I recently tried to boot my daughter's Late 2008 13" MacBook from a clone of the boot volume on my Mid 2010 15" MacBook Pro and failed.

My guess is that I failed because my installation is rooted in my install disc and can't boot a Mac of a different configuration any more than my disc could.

And that got me thinking that if the d/l's we get from the App Store are configured for our individual Macs (as I've read), then there's no such thing as a "retail", i.e. universal, version of OS X any more...that an installer burnt to a thumb drive is useless on Macs that aren't of the same configuration as the one that did the original d/l.

Am I correct?

Thanks.

I can't say with 100% certainty that you are correct, but my experience does support your suspicions. Specifically, I downloaded Yosemite, made an installation copy on a flash drive using DiskMaker X (which I had previously used successfully for 10.9), installed 10.10 on my iMac, then went to use the flash drive version on my laptop and it was not accepted. I don't recall the exact error message; something like "can't be installed on this drive".

I had to separately download Yosemite on the laptop, which then installed successfully.

Ira's link also points to a FAQ page, which goes into some detail about this issue (first FAQ). Follow the that page's link to the Apple support article.

Thanks, Jon, but nothing in either the DiskMaker X or Apple doc answers my question.

The closest I get is


which sounds like my answer, but I think it's using the right word in the wrong context.

Ira's experience sounds like the answer.

Bummer!

If a d/l boots only the model Mac that d/l'ed it, things like V1's service drive and the thumb drive clone I take on the road are things of the past.

And it appears that mass installations of OS X are now only possible with mass installations of the same model Mac...that a separate installer must be created for each model Mac in an installation.

Or is there something I'm missing?

The link that Jon references above does seem to state that only the specific computer that created the boot disk can use that boot disk.

That would make DiskMaker X useable only as a "recovery-type" of disk. In the past I have used it to do installations on multiple computers, which is not possible any longer. Alas.

Along those lines, let me share an experience that may support the impressions that Apple is getting much more controlling (like they were not before?!).

I have used Apple computers since June of 1984, getting a new one every 2-4 years. In all those years each one has worked first time, every time, straight out of the box. My current 27" iMac from December of 2012 had a problem out of the box—fans running constantly at full power. Apple ended up replacing the entire computer. Less than 2 years later (thank you AppleCare) my Thunderbolt port went bad and Apple replaced the motherboard.

Flash forward to my installation of Yosemite early this year. Now FaceTime and Messages on the iMac don't work, and I regularly get error messages saying I am not logged in to iCloud, even though I am.

After two weeks of moving through the Apple Support hierarchy it turns out that when my motherboard was replaced its new serial number was not "burned" in (actually done with software in the Apple Store) and FaceTime and Messages check to verify a legitimate Apple computer before connecting. Who knew?!

So it is no surprise that each System is now specific to some extent to a particular computer.

Assuming that I'm following you, Jon's linked doc states that


but an external recovery drive is no more than a free-standing Recovery Partition (disk)...not the same as an installer, boot, as you've called it, disc. (As I recall, there was much confusion about that when Recovery Disk Assistant was introduced.)


That's always been the case, although perhaps not to as great a degree as now, but the limitation applied to install discs and was mitigated by the existence of retail discs.

Whatever we users may gain or lose because of it notwithstanding, Apple has apparently used its new OS X distribution scheme as an anti-piracy measure. (I wonder whether eleemosynary or proprietary interests drove the change? )

Edit: I recall reading something about new motherboards necessitating burning in of their serial numbers...Virtual 1, maybe?

I suspect the issue with installers being model-specific isn't down to control, but rather down to the precision with which Apple engineers the hardware and software together. Different models of Macs can be remarkably different from one another, and those differences are concealed from the user by the extent to which Apple controls both the hardware and software and can therefore tune the software to the hardware. We don't deal with a lot of the driver issues that are all too common in Windows-land because of how far Apple is willing to go to match hardware and software, and how willing they are to modify OS X to accommodate new hardware.

But that precision has, presumably, always been a factor, as evidenced by the fact that install discs have almost invariably been machine specific.

It's the absence of (less precise[?]) retail discs that's new and controlling.

Why would Apple distribute any software on optical media when the drives are not standard equipment on any but one or two currently shipping computers or devices and those few will likely be sans optical drive in their next iteration? I was at the local Apple store Sunday to get a physical hands on of the Apple Watch and while I was waiting for our appointment time I asked one of the employees how many optical drives they were selling. He replied he had not sold one in a week. No one was interested in them.

Apple has made no secret of the fact they have moved to electronic distribution of software. One of the many side benefits of that move is it enables them to narrowly target operating systems, drivers, etc. to specific hardware configurations and thereby increase security, compatibility, and reliability. The App Store sells what is essentially a retail version of OS X, but it is not a "universal retail" version rather a version targeted for your Mac model. I suppose they could build a universal retail version but I would not be surprised if it cost $135 as opposed to "free" for the targeted version delivered electronically.

You misinterpreted my use of the word "disc", which I guess was a poorly chosen word; I was talking about the lack of any universal installer, electronically distributed or otherwise.

To the best of my knowledge, the machine-specific/universal (retail) disc formula worked quite well in the past, so what prevents its electronic equivalent from being a viable option today?

Edit: Consider a compatriot of grelber's with an iMac, a wife with a Mac Mini, two kids with different laptops...and a 56k modem.

Fair enough


You mean other than the fact that it makes the single installer more difficult to write and/or the downloaded install package significantly larger in order to contain the concomitant elements for each configuration? From Apple's viewpoint why would it be worth the trouble to develop it when anyone can download a copy of the OS (or other software that is specific to their computer configuration and they can deliver that at no cost to the customer? That seems like a win win scenario to me.


Yes there is a rub, but why hold Apple responsible for the fact that among industrialized nations and a fair cross section of second and even third world nations, the United States has the spottiest coverage, slowest data rate, and most expensive broadband service? Hopefully the recent decision of the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the internet as an essential public utility will mitigate that, at least to some extent. That is if congress doesn't screw that up to placate their big campaign contributors. There are only two ISPs covering my area, three if you count satellite. Interestingly enough the performance of the three is inversely proportional to the cost. I still haven't figured that one out but I am content with the fastest service and the lowest cost.

Apple has always pushed the technology envelope and in today's world that comes with certain assumptions, one of which is reasonable broadband service and they are not alone in that assumption. Adobe's software rental also assumes the availability of broadband service. If I read the runes correctly the time is coming when iCloud will be so integrated into OS X/iOS that they will only run in a degraded mode when ICloud is not available thus making broadband essential to full system operation and moving between the iPhone, iPad, and Mac will become virtually seamless.

CAVEAT: My accuracy in rune reading is definitely not 100%

The app store aspect is a sort of a swiss-army-knife thing, it's an idea that accomplishes a fairly long list of goals. Anything that makes your product easier for the public to purchase is a huge win. Lowering distribution cost of course is also a clear win. Unobtrusive DRM is a major victory on multiple fronts. One-stop-shop is really good for business too. Walled-garden, done properly, has advantages that far outweigh the disadvantages.

Apple has always had the computer SN flashed into the logic board. There's a lot of persistent storage on the logic board (PRAM, NVRAM, firmware, etc) and the sn just fits into one of those pigeonholes. Anytime a tech replaces an apple motherboard, the new board comes with a blank serial number, and the tech has to run a special apple-provided tool to set it so it matches the computer. (the sn on the board being replaced) This tool will refuse to set the sn if it has already been set. (this is a software limitation, to prevent abuse of changing the sn to get warranty service, hide theft, etc)

Were Apple to hand me a full glass, I'd run it through a forensics lab before drinking from it, whereas if they handed you an empty one, you'd savor its emptiness.

I'm a hopeless Apple-phobe, you're an equally hopeless Apple-phile, and neither of us will ever buy into the other's point of view.

I've got no objections to the App Store in general, only to some aspects of its implementation.

Hmmm . . .

I am trying to recall what I did when Yosemite was released. I know I downloaded and installed it on my 2011 MBPro AND made a bootable version of it on a flash drive.

I believe that I also installed Yosemite on the iMAC from the SAME flash drive.

I cannot say I did this for certain. However, if I had to download again from Apple to install Yosemite on the iMAC, I would have also made a flash drive of the OS X as I did with the MBPro - as is my habit with each new OS X release. Since I only have one flash drive with Yosemite, I figure I must have used it for both machines . . . otherwise I would have been compelled to make a second flash drive when I went to install Yosemite on the iMAC.

Of course, I may have lost all my marbles.

you can get the installer image off the recovery partition. it's a dmg, though I forget offhand where it's at. Open disk utility to mount the recovery partition and look around on there. (don't just copy the recovery partition, create the installer from the dmg)

You should be able to test that by trying to boot your iMac with the flash drive and seeing what happens, i.e. if it boots...if it allows you to install.

Please let us know.

Thanks.

Edit: And if it boots the iMac, I suppose you ought to make sure that it still boots the MBP...just for good measure.

How could a 5GB installer live on a 650MB partition?

Edit: I though it was established long ago that Recovery Partition did not include the installer...that it merely enabled you to d/l it.

That's correct. See OS X: About OS X Recovery for details. ("OS X is downloaded over the Internet from Apple when OS X Recovery is used for reinstallation.")

Okay.

The Yosemite flash drive made using the MBPro (2011) will boot BOTH it and the iMac (2013).

Thanks for getting back to us with that; now I've got to wonder about Ira's experience.

What method did you use to create your flash drive?

(Too bad I haven't got access to another Yosemite capable Mac.)

Edit: Interesting that Ira's DiskMaker X experience was the opposite of yours...an installer made on an iMac wouldn't boot a (n MB Air) laptop.

Edit 2: Posters on DiskMaker X's MacUpdate page report both problems and successes with different Macs; I wonder if the app is quirky?

I used the method outlined in The Missing Manual (Mavericks edition) by DAVID POGUE . . . no additional apps required other than what comes with the OS X.


Rather than write it all out here, the method probably can be found with a Google search.

Thanks for the info.

Yes, opposite experience most recently. I have successfully used DiskMaker X in the past, so maybe it is quirky.

DiskMaker X is a beta app, so anything's possible. I'd be game to do some beta testing, but I haven't got access to a Mac other than my own.

This continues to be a puzzlement.

I just purchased POGUE's "Yosemite" version of his series : The Missing Manual.

The boot disk/installer process is described on pages 786-787.

The "process" isn't at issue.

What's unclear is whether a Yosemite installer d/l'ed to a Mac will work on all Macs or only others of its ilk. Does Pogue clarify that?

Thanks.

No. Pogue just gives the recipe for making the installer.

Thanks, Jon.

You'd think there'd be an authoritative answer to the question somewhere.

The "process" isn't at issue.

To clarify: There was a question raised earlier (#33860) as to whether or not the OS X installer could be used on multiple Macs.

I relayed the information that the "process" POGUE outlined worked with ONE flash drive which I used to install "Yosemite" on both a MBPRo and a Desktop. The tools to make such a bootable drive - excluding the drive itself, of course - come installed with the computer . . . no need to use third-party software. There was some concern raised that the install disk process of the third-party "DiskMaker X" was inconsistent in this regard (#33882).

P.S. Update: The POGUE method is the same in the Yosemite manual (pages 786-787) as it was in the Mavericks manual. In that section, POGUE makes no comment one way or the other about the universality of such a disk. For me, the ONE install disk works on an early-2011 MBPro and a 2013 iMAC desktop. Alas, my only experience has been limited to the aforementioned two machines of "this ilk."

Thanks for the clarification.

It sounds like nobody can argue with your experience, and Ira's is subject to doubt because of his method, but it still seems like there ought to be a definitive answer, one way or the other, somewhere.

Clarify: my experience is not subject to doubt. It is real and happened the way I described it.

What is subject to question is the consistency or universality of the installer created by DiskMaker X.

That's more or less what I meant to say...not to cast doubt on your post, but on your method.

Sorry for poor wording.