OWC's Rocket Yard Blog takes their first look at Big Sur. Now when will the public beta finally be available so I can look too?
I am already running the Big Sur version of Safari, and that is NOT Safari Technology Preview, but the real deal which Apple has released independently of Big Sur for beta testing. Except for an annoying habit of the cursor disappearing when switching between tabs or windows, I like it. There are some significant and I believe useful new features. Nothing dramatic, but certainly evolutionary. In terms of performance, it is, If anything, faster than the Catalina version, but it would take more sensitive instrumentation, and patience, than I have to put an actual performance value on it. In case you are wondering, I can't tell if this version has both Apple SoC and Intel code or not. 🤷â€â™‚ï¸
Take a look at
ArchiChect to check applications for Apple Silicon on Chip, 64-bit Intel (and Intel-32, PowerPC code 32 or 64).
For a visual
comparison of Catalina and Big Sur (the OSes, not the places
), this is well done.
Thanks, Ira that is a great site, and the Catalina configuration chart is very informative.
Unfortunately, the Catalina version of ArchiChect only looks for Intel or PPC (Power PC) code and not Apple SoC, but I suspect that will change sooner rather than later.
Thanks, Ira that is a great site, and the Catalina configuration chart is very informative.
Unfortunately, the Catalina version of ArchiChect only looks for Intel or PPC (Power PC) code and not Apple SoC, but I suspect that will change sooner rather than later.
I don't read their description the same way as you do. I took it to mean there are currently no Apple SoC apps to check, so ArchiChect won't show anything in that respect, independent of Catalina. But you were wondering if your review version of Safari had SoC capabilities, so check it with ArchiChect and if it does it should show that, no?
"Format=App bundle with Mach-O thin (x86_64)"
So this doesn't sing to me of SoC just yet......looks like Intel rather than ARM.
Interesting. Your post does not even show the Apple SoC check box option or include the warning "this app has no support for Apple Silicon" as shown in my
screenshot of the current Safari in ArchiChect 2.4. So something is different in your Safari developer build, understandably. But where is the denial of Apple SoC?
Two interesting and useful links:
This one discusses compatibility of hardware and software with Big Sur.
The
second one gives a visual comparison of Big Sur to Catalina.
Both are interesting to those of us who may not be running beta versions of osMac 11 (also known as 10.16) and it seems as if the first list will be updated as things progress.
Both are interesting to those of us who may not be running beta versions of osMac 11 (also known as 10.16) and it seems as if the first list will be updated as things progress.
As to what it is called, I take my cue from
this. Some of the graphics issue reported in the second article are not present in the current public beta or at least not on my Mac mini.
A surprising fail.
DaisyDisk sees anything and everything on the Big Sur boot drive as Read Only.
Both are interesting to those of us who may not be running beta versions of osMac 11 (also known as 10.16) and it seems as if the first list will be updated as things progress.
As to what it is called, I take my cue from
this. Some of the graphics issue reported in the second article are not present in the current public beta or at least not on my Mac mini.
That may be what it is called to the general public, but I have read a couple articles discussing the fact that lots of current software check the System version before running so that it can present itself in a compatible manner. They look for 10.x.x and act accordingly. The author said that lots of code would need rewriting to address 11.x.x. Maybe it's simple, maybe not but Apple later said it would use both 11.x.x and 10.16.x notation, at least initially, internally for these kinds of checks.
Eventually Apple would probably expect software to be capable of addressing 11.x.x as well as 10.y.x, where y≤15.
Both are interesting to those of us who may not be running beta versions of osMac 11 (also known as 10.16) and it seems as if the first list will be updated as things progress.
As to what it is called, I take my cue from
this. Some of the graphics issue reported in the second article are not present in the current public beta or at least not on my Mac mini.
That may be what it is called to the general public, but I have read a couple articles discussing the fact that lots of current software check the System version before running so that it can present itself in a compatible manner. They look for 10.x.x and act accordingly. The author said that lots of code would need rewriting to address 11.x.x. Maybe it's simple, maybe not but Apple later said it would use both 11.x.x and 10.16.x notation, at least initially, internally for these kinds of checks.
Eventually Apple would probably expect software to be capable of addressing 11.x.x as well as 10.y.x, where y≤15.
Sounds similar to the initial issues when OS X went from 10.9 to 10.10 rather than 11.0.
A surprising fail.
DaisyDisk sees anything and everything on the Big Sur boot drive as Read Only.
Keeping in mind to whom I'm speaking I'll still ask if DD is maybe seeing only your System volume and not your entire installation?
It never saw my entire installation until yesterday when, and don't ask me why it needed to, it asked for my registration info which I clearly remember having entered immediately after purchasing it.
[Keeping in mind to whom I'm speaking I'll still ask if DD is maybe seeing only your System volume and not your entire installation?
It never saw my entire installation until yesterday when, and don't ask me why it needed to, it asked for my registration info which I clearly remember having entered immediately after purchasing it.
I get the same results when DaisyDisk scans only my user folder and I am using the App Store version.
[Keeping in mind to whom I'm speaking I'll still ask if DD is maybe seeing only your System volume and not your entire installation?
It never saw my entire installation until yesterday when, and don't ask me why it needed to, it asked for my registration info which I clearly remember having entered immediately after purchasing it.
I get the same results when DaisyDisk scans only my user folder and I am using the App Store version.
Although I can't see any reason why it would, I wonder if the direct d/l version would yield different results?
I suspect it is a coding problem brought about by the dramatic changes in Big Sur's internal organization and protection. Remember, at present only the data volume can be cloned, even using Apple's own ASR utility and Time Machine will only back up the data volume. In retrospect, that shouldn't be a surprise because iOS and iPadOS never backed up the system either.
So Long Airport Utility.
It takes a while to get around to all apps and this morning I encountered an old Apple App that no longer works, "Airport Utility". It launches normally, reads all the settings and everything works until I tried to make a change when it reported an internal error and unable to complete. I knew it was coming but I am tempted to pay taps for an old friend of many years -- My Apple Router
So Long Airport Utility.
It takes a while to get around to all apps and this morning I encountered an old Apple App that no longer works, "Airport Utility". It launches normally, reads all the settings and everything works until I tried to make a change when it reported an internal error and unable to complete. I knew it was coming but I am tempted to pay taps for an old friend of many years -- My Apple Router
I just got
this error message in
Catalina when I tried to change my band from 5 GHz to 2.4 GHz and again when I tried to change my AirPort Express Base Station password. (I can't begin to remember the last time I tried to change anything in AU, but the error message is definitely a new thing.)
Is it the same error you're seeing?
I use my Verizon router for Internet, so I don't mind not being able to change my settings as long as AirPlay continues to work.
(I've got no idea in which thread it was, but we touched on this subject a while ago.)
Worded slightly different but the messge.
Airport Utiity in iOS 14.0 dooesn't even offer to permit changing anything. Oh well the Time Capsule is still working, sort of. (The 5GHz band does no connect to the internet?) I don't really need the Time Capsule except for several Homekit devices that are 2.4GHz band only and do not play nice with my mesh routers. An inexpensive 2.4GHz router costs about the same as any one one of those devices which means the Time Capsule is probably on the chopping block.
I hope I can look forward to a long life for my AirPort Express Base Station as
Apple's ancient AirPort Express miraculously gets AirPlay 2 support leads me to suspect, if not believe, will be the case. (And if not, I"ve still got cables to connect my stereo to Music.app via my audio out jack...which, because of the jack's location, would be a logistical nightmare.
)
I hope there are just plain too many users out there who haven't got smart speakers, which is my situation with my $100 each Polk Monitors 50s which have got many years left in them, for Apple to pull the plug on the original AirPlay functionality.
Although the data are limited so far, there is some information about Big Sur compatibility with third-party apps at
https://roaringapps.com/apps?platform=osx
Well here is an interesting incompatibility. the latest macOS 11 beta broke Apple's own Music app. It crashes reliably on launch. 😳
It still works on iOS/iPadOS however.
SITUATIONFor a long time, I have had System Preferences > Apple ID > iCloud Drive > Options > Desktop & Documents Folders activated. But there has always been a noticeable lag between creating/editing a file in the Documents folder and its upload to the Documents folder on iCloud and the distinction between the two versions has been clear. Today I noticed a change in Big Sur, and it is still a bit discombobulating.
~/Documents (the user's document folder) has disappeared from Finder in Big Sur. There is a Finder > Preferences > Sidebar option to show Documents, but when activated the Documents folder shows up as an iCloud folder. Selecting
that Documents folder shows at the top of the window that it is /Users/joSemikeb/Documents, as expected. But in the filepath at the bottom of the Finder window, the path is iCloud > Documents. Obviously the Documents folder is on both the local drive as well as iCloud as the files are accessible when my Mac mini is disconnected from the network. If I edit a file on my mac mini they appear almost instantly in the file on iCloud as seen on my iPhone. When I use Go To Folder ~/Documents, to get around invisible folders and flags, I end up in iCloud/Documents.
MY CONCLUSION- The user Desktop and Documents folders, and their content, physically exists on both the local drive and on iCloud
- Big. Sur hides the local version of the of both folders
- Big Sur directs you to
- Some applications, such as Daisy Disk that work at a lower level can see the local version of these folders but those are invisible to most applications
- My assumption is Time Machine backs up the local Documents and Desktop folders
- The sync process between the local and iCloud versions has been streamlined and optimized to the point any lag is unnoticeable
- In day to day use whether you are working on the local or iCloud drive is indistinguishable and immaterial.
OFF AGAIN AND ON AGAIN
ScanSnap Home, the application that comes with Fujitsu scanners was broken by the first Big Sur public beta so I had to resort to the standby scanning app, VueScan. VueScan is a great, very flexible, and enormously powerful scanning app, but it is and awkward fit, in my workflow. This morning I absent-mindedly launched ScanSnap Home once again and it appears the latest Big Sur beta had restored it to full functionality. ðŸ‘👌🧨😎
IF YOU CLONE YOUR SYSTEM...The following note was included in the latest Carbon Copy Cloner beta update:
This build continues our beta testing cycle for macOS "Big Sur" 11. In the current macOS beta, CCC will create Data Volume backups of any Big Sur startup volumes. Apple's APFS replication utility is not currently capable of replicating a Big Sur System volume (as of Big Sur Beta 6). We're working with Apple to develop the functionality within macOS that will allow third-party backup applications to continue making backups of macOS System volumes. In the meantime, we're making complete backups of your data, and those backups can be seamlessly used alongside the macOS Installer or Migration Assistant to produce a bootable backup or to facilitate a restore.
I hope Artie will forgive my copying his post in another string, but I think it is pertinent in this thread as well.
I'm having a LOT of trouble trying to believe that Apple is going to leave us with no way to create a bootable clone. I'm having a LOT of trouble believing that they'd even think of it.
Their mandating an Internet connection for upgrading was bad enough, but at least it only left us potentially unable to upgrade, which is an option rather than a necessity.
How do they expect us to recover when we NEED to recover and we haven't got Internet accessibility?
I have two observations:
- After Apple went to the trouble of creating the very useful clone command in Catalina, that CCC and TinkerTool System made use of, the fact it does not work in Big Sur would lead me to believe either Apple doesn't know how to make it work with the new constraints or doesn't know how to make it work without creating unacceptable security vulnerabilities. That doesn't mean the issue can't or won't be solved, but it may take a lot of blood, sweat, tears, coffee, late nights, cold pizza, and time to do so. I don't envy the engineering team that has this on their todo list. It may not be at, or even near, the top of that todo list either as I suspect the vast majority of Mac users don't even know what a clone is. 😳
- You haven't been reading the highway signs marking the road for software updates, upgrades, reinstalls, and application installs. The first obvious road sign was the App Store like iOS. The second, a billboard instead of a sign, was the Recovery Drive. MacOS is tail-end Charlie on this. There are thousands of iPhones and dozens of iPads for every Mac and neither has ever had any way of getting software except the internet or cellular. Bringing MacOS and its distribution channels into line with the other ninety percent of Apple products is inevitable.
I hope Artie will forgive my copying his post in another string, but I think it is pertinent in this thread as well.
I'm having a LOT of trouble trying to believe that Apple is going to leave us with no way to create a bootable clone. I'm having a LOT of trouble believing that they'd even think of it.
Their mandating an Internet connection for upgrading was bad enough, but at least it only left us potentially unable to upgrade, which is an option rather than a necessity.
How do they expect us to recover when we NEED to recover and we haven't got Internet accessibility?
I have two observations:
- After Apple went to the trouble of creating the very useful clone command in Catalina, that CCC and TinkerTool System made use of, the fact it does not work in Big Sur would lead me to believe either Apple doesn't know how to make it work with the new constraints or doesn't know how to make it work without creating unacceptable security vulnerabilities. That doesn't mean the issue can't or won't be solved, but it may take a lot of blood, sweat, tears, coffee, late nights, cold pizza, and time to do so. I don't envy the engineering team that has this on their todo list. It may not be at, or even near, the top of that todo list either as I suspect the vast majority of Mac users don't even know what a clone is. 😳
- You haven't been reading the highway signs marking the road for software updates, upgrades, reinstalls, and application installs. The first obvious road sign was the App Store like iOS. The second, a billboard instead of a sign, was the Recovery Drive. MacOS is tail-end Charlie on this. There are thousands of iPhones and dozens of iPads for every Mac and neither has ever had any way of getting software except the internet or cellular. Bringing MacOS and its distribution channels into line with the other ninety percent of Apple products is inevitable.
No problem with your "retweeting" my post.
I don't know about iPads, but can't iPhones be restored from the backup on your Mac?
And I suspect that those Mac users who are aware of clones are the ones who are the most at risk if they go by the boards.
Neither macOS or the hardware that runs it is infallible, and I think Apple needs to consider that.
I don't know about iPads, but can't iPhones be restored from the backup on your Mac?
And I suspect that those Mac users who are aware of clones are the ones who are the most at risk if they go by the boards.
Neither macOS or the hardware that runs it is infallible, and I think Apple needs to consider that.
In order:
- No, because I never backup either my iPhone or iPad to my Mac, I back up to iCloud. In any case iPhone and iPad backups are not bootable and like Time Machine in Big Sur do not back up the OS, That has to be restored from the App Store and will be the latest OS compatible with the device, not the version that was on the device. The Apps are not backed up either, they come from the App Store as well. Backups consist primarily of settings and data.
- Likely true
- Unlikely to happen. Apple has been on this track for years and shows no signs of being diverted (especially if diversion would reduce security one iota).
Neither macOS or the hardware that runs it is infallible, and I think Apple needs to consider that.
Unlikely to happen. Apple has been on this track for years and shows no signs of being diverted (especially if diversion would reduce security one iota).
And the safest car is one that sits in your driveway while you take taxis everywhere.
Apple's goal, a computer so invasively safe that it frees its users of all responsibility, ain't gonna be much of a computer.
Maybe adding cellular capability to the MacBook would solve your conundrum. There is a rumored 11†MacBook Air(?), which would appear be little more than an 11†iPad Pro with a built in keyboard and running MacOS. 😜
Maybe adding cellular capability to the MacBook would solve your conundrum.
It would be a solution only if I was in a place where there was cellular access.
There are large parts of the world where there's neither cellular nor wi-fi available, and what do I do if my SSD goes south while I'm in such a location?
LATEST WORD ON CLONING BIG SURIt appears that creating a bootable clone of Big Sur (macOS 11) will not be possible unless and until Apple creates a revised APFS replication utility. Apparently the "Copy All Files" and "Copy Some Files" options of old will no longer work for system files and volumes. This just in from today's beta release of Carbon Copy Cloner.
We're wrapping up our beta testing cycle for macOS "Big Sur" 11. CCC will create Data Volume backups of any Big Sur startup volumes. Apple's APFS replication utility is still not currently capable of replicating a Big Sur System volume (as of Big Sur Beta 8). We're working with Apple to develop the functionality within macOS that will allow third-party backup applications to continue making backups of macOS System volumes. In the meantime, we're making complete backups of your data, and those backups can be seamlessly used alongside the macOS Installer or Migration Assistant to produce a bootable backup or to facilitate a restore
See also:
Installing MacOS onto a data-only volumeI have a CCC data only clone that I will try installing Big Sur on this afternoon.
Unfortunately from Apple's perspective that all makes sense. Why clone the System when you can do an Internet Restore and grab the System from on line. Well, I can still think of reasons—like no Internet connection—but Apple does not ask me.
Unfortunately from Apple's perspective that all makes sense. Why clone the System when you can do an Internet Restore and grab the System from on line. Well, I can still think of reasons—like no Internet connection—but Apple does not ask me.
Don't forget that if your Mac has a T2 chip, as I believe all new Macs do, the T2 chip prevents booting from an external drive unless you boot from the recovery drive or internet recovery drive and disable that feature, so internet may still be a requirement, even if you have a "bootable clone". By-the-way, I can tell you from experience, that also prevents booting from a Recovery Drive on any device other than the internal drive.
Coincidental with this discussion of recovery after a disaster, I had just such a disaster and was forced into an emergency recovery of Big Sur.
THE PRESENTING ISSUEThe principal symptoms were the keys on the keyboard did not match what was getting to the computer, and an app ran away throwing up a continuing stream of screens requesting a password, which I was unable to give because of the keyboard SNAFU. This persisted through a reboot, a cold boot, reinstalling Big Sur, and a new keyboard. My computer was in a word —
unusable 🤯
MY SOLUTION (Related
discoveries in footnotes)
- Boot from the Recovery Drive
- Erase the boot drive*¹
- Clean install of macOS 11 (Big Sur)*²
- Recover from Time Machine*³ *â´ *âµ *ⶠ*â· *â¸
RESULTS- My system was completely restored incuding all app store and other third party applications. 😎
- Only one app, BOINC, had to be reinstalled. (I expected that)
- The only loss was my carefully curated Launchpad folders 😢
CONCLUSIONSAlthough the entire process took over four hours, recovery was 100% successful and the entire process was completed with zero loss. At the present state-of-the-art the Recovery drive and an internet connection are essential to disaster recovery in Big Sur and it appears that is Apple's intent just as it is with the iPhone, iPad, Watch, TV, etc. Whether Apple will create a means of creating a bootable clone or not is an open question and I am not sure I would bet the price of a venti iced mocha, no whip at Starbucks they will. I still have no clue to what triggered my issue in the first place and I am not happy about that. 😡
FOOTNOTES (aka DISCOVERIES)- When erasing the boot drive, Disk Utility offered to erase only the data volume or the entire drive including even the Recovery volume ‼ï¸
- An internet connection is mandatory
- Although Migration Assistant found every Time Machine data set on every shared drive on my LAN it did not see the CCC clone of the Data volume on an attached drive.
- NOTE: Migration Assistant has to be open and running on other Macs before Migration Assistant will see them as recovery data sources.
- A new password was requested for each of the user accounts recovered from Time Machine
- In Catalina there is a Time Machine option to NOT include system files and applications. that option does NOT exist in Big Sur
- Big Sur Time Machine backups are the entire Data Volume minus any specifically excluded folders (essentially the same data as contained in a CCC clone)
- During the restart after recovery I needed my Apple ID and Password, as well as the six digit logon code for my iPad
I finally got around to testing installing Big Sur on a drive with a Carbon Copy Cloner created data volume clone. Piece-of-cake ðŸ°. I cloned my data volume to an external drive using CCC then booted the Recovery Drive and installed Big Sur on the external volume. When the external drive booted after the install it came right up, even my just rearranged LaunchPad settings were just as they had been. The only way I could immediately tell the difference was the CCC warning about suspended tasks that popped up. Admittedly it took a lot less time than yesterday's recovery from Time Machine.
How about reversing that procedure and cloning your data volume to an external drive that's already got macOS installed on it?
That would, in a single-buttocked way, anyhow, allow you to maintain an emergency backup in the boonies where there's no Internet, or, for that matter, for immediate use in your home.
Once you've got macOS on the drive it would seem as if you could go forward with your regular CCC cloning routine and regularly overwrite your data volume with a fresh one.
And you could keep the external system volume up to date by running the dot updaters and, eventually, the macOS 17 installer. (Oh, well, you'd have to run everything multiple times, but no huge deal.)
I wouldn't love it, but I'd accept that as a viable solution for the lack of system volume cloning ability.
Without some way to recover from a failed drive without Internet, a Mac is a liability.
MY WATCH IS THE BOSS OF ME
People have said that for a long time because of Apple watch nagging to stand, breath, exercise, etc., but last night mine quit nagging and took charge. The Health app on my iPhone tracks sleep and knows when I wake up and go to bed. As part of that cycle, it turns on "Do Not Disturb" shortly before bedtime. Since my Mac mini does not have touch or visual ability, my watch substitutes for a touch bar or facial recognition. Last night, I was working late and the "wind down" time arrived, the keyboard on my Mac mini stopped responding, the screen darkened, and a message appeared that in order to continue using the computer,I would have to turn off "Do Not Disturb" on my watch. I went to bed.
The Health app on my iPhone tracks sleep and knows when I wake up and go to bed.
Sounds just like Santa Claus!
]Sounds just like Santa Claus!
.
Even worse than Saint Nick! He doesn’t monitor my vital signs like my watch does. The watch is more like an over-protective grandmother. 👀 l
How about reversing that procedure and cloning your data volume to an external drive that's already got macOS installed on it?
An interesting idea, but sadly one that does not work. I just tried re-cloning the data volume on my bootable Big Sur clone. The cloning process was very quick, but when I attempted to boot the re-cloned drive i kept getting a reversed ⌀ symbol and finally had to quit the process with the power switch. 😖
Ah-well, it was worth a try. I just wish it weren't going to take so long to re-install Big Sur on the drive after I erase it and once again clone the data volume to the drive. 🤷â€â™‚ï¸ Although I don't really know why I am going to do that as the critical data stores will never be current on the cloned volume. But it is a shame to have such a fast external SSD sitting around unused. 🙅â€â™‚ï¸
💡 {
Bright Idea} On second thought, as my Documents and Desktop folders are technically on the iCloud, rather than re-cloning I might just boot from the clone and allow enough time for the data to "settle" and I would be back up and running with no data loss and no need to reclone the data. While I know that would not work for those who eschew the iCloud, it might just be the answer for those of us who are willing to turn on storing the Docuents and Desktop folders in the cloud. No clone would be needed, just a second bootable drive on the same Apple ID account and iCloud. The only question would be the applications, drivers, and other such "stuff". I feel another experiment coming on.
Some new (I think) Big Sur details from an exchange with Mike Bombich:
Is the system volume actually MORE untouchable in Big Sur than it is in Catalina, i.e. has it been fixed so it can't be manipulated from a clone as I do in Catalina (like booting into OS 9 to manipulate the early versions of OS X)?
Yes, it's cryptographically sealed and then a snapshot is taken. On startup, the snapshot is mounted and that's what the system boots from – the original System volume isn't even mounted. If you mount the System volume and make changes to it, that renders the system non-bootable. You can learn more about it here:
https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=3xpv8r2mThere is actually a mode in which you could modify the system and create your own snapshots, but that's geared towards kernel extension developers.
Some new (I think) Big Sur details from an exchange with Mike Bombich
That is new and explains a
LOT. In retrospect, its roots were planted in the concepts of APFS years ago; transitional elements appeared in Catalina, and it is now achieving a logical maturity in Big Sur. It constitutes an order of magnitude increase in system security and integrity, and reliability. It also makes life a LOT harder for legitimate developers who attempt to get too close to the hardware or OS inner workings. We may also see some old standbys go by the board in the coming year because they are no longer needed and/or can no longer be implemented.
Thanks to Mike Bombich for sharing that information, and thanks to you for passing it along.
Thanks to Mike Bombich for sharing that information....
I'm sure you've dealt with many more developers than I have, but Mike is
far and away the most responsive one with whom I"ve ever dealt.
When I pose a question to Mike, I don't get just an answer, I get a SEMINAR!
(I intend to use the included link to (try to) hack Big Sur when I install it.)
How about reversing that procedure and cloning your data volume to an external drive that's already got macOS installed on it?
An interesting idea....
I've been discussing this question with Mike Bombich, but I"m at a dead end, because I haven't got Big Sur and can't see how CCC reacts to it.
Would you please post screenshots of the options you're offered in CCC's "Copy All Files" and "Copy Some Files" drop-downs with Big Sur selected as your source volume?
How about reversing that procedure and cloning your data volume to an external drive that's already got macOS installed on it?
An interesting idea, but sadly one that does not work. I just tried re-cloning the data volume on my bootable Big Sur clone. The cloning process was very quick, but when I attempted to boot the re-cloned drive i kept getting a reversed ⌀ symbol and finally had to quit the process with the power switch. 😖
Ah-well, it was worth a try. I just wish it weren't going to take so long to re-install Big Sur on the drive after I erase it and once again clone the data volume to the drive. 🤷â€â™‚ï¸ Although I don't really know why I am going to do that as the critical data stores will never be current on the cloned volume. But it is a shame to have such a fast external SSD sitting around unused. 🙅â€â™‚ï¸
Here's my exchange with Mike Bombich:
artie: but that you can achieve a bootable volume by combining it with either a Time Machine or Recovery restore
Mike: No, Time Machine isn't required at all. An Internet connection is only required to download the Installer, which you've done already if you've installed Big Sur. Hang on to that Installer – drag it to some other volume to make a copy that the Installer won't delete. When you've finished installing Big Sur, run your CCC backup to get your Data-only backup created, then install Big Sur onto the backup. At that point you have a bootable backup, and presumably a backup of that macOS Installer as well. If Internet connectivity is a problem in your area, then definitely save a copy of the installer. (Addendum: Red text is contradictory, no?)
artie: Can I install Big Sur on an external drive and keep it current by cloning my internal data volume to it regularly?
Mike: CCC will keep the Data-only volume current, yes. Nothing copies the System volume – not CCC, not Time Machine, nothing nor nobody can copy it (yet), not even Apple. The only way to restore the system right now is to reinstall it.
FWIW, I'd wait on this one. There is no impetus to upgrade to Big Sur, and there are some lower-level things that are still not working correctly. The biggest problem right now is that the "Signed System Volume" is supposed to be cryptographically "sealed", but that seal is constantly broken. A volume with a broken seal isn't supposed to be bootable, but Apple has relaxed that requirement because the functionality doesn't work. You're in no worse shape than in Catalina where the volume lacks the seal altogether, but then there's also no advantage (security-wise) to upgrading just yet.
I've terminated the discussion because it's not reasonable of me to impose on Mike's time about functionality at a particular moment that may change in the next moment, not to mention the fact that I"m not even running Big Sur, so I can't run any experiments of my own.
The one thing I'm scratching my head about, and regret not having asked Mike about, is how Migration Assistant is dealing with this, and can it perhaps be used in place of CCC for some necessary functionality?
The one thing I'm scratching my head about, and regret not having asked Mike about, is how Migration Assistant is dealing with this, and can it perhaps be used in place of CCC for some necessary functionality?
Migration Assistant only deals with the data volume. It is through the magic of
firmlinks that applications installed in the data volume appear in the System volume. Quoting from Mike Bombich's
Working with APFS Volume GroupsFinder shenanigans with the Applications folder
Firmlinks are mostly transparent, but there is one really noticeable exception: the Applications folder. The Applications folder at the root level of the System volume is a firmlink to the Applications folder at the root level of the Data volume, however, if you navigate to your startup disk > System > Volumes > Data > Applications, you'll notice that the bulk of the Applications are not there. Yet when you look at the Applications folder on the System volume, they are all there! The Finder applies some magic here. The read-only System Applications folder actually resides at System > Applications on the System volume, and when you open the Applications folder in the Finder, you'll see the aggregation of that folder and the Data volume's root-level Applications folder. To the average user, this is exactly what you expect to see, and that's great. However, you may notice that this same aggregation is not applied to other system volumes that your Mac is not currently booted from (e.g. your backup disk). On those volumes, if you open the root-level Applications folder on the visible System volume, you'll only see the content of the firmlink to the root-level Applications folder on the Data volume (i.e. no Apple applications, just your third-party applications and Safari). Rest assured, though, that all of the applications are backed up! You'll find them at System > Applications on the backup volume.
The one thing I'm scratching my head about, and regret not having asked Mike about, is how Migration Assistant is dealing with this, and can it perhaps be used in place of CCC for some necessary functionality?
Migration Assistant only deals with the data volume. It is through the magic of
firmlinks that applications installed in the data volume appear in the System volume. Quoting from Mike Bombich's
Working with APFS Volume GroupsFinder shenanigans with the Applications folder
Firmlinks are mostly transparent, but there is one really noticeable exception: the Applications folder. The Applications folder at the root level of the System volume is a firmlink to the Applications folder at the root level of the Data volume, however, if you navigate to your startup disk > System > Volumes > Data > Applications, you'll notice that the bulk of the Applications are not there. Yet when you look at the Applications folder on the System volume, they are all there! The Finder applies some magic here. The read-only System Applications folder actually resides at System > Applications on the System volume, and when you open the Applications folder in the Finder, you'll see the aggregation of that folder and the Data volume's root-level Applications folder. To the average user, this is exactly what you expect to see, and that's great. However, you may notice that this same aggregation is not applied to other system volumes that your Mac is not currently booted from (e.g. your backup disk). On those volumes, if you open the root-level Applications folder on the visible System volume, you'll only see the content of the firmlink to the root-level Applications folder on the Data volume (i.e. no Apple applications, just your third-party applications and Safari). Rest assured, though, that all of the applications are backed up! You'll find them at System > Applications on the backup volume.
I'm familiar with all that, but trying to think Big Sur things through without having Big Sur as a reference point has left me at the point of pointlessness.
Note: The file path I've highlighted in red doesn't exist in Catalina, but if you follow the closest thing to it that does exist you see what Mike's talking about, although in reverse.
Mike's response to my question may be "quoted" as "Installing Big Sur on top of a CCC data clone and running Migration Assistant on top of a Big Sur installation yield the same results."
Note: The file path I've highlighted in red doesn't exist in Catalina, but if you follow the closest thing to it that does exist you see what Mike's talking about, although in reverse.
is the closest I can get to that path in Big Sur.
Mike's response to my question may be "quoted" as "Installing Big Sur on top of a CCC data clone and running Migration Assistant on top of a Big Sur installation yield the same results."
Agreed. But that does not mean you can clone or re-clone a data volume onto an existing Big Sur drive and end up with a bootable system.
In Catalina a virtual
run time volume is created
at boot time using elements from the system volume and the data volume. In Big Sur that virtual volume is created,
and signed at Install time and is stored on the boot drive as an APFS snapshot. That snapshot is the bootable volume.
Mike's response to my question may be "quoted" as "Installing Big Sur on top of a CCC data clone and running Migration Assistant on top of a Big Sur installation yield the same results."
Agreed. But that does not mean you can clone or re-clone a data volume onto an existing Big Sur drive and end up with a bootable system.
artie: Can I install Big Sur on an external drive and keep it current by cloning my internal data volume to it regularly?
Mike Bombich: CCC will keep the Data-only volume current, yes. Nothing copies the System volume – not CCC, not Time Machine, nothing nor nobody can copy it (yet), not even Apple. The only way to restore the system right now is to reinstall it.
FWIW, I'd wait on this one. There is no impetus to upgrade to Big Sur, and there are some lower-level things that are still not working correctly. The biggest problem right now is that the "Signed System Volume" is supposed to be cryptographically "sealed", but that seal is constantly broken. A volume with a broken seal isn't supposed to be bootable, but Apple has relaxed that requirement because the functionality doesn't work. You're in no worse shape than in Catalina where the volume lacks the seal altogether, but then there's also no advantage (security-wise) to upgrading just yet.
and
artie: Will the external Big Sur installation be bootable after its Data-only volume has been updated by CCC?
Mike: That is my expectation, yes (it has remained bootable in my own tests).
It may be worth both your whiles for you to report your reverse prohibited symbol experience to Mike. (Broken/UNbroken seal issue, perhaps?)
Here is an interesting statement by Mike Bombich that appeared in the details of the most recent CCC upgrade:
"This update includes many changes to accommodate Apple's next OS, macOS "Big Sur". We were anticipating its release by now, but we're grateful that Apple is taking some additional time, hopefully to resolve some outstanding problems. If Apple ships Big Sur without resolving these problems, we'll call this update to CCC the "official" update for Big Sur. If Apple does resolve the outstanding problems, we'll post another update for Big Sur closer to the release date."
A new Apple Event is scheduled for November 17 and rumors have it that will be the announcement of the first Macs with Apple silicon. If that is true, then it would also have to include the release of macOS 11 (Big Sur) because macOS 10.x cannot run on Apple silicon. That only leaves 31 days for another Big Sur beta to be distributed and tested. Realistically I would not expect more than one more beta and that would be the Gold Master any changes after that would most likely remove any problematic features and hold those for a subsequent update version. I think the odds are in favor of the current CCC release being the official update for Big Sur. If I am wrong, it won't be the first time and it is highly unlikely it will be the last time.
I hope joemike doesn't mind that I passed his issue on to Mike Bombich.
joemike: I finally got around to testing installing Big Sur on a drive with a Carbon Copy Cloner created data volume clone. Piece-of-cake ðŸ°. I cloned my data volume to an external drive using CCC then booted the Recovery Drive and installed Big Sur on the external volume. When the external drive booted after the install it came right up, even my just rearranged LaunchPad settings were just as they had been. The only way I could immediately tell the difference was the CCC warning about suspended tasks that popped up. Admittedly it took a lot less time than yesterday's recovery from Time Machine.
artie: How about reversing that procedure and cloning your data volume to an external drive that's already got macOS installed on it?
joemike: An interesting idea, but sadly one that does not work. I just tried re-cloning the data volume on my bootable Big Sur clone. The cloning process was very quick, but when I attempted to boot the re-cloned drive i kept getting a reversed ⌀ symbol and finally had to quit the process with the power switch."
First, thanks for asking about this. Nobody mentioned this problem at all, but I was concerned enough that I did some additional testing. I did find a problem in which CCC was rendering a previously-bootable volume non-bootable. The problem occurs if you were to install Beta 9, for example, onto a backup disk, and then clone a Beta 10 source to that backup. CCC doesn't copy the System, but it does update the Preboot volume. That's where things were going awry – there are kernel caches in the Preboot volume that shouldn't be copied because the beta 10 kernel caches can't boot the beta 9 system. Anyway, I fixed that for the general 5.1.22 release, so I'd want to see if this other person can reproduce that problem with the latest build of CCC.
I tried cloning a beta 10 data volume onto a beta 9 System drive using the latest version of CCC and it is bootable. I am working from that version now. One comment, It took forever to finish booting because the system had to verify the latest release of XCode and apparently every other executable. (In fact, it is still going on.)
FYI
here is the screenshot you asked for. I have no idea why it is so pale but that is the best I could get of that particular window with the drop down showing 🤷â€â™‚ï¸
I passed your success story on to Mike.
Thanks for the screenshot, but it doesn't answer my question. I've got a Catalina CCC task that doesn't copy "system" files, but included in the files it doesn't copy are /Library and the third party component of /Apps, which are actually components of my data volume, and I've been wondering whether CCC does the same with Big Sur or if it copies the ENTIRE data volume. I guess I'll find out first-hand soon.
Assuming that the entire data volume is copied, updating the clone with macOS updaters as they're released should leave us with an up to date bootable clone, albeit not a very conveniently achieved one.
OBSERVATIONS:- There are 200 items in /Applications on the booted master drive
- There are 167 items in the /Applications folder on the Data volume of the un-booted clone
- There are 167 items in the /Applications folder on the System volume of the un-booted clone.
- There are 200 items in the /Applications folder of the BOOTED clone
- There are 167 items in the /Applications folder on the Data volume of the un-booted master drive
- There are 167 items in the /Applications folder on the System volume of the un-booted master drive
- When running from the clone, Finder crashed twice, and at least one other task crashed, reasons unknown.
CONCLUSIONS:¹ Cloning the data volume using the latest version of CCC is a complete clone leaving nothing out.
² Big Sur, and Catalina, do a good job of masking the physical structure to make it match the user's expectations.
³ CCC, together with the recovery drive, can be used to create a bootable backup volume
â´ Personally, I will probably rely on the Recovery drive and Time Machine for backups and keep a bootable clone for dire emergency use only.
One comment, It took forever to finish booting because the system had to verify the latest release of XCode and apparently every other executable.
OBSERVATIONS:- There are 200 items in /Applications on the booted master drive
- There are 167 items in the /Applications folder on the Data volume of the un-booted clone
- There are 167 items in the /Applications folder on the System volume of the un-booted clone.
- There are 200 items in the /Applications folder of the BOOTED clone
- There are 167 items in the /Applications folder on the Data volume of the un-booted master drive
- There are 167 items in the /Applications folder on the System volume of the un-booted master drive
You can't see all your apps if you examine your un-booted volume? That doesn't make any sense.
Nor is it the case in Catalina in which I see 26 items in /Apps in my booted volume, and 9 items in /Apps and 17 in /System/Apps in my un-booted volume.
You can't see all your apps if you examine your un-booted volume? That doesn't make any sense.
Nor is it the case in Catalina in which I see 26 items in /Apps my booted volume, and 9 items in /Apps and 17 in /System/Apps in my un-booted volume.
A whole lot of misdirection going on?
You can't see all your apps if you examine your un-booted volume? That doesn't make any sense.
Nor is it the case in Catalina in which I see 26 items in /Apps my booted volume, and 9 items in /Apps and 17 in /System/Apps in my un-booted volume.
A whole lot of misdirection going on?
A critical bug! They'd better all be visible when I move to trash them!
Yes, excellent site! I've been using it for years, and have recommended it numerous times.
Unfortunately from Apple's perspective that all makes sense. Why clone the System when you can do an Internet Restore and grab the System from on line. Well, I can still think of reasons—like no Internet connection—but Apple does not ask me.
Don't forget that if your Mac has a T2 chip, as I believe all new Macs do, the T2 chip prevents booting from an external drive unless you boot from the recovery drive or internet recovery drive and disable that feature, so internet may still be a requirement, even if you have a "bootable clone". By-the-way, I can tell you from experience, that also prevents booting from a Recovery Drive on any device other than the internal drive.
I have a late 2018 Mac Mini, and it has a T2 chip. I can boot it from an external SSD containing a SuperDuper! backup/clone. I did not do anything in terms of disabling a feature. (I am running the latest version of Catalina, OS 10.15.7).
How about reversing that procedure and cloning your data volume to an external drive that's already got macOS installed on it?
An interesting idea, but sadly one that does not work. I just tried re-cloning the data volume on my bootable Big Sur clone. The cloning process was very quick, but when I attempted to boot the re-cloned drive i kept getting a reversed ⌀ symbol and finally had to quit the process with the power switch. 😖
Ah-well, it was worth a try. I just wish it weren't going to take so long to re-install Big Sur on the drive after I erase it and once again clone the data volume to the drive. 🤷â€â™‚ï¸ Although I don't really know why I am going to do that as the critical data stores will never be current on the cloned volume. But it is a shame to have such a fast external SSD sitting around unused. 🙅â€â™‚ï¸
Here's my exchange with Mike Bombich:
artie: but that you can achieve a bootable volume by combining it with either a Time Machine or Recovery restore
Mike: No, Time Machine isn't required at all. An Internet connection is only required to download the Installer, which you've done already if you've installed Big Sur. Hang on to that Installer – drag it to some other volume to make a copy that the Installer won't delete. When you've finished installing Big Sur, run your CCC backup to get your Data-only backup created, then install Big Sur onto the backup. At that point you have a bootable backup, and presumably a backup of that macOS Installer as well. If Internet connectivity is a problem in your area, then definitely save a copy of the installer. (Addendum: Red text is contradictory, no?)
artie: Can I install Big Sur on an external drive and keep it current by cloning my internal data volume to it regularly?
Mike: CCC will keep the Data-only volume current, yes. Nothing copies the System volume – not CCC, not Time Machine, nothing nor nobody can copy it (yet), not even Apple. The only way to restore the system right now is to reinstall it.
FWIW, I'd wait on this one. There is no impetus to upgrade to Big Sur, and there are some lower-level things that are still not working correctly. The biggest problem right now is that the "Signed System Volume" is supposed to be cryptographically "sealed", but that seal is constantly broken. A volume with a broken seal isn't supposed to be bootable, but Apple has relaxed that requirement because the functionality doesn't work. You're in no worse shape than in Catalina where the volume lacks the seal altogether, but then there's also no advantage (security-wise) to upgrading just yet.
I've terminated the discussion because it's not reasonable of me to impose on Mike's time about functionality at a particular moment that may change in the next moment, not to mention the fact that I"m not even running Big Sur, so I can't run any experiments of my own.
The one thing I'm scratching my head about, and regret not having asked Mike about, is how Migration Assistant is dealing with this, and can it perhaps be used in place of CCC for some necessary functionality?
Thanks, artie505, for that informative post! What I have done in the past, and what I am hoping to do with a later version of Big Sur, is the following:
1. Download the latest Big Sur installer, and make a copy of it in another location (I suspect that will be V11.1. V11.0 will have too many bugs).
2. I have a Samsung 860 EVO 500 gig SSD, inside an Orico enclosure. I will use Disk Utility in Catalina to Erase and Format that entire SSD as APFS.
3. Do a clean, fresh installation of Big Sur V11.1 onto that external SSD.
4. Assuming Migration Assistant works the same, migrate/copy all needed files, folders, applications, settings, etc. from my OS 10.15.7 system.
5. Restart my Mac (it will be my late 2018 Mac Mini) from that external SSD.
That will be the start of my testing with Big Sur.
Now, the next "hurdle" will be when Big Sur compatible versions of SuperDuper!, Thunderbird, Onyx, LibreOffice, and Tech Tool Pro are released. Right now, of course, the
extremely critical one is SuperDuper!. The one that will take the most time, as usual, is Tech Tool Pro. Assuming all of that is complete (most likely in January, but possibly in February), my process would be:
1. Download the latest version of Big Sur (most likely V11.4 by that time), and make a copy of it in another location.
2. Perform my normal weekly disk cleanup/maintenance/backup tasks using Onyx, Tech Tool Pro, and SuperDuper!(SD). The backup/clone will be to an external SSD, and it will be my latest OS 10.15.7 (assuming no further updates to Catalina) system.
3. Restart my Mac from that just completed SD backup.
4. Use Disk Utility there to Erase and Format the internal SSD on the applicable Mac (I have 2 Macs, and thus will need to do all this twice).
5. Navigate to that most recent version of the Big Sur installer, launch it, and do a clean, fresh installation of OS 11.4 onto the internal SSD.
6. As expected, will be offered the opportunity to migrate/copy needed files, folders, applications, settings, etc. from that SD backup.
7. Once #6 completes, restart my Mac. Hopefully it will be successful with OS 11.4.
8. Finally, install the Big Sur compatible version of Onyx, and make an eDrive with Tech Tool Pro.
I am REALLY hoping all of that will still work. I will definitely visit this site to keep up to date, and inform others of my (hopefully) progress.
We're more or less thinking in the same direction, although I expect that I"ll substitute updates for your clean installs.
We differ about waiting for app updates/grades. I haven't even had anything like Disk Warrior, TechTool Pro, or Onyx installed on my MBP in - literally - years. DW and TTP, in particular, have both reached points at which they're stretching to keep relevant (It began years ago when DW added checking xml files to its functionality.), because their basic usefulness is no longer...well...particularly useful.
And remember that since Apple allowed DW and TTP to be distributed as d/l's rather than on discs they've been
immediately available should we need them, and there's been no real need to pay for upgrades before we actually NEED them.
It took a lot of years for Apple to get there, but their OS finally does "just work!"
Accordingly, my only critical app is CCC.
The one thing I'm scratching my head about, and regret not having asked Mike about, is how Migration Assistant is dealing with this, and can it perhaps be used in place of CCC for some necessary functionality?
How Migration Assistant deals with "it" is easy, it only deals with Data volume items so there is no conflict with either the boot snapshot or the system volume. That does bring up an interesting possibility. Instead of using a clone utility such as SD or CCC, why not boot the
target drive then run Migration Assistant to get the desired content from the
source drive or even Time Machine? No third party software needed and much more flexibility in what is
cloned. The only downside being it would be a manual process and not automated, but even that might be solvable with Automator and/or Apple Script!
We're more or less thinking in the same direction, although I expect that I"ll substitute updates for your clean installs.
We differ about waiting for app updates/grades. I haven't even had anything like Disk Warrior, TechTool Pro, or Onyx installed on my MBP in - literally - years. DW and TTP, in particular, have both reached points at which they're stretching to keep relevant (It began years ago when DW added checking xml files to its functionality.), because their basic usefulness is no longer...well...particularly useful.
And remember that since Apple allowed DW and TTP to be distributed as d/l's rather than on discs they've been
immediately available should we need them, and there's been no real need to pay for upgrades before we actually NEED them.
It took a lot of years for Apple to get there, but their OS finally does "just work!"
Accordingly, my only critical app is CCC.
I always do a clean, fresh installation with at least the initial version of the mac OS I am moving to. Has always worked for me, and subsequently resulted in things running fine.
As for app updates/grades, the apps I listed (Onyx, Thunderbird, SuperDuper!, LIbreOffice, and Tech Tool Pro) are just too critical for me, and I don't want to be without them. And of course there are the circumstances that 1) the first couple of versions of any new mac OS have too many bugs, and 2) there is nothing earth shattering in the new OS that I must have. Waiting is more a requirement on my part, and given that Catalina is rock solid, I can wait.
Again, all of that has worked well for me.
As for the upgrades themselves, only Tech Tool Pro requires a payment (although they have stated that the Big Sur compatible version will be free). Also, if one needs such software for an issue, such software needs to be compatible, especially at the time one needs it. I prefer to wait until such compatibility is there.
The other good thing about my strategy is that I can "wait on the sidelines" and observe how the first few versions of the new mac OS are behaving. I can then take any necessary, further steps before making the move (if they are needed).
Well, earlier today Apple released a new Big Sur beta version, V11.0.1 Beta:
https://9to5mac.com/2020/10/28/macos-big-sur-11-0-1-beta/Somewhat strange numbering, as one would expect to see it designated as Beta 11. Oh well.
I just tested the use of Migration Assistant and thought for a moment there was a way of using MA from the source drive, but that option requires the target system to be booted on a different computer 😢. However, my initial proposal works beautifully, and is more flexible than either CCC or SD offering a variety of sources to migrate from as well as the ability to migrate Applications, User(s), "Other" files and folders, and System & Network, or any combination of these. User(s) and Other files and folders allows specifying individual folders within those categories. This is a very workable solution the only major stumbling block I can find is the lack of automation and I am a huge believer in automation where any kind of backup is concerned.
I did encounter one surprise, every time I switched the boot drive, I had to log back in to my Apple ID. Not a big item, just unexpected.
I just tested the use of Migration Assistant and thought for a moment there was a way of using MA from the source drive, but that option requires the target system to be booted on a different computer 😢. However, my initial proposal works beautifully, and is more flexible than either CCC or SD offering a variety of sources to migrate from as well as the ability to migrate Applications, User(s), "Other" files and folders, and System & Network, or any combination of these. User(s) and Other files and folders allows specifying individual folders within those categories. This is a very workable solution the only major stumbling block I can find is the lack of automation and I am a huge believer in automation where any kind of backup is concerned.
I did encounter one surprise, every time I switched the boot drive, I had to log back in to my Apple ID. Not a big item, just unexpected.
Interesting post, joemikeb. I also prefer (actually require) automation when I do my SD backups/clones.
From what I can remember, and especially recently, this is the latest time a new mac OS has not been released yet. I wonder if Big Sur is much more challenging for Apple, or if Apple is deliberately timing Big Sur's release with their Silicon Event expected to happen on November 9th, or possibly both. Either way, all the more reason to exercise caution in moving/upgrading to OS 11, especially the first few versions. As I mentioned previously, I will test Big Sur (probably after V11.1 is released) on a separate external SSD.
Not really strange. It indicates the Big Sur 11.0 gold master has been set and this is a beta of an update (patch?) to that gold master. It also implies the new ultralight powerbook and iMac, both with Apple Silicon on a Chip and can only run Big Sur, are in production and may actually be available in stores at, or shortly after, next month's
rumored big announcement.
We're more or less thinking in the same direction, although I expect that I"ll substitute updates for your clean installs.
We differ about waiting for app updates/grades. I haven't even had anything like Disk Warrior, TechTool Pro, or Onyx installed on my MBP in - literally - years. DW and TTP, in particular, have both reached points at which they're stretching to keep relevant (It began years ago when DW added checking xml files to its functionality.), because their basic usefulness is no longer...well...particularly useful.
And remember that since Apple allowed DW and TTP to be distributed as d/l's rather than on discs they've been
immediately available should we need them, and there's been no real need to pay for upgrades before we actually NEED them.
It took a lot of years for Apple to get there, but their OS finally does "just work!"
Accordingly, my only critical app is CCC.
Artie we are starting to think more and more alike, but CCC, while
convenient, is
NOT on my
critical list.
- I make full use of iCloud, both my Desktop and Documents folders are mirrored from iCloud along with the Music and Photos libraries, keychain, mail, etc.. Not only does that keep all of my Apple devices in perfect sync, it conserves storage space on all of them as well, and after self-induced disasters has been instrumental in recovering not only my iPad and iPhone, but to my surprise and great relief, Mac mini as well.
- Between the Recovery Drive, Time machine, and iCloud the primary reason I have for a clone would be speed of recovery from a disaster and I would still are likely to end up resorting to Migration Assistant and Time Machine, or relying on iCloud to recover the latest changes.
…so I can easily get by without a clone.
Myself I do not want any of my information stored in the cloud. Maybe somewhat of a "hassle" keeping things in sync, but in actuality, I made a dedicated effort to do just that. And I do want the speed and ease of recovery via an SD clone.
I just hope Apple gets off their a** and does not disable excellent products like SD or CCC.
Not really strange. It indicates the Big Sur 11.0 gold master has been set and this is a beta of an update (patch?) to that gold master. It also implies the new ultralight powerbook and iMac, both with Apple Silicon on a Chip and can only run Big Sur, are in production and may actually be available in stores at, or shortly after, next month's
rumored big announcement.
While that could be the situation, just hope the issue with SD and CCC has been corrected by Apple. It would be good if we knew what exactly this latest release contains/corrects.
I just hope Apple gets off their a** and does not disable excellent products like SD or CCC.
I don't think that is even on their radar at the moment.
I just hope Apple gets off their a** and does not disable excellent products like SD or CCC.
I don't think that is even on their radar at the moment.
According to Dave Nanian at Shirt Pocket Software, they have been asking (?pestering?) Apple about this all summer. I suspect Bombich software has done the same.
I don't know if I can download this new beta version, but even if I could, not sure if SD would work with it. Even if Apple corrected the issue that Dave (and possibly Bombich) are struggling with, there is, not yet, a beta version of SD, and thus I could not do any effective testing.
What a mess!
Regarding my disdain with the Cloud, I just went through an ordeal with one of my credit cards being compromised. And it all started, of all places, with the Apple Store. Someone today, at a location about 150 miles east of me, ordered some kind of camera, and used one of my credit cards to pay for the item. Well, I called the Apple store, and thankfully nothing has, per se, happened. That is, the item has not been shipped. I also called Capitol One and had my current card canceled, and a new one is on its way. The only ting I did "connected" with the card is that earlier today, I went to Bill Pay at Wells Fargo and generated a payment to that card. Maybe the "thief" captured the card information from there. It's never happened before.
Both the Apple Store and Capitol One are looking into it further.
So, I really don't think the Cloud is that safe. Maybe I'm a little paranoid, but don't want to take any chances.
Having gone through a number of credit card numbers as a result of suspected fraud over the years, I empathize with your caution. That is exactly why I use Apple Pay or PayPal whenever possible for credit card transactions. Either dramatically reduces the exposure of my credit card numbers either in storage and especially during transmission. But realistically there is no way to keep credit card information off of the internet. Even if you never buy anything on the internet the information is in the bank's records and therefore vulnerable. In the end all anyone can do is take reasonable precautions and do business with financial institutions that have aggressive and vigilant fraud protection programs.
A piece of advice learned the hard way:
Credit Card losses due to fraud are limited to $50 by federal statute. Debit card losses have no loss limit protection and can potentially exceed the balance of your account, even your net worth.
(FTC article 0213) Don't risk using your
Debit card on the internet, and don't have debit card on any account that has overdraft protection.
Having gone through a number of credit card numbers as a result of suspected fraud over the years, I empathize with your caution. That is exactly why I use Apple Pay or PayPal whenever possible for credit card transactions. Either dramatically reduces the exposure of my credit card numbers either in storage and especially during transmission. But realistically there is no way to keep credit card information off of the internet. Even if you never buy anything on the internet the information is in the bank's records and therefore vulnerable. In the end all anyone can do is take reasonable precautions and do business with financial institutions that have aggressive and vigilant fraud protection programs.
A piece of advice learned the hard way:
Credit Card losses due to fraud are limited to $50 by federal statute. Debit card losses have no loss limit protection and can potentially exceed the balance of your account, even your net worth.
(FTC article 0213) Don't risk using your
Debit card on the internet.
Well stated! And I
never use either of my debit cards for such transactions. I only use them at the appropriate ATMs. I will say, though, that back in the early 90's, I did have an issue with using my Debit Card at an appropriate ATM. All got resolved in my favor, but it sure was bizarre!
From what I can remember, and especially recently, this is the latest time a new mac OS has not been released yet. I wonder if Big Sur is much more challenging for Apple, or if Apple is deliberately timing Big Sur's release with their Silicon Event expected to happen on November 9th, or possibly both. Either way, all the more reason to exercise caution in moving/upgrading to OS 11, especially the first few versions. As I mentioned previously, I will test Big Sur (probably after V11.1 is released) on a separate external SSD.
You might be interested in the
MacOS 11.0.1 release Notes. If you are not interested in the technical details I can sum them up by saying they won't effect you until you buy a computer with Apple Silicon or will be developing apps intended to run on Apple Silicon. The consensus is MacOS 11.0 wlll be released next week concurrent with the announcement of a MacBook and iMac with Apple Silicon.
There is nothing to indicate anything related to clones or cloning.
From what I can remember, and especially recently, this is the latest time a new mac OS has not been released yet. I wonder if Big Sur is much more challenging for Apple, or if Apple is deliberately timing Big Sur's release with their Silicon Event expected to happen on November 9th, or possibly both. Either way, all the more reason to exercise caution in moving/upgrading to OS 11, especially the first few versions. As I mentioned previously, I will test Big Sur (probably after V11.1 is released) on a separate external SSD.
You might be interested in the
MacOS 11.0.1 release Notes. If you are not interested in the technical details I can sum them up by saying they won't effect you until you buy a computer with Apple Silicon or will be developing apps intended to run on Apple Silicon. The consensus is MacOS 11.0 wlll be released next week concurrent with the announcement of a MacBook and iMac with Apple Silicon.
There is nothing to indicate anything related to clones or cloning.
I do not plan on purchasing a Mac with Apple Silicon, at least not in the "near" future. But no matter when the first version of Big Sur is released, it is still later than recent versions of the mac OS. Also, as I've mentioned before, first few versions will have bugs. And, of course, there is the issue of third party software compatibility. LibreOffice did release a new version yesterday, but it is not for Big Sur compatibility. Additionally, as has been the case in the past, software like Onyx, SuperDuper!, Carbon Copy Cloner, and Tech Tool Pro (and ones similar to it) are dealing with "disk level" tasks, and thus require more development time and testing. I also need to see an update for Thunderbird for such compatibility.
I will do my own Big Sur testing probably after V11.1 arrives. Meanwhile, I'll keep reading about experiences others are having. Catalina works just fine.
And yes, nothing in that link related to clones or cloning. Guess we'll just have to wait to hear from Bombich Software and Shirt Pocket Software regarding such compatibility. Myself, I require full compatibility for SD, ie, it makes the necessary backups like now, and those backups must be bootable.
PS: Just checked the Blogs for both SD and CCC, and nothing about this at all.
As for the upgrades themselves, only Tech Tool Pro requires a payment (although they have stated that the Big Sur compatible version will be free). Also, if one needs such software for an issue, such software needs to be compatible, especially at the time one needs it. I prefer to wait until such compatibility is there.
Out of curiosity, when was the last time you actually
NEEDED to run TTP?
Artie we are starting to think more and more alike, but CCC, while
convenient, is
NOT on my
critical list.
- I make full use of iCloud, both my Desktop and Documents folders are mirrored from iCloud along with the Music and Photos libraries, keychain, mail, etc.. Not only does that keep all of my Apple devices in perfect sync, it conserves storage space on all of them as well, and after self-induced disasters has been instrumental in recovering not only my iPad and iPhone, but to my surprise and great relief, Mac mini as well.
- Between the Recovery Drive, Time machine, and iCloud the primary reason I have for a clone would be speed of recovery from a disaster and I would still are likely to end up resorting to Migration Assistant and Time Machine, or relying on iCloud to recover the latest changes.
…so I can easily get by without a clone.
Since I don't use either iCloud or Time Machine, I'll stick/I'm stuck with my CCC clones.
The Recovery Drive/Migration Assistant process is
very significantly more time consuming than simply restoring from a clone, and I add so little new data to my MBP in the - max - 24 hours that pass between clones that I've been able to recreate it from my head the one or two times I"ve needed to. (I'll probably get bitten by that sooner or later, but what's life without an edge?)
After overcoming the initial difficulty of creating a clone, the remaining "nuisance" factor, with which I can easily live, will be the need to run each macOS update on each clone.
As for the upgrades themselves, only Tech Tool Pro requires a payment (although they have stated that the Big Sur compatible version will be free). Also, if one needs such software for an issue, such software needs to be compatible, especially at the time one needs it. I prefer to wait until such compatibility is there.
Out of curiosity, when was the last time you actually
NEEDED to run TTP?
Why the
SHOUTING? I am right here, not 10 miles away!
But, to answer your question, I am a cleaning "nut", no matter what it is: our cars, our townhome, the dishes, my computers. Since I run my two SD backups for each machine every Saturday, while I am cleaning my town home, it is not a burden to first run Onyx AND Tech Tool Pro. It just means I have a "as clean as possible" backup/clone.
When that issue with OS 10.15.6 reared its ugly head, I did run TTPro on those just completed SD backups. Nothing found, but better to be safe than sorry.
I am willing to bet that over 75% of folks do little, if any, disk cleanup/maintenance. I actually am doing disk cleanup every day by permanently removing deleted EMails in Thunderbird. It's just second nature to me. And I have consistently seen folks have issues with Apple's Mail program. When I mention permanently removing deleted EMails, they don't have a clue what I am referring to.
Artie we are starting to think more and more alike, but CCC, while
convenient, is
NOT on my
critical list.
- I make full use of iCloud, both my Desktop and Documents folders are mirrored from iCloud along with the Music and Photos libraries, keychain, mail, etc.. Not only does that keep all of my Apple devices in perfect sync, it conserves storage space on all of them as well, and after self-induced disasters has been instrumental in recovering not only my iPad and iPhone, but to my surprise and great relief, Mac mini as well.
- Between the Recovery Drive, Time machine, and iCloud the primary reason I have for a clone would be speed of recovery from a disaster and I would still are likely to end up resorting to Migration Assistant and Time Machine, or relying on iCloud to recover the latest changes.
…so I can easily get by without a clone.
Since I don't use either iCloud or Time Machine, I'll stick/I'm stuck with my CCC clones.
The Recovery Drive/Migration Assistant process is
very significantly more time consuming than simply restoring from a clone, and I add so little new data to my MBP in the - max - 24 hours that pass between clones that I've been able to recreate it from my head the one or two times I"ve needed to. (I'll probably get bitten by that sooner or later, but what's life without an edge?)
After overcoming the initial difficulty of creating a clone, the remaining "nuisance" factor, with which I can easily live, will be the need to run each macOS update on each clone.
Same here. The things that change the most for me between my weekly SD backups are 1) EMails, 2) transactions in Quicken, and 3) updates to applications (I save them).
As I mentioned before, when I upgrade to a new mac OS (or a new version of it), after having already downloaded the full installer, and it is on the SD backup, I restart the respective Mac from that clone, use Disk Utility there to Erase and Format the internal SSD, navigate to the full installer file, and do a clean, fresh installation of that mac OS. At the end of that, I am offered the opportunity to migrate/copy needed files, folders, etc. from a backup (time Machine or other), or another Mac. Well, I just choose that just completed SD backup, and away it goes. It's not that bad (faster on my Mac Mini than on my MacBook Air).
I much prefer that method than using the Recovery Drive. Has always worked flawlessly for me.
I am willing to bet that over 75% of folks do little, if any, disk cleanup/maintenance. I actually am doing disk cleanup every day by permanently removing deleted EMails in Thunderbird. It's just second nature to me. And I have consistently seen folks have issues with Apple's Mail program. When I mention permanently removing deleted EMails, they don't have a clue what I am referring to.
I think you grossly
overestimate the number of Mac users that do any, if any, disk maintenance. I used to have a regular daily, weekly, and monthly routines but with the evolution of MacOS, I have come to the conclusion they are no longer needed and are a waste of time. The advent of solid state drives means some of those routines no longer have any impact on performance. Taken together with APFS where the old file and drive optimizing routines I used to rely on can be counter-productive.
However, I manually perform semi-regular "house-cleaning" eliminating unused apps and utilities, and eliminating file duplication.
I am willing to bet that over 75% of folks do little, if any, disk cleanup/maintenance. I actually am doing disk cleanup every day by permanently removing deleted EMails in Thunderbird. It's just second nature to me. And I have consistently seen folks have issues with Apple's Mail program. When I mention permanently removing deleted EMails, they don't have a clue what I am referring to.
I think you grossly
overestimate the number of Mac users that do any, if any, disk maintenance. I used to have a regular daily, weekly, and monthly routines but with the evolution of MacOS, I have come to the conclusion they are no longer needed and are a waste of time. The advent of solid state drives means some of those routines no longer have any impact on performance. Taken together with APFS where the old file and drive optimizing routines I used to rely on can be counter-productive.
However, I manually perform semi-regular "house-cleaning" eliminating unused apps and utilities, and eliminating file duplication.
Well, it's similar to newer and newer automobiles. But there is still a need for at least some basic maintenance. Plus, it never hurts to learn things about one's car (or cars, as in my case).
Still, I will continue to do my daily cleanup (99.9% of the time that involves permanently removing deleted EMails). My weekly tasks will continue to apply Onyx, Tech Tool Pro, and SuperDuper! (yes, SD is a backup tasks, but still good to do it in concert with Onyx and Tech Tool Pro). And given that I am doing other tasks at the same time, it is not a burden at all. I believe that if I did not perform those tasks, I would feel like I am asking for trouble. Similarly when I do not clean our townhome on a Saturday (needed to skip one about a month ago, as I was not feeling well), I feel a loss, along with not feeling 100% "clean".
Again, it just comes naturally for me, and it definitely can't hurt. Plus, I rarely, if ever, have any issues.
These are the contents of an email l received from Mike Bombich. I think they're worth a read by all. (The related resources are links, one or all of which I'll resolve if asked.)
macOS Big Sur and Carbon Copy Cloner backups
Apple will be shipping a major new operating system in the near future, and I wanted to take a moment explain how this change affects your CCC backups.
We recommend waiting for a few updates before upgrading to Big Sur because important components of the OS aren't working yet.
Early adopters can install macOS Big Sur onto the CCC backup volume to make it bootable.
What's changing in Apple's next OS upgrade?
With the announcement of macOS Big Sur, Apple has retired Mac OS X (10) and replaced it with macOS 11. As with every OS since the original release of Mac OS X, CCC has been adapted to accommodate the changes to this new OS. As the numeric change would suggest, though, this is the biggest change to macOS since Apple introduced Mac OS X roughly 20 years ago.
The system now resides on a "Signed System Volume". This volume is cryptographically sealed, and that seal can only be applied by Apple; ordinary copies of the System volume are non-bootable without Apple's seal. To create a functional copy of the macOS 11 System volume, we have to use an Apple tool to copy the system, or install macOS onto the backup.
Will CCC 5 work on macOS 11 or will I have to upgrade?
CCC 5.1.22 is qualified for use on macOS Big Sur, and that update is free for all CCC 5 license holders. Choose "Check for updates…" from the "Carbon Copy Cloner" menu and follow the instructions provided to apply the update.
Can CCC copy the macOS 11 System volume?
CCC will be able to use Apple's APFS replication utility ("ASR") to copy the System volume (we field-tested that functionality for the flawed 10.15.5 update). As of the latest Big Sur release, however, Apple's APFS replication utility is not working correctly with the Signed System Volume. As a result, ASR-created copies of the System volume are not bootable. Apple is aware of this issue and is currently working to resolve it.
Can I still make bootable backups on macOS 11?
Yes. There are two approaches to making your backups bootable on Apple's new OS. When Apple works out the problems in its APFS replication utility in an future update to macOS Big Sur, CCC will leverage that directly to copy the System volume and produce bootable backups. In the meantime, you can install macOS Big Sur onto your APFS-formatted CCC backup volume if you would like to make it bootable.
Does CCC back up all of my data, applications, and system settings?
Yes, absolutely. This part of CCC has not changed — CCC continues to provide complete backups of all of your data, applications, and system settings. Additionally, CCC offers support for snapshots, giving you access to older versions of your files. We design CCC to be a complete and more flexible replacement to Time Machine.
Does my CCC backup have to be bootable for me to restore data from it?
No. Bootability is a convenience that allows you to continue working if your startup disk fails, but it is not required for restoring data from a CCC backup. You can restore individual folders and older versions of files (i.e. from snapshots) using CCC while booted from your production startup disk. CCC backups are also compatible with Migration Assistant, so you can use Migration Assistant to restore all of your data to a clean installation of macOS (e.g. on a replacement disk).
Should I upgrade my Mac to macOS Big Sur?
Major system upgrades are often disruptive, so we have always recommended a very conservative approach to applying them. Consider the following:
Is the upgrade required for my Mac?
Will this upgrade improve the performance of my Mac, or degrade performance?
Does the upgrade provide some functionality that will make me more productive, or otherwise greatly increase my enjoyment of using my Mac?
Does the upgrade fix a problem that is preventing me from effectively using my Mac?
What software will no longer work after applying the upgrade?
If the upgrade turns out poorly and you have to downgrade, you certainly may downgrade using a CCC backup from an earlier OS. These sorts of procedures require time and effort, though, so you should weigh that potential hassle against the potential gain of the OS upgrade.
Lastly, we recommend that any users that rely heavily upon the availability of their Mac for work or other productivity consider waiting for several OS updates before making the upgrade. Early adopters inevitably find some shortcomings and bugs which are resolved in minor OS updates.
Related resources
Restoring from a bootable backup
Restoring from a snapshot
Migrating data from a data-only backup using Migration Assistant
Frequently asked questions about CCC and macOS Catalina (many of these are also applicable to Big Sur)
Best practices for updating your Mac's OS
macOS Big Sur Known Issues
We take pride in listening to our customers and strive to continually make CCC better. Do you have suggestions, requests, or questions? Just reply to this email and we'll take a look.
Mike Bombich
Thanks for the posting. I thought Mike's list of questions to ask about upgrades is equally useful as a set of queries to apply to decisions on updates.
Is the upgrade required for my Mac?
Will this upgrade improve the performance of my Mac, or degrade performance?
Does the upgrade provide some functionality that will make me more productive, or otherwise greatly increase my enjoyment of using my Mac?
Does the upgrade fix a problem that is preventing me from effectively using my Mac?
What software will no longer work after applying the upgrade?
If the upgrade turns out poorly and you have to downgrade, you certainly may downgrade using a CCC backup from an earlier OS. These sorts of procedures require time and effort, though, so you should weigh that potential hassle against the potential gain of the OS upgrade.
Yeah, excellent post about communications with Bombich software. Also, this one:
"Can CCC copy the macOS 11 System volume?
CCC will be able to use Apple's APFS replication utility ("ASR") to copy the System volume (we field-tested that functionality for the flawed 10.15.5 update). As of the latest Big Sur release, however, Apple's APFS replication utility is not working correctly with the Signed System Volume. As a result, ASR-created copies of the System volume are not bootable. Apple is aware of this issue and is currently working to resolve it."
Dave Nanian at Shirt Pocket Software says the same thing here:
https://www.shirt-pocket.com/blog/Another thing to consider, and this is true for all third party developers, is that quite possibly two versions of such software could be required: one for Big Sur compatibility on Intel-based Macs, and one for Big Sur compatibility on the new Silicon Macs.
Another thing to consider, and this is true for all third party developers, is that quite possibly two versions of such software could be required: one for Big Sur compatibility on Intel-based Macs, and one for Big Sur compatibility on the new Silicon Macs.
Thanks to
Rosetta the only ARM vs. Intel issue should be how much of a performance hit Rosetta will impose and it is highly likely the ARM will be fast enough that hit will be unnoticeable. There will undoubtedly be a period where apps will have
universal (both Intel and ARM executables in the same package) but that will be because of performance issues and a desire to retain backward compatibility with the installed Intel user base, but I expect one of the first available third party utilities will be to remove either the ARM or Intel code from the application package to reduce the size; there are still one or two left from the PowerPC to Intel transition that should be a snap to adapt. The dual version approach was attempted by a few, very few, developers during the PowerPC to Intel conversion, but that drastically increased the development costs, and was quickly abandoned. I doubt any will make the same mistake this time around.
What is already an issue for developers of kernel extensions, is some of the APIs they used were deprecated a couple of years or more back and are totally removed from MacOS 11. Still others, who have relied on embedding their kernel extensions deep in the bowels of the OS, have found installing their extensions breaks the seal on the boot snapshot rendering it un-bootable and they are having to figure a new way to do their job without taking a major performance hit. But neither of these issues, or the clone issue, are processor related, rather a function of
hardening the MacOS
SYSTEM, and impact Intel and ARM systems equally. Developers who follow sound design and coding practices, and stay within Apple's guidelines, should encounter few problems.
If OnyX is a must have for Big Sur, take a look at
this from the developer and donate. If it is worth using, it is worth supporting.
FULL DISCLOSURE; I have no relationship, pecuniary or otherwise with Titanium Software, the developer of ONYX, not even that of a user, but I believe in supporting good software.
If OnyX is a must have for Big Sur, take a look at
this from the developer and donate. If it is worth using, it is worth supporting.
FULL DISCLOSURE; I have no relationship, pecuniary or otherwise with Titanium Software, the developer of ONYX, not even that of a user, but I believe in supporting good software.
Already did a few weeks ago. And it's also for that exact reason why I paid for SuperDuper!, even though I do not use its enhanced features.
Thanks for posting that link to Titanium Software. I have had OnyX for ages (and thankfully rarely need it) but I just made a donation.
What is already an issue for developers of kernel extensions, is some of the APIs they used were deprecated a couple of years or more back and are totally removed from MacOS 11. Still others, who have relied on embedding their kernel extensions deep in the bowels of the OS, have found installing their extensions breaks the seal on the boot snapshot rendering it un-bootable and they are having to figure a new way to do their job without taking a major performance hit.
More from Mike:
artie: Is the system volume actually MORE untouchable in Big Sur than it is in Catalina...?
Mike: Yes, it's cryptographically sealed and then a snapshot is taken. On startup, the snapshot is mounted and that's what the system boots from – the original System volume isn't even mounted. If you mount the System volume and make changes to it, that renders the system non-bootable. You can learn more about it here:
https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=3xpv8r2mThere is actually a mode in which you could modify the system and create your own snapshots, but that's geared towards kernel extension developers.
And (also from Mike)
https://twitter.com/ebadtweet/status/1275454103900971012?lang=en is interesting, but pending further reading and digestion, I think it's beyond me
If OnyX is a must have for Big Sur, take a look at
this from the developer and donate. If it is worth using, it is worth supporting.
For sure....I used OnyX quite a bit while sorting out a "slowness issue" in another thread. We all need to support our Shareware developers if we want to have such good software without needing to drop a C-Note on a giant corporation.
This morning I found updates for MacOS 11.0.1 beta, iOS & iPadOS 14.2, WatchOS 7.1, and tvOS 14.2. The release notes indicate macOS 11.0.1 is a release candidate, so it will likely be coming to your Mac around noon PST Tuesday. 🤞
The major fix in this beta is Safari is no longer subject to unexpected crashes. ðŸ‘
NOW I UNDERSTAND
I had noticed the MacOS 11.0.1 betas were noticeably slower waking up from sleep and in the initial launch of an app. After. watching today’s event, I realized that Big Sur has been so highly optimized for Apple Silicon it apparently de-optimized some operations for Intel based macs. Be that as it may, I remain more than satisfied with Big Sur’s performance on my Intel based, Mac mini.
I know that some of you will not be pleased by Apple’s continued emphasis on ever thinner and lighter MacBooks and MacBook Pros but, Apple is offfering what appear to be VERY generous trade-ins for the new models with Apple silicon.
NOW I UNDERSTAND
I had noticed the MacOS 11.0.1 betas were noticeably slower waking up from sleep and in the initial launch of an app. After. watching today’s event, I realized that Big Sur has been so highly optimized for Apple Silicon it apparently de-optimized some operations for Intel based macs. Be that as it may, I remain more than satisfied with Big Sur’s performance on my Intel based, Mac mini.
I know that some of you will not be pleased by Apple’s continued emphasis on ever thinner and lighter MacBooks and MacBook Pros but, Apple is offfering what appear to be VERY generous trade-ins for the new models with Apple silicon.
Thanks for that, joemikeb. And encouraging to hear that Big Sur is performing fine on your Mac MIni. I have a late 2018 Core i5 Mac Mini, with 8 gig of Ram and a 256 gig SSD, so I am hoping for even better performance by the time I move to Big Sur (most likely in January).
I also noticed how inexpensive the new Silicon-based Mac Minis and MacBook Airs are. In fact, $699 for a Mac Mini with 8 gig of Ram and a 256 gig SSD is an excellent price! My current late 2018 Mac Mini is only 9 months old (got it near mid February of this year), so it still works well. My MacBook Air is a mid 2017 model, with 8 gig of Ram and a 252 gig SSD. If I were to purchase a Silicon-based machine, the Air would be first. But of course that will have to wait for third party compatibility, although I understand Big Sur has something "Rosetta-like" to address that issue.
...Apple is offfering what appear to be VERY generous trade-ins for the new models with Apple silicon.
I looked into it, and they offered me $1,260 for the refurbished MacBook Pro [(16-inch, 2019)/2.6 GHz 6-Core Intel Core i7/512 GB SSD/16 GB RAM] I purchased in May for $2,039.
That's $61 more than what a bottom of the line 13" MBP with an Apple M1 chip would cost me. (AppleCare costs an additional $269.)
...Apple is offfering what appear to be VERY generous trade-ins for the new models with Apple silicon.
I looked into it, and they offered me $1,260 for the refurbished MacBook Pro [(16-inch, 2019)/2.6 GHz 6-Core Intel Core i7/512 GB SSD/16 GB RAM] I purchased in May for $2,039.
That's $61 more than what a bottom of the line 13" MBP with an Apple M1 chip would cost me. (AppleCare costs an additional $269.)
artie505,
Can you provide the link for this? I tried to find it, but no luck. Thanks!
Can't find a specific link.
I just selected the MBP I wanted, and somewhere along the line a link turned up. It wasn't "in your face."
Can't find a specific link.
I just selected the MBP I wanted, and somewhere along the line a link turned up. It wasn't "in your face."
I actually found it, but my 2017 Mac Book Air apparently cannot be traded in for a Silicon MacBook Air.
Oh well, no rush. Maybe I can try and sell it on my own.
I should have mentioned that the newest basic Intel machines are loaded with (at the least) 512 GB SSDs and 16 GB RAM, and cost $500 more than the basic Apple M1 machines (256 GB/8 GB).
Apple is obviously trying to drive sales of the M1s...in more ways than one...
NOW I UNDERSTAND
I had noticed the MacOS 11.0.1 betas were noticeably slower waking up from sleep and in the initial launch of an app. After. watching today’s event, I realized that Big Sur has been so highly optimized for Apple Silicon it apparently de-optimized some operations for Intel based macs. Be that as it may, I remain more than satisfied with Big Sur’s performance on my Intel based, Mac mini.
I am typing this on my iPad as the second Big Sur release candidate is installing on my Mac mini.
FYI there is an additional 10% price reduction on the new SoC models if you are active military, veteran, school teacher, or first responder.
I am typing this on my iPad as the second Big Sur release candidate is installing on my Mac mini.
FYI there is an additional 10% price reduction on the new SoC models if you are active military, veteran, school teacher, or first responder.
I am a Veteran, but not ready to purchase one yet. Thanks for passing that along.
I am typing this on my iPad as the second Big Sur release candidate is installing on my Mac mini.
FYI there is an additional 10% price reduction on the new SoC models if you are active military, veteran, school teacher, or first responder.
There aren't any refurbs yet, but let's not forget that they'll be available relatively soon.
There aren't any refurbs yet, but let's not forget that they'll be available relatively soon.
That is an interesting thought. How do you refurb a computer when the whole thing is on a single chip? Buff out a scratch on the case? Open up the case take everything out and put in a new SoC? It would appear most
repairs would involve replacing the entire SoC and therefore
expensive. When you buy, don't forget AppleCare — while it is less likely you will need it, if you do need it you will
really need it. IIRC AppleCare for the M1 MacBook is $269 if paid in full up front.
That is an interesting thought. How do you refurb a computer when the whole thing is on a single chip? Buff out a scratch on the case? Open up the case take everything out and put in a new SoC? It would appear most repairs would involve replacing the entire SoC and therefore expensive. When you buy, don't forget AppleCare — while it is less likely you will need it, if you do need it you will really need it. IIRC AppleCare for the M1 MacBook is $269 if paid in full up front.
According to
MacWorld: "AppleCare+ is available for the Mac mini for $99, which extends the standard one-year warranty to three years." No moving parts, no monitor and maybe like joemikeb says, they only have to replace one chip if something goes wrong.
Just in from CCC:
CCC can now make bootable backups of a Big Sur startup disk. In macOS 11.0.1, Apple addressed some of the problems with its APFS replication utility that rendered clones of the System volume non-bootable. If you have an existing backup task that's configured for a Data Volume backup, simply click on the Source selector and choose "Choose a different source", then select your Big Sur startup disk as the source to the task.
[quote=joemikeb]According to
MacWorld: "AppleCare+ is available for the Mac mini for $99, which extends the standard one-year warranty to three years." No moving parts, no monitor and maybe like joemikeb says, they only have to replace one chip if something goes wrong.
…and unlike the MacBook and MacBook Pro the Mac mini is no keyboard, monitor, or battery that has to be covered by AppleCare. One downside to the M1 Mac mini compared to the 2018 version is the loss of two Thunderbolt ports and the USB A ports are USB 3.0 not 3.1 Gen 2. 😳 OWC's Thunderbolt 4 Hub adds $150 to the price of the mini and isn't shipping yet.
Just in from CCC:
CCC can now make bootable backups of a Big Sur startup disk. In macOS 11.0.1, Apple addressed some of the problems with its APFS replication utility that rendered clones of the System volume non-bootable. If you have an existing backup task that's configured for a Data Volume backup, simply click on the Source selector and choose "Choose a different source", then select your Big Sur startup disk as the source to the task.
- 2018 Mac mini, 3.2 GHz i7, 32GB RAM
- MacOS 11.0.1 release candidate 2
- Carbon Copy Cloner
[b]PROCEDURE:- I FOLLOWED INSTRUCTIONS IN THE QUOTE TO THE LETTER: this appeared to work, and was bootable, but it only cloned the Data volume and left the system at a previous version of Big Sur. 👎
- UPDATED CCC: For some reason CCC had failed to alert me there was any update, as it normally does. Updating took several attempts, including a reboot, restoring CCC from Time Machine, and more pinwheels than I have seen cumulatively over the past two years.
- RE-ATTEMPTED THE CLONE during this process I once again was regaled with lots of spinning pinwheels, multiple requests to install the CCC Helper application, and even more and longer periods where it was impossible to determine what, if anything was happening, including an interminable wait (11 minutes +) for the tasks to load. Once all that finally completed the process worked really well. It only took 9:57 to clone 319.3 GB and create a bootable clone of both the system and data. 🎉ðŸ‘ðŸ‘👌😄
NOTES: - If you have used CCC's or Tinkertool Systems Full Clone{/I] you will recognize the process (I believe Super Duper's developer rejected offering that option)
- The target drive will always be completely erased. You must approve the erasure before CCC will proceed. (I haven't had time find out how that happens with automated clones.)
- The drives entire volume structure is first copied and then everything else is transferred [i]en mass without regard to files and folders per se. The target becomes a true mirror of the source, warts, winkles, and all.
- I have no explanation for my initial installation and startup difficulties but I have no reason to believe they represent any issue with CCC and hopefully not with macOS 11.0.1 running on Intel instead of Apple SoC. I will not hesitate to use or rely on CCC in the future and look forward to using it on Apple SoC next week.
- Obviously I misjudged the priority Apple assigned to cloning.😢
Excellent report, joemikeb! And especially useful for me, as I have a Core I5 Late 2018 Mac MIni with a 256 gig SSD and 8 gig of Ram.
Here is what Dave Nanian stated about SuperDuper! yesterday:
"I'm going to keep this short and to the point.
It's never a good idea to update to a just-released major OS version unless you have to. Nobody knows how reliable Big Sur is going to be for regular users. Let someone else find out before you take the jump.
On our end, SuperDuper! will not be compatible with Big Sur on day of release.
As I indicated on twitter, the first time we were able to make a successful bootable copy of Big Sur at all was November 5th. As of this writing, that was six days ago.
Until that point, it wasn't possible.
So, it's going to be a while. Until then, if you must move to Big Sur, use Time Machine."
That second sentence about never a good idea etc., is so, so accurate. And of course besides questions of reliability, 1) the first few versions of a new Mac OS always contain bugs, and 2) there are still some other third party applications that are not compatible yet. And for me, there are 5 of them, including SuperDuper!. (On another Mac discussion site a visit, a user did state that the latest version of LibreOffice (I have it) is compatible with Big Sur).
From the last few prior releases of the Mac OS, it seems that Onyx and SuperDuper! were finally compatible with the ".2" version. Not sure about Thunderbird, but as folks know (and I've mentioned before), Tech Tool Pro has always been the last one. Suspect it will be the same with Big Sur.
I definitely have no issues with waiting. I do hope, though, to test Big Sur when at least V11.1.x comes out. I have a brand new Samsung 1 TB T7 SSD on the way, and it will be arriving early next week. Will use it to test Big Sur (along with storing other items).
There may be some sort of compatibility issue with CCC and Big Sur, because my update notice popped up as expected in Catalina, and installation was quick and seamless.
I wonder if I'll once again be able to clone my boot volume to another volume in the same container now that Full Volume Clone is back in some capacity.
Thanks for that link, Jon. I've saved it for future reference.
What with Apple repurchasing used Macs, the buying process has become complicated, because to find your optimum $ situation you've got to balance out cost new, cost refurb, Apple buyback, eBay sale, and third party discount options.
Here is what Dave Nanian stated about SuperDuper! yesterday:
"I'm going to keep this short and to the point.
It's never a good idea to update to a just-released major OS version unless you have to. Nobody knows how reliable Big Sur is going to be for regular users. Let someone else find out before you take the jump.
That caveat may be considered a bit dated, because recent macOS upgrades
have been rigorously tested by "someone else," i.e. joemike and myriad other beta testers, before we "regular users" have been able to get our hands on them.
I can't remember the last time I waited before upgrading, and similarly, I can't remember the last time I or others regretted not having waited.
Old habits die hard but, Apple has become a capable executioner.
BIG SUR HAS OPENED THE FLOODGATES
In the last thirty hours 31 32 33 of my App Store apps have automatically been updated to universal code. this ranges from very complex apps such as the Affinity suite of graphics apps to Safari extensions like WIPR from developers all over the world. It looks as if conversion from Intel to Apple SoC is as easy as Apple claimed it would be and the M1 Macs won't have a significant need for Rosetta. This portends a smooth transition to the new silicone 🥳, and a few years of larger than usual application packages. 😩
BIG SUR HAS OPENED THE FLOODGATES
In the last thirty hours 31 32 33 of my App Store apps have automatically been updated to universal code. this ranges from very complex apps such as the Affinity suite of graphics apps to Safari extensions like WIPR from developers all over the world. It looks as if conversion from Intel to Apple SoC is as easy as Apple claimed it would be and the M1 Macs won't have a significant need for Rosetta. This portends a smooth transition to the new silicone 🥳, and a few years of larger than usual application packages. 😩
Hopefully the same will be true for third party apps.
BIG SUR HAS OPENED THE FLOODGATES
In the last thirty hours 31 32 33 of my App Store apps have automatically been updated to universal code. this ranges from very complex apps such as the Affinity suite of graphics apps to Safari extensions like WIPR from developers all over the world. It looks as if conversion from Intel to Apple SoC is as easy as Apple claimed it would be and the M1 Macs won't have a significant need for Rosetta. This portends a smooth transition to the new silicone 🥳, and a few years of larger than usual application packages. 😩
Hopefully the same will be true for third party apps.
If the number of new updates on MacUpdate is any indication (as it usually is when an OS upgrade is issued), it already has.
BIG SUR HAS OPENED THE FLOODGATES
In the last thirty hours 31 32 33 of my App Store apps have automatically been updated to universal code. this ranges from very complex apps such as the Affinity suite of graphics apps to Safari extensions like WIPR from developers all over the world. It looks as if conversion from Intel to Apple SoC is as easy as Apple claimed it would be and the M1 Macs won't have a significant need for Rosetta. This portends a smooth transition to the new silicone 🥳, and a few years of larger than usual application packages. 😩
Hopefully the same will be true for third party apps.
If the number of new updates on MacUpdate is any indication (as it usually is when an OS upgrade is issued), it already has.
Yeah, the number of updates there have been increasing, but possibly not all of them are for Big Sur compatibility. For example, there was an update for Thunderbird earlier today (I use it), but still no indication that it is compatible with Big Sur (yet). Probably a little to early.
BIG SUR HAS OPENED THE FLOODGATES
In the last thirty hours 31 32 33 of my App Store apps have automatically been updated to universal code. this ranges from very complex apps such as the Affinity suite of graphics apps to Safari extensions like WIPR from developers all over the world. It looks as if conversion from Intel to Apple SoC is as easy as Apple claimed it would be and the M1 Macs won't have a significant need for Rosetta. This portends a smooth transition to the new silicone 🥳, and a few years of larger than usual application packages. 😩
Hopefully the same will be true for third party apps.
The majority of the App Store apps are third party, and Since posting that, I have bee hit with a swarm of non-app store updates to universal code.
Yeah, the number of updates there have been increasing, but possibly not all of them are for Big Sur compatibility. For example, there was an update for Thunderbird earlier today (I use it), but still no indication that it is compatible with Big Sur (yet). Probably a little to early.
Actually I was quite surprised to find several of my apps, with no fanfare, been updated to universal code months ago. The only way to tell is to Get Info on the app as seen in
this screenshot or download
ArchiChect and drop the app onto
that.
I guess "Universal" doesn't show unless you're running Big Sur.
I'm running BBEdit 13.5.2, which is a more recent release than your 13.5.1, in Catalina, and I don't see "Universal" in a Get Info pane.
It appears from reading
Apple gives the Mac a giant visual overhaul with macOS Big Sur that Big Sur looks quite different from Catalina and previous. I have never liked having the menu bar to be translucent and have that disabled, but I don't remember how I did it. Is it possible to turn off the translucent "feature" in Big Sur?
I just saw this:
https://tidbits.com/2020/11/13/big-sur-is-here-but-we-suggest-you-say-no-sir-for-now/There's definitely excellent advice there. Also note that Carbon Copy Cloner has been successful with a beta release of Big Sur, and yesterday I posted that statement by Dave Nanian.
For me, I've always said that I am going to wait until after a release or two of Big Sur comes out. And that will be for my testing of it.. I will remain on Catalina until a compatible version of Tech Tool Pro is released (assuming my other 4 critical apps, including SuperDuper!, already have such versions available).
It appears from reading
Apple gives the Mac a giant visual overhaul with macOS Big Sur that Big Sur looks quite different from Catalina and previous. I have never liked having the menu bar to be translucent and have that disabled, but I don't remember how I did it. Is it possible to turn off the translucent "feature" in Big Sur?
It's in
How to Disable Transparent Menus on Mac, Jon.
Thanks, Artie. I had done this before but didn't remember about Accessibility.
I also did it at some point in the past, but I've got absolutely no idea how. I don't think Accessibility had anything to do with it, though.
If you follow the link that you posted, it shows graphically how to reduce transparency in Big Sur's Accessibility. I looked in the Accessibility pref pane (selected Display and then the Display tab) in my Catalina system and that ability is there too.
You beat me to the punch.
I didn't read through the details of the fix. I saw "Accessibility," and my head immediately went to System Prefs > Security & Privacy > Accessibility, which I visit often, rather than to System Prefs > Accessibility, which I haven't looked at in so long that I forgot it existed.
NOTES: - If you have used CCC's or Tinkertool Systems Full Clone{/I] you will recognize the process (I believe Super Duper's developer rejected offering that option)
- The target drive will always be completely erased. You must approve the erasure before CCC will proceed. (I haven't had time find out how that happens with automated clones.)
- The drives entire volume structure is first copied and then everything else is transferred [i]en mass without regard to files and folders per se. The target becomes a true mirror of the source, warts, winkles, and all.
- I have no explanation for my initial installation and startup difficulties but I have no reason to believe they represent any issue with CCC and hopefully not with macOS 11.0.1 running on Intel instead of Apple SoC. I will not hesitate to use or rely on CCC in the future and look forward to using it on Apple SoC next week.
- Obviously I misjudged the priority Apple assigned to cloning.😢
I just installed CCC 5.1.23-b3 (6104) and tested it out. In the process I made some discoveries.
- If the Destination drive is BLANK CCC will give you three options that only appear when you actually initiate the cloning process: 1. Erase the destination drive and create a bootable clone (this is the Apple en mass clone I described previously) 2. clone the entire system into a volume on the destination drive 3: clone only the data volume
- If there is a bootable system on the destination There are two options offered: 1. Copy All Files (this copies only changed files and results in a bootable system) 2. Copy Some files - bootability not considered
- I haven't tested all the permutations yet, but I will get around to it eventually.
I'm thoroughly confused by your followup, but rather than get into it now, I'll wait 'til I upgrade and can see what's going on in real time.
I'm thoroughly confused by your followup, but rather than get into it now, I'll wait 'til I upgrade and can see what's going on in real time.
I have had some time to do some more experimentation with the latest version of CCC:
- If I select an empty Drive, Partition, or Volume as the Destination: this menu appears
- If I select the option to Erase the destination volume: The Destination is erased and a complete bootable system is cloned using the Apple Replication utility as shown in this screenshot.
- If I attempt to rerun the same CCC task: it will copy the files that have been changed and Update the support volumes
- If I select the option to Add a volume to the Destination: A new bootable volume is created with _CCC appended to the volume name. The target drive now looks like this. Note although there are two bootable images there are only one Preboot volume and one Recovery volume. But they both boot equally well.
- In CCC Version 5.1.23-b3 (6104) the only way I can induce this menu to appear is select a destination that is is either empty or has only data in it.
Kudos to Mike Bombich for working out an elegant solution and an appropriate use of Apple's utility.
WISHLIST: I really wish there were a way to access the options offered for a blank destination for all destinations. Although the work around is simply to erase the destination before
COMMENT AND OPEN QUESTION: Given this is predicated on an Apple command line utility it would seem entirely possible for sophisticated users to create workflows or scripts to do simple clones and since third party utilities like OnyX, TinkerTool System, or MacPilot that are basically GUI front ends for Apple command-line utilities to provide basic cloning options at a much lower price than CCC or SuperDuper can possibly match? That said, even though Time Machine is, and will remain, my premier backup, I will continue to use and support CCC for three reasons:
- Set and forget automation
- The ability to manage and recover using APFS Snapshots
- More complex clone/backup options
I am definitely going to wait until an actual new version of SuperDuper! is released. Do not want to mess with any kind of beta release (so far, Dave has refused to do that, which is a wise move).
Also, on two other Mac discussion sites I visit, plenty of folks are having issues with Big Sur, whether it is 1) downloading it, 2) installing it, 3) using it, or 4) running third party applications. Glad I can just "sit on the sidelines now", and watch and learn.
TODAY'S UPDATES The following are Big Sur compatible releases
- TechTool Pro 12 13
- TinkertoolTool System 7
- TinkerTool 8
- MacPilot 11 v12
- all Rogue Ameaba products now compatible with Big Sur but not compatible with Apple SoC
- SoftRAID (still in beta)
- Carbon Copy Cloner (Still in Beta)
all Rogue Ameaba products now compatible with Big Sur but not compatible with Apple SoC
Qualification: Rogue Amoeba's Audio Hijack is only
initially Big Sur compatible. (Fission is fully compatible.)
TODAY'S UPDATES The following are Big Sur compatible releases
- TechTool Pro 12
- TinkertoolTool System 7
- TinkerTool 8
- MacPilot 11 v12
- all Rogue Ameaba products now compatible with Big Sur but not compatible with Apple SoC
- SoftRAID (still in beta)
- Carbon Copy Cloner (Still in Beta)
Tech Tool Pro 12? This says that the latest version, Tech Tool Pro 13, is not yet compatible:
https://www.micromat.com/products/techtool-proCan you amplify regarding 12's compatibility with Big Sur? That would be a surprise.
Tech Tool Pro 12? This says that the latest version, Tech Tool Pro 13, is not yet compatible:
Thanks for catching the typo. I have corrected the original post.
For what it I worth, after being with TechTool pro through 12 versions, I have yet to convince myself, it offers me enough utility to be worth even the $29.95 upgrade price. I had already dropped DiskWarrior and Drive Genius for the same reason vive and three years ago respectively for the same reason and held onto TTP
just in case. But there has been no
just in case any one of the three utilities would have prevented or recovered from in more than five years.
Tech Tool Pro 12? This says that the latest version, Tech Tool Pro 13, is not yet compatible:
Thanks for catching the typo. I have corrected the original post.
For what it I worth, after being with TechTool pro through 12 versions, I have yet to convince myself, it offers me enough utility to be worth even the $29.95 upgrade price. I had already dropped DiskWarrior and Drive Genius for the same reason vive and three years ago respectively for the same reason and held onto TTP
just in case. But there has been no
just in case any one of the three utilities would have prevented or recovered from in more than five years.
For me, it's just so
handy using its eDrive feature (along with Onyx). And there have been a few times where some of its features did resolve some minor issues I was having.
Given that I rarely, if ever, have issues by 1) doing a lot of disk cleanup on my own, 2) run Onyx and Tech Tool Pro every week, and 3) run SuperDuper! every week (thus keep my Macs "lean, mean, and clean"), I'll continue to use it.
[For me, it's just so handy using its eDrive feature (along with Onyx). And there have been a few times where some of its features did resolve some minor issues I was having.
Given that I rarely, if ever, have issues by 1) doing a lot of disk cleanup on my own, 2) run Onyx and Tech Tool Pro every week, and 3) run SuperDuper! every week (thus keep my Macs "lean, mean, and clean"), I'll continue to use it.
I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t continue to use TTP, I am simply saying that this morning I looked at th upgrade price and I can no longer justify it.
As far as eDrive goes, I was a big fan when it first came out, until I realized the increasing stability of MacOS had reached the point where the odds of mechanical drive failure were equal to or greater than volume or file corruption and eDrive would not be available in that case. So I switched to ProToGo on a thumb drive and later on a repurposed laptop drive in a bus powered enclosure. Then Apple changed the game and the eDrive or ProToGo would only boot the system it was created on, so Micromat offered a universal boot option by using a copy of the Recovery Drive. If I were going to use the Recovery drive, why did I need to drag around a bootable copy of it on a disk or thumb drive and keep it current? The final nail in eDrive’s coffin for me was, thanks to iCloud, I found I could easily get by with less than half the storage capacity I used to consider minimal, and save $$ on hardware, and thus had little room to spare for an eDrive.
But that’s just me, and YMMV 😜
The eDrive takes up very little space, and it is easy to boot into.
As far as the upgrade price is concerned, I don't mind spending $29.95 for the upgrade, as well-developed and supported products are like gold! I did the same for SuperDuper! (only needed to do it 1 time), and still do license renewals for 1Password and ClamXAv. If I were using Carbon Copy Cloner, I would not balk at paying for the upgrades they require to stay current.
Again, excellent software deserves our support. And as I have stated, by performing my own cleaning efforts, and using Onyx and Tech Tool Pro (a proven and winning combination, at least for me), my machines run error free, ie, "lean, mean, and clean".
Finally, your correction about Tech Tool Pro 13 being compatible with Big Sur is still mistaken. It is not compatible yet, as I pointed out with that link above. I suspect the next version, V13.0.2, or V13.1 (whatever they call it), will be compatible.
Again, excellent software deserves our support.
I couldn't agree more and I have made this point innumerable times over the last forty years.
CCC BROKEN — AGAINAfter settin up my new M1 Mac mini yesterday, it immediately updated to MacOS 11.0.1 beta 4(?), but everythinhg worked fine on Apple Silicon. This morning I was presented with MacOS 11.1 beta. This afternoon, CCC threw up a banner
CCC 5.1.23-b4 is not qualified on this version of macOS.
and when I checked for updates, I have the latest available version.
CCC BROKEN — AGAINAfter settin up my new M1 Mac mini yesterday, it immediately updated to MacOS 11.0.1 beta 4(?), but everythinhg worked fine on Apple Silicon. This morning I was presented with MacOS 11.1 beta. This afternoon, CCC threw up a banner
CCC 5.1.23-b4 is not qualified on this version of macOS.
and when I checked for updates, I have the latest available version.
Another beta version of Big Sur? Thought we were past the betas, although a beta version prior to the next release could make sense. But happening so fast after the initial, non-beta release?
Man, they way this whole Big Sur process is going, I wonder if January is a realistic date for me to make the move! That is when I was expecting Tech Tool Pro to have a compatible version ready. Of course, that assumed that Onyx, Thunderbird, LibreOffice, and SuperDuper! would be already compatible by then. Now I'm having my doubts.
V 5.1.23-b5 (6112) is available.
New
CCC can now make bootable backups of a Big Sur startup disk (on Intel-based Macs; see below about the new M1 Macs). In macOS 11.0.1, Apple addressed some of the problems with its APFS replication utility that rendered clones of the System volume non-bootable. If you have an existing backup task that's configured for a Data Volume backup, simply click on the Source selector and choose "Choose a different source", then select your Big Sur startup disk as the source to the task.
New
This build of CCC is a "Universal binary" that will run natively on Apple's new M1 Macs. However, bootable clones on M1 Macs are disabled for now because Apple's APFS replication utility does not currently support the special format of the startup disk's Data volume. CCC will automatically proceed with a Data Volume backup when backing up an APFS Volume Group on Big Sur. When Apple fixes this, we'll post an update to CCC that restores support for making bootable backups on these new Macs.
Another beta version of Big Sur? Thought we were past the betas, although a beta version prior to the next release could make sense. But happening so fast after the initial, non-beta release?
For at least the last two MacOS versions (Mojave and Catalina) and now Big Sur the first beta of the x.1 release has been in the hands of developers, and public beta testers, a few days prior to the initial product release. This is not another beta of MacOS 11.0.1 (which was the actual initial release version of Big Sur), it is the second beta of the MacOS 11.1 update which will be likely be released in the next month to six weeks. Apple simultaneously released tvOS 14.2 beta 2, WatchOS 7.2 Beta 2, and iOS/iPadOS 14.3 beta 2 at the same time. (Normally all would have been x.1 beta 2, but Big Sur is a bit out of synch because its initial release was delayed to correspond with the availability of Apple Silicon.) Updates are typically released every six weeks to two months throughout the OS lifecycle. Early updates sometimes include new features that were previously beta tested but had been left out of the initial release, because Apple wasn't satisfied with their stability or performance at release time. In this case, I suspect most changes will revolve around Apple Silicon as that is by far the least tested part of the system.
NOTE: Public beta testers frequently do not get the first beta release and generally do not get any release until at least 24 to 48 hours after application developers get it.
Another beta version of Big Sur? Thought we were past the betas, although a beta version prior to the next release could make sense. But happening so fast after the initial, non-beta release?
For at least the last two MacOS versions (Mojave and Catalina) and now Big Sur the first beta of the x.1 release has been in the hands of developers, and public beta testers, a few days prior to the initial product release. This is not another beta of MacOS 11.0.1 (which was the actual initial release version of Big Sur), it is the second beta of the MacOS 11.1 update which will be likely be released in the next month to six weeks. Apple simultaneously released tvOS 14.2 beta 2, WatchOS 7.2 Beta 2, and iOS/iPadOS 14.3 beta 2 at the same time. (Normally all would have been x.1 beta 2, but Big Sur is a bit out of synch because its initial release was delayed to correspond with the availability of Apple Silicon.) Updates are typically released every six weeks to two months throughout the OS lifecycle. Early updates sometimes include new features that were previously beta tested but had been left out of the initial release, because Apple wasn't satisfied with their stability or performance at release time. In this case, I suspect most changes will revolve around Apple Silicon as that is by far the least tested part of the system.
NOTE: Public beta testers frequently do not get the first beta release and generally do not get any release until at least 24 to 48 hours after application developers get it.
I just don't know. Seems like the initial non-beta release, V11.0.1, was not stable enough. According to the numbering, V11.1.0 (I assume that is the full and complete name) will be the next non-beta release. Wonder how stable it will be? For my testing, I'll wait until V11.2.0 is released, which is just fine. Still have 5 third party applications that need updates for Big Sur compatibility.
Apparently, CCC 5.1.23 is not a beta any longer, despite the headline at
Yes, you can have bootable backups on macOS Big Sur. When I launched CCC and checked for updates, this new version was listed as available and no mention was made of a beta.
YOU TOO CAN CREATE YOUR OWN CLONE WORKFLOW OR SCRIPTI finally found the tool to clone bootable Big Sur volumes.
Apple Software Restore or
asr.
ASR(8) BSD System Manager's Manual ASR(8)
NAME
asr -- Apple Software Restore; copy volumes (e.g. from disk images)
SYNOPSIS
asr verb [options]
asr restore[exact] --source source --target target [options]
asr server --source source --config configuration [options]
asr restore --source asr://source --file file [options]
asr imagescan --source image [options]
asr help | version
DESCRIPTION
asr efficiently copies disk images onto volumes, either directly or via a
multicast network stream. asr can also accurately clone volumes without
the use of an intermediate disk image.
<continues at great length>
For full details open Terminal and enter "man asr" without the quotes.
This command is working on Intel Macs but remains a work-in-process for M1 Macs. Personally I will stick to using CCC or possibly TinkerTool System — I don't think i have the patience together a script working right.
It is no longer a beta, but it cannot successfully create a bootable clone on M1 Macs because the asr command in the M1 version of Big Sur still does not work correctly. It does work on Intel processors however.
It is no longer a beta, but it cannot successfully create a bootable clone on M1 Macs because the asr command in the M1 version of Big Sur still does not work correctly. It does work on Intel processors however.
Yeah, I saw that update on the site
https://www.macupdate.com/, which I check frequently for updates. It has not happened yet for SuperDuper!, which is just fine with me. I still have 4 other critical applications that need to be compatible with Big Sur. Besides, Big Sur is still not stable enough yet. And even though V11.1 will be arriving soon, I anticipate that it will still contain bugs/have issues. Meanwhile, I'll continue to use good, old stable and reliable Catalina.
And now there is a
SoftRaid beta that is Big Sur compatible.
I'm sure you've seen it, but for the benefit of those who don't run CCC betas, the newest release, and on an ongoing basis, will no longer clone a volume that's backed up by Time Machine. (Rats! Forgot to copy the text.)
Any feelings about why parallel backups are no longer supported? Without a really good reason it doesn't fly in my book, because TM and CCC absolutely do not fulfill the same needs.
the newest release, and on an ongoing basis, will no longer clone a volume that's backed up by Time Machine. (Rats! Forgot to copy the text.)
If you can find that information, I would like to see it. I have looked everywhere and cannot find it. FYI CCC Version 5.1.24-b1 (6130), which I installed yesterday evening, happily backed up/cloned my data volume last night and that volume is most definitely backed up by Time Machine.
the newest release, and on an ongoing basis, will no longer clone a volume that's backed up by Time Machine. (Rats! Forgot to copy the text.)
If you can find that information, I would like to see it. I have looked everywhere and cannot find it. FYI CCC Version 5.1.24-b1 (6130), which I installed yesterday evening, happily backed up/cloned my data volume last night and that volume is most definitely backed up by Time Machine.
It was in the v 5.1.24-b1 (6130) release notes, which can't be recalled, but which I realized I could recreate by launching an un-updated version in my clone.
CHANGED: Time Machine backup volumes are now explicitly disallowed as source or destination selections on Big Sur. We're not planning to offer support for cloning to or from volumes that are flagged as Time Machine volumes.
Rereading it now, though, I think I may have misunderstood it, because not being a Time Machine maven, it never occurred to me that you could clone either to or from a TM backup.
Clarification please.
Time Machine backup volumes are now explicitly disallowed as source or destination selections on Big Sur. We're not planning to offer support for cloning to or from volumes that are [s]flagged as used for Time Machine volumes backups.
Does that edit of Mike's statement clarify the meaning of his statement? That is what I
heard when I read it. There are sound reasons for that change...
- Apple has always recommended that any drive, partition, volume used to store Time Machine backups be dedicated for that sole purpose.
- If more than one computer uses the same Time Machine backup drive, each computer's backup data set will be contained in a separate sparse disk image.
- with the advent of APFS Time Machine backups have begun storing changes as APFS snapshots which could make cloned Time Machine volumes tricky and perhaps unreliable
- add encryption to the data set and the chance for error increases geometrically.
- Why should CCC reinvent Time Machine's wheel? If you want a backup Time Machine data set simply specify each of the drives/volumes in TM as Time Machine volumes and TM will alternate backups to each selected drive/volume. You can even include an off-site Time Machine volume that would automatically be updated when it is connected and TM will nag the user if it goes too long without its being connected.
Don't know if this makes any difference, but a second beta release of V11.1 of Big Sur is out:
https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/03/apple-releases-macos-11-1-beta-2/
Time Machine backup volumes are now explicitly disallowed as source or destination selections on Big Sur. We're not planning to offer support for cloning to or from volumes that are [s]flagged as used for Time Machine volumes backups.
Does that edit of Mike's statement clarify the meaning of his statement? That is what I
heard when I read it.
I think that clears it up for me. Thanks.
Since I don't run TM, I never knew, nor did it ever occur to me, that TM backups were offered as a sources.
And my confusion was compounded by Mike's use of "volumes" when, if I've understood you, "container" or "partition" would have been appropriate.
So, is my current understanding that CCC will still clone to a
separate container/partition on a device that's also got a TM backup container/partition on it correct? (A separate volume in a TM backup container/partition being a no-go.)