thermal management lookup table, like a key/value pair or something.
From the first linked MacRumors article:
"While Intel increased the core count of the CPU, they did not increase the thermal design power (TDP), or the amount of dissipated power manufacturers should plan to have to cool for a proper CPU design. This is an issue because this number usually reflects normal usage, and does not account for turbo modes. It's also likely it can exceed the draw of previous four core CPUs given the similarity of clock speeds and process nodes they are featured on. "
Sounds like Intel messed-up in their docs. Should Apple have caught it in testing? Maybe yes, maybe no.
According to this intelligent-sounding Slashdot user, there was an errata in the CPU datasheet.
https://apple.slashdot.org/com...
People are stupid. They blame Apple for EVERYthing.
Apple is blamed because Apple deserves to be blamed. Apple shipped this product without testing it and/or ignored the test results.
Listen to yourself.
Do you REALLY think Apple did either of those things?
And as I said elsewhere, if that is true, then they're doing crypto objectively wrong. If the user isn't in control over the key — if part of the key comes from hardware and cannot be changed — then there is no way for users to know whether other parties are in possession of the key that they cannot change. Unchangeable keys have no place in legitimate crypto, period.
And, of course, if the key is changeable, then it is incorrect to claim that the T2 chip's encryption makes the connector useless; rather, the way that they are choosing to use it makes it useless, which is not the same thing, and basically brings us back to a five cent connector and a few lines of code.
Your argument conveniently ignores the fact that, if the logic board is working enough that the Mac can be placed inTarget Disk Mode, the data CAN be retrieved by someone with the user key. So Apple IS handling it exactly right.
Apple has been doing crypto for several years now, and has the whole on-device key thing down pretty well (ask anyone trying to get into an iPhone). The downside being that, if something happens to the device, no one can access the data, period.
Which brings us back to backups... ;-)
I absolutely agree that backups are important, and that people should back up religiously. I also know that sometimes, bad things happen to good people, and that when people get really unlucky and they discover to their horror that their computer died, and that it mysteriously hadn't been backing up for the last two weeks, those folks are very grateful for that five cent connector inside the Mac that enables the Apple Genius to copy their data to an external hard drive, and won't be too happy with Apple for cheaping out on a five-cent connector.
It wasn't a matter of Apple "Cheaping out". It was because the T2 chip's encryption made the connector useless.
If you actually read any of those links everyone is blaming apple not intel.
According to this intelligent-sounding Slashdot user, there was an errata in the CPU datasheet.
https://apple.slashdot.org/com...
People are stupid. They blame Apple for EVERYthing.
Or are you new here?
Everyone knows that the MacRumors site is less biased when it comes to Apple stuff. No question.
It's less biased than Slashdot; that's for SURE.
They could have used an aluminum case and attached the board to that as a heatsink.
What do you think the Unibody Macbook Pro case is made from, anyway?
Idiot.
"It was actually Intel's fault. They didn't change the TDP for the 6-core CPUs."
The i9 SKU was intentionally designed to have the same TDP as the 4-core i7 SKU.
Not changing the TDP isn't a mistake, it's the entire point. None of the MacRumors articles you link to support your implication that not changing the TDP was a fault.
From the first MacRumors article:
https://www.macrumors.com/2018...
"These conditions may be presenting themselves due to the new six-core design of the i9 CPU featured here. While Intel increased the core count of the CPU, they did not increase the thermal design power (TDP), or the amount of dissipated power manufacturers should plan to have to cool for a proper CPU design. This is an issue because this number usually reflects normal usage, and does not account for turbo modes. It's also likely it can exceed the draw of previous four core CPUs given the similarity of clock speeds and process nodes they are featured on. "
Sure sounds like an engineering oversight on Intel's part to me.
So don't say "Time Machine works" unless you can guarantee that it always works 100% of the time. I do use Time Machine, but I also know people who have lost data because Time Machine didn't work for them.
And so on. There are countless tales of woe from people who lost countless hours of work because they relied exclusively on Time Machine for their backups. That's why most people familiar with Time Machine recommend regularly performing a second set of backups with some entirely different mechanism, such as online backups with CrashPlan or regular cloning with Carbon Copy Cloner. Given how unlikely it is that people will religiously do the latter, that basically leaves the former. As far as I'm concerned, regular online backups are absolutely mandatory with these new systems if your data has any value to you at all. So in effect, owning these new Mac laptops just got more expensive by $120 per year for as long as you own the hardware.
And if your house gets hit by lightning while your TM drive is powered-up, it really doesn't matter WHAT it has backed-up or not, does it? Does that make it "Not Work". Of course not.
As for the /Library or Open Files exclusions, I can't find any reference to that being the case. Is that perhaps old news?
Since you should be doing backups anyway, regardless of your computer platform or model, that $120 (which of course is just a snapshot of the cost of one particular backup service) is not at ALL specific to these models or even to Macs in general.
BTW, BackBlaze is only $5/mo (or $50/yr or $95/2 yr). for unlimited cloud-based backup. IMHO, that is a perfect adjunct to a TM backup, and being cloud-based (which normally I don't like), it is available virtually everywhere and everywhen. So, with something like that, we are talking about as little as $3.95/mo for always on, always available, CONTINUOUS backup (you can even retrieve versions of files for up to 30 days). If your data ain't worth the cost of a cup of Starbucks coffee per month, you simply don't care about it.
It's amazing how remorseful companies are when they get caught doing something silly :|
Here's a thought:
Fix it before you release it to the public and you won't have to apologize and tarnish your reputation.
It was actually Intel's fault. They didn't change the TDP for the 6-core CPUs. MacRumors has a more complete (and less biased) Report, encompassing three Articles:
https://www.macrumors.com/2018...
https://www.macrumors.com/2018...
https://www.macrumors.com/2018...
Fortunately, it didn't require a hardware rev. to fix...
Kudos to Apple for getting right on this issue, instead of issuing denials. No "You're holding it wrong" here!
Considering that this "Apple Craze" has been going on for more than 40 years, I kind of doubt it.
Ummm, just no. The iPhone came out in '07 and that's probably the start of the craze. If you want I'll be kind and give you '01 for the pod but before that apple were very much a niche computer company that arty types raved on about but no one else really gave a shit. So, less than half that at best.
It all depends on what the definition of "Craze" is, now doesn't it?
For me, the start of the Apple Craze began in May, 1976, when I first laid-hands on my Apple 1. It was the first computer I ever touched, and like a Duck imprinting on a bicycle-pump as its Mother (don't judge!), I was hooked. Of course I have used many other computers (using a W7 laptop at work to type this); but, unless there was absolutely no other choice, I don't think I would actually OWN anything but an Apple computer. I would call that a "craze". (Yes, I know, or just "crazy").
I was referring to the cost of data recovery if the logic board fails.
I agree that the T2 probably isn't all that expensive.
Oh, sorry. I (obviously) misunderstood...
I think that their will be 2 "paths" to data recovery (3, if you count a Time Machine backup)
1. Logic board is failed in some way; but is "up" enough to put the sick computer in "Target Disk Mode"
2. Logic board non-responsive.
In the case of #1, then a savvy User or Apple Genius (yeah, I hate the term, too!), can hook up a temporary (or permanent) Thunderbolt-Equipped Mac to be the Target of the sick computer's data, and then use the macOS "Migration Assistant" to initiate the Transfer. Then that computer can be attached to an external Drive and Time Machine used to store the data while the sick computer is repaired (and then the "Temporary Storage" computer's original Data can be Restored from ITs Time Machine Backup. When that is complete, the Time Machine backup Drive can be hooked up to the repaired computer, and Migration Assistant can be used to Restore the SDD contents. Not spectacularly efficient; but it should work.
In the case of #2, without a Time Machine backup, you're hosed. Just like anyone would be with a catastrophic disk failure and no backup. Let's face it: If your house gets hit by lightning and your computer is hooked up to ANYTHING, it's probably ALL toast. That's why doing a periodic (weekly/monthly?) backup of the Time Machine Drive to a removable drive (that is stored elsewhere when not actively engaged in the "backup of the backup") is essential for critical applications. Or, forego the use of Time Machine in favor of a conventional GFS type backup, with rotating media (raw HDDs and a USB/TB Sled). Or, you can simply disconnect your Time Machine Drive most of the time, and only hook it up nightly/weekly, and it will "catch up".
Here are some other suggestions for Mac Backup strategies. I kind of like the one using periodic Time Machine backups, along with continuous Cloud-based BackBlaze backup. for $5/mo for Unlimited, encrypted storage, BackBlaze sounds like a pretty good deal. And I like the idea that you can have your data mailed to you on a USB key or a 4 TB drive if you're in a hurry to Recover. Normally I don't like Cloud solutions; but this seems like a pretty solid system:
https://business.tutsplus.com/...
I'm sure it depends on the disk not dying that you have your backups on.
mac users probably upgrade faster than most and thus dont cross the 5 years rotational disk death threshold, where disks are far more likely to die after year 5.
All backups need to be tested. I just lost a drive, and i went to copy data to another drive to restore it, and that drive which was just as old and had no previous signs of failing, suddenly started re-allocating sectors like crazy and the speed dropped right off till it is now unreadable. It was probably failing for quite some time (nothing in event logs though..), but the act of dumping 500gb to it killed it for good.
Luckily i have lots of backups and the important stuff is also mirrored to the cloud services, and offsite physical copies once a month, so i didnt lose any data. But two drive failures can and does happen, especially with environmental conditions as a trigger like this crazy hot summer we are having.
If you're that worried, backup to a RAID, or use CarbonCopyCloner or rsync and backup your backup. The guy that I was taking about uses a LaCie RAID as his Time Machine target. If suffered a single HDD failure about 5 years ago without data loss, and after the RAID rebuild, we swapped-out the other 3 drives, one at a time, just because...
Well that will certainly drive the price up.
Unlikely.
The T2 chip is a relatively small, Apple ARM SoC. I believe it controls the TouchID fingerprint sensor, the TouchBar, and now SSD encryption. It as first debuted in the iMac Pro last December.
Remember, Apple gets these at "cost". No paying extortionous License Fees to Qualcomm. No paying for Intel or Samsung's profit margins.
I would bet that Apple's landed cost (minus R&D) is likely less than $10. Since it also does other things, the extra cost for the encryption engine is most like $2.