What's the Verdict on FileVault?

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

do it

Andre G. Isaak

2017-02-28 10:24:54 UTC

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

Andre

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

Ant

2017-02-28 10:29:46 UTC

What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
a bad idea. :(

--
Quote of the Week: "The constant creeping of ants will wear away the stone." --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

Krzysztof Mitko

2017-02-28 10:37:33 UTC

What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
a bad idea. :(

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

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

nospam

2017-02-28 10:39:01 UTC

Post by Krzysztof Mitko

What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
a bad idea. :(

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

recent enough for hardware encryption support.

Andre G. Isaak

2017-02-28 12:36:14 UTC

What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
a bad idea. :(

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

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

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

Andre

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

Nelson

2017-02-28 15:10:21 UTC

Post by Andre G. Isaak

What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
a bad idea. :(

In response to the above I should revise my first reply.
Don't use FileVault on Pre-Lion systems. FileVault had an entirely
different implementation on those systems which did have potential
problems and which would interfere with Time Machine.
Speaking of Time Machine, if you're using FileVault make sure you also
have a good backup strategy since the NSA won't be able to provide you
with backups anymore ;-)
Andre

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

--
Nelson

nospam

2017-02-28 18:02:06 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

Jolly Roger

2017-02-28 20:01:40 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

A good question.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Nelson

2017-03-01 09:55:51 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

Why are you not?

Post by Jolly Roger
A good question.

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

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

I know that all these things are do-able and that there are ways around
the problems. But what do I gain? A crappy interface, a locked-down
computer that can only install apps via the App Store, Applescript
riddled with bugs, Big Brother Apple constantly communicating with my
computer and trying to force me to use their "cloud" so that I can
connect to all the "Social Networks" that I abhor? Synching between all
the iToys that I don't own? A bunch of new bugs which will probably
never be addressed because Cook has lost interest in the Mac?

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

--
Nelson

Bernd Fröhlich

2017-03-01 12:55:56 UTC

Post by Nelson
a locked-down
computer that can only install apps via the App Store

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

Nelson

2017-03-01 14:15:59 UTC

Post by Nelson
a locked-down
computer that can only install apps via the App Store

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

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

--
Nelson

Krzysztof Mitko

2017-03-01 15:05:40 UTC

Post by Nelson
a locked-down
computer that can only install apps via the App Store

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

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

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

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

nospam

2017-03-01 16:00:26 UTC

Post by Nelson
a locked-down
computer that can only install apps via the App Store

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

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

the developer provides it.

you just download and install.

Nelson

2017-03-01 18:29:04 UTC

Post by Nelson
a locked-down
computer that can only install apps via the App Store

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

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

the developer provides it.
you just download and install.

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

--
Nelson

nospam

2017-03-01 18:38:35 UTC

Post by Nelson
a locked-down
computer that can only install apps via the App Store

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

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

the developer provides it.
you just download and install.

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

where in the world did you get that idea?

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

no extra steps required.

Jolly Roger

2017-03-01 18:31:38 UTC

Post by Nelson
a locked-down
computer that can only install apps via the App Store

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

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Lewis

2017-03-01 18:58:53 UTC

Post by Nelson
a locked-down
computer that can only install apps via the App Store

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

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

Not true.

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

nospam

2017-03-01 16:00:25 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

Why are you not?

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

Post by Jolly Roger
A good question.

there is no cost. upgrading is completely free.

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

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

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

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

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

nobody is forcing anything.

Post by Nelson
Synching between all
the iToys that I don't own?

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

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

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

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

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

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

David B.

2017-03-01 16:56:43 UTC

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

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

Nelson

2017-03-01 18:54:01 UTC

Post by David B.
On 01/03/2017 16:00, nospam wrote a great response! :-)

As he always does.

--
Nelson

Nelson

2017-03-01 18:53:10 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

Why are you not?

because it's very old

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

Post by nospam
no longer supported

Heh. Like the current version is?

Post by nospam
and most apps require at
least mavericks or yosemite, if not later.

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

Post by Jolly Roger
A good question.

there is no cost. upgrading is completely free.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nobody is forcing anything.

If you already have one, you probably don't realize how many times
someone who doesn't gets prompted to create one. If you turn on Little
Snitch, you are deluged with constant requests to connect to the Apple
Mothership.

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

Post by Nelson
Synching between all
the iToys that I don't own?

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

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

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

tim cook has not lost interest in the mac. more bullshit.
apple is actively working on mac os and mac hardware, and unlike snow
leopard, sierra is getting bug fixes and security fixes.

More bullshit.

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

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

Well, thank you for disabusing me.

--
Nelson

Patty Winter

2017-03-01 19:14:31 UTC

Post by nospam
and most apps require at
least mavericks or yosemite, if not later.

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

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

Post by nospam
there is no cost. upgrading is completely free.

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

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

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

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

You're being hyperbolic about bugs.

Post by nospam
nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue.

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

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

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

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

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

Post by nospam
nobody is forcing anything.

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

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

Well, thank you for disabusing me.

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

Patty

nospam

2017-03-01 19:30:10 UTC

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

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

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

where do people come up with this shit?

Jolly Roger

2017-03-01 19:30:42 UTC

Post by Nelson
Upgrading the OS perhaps. The App vendors are not so magnanimous.

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

Good suggestion!

Post by nospam
nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post by nospam
nobody is forcing anything.

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Patty Winter

2017-03-01 21:38:32 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patty

David Empson

2017-03-01 23:49:15 UTC

Post by nospam
nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nelson

2017-03-02 00:28:07 UTC

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

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

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

I also have a bunch of old Word files that the current version won't
open. I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't looked
at Excel or PowerPoint or Appleworks/Clarisworks. Then there's MacDraw
:)

--
Nelson

David Empson

2017-03-02 00:45:58 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

Excel and PowerPoint should be similar to Word.

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

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

nospam

2017-03-02 05:42:32 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

Post by Nelson
I also have a bunch of old Word files that the current version won't
open. I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't looked
at Excel or PowerPoint or Appleworks/Clarisworks. Then there's MacDraw
:)

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

Jolly Roger

2017-03-02 01:25:17 UTC

Post by David Empson

Post by nospam
nonsense. apps can open older versions of files without issue.

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

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

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

Exactly. And that was just one example.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger

2017-03-01 19:20:13 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

Why are you not?

because it's very old

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

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

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

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

Post by nospam
no longer supported

Heh. Like the current version is?

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

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

Every bug they fix, they introduce two more.

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

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

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

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

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

From that thread:

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

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

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

nobody is forcing anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post by Nelson
Synching between all the iToys that I don't own?

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

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

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

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

tim cook has not lost interest in the mac. more bullshit.
apple is actively working on mac os and mac hardware, and unlike snow
leopard, sierra is getting bug fixes and security fixes.

More bullshit.

Just because you say so? NO SALE:

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Nelson

2017-03-01 22:02:17 UTC

Post by nospam
tim cook has not lost interest in the mac. more bullshit.
apple is actively working on mac os and mac hardware, and unlike snow
leopard, sierra is getting bug fixes and security fixes.

More bullshit.

I was just echoing the nospam technique of proof by assertion :)

--
Nelson

nospam

2017-03-01 19:30:09 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

Why are you not?

because it's very old

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

when it no longer works properly, it is.

Post by nospam
no longer supported

Heh. Like the current version is?

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

Post by nospam
and most apps require at
least mavericks or yosemite, if not later.

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

then you haven't looked very hard.

Post by Jolly Roger
A good question.

there is no cost. upgrading is completely free.

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

some are, some aren't.

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

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

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

nonsense.

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

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

filemaker 3?? wtf??

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

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

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

and?

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

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

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

the choice is *theirs*.

nobody is forcing anything.

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

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

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

Post by Nelson
Synching between all
the iToys that I don't own?

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

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

then don't use it.

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

tim cook has not lost interest in the mac. more bullshit.
apple is actively working on mac os and mac hardware, and unlike snow
leopard, sierra is getting bug fixes and security fixes.

More bullshit.

it's not bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, thank you for disabusing me.

any time.

Nelson

2017-03-01 22:05:14 UTC

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

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

--
Nelson

nospam

2017-03-01 22:08:44 UTC

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

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

no humour. what i wrote is correct.

Nelson

2017-03-01 22:48:18 UTC

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

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

no humour. what i wrote is correct.

Never change, nospam. Never change.

--
Nelson

Jolly Roger

2017-03-02 01:11:08 UTC

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

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Nelson

2017-03-02 02:13:55 UTC

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

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

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

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

You guys.

--
Nelson

Jolly Roger

2017-03-02 03:49:19 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

nospam

2017-03-02 05:42:33 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lewis

2017-03-02 00:57:34 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

Why are you not?

because it's very old

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

For operating systems it certainly is.

Post by nospam
no longer supported

Heh. Like the current version is?

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

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

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

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

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

Jolly Roger

2017-03-01 16:03:21 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

Why are you not?

Post by Jolly Roger
A good question.

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

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

A much more secure OS, for one.

Post by Nelson
A crappy interface

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

Post by Nelson
a locked-down
computer that can only install apps via the App Store

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

Post by Nelson
,Applescript
riddled with bugs,

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

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

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

Post by Nelson
so that I can
connect to all the "Social Networks" that I abhor?

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

Post by Nelson
Synching between all
the iToys that I don't own?

Again optional.

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

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

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

David B.

2017-03-01 16:57:27 UTC

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

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

Nelson

2017-03-01 19:04:00 UTC

Post by David B.
On 01/03/2017 16:03, Jolly Roger wrote a great response too! :-)

Who are you? The Peanut Gallery?

--
Nelson

Alrescha

2017-03-01 20:52:35 UTC

Post by David B.
On 01/03/2017 16:03, Jolly Roger wrote a great response too! :-)

Who are you? The Peanut Gallery?

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

A.

David B.

2017-03-02 08:17:49 UTC

Post by Alrescha

Post by David B.
On 01/03/2017 16:03, Jolly Roger wrote a great response too! :-)

Who are you? The Peanut Gallery?

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

She doesn't REALLY care! ;-)

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

Nelson

2017-03-01 19:02:51 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

Why are you not?

Post by Jolly Roger
A good question.

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

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

A much more secure OS, for one.

See above.

Post by Nelson
A crappy interface

People who say this make me giggle.

Happy to brighten your day :)

Post by Jolly Roger
As those of us who have used Macs from
the beginning know

Does owning one of the first prototypes count?

Post by Jolly Roger
Apple constantly tweaks the UI. And through all these
years I've never had something as trivial as interface widget appearance
stop me from getting shit done with any computer. Just doesn't happen in my
life. It's a non-issue people use to complain.

If you look around you may find that everyone is not like you. Just
sayin'.

Post by Nelson
a locked-down
computer that can only install apps via the App Store

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

Post by Nelson
,Applescript
riddled with bugs,

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

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

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

Post by Nelson
so that I can
connect to all the "Social Networks" that I abhor?

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

Post by Nelson
Synching between all
the iToys that I don't own?

Again optional.

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

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

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

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

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

--
Nelson

nospam

2017-03-01 19:30:08 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
As those of us who have used Macs from
the beginning know

Does owning one of the first prototypes count?

you don't.

Nelson

2017-03-01 22:24:36 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
As those of us who have used Macs from
the beginning know

Does owning one of the first prototypes count?

you don't.

I was imprecise. I don't own one and didn't. But I had access to one
through a company I worked for by virtue of an NDA. I was in charge of
developing a proposal for how we might enter the Home Computer market.
And when the original model came out, I bought one for myself and
others for my staff. At the time, it was quite impressive. Before
that I owned an Apple ][e the company bought me. So I think I qualify
as someone who has "used Macs from the beginning".

--
Nelson

nospam

2017-03-01 22:31:47 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
As those of us who have used Macs from
the beginning know

Does owning one of the first prototypes count?

you don't.

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

that's what i said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nelson

2017-03-01 22:49:53 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
As those of us who have used Macs from
the beginning know

Does owning one of the first prototypes count?

you don't.

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

that's what i said.

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

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

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

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

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

I already gave you your point.

--
Nelson

Jolly Roger

2017-03-01 19:54:25 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Lewis

2017-03-02 01:04:39 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

Why are you not?

Post by Jolly Roger
A good question.

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

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

--
Psychic convention cancelled due to unforeseen problems.

Patty Winter

2017-03-01 18:57:20 UTC

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

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

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

Post by Nelson
I know that all these things are do-able and that there are ways around
the problems. But what do I gain? A crappy interface, a locked-down
computer that can only install apps via the App Store, Applescript
riddled with bugs, Big Brother Apple constantly communicating with my
computer and trying to force me to use their "cloud" so that I can
connect to all the "Social Networks" that I abhor? Synching between all
the iToys that I don't own? A bunch of new bugs which will probably
never be addressed because Cook has lost interest in the Mac?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patty

nospam

2017-03-01 19:24:28 UTC

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

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

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

JF Mezei

2017-03-01 19:46:30 UTC

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

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

BUT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lewis

2017-03-02 01:09:43 UTC

Post by JF Mezei
I too was a reluctant move from Snow Leopard to Yosemite.
Overall, I would have much prefered to stay with Snow Leopard from a UI
and stability point of view. And you have to spend time to disable
plenty of Yosemite undesirable features (autosave etc)

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

Post by JF Mezei
I miss the old days. I haven't killed anyone in years.

That's sad.

Jolly Roger

2017-03-02 01:33:45 UTC

Post by Lewis

Autosave is an undesirable feature?

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger

2017-03-01 19:43:03 UTC

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

JF Mezei

2017-03-01 20:01:04 UTC

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

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

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

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

nospam

2017-03-01 20:02:05 UTC

Post by JF Mezei

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

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

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

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

Jolly Roger

2017-03-01 20:41:43 UTC

Post by JF Mezei

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Lewis

2017-03-02 01:07:53 UTC

Post by JF Mezei

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

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

No, that's not at all true.

Post by JF Mezei
So older OS are often more secure (if they were patched for the
functions they provided).

No, that's not at all true.

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

No, that is just a baldfaced lie.

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

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

JF Mezei

2017-03-02 05:48:11 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nospam

2017-03-02 05:50:45 UTC

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

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

Nelson

2017-03-01 22:41:09 UTC

[Snip]

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

Patty,

Thank you for your perspective. I followed your upgrade journey here a
while back. I have a copy of Sierra installed on an iMac and have
experimented with it. I don't like it. Sometimes I have to use it to
get by a Security Certificate problem with a web site or, as you, say
some new do-dad that crashes the older browsers. Usually it is
advertising and tracking. Other than that, Snow Leopard is like a
comfortable old shoe.

I have a lot of custom Applescripts which would have to be tested and
re-debugged and work-arounds created. At least that is what I have
gleaned from others' experience on the Applescript listserv.

For the life of me I cannot think of one application that would make
the tedious effort worth it. As you know, you can't go directly from
Snow Leopard to Sierra. You have to at least go through Lion. Were
you able to go directly from Lion to Sierra? Did the Mail, Calendar,
and Address Book data convert seamlessly? Start to finish how long did
it take?

--
Nelson

Patty Winter

2017-03-01 22:51:22 UTC

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

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

https://support.apple.com/snowleopard

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

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

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

Patty

Nelson

2017-03-01 23:25:38 UTC

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

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

Sounds like you have spent quite a bit of time on it. Let's hope there
are no surprises when you get there.

Is your plan to upgrade in place or to install a fresh copy of El
Captain and then use Migration Assistant? I could swear I read one had
to upgrade to Lion first.

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

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

--
Nelson

Patty Winter

2017-03-01 23:43:23 UTC

Post by Nelson
Is your plan to upgrade in place or to install a fresh copy of El
Captain and then use Migration Assistant?

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

Post by Nelson
I could swear I read one had
to upgrade to Lion first.

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

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

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

Patty

Jolly Roger

2017-03-02 01:00:58 UTC

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

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Nelson

2017-03-01 23:48:22 UTC

Post by Patty Winter
Nope, you can jump directly to El Capitan, then decide if you want
https://support.apple.com/snowleopard

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

Snow Leopard - Lion - Sierra vs
Snow Leopard - El Captain - Sierra

are.

Have you seen this page:
http://lowendmac.com/2016/macos-sierra-on-low-end-macs/

Looks like I might have some issues with my wi-fi card and trackpad.

--
Nelson

Jolly Roger

2017-03-02 01:07:57 UTC

Post by Patty Winter
Nope, you can jump directly to El Capitan, then decide if you want
https://support.apple.com/snowleopard

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

Post by Nelson
http://lowendmac.com/2016/macos-sierra-on-low-end-macs/
Looks like I might have some issues with my wi-fi card and trackpad.

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Lewis

2017-03-02 01:11:34 UTC

Post by Patty Winter
Nope, you can jump directly to El Capitan, then decide if you want
https://support.apple.com/snowleopard

Costs money for Lion

Post by Nelson
Snow Leopard - El Captain - Sierra

Free.

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

Jolly Roger

2017-03-02 00:56:01 UTC

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

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

David Empson

2017-03-02 00:04:16 UTC

Post by Nelson
[Snip]

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

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

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

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

https://support.apple.com/HT206886

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

Lion can upgrade directly to Sierra.

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

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

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

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

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

- Upgrade Address Book: not even noticeable.

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

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

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

dorayme

2017-03-02 04:50:25 UTC

Post by David Empson
The recommended upgrade path is Snow Leopard -> El Capitan -> Sierra.

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

--
dorayme

Savageduck

2017-03-02 05:00:57 UTC

Post by dorayme

Post by David Empson
The recommended upgrade path is Snow Leopard -> El Capitan -> Sierra.

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

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

--
Regards,

Savageduck

JF Mezei

2017-03-02 05:38:31 UTC

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

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

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

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

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

Nelson

2017-03-01 22:13:52 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

A good question.

You know, every time I mention that I am still using Snow Leopard, you
guys ask me why. I politely tell you, and then you fall over
yourselves in a frenzy to tell me why I am an idiot. Why do your care

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

--
Nelson

Jolly Roger

2017-03-02 01:20:20 UTC

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

why are you still using snow leopard???

A good question.

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

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

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

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

Post by Nelson
Why do your care

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

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Andre G. Isaak

2017-02-28 18:19:59 UTC

Post by Andre G. Isaak

What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
a bad idea. :(

In response to the above I should revise my first reply.
Don't use FileVault on Pre-Lion systems. FileVault had an entirely
different implementation on those systems which did have potential
problems and which would interfere with Time Machine.
Speaking of Time Machine, if you're using FileVault make sure you also
have a good backup strategy since the NSA won't be able to provide you
with backups anymore ;-)
Andre

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

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

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

Andre

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

Nelson

2017-02-28 15:08:12 UTC

What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
a bad idea. :(

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

--
Nelson

nospam

2017-02-28 18:02:07 UTC

What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
a bad idea. :(

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

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

Andre G. Isaak

2017-02-28 18:21:29 UTC

What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
a bad idea. :(

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

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

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

André

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

nospam

2017-02-28 19:06:16 UTC

Post by Andre G. Isaak

Post by Ant
What Mac are you using? I was told very old ones like 2008's MacBook is
a bad idea. :(

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

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

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

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

Lewis

2017-02-28 10:40:52 UTC

Post by Nelson
So I finally have a reason to encrypt some files. I have never used
FileVault since I figured it added processing overhead,

Nope, not that anyone would ever notice.

Post by Nelson
additional complexity,

None, at all.

Post by Nelson
and additional opportunities for errors.

Same opportunities for errors.

Post by Nelson
What is the group's experience?

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

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

Alrescha

2017-02-28 14:24:43 UTC

Post by Nelson
What is the group's experience?

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

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

A.

Jolly Roger

2017-02-28 15:51:23 UTC

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

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Nelson

2017-03-01 10:00:32 UTC

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

That's a good suggestion. I think there are also third party disk
drivers that lock the disk without encrypting the whole thing. I'm not
looking to protect myself from the CIA. Just looking to not have
personal journals, etc. laying around after my death.

--
Nelson

Jolly Roger

2017-03-01 18:36:23 UTC

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

That's a good suggestion.

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

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

Not worth the added complexity and trouble IMO.

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

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

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Alan Browne

2017-02-28 23:51:02 UTC

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

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

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

gtr

2017-03-01 01:24:22 UTC

Minor hit on speed, major advantage on security. I've never
encountered an error due to it.
One day you'll discard that drive. Discard the decryption key and the
data there is essentially noise.

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

Nelson

2017-03-01 10:02:19 UTC

Minor hit on speed, major advantage on security. I've never
encountered an error due to it.
One day you'll discard that drive. Discard the decryption key and the
data there is essentially noise.

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

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

--
Nelson

Jolly Roger

2017-03-01 18:36:54 UTC

Minor hit on speed, major advantage on security. I've never
encountered an error due to it.
One day you'll discard that drive. Discard the decryption key and the
data there is essentially noise.

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

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

Yep.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Alan Browne

2017-03-01 12:52:36 UTC

Minor hit on speed, major advantage on security. I've never
encountered an error due to it.
One day you'll discard that drive. Discard the decryption key and the
data there is essentially noise.

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

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

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

nospam

2017-03-01 16:00:26 UTC

Minor hit on speed, major advantage on security. I've never
encountered an error due to it.
One day you'll discard that drive. Discard the decryption key and the
data there is essentially noise.

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

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

either way, encrypting from the start is wise.

Wade Garrett

2017-03-01 00:31:02 UTC

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

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

TickleMe Elmo

2017-03-01 10:45:57 UTC