More > JRiver Media Center 23 for Mac
MacOS High Sierra
blgentry:
--- Quote from: Lodewijk_Ramon on September 27, 2017, 02:52:47 am ---A question at Brian: Why skip 10.13 and wait for 10.14. We don’t know anything about 10.14. I miss a logical basis for the suggestion.
I think that I am going to upgrade after securing a full backup. I’ll keep you informed about the outcome thru this forum.
--- End quote ---
Apple has tended to make mistakes as they do major version upgrades of OSX. Changing the base level file system is a "big deal". I am the type of person that would rather let other people experiment with a very new feature and find all of the problems. Then get them worked out and wait for the next release where things are more stable. This strategy might keep me from the latest upgrade for a year. Which might be a good idea. Or I might have waited for no reason.
Either way, I won't be missing much. OSX is very stable and even 10.9 or 10.10 still works great today. If I stay on 10.12 for an extra 8 to 12 months for safety, it won't impact my ability to use apps, and use my computer in the way I want to. It's all about have a stable environment. When 10.14 comes out, I'll probably wait a few months also to make sure it's stable and doesn't have any weird bugs. This is how I approach computing. It sounds like you approach things differently. :)
Brian.
blgentry:
--- Quote from: Awesome Donkey on September 27, 2017, 05:38:24 am ---Actually, macOS *does* support NTFS natively. By default it can read NTFS volumes, and via the Terminal you *can* enable read/write for NTFS volumes without needing third-party drivers. But it's a bit of a PITA to set up, it's considered experimental/unstable and it's easier to do it with third-party drivers (which can also be faster than the native support), e.g. NTFS-3G.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for the reminder. I think I had read about this a few years ago, but forgot in the mean time. As you said, it's not considered stable and is pretty weird, in that you have to edit the /etc/fstab *per drive* and once the volumes are mounted they are "invisible" (not on the desktop or in the side bar).
This might occasionally be useful if I need to write to an NTFS drive. I'll have to keep it in mind. But for persistent access, I'll stick with a different file system. Again, it's all about what you are comfortable with and what you do with the drive. Since I rarely touch windows systems, NTFS doesn't make a lot of sense for me. Now, if I build a Windows based MC HTPC system in the future, I might change my tune...
Thanks for the discussion. :)
Brian.
Hendrik:
--- Quote from: blgentry on September 27, 2017, 05:34:59 am ---What limitations give you pause? I've never had any issues with FAT32, except not being able to create files of over 4GB. For music files this isn't a problem.
--- End quote ---
- Max Volume size (2TB isn't really big anymore in todays world)
- Max file size (4GB, really?)
I suppose if all you have is tiny music drives, you get away with whatever. But I prefer to store anything I might encounter on a drive.
--- Quote from: blgentry on September 27, 2017, 05:34:59 am ---ExFAT is kind of the bastard child. It's mostly an MS focused file system. Linux and OSX both support it and I've tried it. It has odd issues with characters that are supported and seems to have a strange issue with time stamps as well. I probably will not be using it in the future. I'm probably going back to FAT32 for "portable" file systems.
--- End quote ---
exFAT sees quite wide usage around the world, its even the default file system for lage SD Cards as defined by the SD Card Association, if it doesn't work on OSX properly, then you only have one party to blame, and its not Microsoft. :)
--- Quote from: blgentry on September 27, 2017, 05:34:59 am ---I find the idea abhorrent. It was never designed to be "open" in any way.
--- End quote ---
Neither was FAT32, its also a Microsoft File System, or any file system Apple uses, for that matter. So that argument kinda falls flat on its face if the alternative you propose is even from the same vendor.
PS: "FUSE" drivers are not loaded into kernel space, thats their entire point, FUSE stands for "Filesystem in Userspace", ie. the kernel interface is nicely capsuled away so that such a driver couldn't do anything bad.
Awesome Donkey:
Yeah, 2 years ago I was running my NTFS volumes in read/write with the native driver for a couple months. It actually worked pretty good overall, but it was just way too slow so I opted to use FUSE with NTFS-3G.
There's paid NTFS drivers for Mac (e.g. Paragon and Tuxera but Tuxera, AFAIK, uses NTFS-3G) but I don't recommend those unless you need the fastest read/write speeds possible with NTFS on the Mac.
P.S. There is a FUSE exFAT module available. ;)
blgentry:
--- Quote from: Hendrik on September 27, 2017, 05:52:04 am ---exFAT sees quite wide usage around the world, its even the default file system for lage SD Cards as defined by the SD Card Association, if it doesn't work on OSX properly, then you only have one party to blame, and its not Microsoft. :)
--- End quote ---
I'm honestly not sure if it's a problem with how ExFAT represents characters and time stamps or if it's an OSX specific issue. I just know that trying to do an rsync to an ExFAT volume, from a Mac volume, has been problematic for me. So I'll probably use a different file system the next time I need to do this.
--- Quote ---Neither was FAT32, its also a Microsoft File System, or any file system Apple uses, for that matter. So that argument kinda falls flat on its face if the alternative you propose is even from the same vendor.
--- End quote ---
FAT32 is kind of like an old Ford truck. It's been around forever. Everyone knows how to use it. It has it's limits and no one really expects much from it. But it tends to work pretty much every time in the way that you would expect it to. That's why I like it. Despite it not being "designed to be open", it's been in wide use on many different OSes for many many years and works well.
--- Quote ---PS: "FUSE" drivers are not loaded into kernel space, thats their entire point, FUSE stands for "Filesystem in Userspace", ie. the kernel interface is nicely capsuled away so that such a driver couldn't do anything bad.
--- End quote ---
While I get that concept, it *still* loads a kernel extension. My early experience with OSX taught me that pretty much all kernel extensions are something to be cautious of, if not downright scared of. I've seen many Macs completely lock up with bad kexts. I've seen several that had to be rescue re-installed because of kexts. Perhaps my caution is misplaced in today's world, as I haven't had that experience with kexts in at least 6 years now.
Can we at least agree that neither of you are any where close to full time Mac users and are primarily Windows people, who are very comfortable with and like that environment? In Hendrik's case, I don't think you ever use a Mac other than for testing purposes.
This is no insult at all to either of you. I actually find you both to be very valuable and intelligent people. I'm just trying to add some perspective to your commentary.
Thanks,
Brian.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version