The El Capitan (OS X 10.11) and iOS 9 Public Betas are now available for the adventurous who have joined Apple's Beta program . At this point all I can tell you is the install went flawlessly on my Mac mini. The iOS 9 install hasn't finished yet — the download servers are apparently getting hammered.

Nuts! I've finally made the leap from Snow Leopard to Yosemite! Now, I've got another one to keep an eye on...

At least it's in the same park.

El Capitan beta observations:

• So far I have encountered only one application that does not work with El Capitan — Photoshop Elements 12. Launched individually both the Editor and Organizer seem to work well albeit both load slowly. But when i attempt to launch the editor through Photoshop Elements Menu or from PE 12 Organizer, the colorful new pinwheel spins interminably and then — nothing.
  • I have had a couple of apps or plugins that would not open after the El Capitan upgrade, but simply reinstalling the same version of the app or plugin "fixed" the problem.
  • A couple of beta versions of apps have had updates due to "minor El Capitan issues" but although I use both almost constantly I never noticed any problem before or after their "fix".
  • I don't have anything from Microsoft so I cannot vouch for that compatibility, but I do have Adobe Acrobat X Pro and it has no problem
• Connections to network drives that seemed to take forever in Mavericks and Yosemite seem to be almost instantaneous in El Capitan.
• I dreaded opening Safari in Yosemite for the first time each morning because the first page load always seemed to take forever. That sluggish first page load is gone in El Capitan. Safari 9.0 is snappy first page and every page after that.
• The Autofill of passwords in Safari 9.0 has some nice new enhancements particularly where there may be multiple logons for the same site.
• I will probably jinx myself for saying this, but so far El Capitan Public Beta 1 is VERY stable on my Mac mini. It appears to be more stable than 10.10.4 was on the same computer. (I wish there were an emoji available here for crossed fingers)..
• Speaking of emoji there is a new ABC keyboard offering in the Keyboard input menu — it appears to be identical to U.S. Extended — and Show Emoji & Symbols has been added to that menu. Optio
• There is a new "News" app that is standard with iOS 9. Basically a news reader that is fully integrated into the iOS. I like it, but there are a LOT of news reader apps in the App Store. and I can't tell what this one brings to the party that is new or unique. n+Command+Space (⌃⌘⎵) from Yosemite works too but there are differences between the two lists.

iOS 9 Observations:

• I probably should have realized this earlier, but if you have an Apple Watch you have to download not only iOS 9 but also an iOS 9 configuration profile for the watch. I can't tell what it does but it is there and should be downloaded and installed.
• There are changes to the UI, particularly when you have multiple apps open at the same time. When you double click the App switcher button they all appear overlapped on the screen and you can either select one by touching it, swipe others to the side, or up to quit. It does not sound like much, but I really like it.
• There is a new "enlarged" screen view. You cannot see as much on the screen but it magnifies the screen for those needing visual enhancement.
• Mail in iOS 9 and El Capitan are more alike than ever. The experience is becoming more seamless between the two platforms.
• NOTE: Since getting the Apple watch I seldom check mail, messages, etc. or answer calls on the iPhone unless it is a long one or FaceTime. It is easier and more convenient to use the watch. As a result the iOS 9 changes are more apparent to me on the iPad than on the iPhone.
• So far, I have encountered no incompatibilities between iOS 9 and any applications.

Handy new El Capitan feature. If you "lose" the cursor on a busy screen, move the mouse back and forth quickly or wiggle your finger on the trackpad and for a second or so the cursor will become several times larger.

That will probably be the reason that I'll want El Capitan.

For whatever reason I had not opened Disk Utility in El Capitan until today and discovered…

• Permission Repair is among the missing. If it is there, it is well hidden and I have not been able to find it so far. Apple has been saying permission repair is no longer necessary and it appears they really mean it.
• a completely new easier to read and interpret user interface offering a lot more information about the file system including a breakdown of storage by file type.
• Disk/volume verification and repair are no longer available as stand alone options they are rolled into First Aid which verifies and repairs. (IMO Verification has always been a waste of time anyway)
• It appears First Aid (including repair) can be run on the active boot drive! NOTE: I cannot confirm this yet.

Not that "Repair Disk" has been a critical and necessary feature lately, but that's interesting.

I wonder how they did it, if they have , in fact, done it?

Look at Private I: El Capitan's System Integrity Protection will shift utilities' functions and scroll down. The relevant part says:

If you’re running a beta of El Capitan, you’ll also notice a change to Disk Utility: Repair disk permissions is gone! (And the program’s user interface has been totally overhauled.) OS X 10.11 automatically repairs permissions during software updates, and permissions won’t be allowed to be changed at other times—thus, they won’t need to be repaired. It’s been thought that repair disk permissions was a placebo for the last few releases, even though it was once a vital part of the troubleshooting arsenal.

Not that I'm the least bit conversant with "custom permissions", but that apparently relegates them to the dustbin.

Will that be a significant loss to anybody?

Maybe to a few developers who are discontented with complying with the Apple standards.

By the way I just got an updated release of a third party app that used to have a permissions repair feature and it is no longer there either.

Very interesting article an confirms the direction Apple has been moving since Yosemite if not Mountain Lion. For those who like to install software outside of the App Store there is even more interesting information further down in the article where it says…

That suggests that OS X will ultimately not run any app or utility that isn't first vetted by Apple and then acquired from the App Store, doesn't it?

And where might that leave folk who use standard applications such as MS Office for the Mac, Adobe apps, various browsers (other than Safari), email clients, ...?

My post is an extrapolation of "an iOS-style full lockdown", but I'm not sure if it's a correct interpretation.

I certainly hope not.

• Older non-Apple files in the primary system folders are removed by the El Capitan installer and the application developers will have to rewrite their code so that it does not need them. This results in much cleaner system
• If they install anything into the systems area including kernel extensions (kexts) [etc) they will have to use the Apple installer and not a home brew installer of their own making.
• Developers will be forced to adhere more closely to Apple coding practices and standards rather than blithely "patching" the OS to make their software work.
• In the case of utilities much of their functionality will be rendered superfluous or useless.
• Super Duper, Carbon Copy Cloner, and the cloning functions of several other utilities are going to have to figure out how to clone portions of the OS that are for all intents and purposes cannot be copied.
• the same can be said for pretty much all third party backup software utilities
• It is entirely possible that some, perhaps many, long time standby utilities will disappear or continue with greatly reduced functionality.
• Just as happened with Yosemite a lot of sovereign trouble shooting techniques will become unnecessary, ineffective, and in many cases impossible.
• It just occurred to me the unreadable sections of the OS are going to present a unique challenge to anti-malware developers. Will they choose to rely on the OS and ignore the protected portions of El Capitan or will they work on finding work arounds to let them in?

This change in El Capitan obviates a plethora of potential malware exploits and forces application developers to be more security aware instead of placing all the reliance on the OS. To coin and old saw, "El Capitan closes the barn door before the horse gets out."

I'm certain that newly begun Time Machine backups will be able to deal with those files, so it seems like there ought to be a workaround for developers.

I'm happy to hear that my guess about the App Store is (so far) incorrect.

I see two possibilities for Time Machine;

1. Time Machine does not backup the protected parts of the OS and instead relies on reinstalling the OS itself from the internet or
2. Since Time Machine is part of the OS it is operating at a very low level inside the protective shell of the system and therefore can access the protected files.

Option 2 would seem to imply any clone apps would have to be installed into the OS itself, which the installer is specifically designed to prevent.

The catch here is if Super Duper et al can get around the protections so can malware developers. That in turn means Apple will have to develop protections that prevent the work around so clone developers will have to develop work arounds which can in turn be used buy malware developers which means Apple will have to develop a way to stop the work around and so on and so on and so on ad infinitum.

A potentially viable option would be the cloners would only clone user and third party application files leaving restoring the OS to the reinstall mechanism in the Recovery drive sort of a reverse Migration Assistant. To get a bootable clone might require the user to install El Capitan on the clone drive before making the clone.

It is a problem I am more than content to leave to Shirt Pocket Software and others to solve and I am confident they are already working on it.

Since SuperDuper, etc. cannot write the com.apple.rootless Extended Attribute that marks the files in question, it will drop that Extended Attribute in the copying process. Therefore the clone it creates will not possess "System Integrity Protection." After restoring from a clone, the workaround is to reinstall the OS, which will overwrite the vulnerable files with the com.apple.rootless Extended Attribute.

It's all there in Shirt Pocket Watch - Uncovering our rootlessness.

None of that seems to directly address my query ... or, if it does, it means that every last bit of third party applications (such as those I provided as examples) will be useless — and it would be highly unlikely for their creators to fix such just to appease Apple. Or am I missing something critical?

If a cloned installation is fully functional despite lacking "System Integrity Protection", the risk in running it may be almost negligible, because while it will remain vulnerable to existing exploits, there aren't likely to be many new ones targeting the very likely very small number of users who'll be running thusly.

I wonder how much of a mitigating factor


will be? (Edit: It seems like there ought to be a built-in utility to do that.)

Food for thought for developers: "You can run our app if you're willing to run without 'System Integrity Protection.'""

Will a surface scan be able to do its job on those inaccessible files?

It appears that many legacy apps will run in El Capitan. Apple just released Java for OS X 2015-001, implying that Photoshop CS5 will be OK in 10.11. (That version of PS requires Java 6.) We'll see...

"surface scan" by MY definition is direct block IO, and ignores file system formats, partition layout, etc.

The question is not whether the developer is willing to run without System Integrity protection — it is whether the user is willing to do that or not. A developer that released a product running without system integrity protection and did not fully apprising the user of their risk would soon be spending all of their development time and money in lawsuits. And we are talking popup banners not s sentence buried in the depths of an unread license agreement.

According to Apple,

"Java for OS X 2015-001 installs the legacy Java 6 runtime for OS X 10.11 El Capitan, OS X 10.10 Yosemite, OS X 10.9 Mavericks, OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, and OS X 10.7 Lion.
"This package is exclusively intended for support of legacy software and installs the same deprecated version of Java 6 included in the 2014-001 and 2013-005 releases."

It would therefore seem to be unnecessary to update to Java for OS X 2015-001 if one has already updated with one or the other of the versions mentioned.

Aside: Unless "deprecated" has assumed a technical sense (ie, jargon), it is wholly wrong/inappropriate in this context.

I hadn't spotted "deprecated"!

Actually, I already have Java 6 installed so I don't need to redo it. I did, however, download the installer in case I need it when I upgrade to El Capitán. Maybe Java will survive the upgrade, maybe not. I say that because it didn't survive migration from Snow Leopard to Yosemite, so I had to install it.

It has assumed a technical sense. In programming, labeling code as "deprecated" constitutes an announcement that said code will not be supported at some future point and that those relying on it (typically third-party developers) should make other arrangements (i.e. begin using more up-to-date code).

I also take "depreciated" to mean "This is your warning to stop using this asap, because it's going to go away or break horribly at some undetermined point in the future. When that day comes, if you're still relying on it, you're gonna have a bad day, because we're absolutely not going to help you."

It means that it is a version of Java that is currently unsupported by either Apple or Oracle and has well know vulnerabilities to exploits. The current supported and secure release is Java 8 build 51.

I found the legacy apps that were not recognizing the newer JRE (Java Runtime Environment) would recognize the JRE that comes in the Java Developers Kit on the Oracle site. Because of its known vulnerabilities to exploits I cannot recommend installing the JRE 6.

NOTE: Oracle has labeled Java 8 Build 51 a critical update. I suspect it patches a newly discovered vulnerability. Keeping Java and OS X up to date are the best protections against malware of all varieties.

Well if it's java (or flash for that matter) that's a given, isn't it?

JRE is a browser Java Applet plug-in — currently version 8 update 51 (which I thought is a separate issue from the Java install), ie, to my untrained eye they seem to be different/separate entities for different/separate purposes.
What's the story?

You misunderstand the nature of Java. All Java Applets and Applications require a runtime environment (JRE). In computer languages there are interpretive languages such as BASIC and Javascript (technically ECMAScript) that only ephemerally generate executable code and each statement is translated from human readable code into machine readable form each time each statement is performed. As you can imagine this is not very efficient but it does make the coding process go faster. Compiled programming languages such as Objective C are translated into machine readable code only once, at "compile time" and what you have on your computer is ONLY the resulting machine readable code.

Java is a compromise between the two. The Java code is compiled into an intermediate pseudo machine language. To run a Java app or application you have to have a Java Runtime Environment that translates the pseudocode into executable code for the specific host processor and operating system. The result is not as efficient as a fully compiled application, but a lot more efficient than a fully interpretive language. Theoretically the same compiled pseudocode should be able to run on any processor and operating system with the aid of the appropriate runtime environment.

With appropriate changes in the Java source (ie. the human readable) code header the compiled pseudocode can become…

• an Applet that only runs in the environment of an internet browser and has severe restrictions on what it can and cannot access and do and not do
• a stand alone application that is relatively indistinguishable from any other application written in any other programming language
• a Servlet that can only run in a server environment
• a variety of other …lets for specialized environments.

all of these require the JRE to execute

The applet plug-in provides the link from the browser to the JRE. (I believe it is still true that Google Chrome is unique in having its own built-in JRE for applets.)

The Java 8 Version 51 install includes both the JRE and the browser plug-in.

For whatever reason Apple chose for many years to adapt its own JRE based on the Java/Oracle JRE but that meant Apple was always behind often several months behind in getting their release out. That was acceptable until vulnerabilities were found where it was previously thought to have been obviated in the original Java standard. (The best laid plans of mice and software designers etc.) Immediately the months long lag was unacceptable. Since Apple had switched from the PowerPC processor, it was no great trick for Oracle to adapt their Intel JRE to the OS X platform and Apple was, I believe, relieved to cede all Java JRE development to them.

This version 6 release that is being discussed here is needed primarily because of poor program design and coding practices on the part of some Java developers. It was never an issue for most Java applets, applications, servlets, et. al.

You misread my post...got the developers' selling point backwards.

If I understood things correctly (always an issue at play with moi), one will need (or should) reinstall the OS after rebooting from a CCC or SuperDuper clone...

Ergo. I wonder if it will be possible/easier to use Pacifist to merely (re)install the missing rootless attribute. Or, are things such that even Pacifist won't be able to touch/copy that file within the OS Installer?

If it is doable, I would hope for a script (that runs that Pacifist rootless attribute reinstall) just prior to SuperDuper quitting.

Apparently in the beta there is a command line routine available only when booted from on the Recovery Drive that can turn the Rootless mode on and off. (I cannot verify this as I have not tried it.) Whether it makes it to the release version or not is open to conjecture because it could potentially be used in an exploit. If it remains, that might make it possible/necessary to run SuperDuper, CCC, et. al. from the Recovery Drive or to post process activating the Rootless mode to restore the Rootless mode.

I doubt that would be scriptable in the usual sense since at least two reboots would have to occur, but it might be in the form of a printed set of instruction to the user. Personally I would not want to leave that to the users to perform. Too many would not understand the reason and would ignore it leaving their system in an exploitable state.

Suffice it to say ShirtPocket, Mike Bombich, and a legion of malware developers are working on the problem. Speaking of Mike Bombich when I attempted to launch Carbon Copy Cloner I got a popup saying "CCC is not certified for this version of OS X" and kicked me out to the CCC web site. SuperDuper on the other hand will launch and run in El Capitan.

Thanks, Joe.

Sounds like interesting times ahead.

As the Great Master hath opined: "Tis wise to be prudently paranoid".

Here's something else: With Split View in El Capitan, going full screen makes sense. I never use full screen mode but this looks interesting.

Active OS X 10.10 zero-day exploit installs malware without need for system passwords Perhaps this vulnerability will be patched in El Capitán.

I believe Rootless will stop it dead in its tracks by blocking modification of /private/etc/sudoers.


And further, even a sudoer couldn't modify files in /System/Library (and others) with Rootless in place (not that I specifically know that the installer tries to do so).

Here's some more information: DYLD_PRINT_TO_FILE exploit found in the wild for OS X
I tried the command listed in the article and found nothing awry in my system.

I saw Topher's post, and his command showed nothing awry.

I've read that upgrading to El Capitan will strip out previously installed Finder plugins, and that Rootless will prevent installation of new and ones, but assuming that successful installation will be possible with Rootless turned off, will it survive its being turned back on?

Good question.

According to the dictionary in El Capitan the definition of "deprecate" is to express disapproval of… and that is exactly how "deprecated" is used in computer jargon. "Deprecated" refers to something that is no longer approved and remains only to allow third party developers time to modify their product to use an "approved" command, feature, function, etc. You are most app to see it used in the context of an API (Applications Programming Interface) API (Applications Program Interface) that applications use to access operating system functions.

El Capitan public beta 4 was released today a bit less than 2 weeks after public beta 3. That would seem to indicate Apple is closing on the Gold Master. So far..

• I have had to delete and reinstall a few applications to restore functionality.
• Rebuild the Launch Services Database twice to restore the linkage between file extensions and applications. The first rebuild did not survive a reboot.
• update one application to get it to work
• After installing beta 1, 2 and 3 I had to manually reboot to finish the installation process.
• Beta 4 installed and rebooted flawlessly
• I have found El Capitan to be remarkably stable, especially for a beta product
• El Capitan "feels" snappier than Yosemite
• Safari 9.0 loads pages a LOT faster than Safari 8
• There are a number of minor new UI features that add to the usability factor in El Capitan
• From what I have seen to date, I heartily recommend El Capitan. From what I have seen it is better at the Git Go than Yosemite is at 10.10.4

YMMV

Apple brings native flight tracking support to iOS 9 and OS X El Capitan

with how Apple has been stepping up their release schedule, I wonder if they will stick to their "we support this version and one previous version" motto? That used to take you back 3-4 yrs, and now you're lucky if you get two.

Given Apple's target of an 18 month release cycle, and assuming early (immediate) adoption of a new version that works out to a 36 month support window or three years whichever comes first.

Yesterday Apple announced El Capitan (OS X 10.11) would be released by the end of September. At the same time they made the Gold Master available to beta testers through the App Store. Will it surprise anyone here to know that I have already installed it? Anyway I want to share a few things with you about El Capitan and the installation.

• I like it! 😄 No big surprise there, but compared to Yosemite, El Capitan is…
  • Faster (especially Safari 9.0 that is part of the release)
  • More stable
  • More Bullet Proof (potentially exploitable features have been completely disabled or shielded)
  • Requires less maintenance (In fact many of the old routine preventative maintenance and/or troubleshooting functions are either not available in El Capitan or they are deprecated and strongly not recommended. For example permission repair, housekeeping routines, and defragmenting of files or volumes. Some functions troubleshooters have taken for granted in the past are not even possible in El Capitan.
• Warning:
  • A few old programs may have to be redesigned, rewritten, or substantially modified because functions they depended on are blocked by El Capitan to prevent their being exploited by malware.
  • Do not use third party utilities such as TechTool Pro 8, Drive Genius 4, DiskWarrior, TinkerTool, TinkerTool System, MacPilot, OnyX, etc. until the developer has certified them for use with El Capitan
• Caution:
  • CarbonCopyCloner 3.5 will not run on El Capitan. CCC 4 will run but I have verified whether or not it can produce a bootable clone or if that clone retains the security protections of El Capitan.
  • The latest version of SuperDuper (version 2.7.5(v. 95)) runs but for some reason I was not able to produce a bootable clone using it and I have not taken time to troubleshoot the issue.
• Before Installing El Capitan
  • Be certain you have a good Time Machine or other backup before installing El Capitan — no one has yet been able to repeal Murphy’s law.
  • It is a good idea to run Disk Utility > Volume Repair, TechTool Pro 8 > Volume Repair, Drive Genius 4 > Repair and/or Rebuild, or DiskWarrior to be sure your volume structures are in good shape.
  • Be certain all of your Applications, Utilities, plugins, kernel extensions, etc. are up to date. The App Store will keep anything you get from there up to date (you really should turn on automatic updating) but non-App Store software is up to the developer and it behooves you to be very vigilant and do not put updates off. Etrecheck can be helpful here — as of this morning, the current version is 2.4.2.
  • Because of increased security measures in El Capitan you may find some of your applications will have to be reinstalled because the El Capitan installer will have removed and discarded some third party files from system areas. Generally reinstallation is all it takes to restore functionality but there may be cases where you will have to get an update from the developer.
  • Based on my experience installing the Gold Master I would encourage you to disconnect any and all unessential peripherals before the install. The install will go faster and you are less likely to encounter problems during the install. Other than that the install seems pretty bullet proof.

Although I won't upgrade to El Capitán until 10.11.2, I appreciate your sage advice. I'm most concerned that MS Office 2008 and Adobe Photoshop CS5 will run with the new OS. Do you have any experience with those apps?

Much wise counsel there.

For moi, the point about disconnecting peripherals is especially noteworthy. ( I once had a peripheral that needed to unmount as part of the second reboot of an upgrade. But it didn't. Predictable results necessitating another install.)

And I'll especially heed the advice about DiskWarrior and the like, as I am guilty of always running that immediately after an update.

And thus, my thanks!

Sorry Jon, I got rid of the last vestiges of Microsoft on my systems years ago. However, I will say El Capitan has had an extensive beta — the Gold Master is the 8th release so If there are issues I am confident Adobe and Microsoft would be aware of them — but the ball is in their court and neither has any incentive to fix an out of print product.

With their market saturation both have significant cash flow problems that can only be helped by selling or renting upgrades. (As much as I dislike the software rental trend, it is an ingenious way for developers with market saturation to maintain cash flow so they can remain in business.)

Mark your calendar: Apple announces OS X El Capitan and iOS 9 release dates

El Capitan FAQ: Everything you need to know about OS X 10.11

Understandably so (from my perspective), this is what Alsoft told me when I asked about DiskWarrior's compatibility with 10.11:

"We provide no information or support for DiskWarrior with beta versions of the operating system. As the beta software changes so quickly, there is no manner to diagnose any problems.

When the software is officially released (presently announced as September 30th), all relevant information will be posted on our website."

Here's Jason Snell's July 9 report on SuperDuper's v2.7.5 status with El Capitan: Six Colors Blog

Here's the Sept 13 update from Shirt-Pocket's Blog about compatibility: SuperDuper status

And here is what Micromat posted in its forums regarding TechTool Pro:

"The program must be tested with the final release of El Capitan before we can release a version that we can know to be fully compatible with it. The beta program is covered by a non-disclosure agreement, and is not discussed in the forums.

Apple not only reserves the right to make major changes in the final release that were not in any of the betas, they have already done that before, with serious consequences for disk repair utilities. When Tiger was released, Apple added a disk directory file, the Extended Attributes file, that was not in the Tiger betas. Any disk repair utility that did not take the Extended Attributes file into account caused damage to it. A volume with a damaged Extended Attributes file would not mount.

We are never going to forget that the final release may contain a major surprise.…

TechTool Pro makes clones using system software tools, as do almost all programs. Assuming that Apple updates its own tools, I would assume that we will be able to offer a version of our cloning that works with El Capitan."

Joe,

You had been kind enough to recommend Checkmate and I have been using it. Does Checkmate work with El Capitán?

Yes, because Checkmate only TESTS the volumes/drives whereas Diskwarrior, Drive Genius, and TechTool Pro not only test the volumes/drives, they attempt to REPAIR any damage or modify system settings. Apple sometimes deletes, replaces, or modifies Unix commands that third party applications are relying on to perform some repair/maintenance activities or adds functions to the HFS+ (Apple OS Extended) file system. So utilities that are unaware of those changes and attempt to make repairs or modify settings risk fatally damaging the system and/or drive volume structure.

By the way I am now running an OWC Thunderbay mini RAID 5 array and somewhat to my surprise Checkmate successfully performs surface scans, verifies the partition map, and gathers SMART data on each of the four drives in the RAID array. However it does not attempt a volume structure check of the RAID array. Apparently the Thunderbolt bus does not have the same limitations preventing SMART that USB and firewire do. As with the fusion drive each drive is tested individually and not the combined logical volume.

I believe that Firewire, and the original USB, predate SMART. Why they didn't add it to USB3 I have no idea.

...Was doing some maintenance today (9/15), which included using SuperDuper!, and received an update notice for v2.8 (said to be El Capitan compatible). Download and use was typically smooth.

...10.11 Beta testers, did this update resolve the clone booting?

In a subsequent conversation with the developer, he advised that prior to making the first 10.11 clone, one should first delete & then recreate all the scheduled backups.

I don't understand the purpose in doing so, since SD! v2.8 is compatible with Yosemite.

Pendragon, can you enlighten further, or are the prior, referenced backups solely related to scheduled ones as opposed to those manually initiated?

The details/explanation re why the schedules need be deleted and then recreated are best explained here.

Your link was the same as in one of the links I previously provided and IMHO, Shirt-Pocket's 9/13 blog post didn't address my question.

Nonetheless, here's detail now on Shirt-Pocket's v2.8 download page, which doesn't mention having to delete anything prior to either a Manual or Scheduled clone: v2.8 Download

Sorry my help, wasn't.

FWIW, my confusion was such that I first verified the schedule recreations with the developer.

Had I not previously seen the blog, I never would have broached the subject, for indeed, I found no such caveat with the install/directions.

Now, I just hope SD! works as advertised with 10.11

Apple begins testing OS X 10.11.1 with focus on stability, compatibility and security

that web site (appleinsider) is SOOOOO flooded with scamware, snake oil and click bait in the ads piled all over the page that I don't really even want to go there anymore.

It may be available to Developers, but it is not available to beta testers so that sounds more like an alpha release.

OS X El Capitan review: Mac upgrade that's as solid as a rock Any comments from Joe?

Although Jason Snell's observations and comments are better thought out and presented they mirror mine all the way down the line.

El Capitan is a substantial improvement over Yosemite. As I have said before not only is El Capitan more stable than Yosemite (I share Jason snell's rock solid comment) it is noticeably snappier. From what I can discern most of the app incompatibilities are the result of changes in the OS surrounding the "rootless" mode. Although SIP (System Integrity Protection a.k.a. rootless mode) has presented challenges to some third party developers, it does not take a PhD in software engineering to see how the added security benefits outweigh the challenges. I use Mission Control extensively and I concur it is better and friendlier in El Capitan than previous iterations. I haven't used split screen enough that I automatically activate it, but I really should. Split screen is a major new feature that IMHO will change a lot of user's workflows.

FWIW, I do not have testing to back this up, but empirically it appears El Capitan has done a great job fine tuning the memory management features introduced in Yosemite. I have 16GB of RAM in my Mac mini and to date I have never been able to force "memory pressure" out of the green range and swap file usage stubbornly clings to zero. (That alone would be enough to make the system operation a lot "snappier".)

As far as I am concerned, for those who are reluctant to adopt a first release of an OS X upgrade there is no reason to hesitate upgrading from Yosemite to El Capitan. The El Capitan beta is already better and more stable than Yosemite.

If you use Default Folder, it is currently not compatible with 10.11. The developer does post a work-around that requires turning off certain critical protections, but also states that a fully compatible version 5 is in the works.

The article Jon linked mentioned that.

This update to Checkmate has just been released and claims to be compatible with El Capitán. If the older version worked with EC, that might have been either coincidence or perhaps you didn't spot something.

Frankly I detected no difference in the performance of the previous version of Checkmate or in either of the beta releases of the new version. They all appeared to function quite normally on my system.

Got back from holiday to find El Capitan ready to install, so I did – after doing a clone of my drive.

Install was straight forward. Used EC for two days and got fed up. It works fine, but I've used Default Folder since 8.5 and don't want to do without it, and don't want to disable any Apple "features".

I also couldn't update Flash without resorting to Safe Mode. During Safe Mode, my screen exhibited some bizarre banding behaviour.

I had no problems using Adobe CS5, except I had to install Java. And Microsoft Office 2011 ran okay, except Outlook hung a couple times and I had for force quit.

I reverted to Yosemite.

I'm going to do what Jon is doing: wait for 10.11.2 or 3

Thanks for posting about CS5. I assume that you mean Photoshop (which is the only part of the suite that I have)? I had to install Java 6 to get it to run in Yosemite so that's no problem re-installing for EC.

My main issue, now, is how MS Office 2008 will run. If anybody knows, please reply.

EDIT: According to Roaring Apps, Office 2008 and PS CS5 do run in EC.

Had to do that here after updating to Yosemite. (I think only illustrator requires the legacy java?)

Photoshop CS5 requires a legacy Java, namely Java 6.

We’ve been here before, and more than once. Perhaps MacStrategy’s recent overview of all you might want to know about Adobe Creative Suite CS and Java RE v6 can put this one to rest. Note that there is a difference between CS apps that report they need Java v6, and those that actually need it. Confusingly, the two groups don't overlap, but fortunately that doesn't really matter all that much.

Great article! Thanks for posting it. As you said, the two groups don't overlap and there is a reference to 10.12 that says, "OS X 10.12 and later do not support Java v6 at all." This implies that Apple is already working on it (no surprise).

I didn't try to open Illustrator, but all the other apps in the Design Standard suite work fine.

I got the call for Java when trying to launch InDesign for the first time.

OS X 10.12 will be out in roughly another 18 months — you may want to wait for that.

Well, I clung onto Snow Leopard until a few months ago. I guess I can cling onto Yosemite, which I only changed to because all my browsers had become obsolete.

Does anyone know if it's possible to download a stand-alone El Capitan installer? Or even capture the download when it is being installed via the App Store?

AFAIK, there is no such thing as a stand-alone installer.

But, after one has downloaded El Capitán, a splash screen appears asking if you want to continue/install it, etc. STOP!

At that point, look in your Applications Folder for a file called "Install OS X El Capitan", for it is that file which may be copied to a thumb drive, etc.

If you don't copy it then, but proceed, the installer will delete it when the installation has been completed. Ergo no installer left to copy.

Thanks!

Thanks for the tips - reminders - about Onyx, Etrechek and peripherals.



P.S. Just did the download, made a bootable flash drive, and installed. Took about 1.5 to 2.0 hours. All is tickety-boo . . . so far.

When you select to download/install a new version of OS X from the app store, it downloads an actual application to your /Applications/ folder. After that's done downloading, it's launched and installs your OS update.

Normally that installer app is kept in your /Applications folder even after the update is done, but you can copy it out to somewhere else (I like to stuff things like that into disk images) before you let the installer run. Basically when it launches, just cancel out of it. Copy/backup the installer, then double click it to run it.

Today, I had occasion to force-empty the trash using OnyX. OnyX, of course, is a GUI for root access. Considering rootless, it possible to force-empty the trash in El Capitan? An EC version of OnyX was released today but their website has no release notes yet, so I don't know if the EC version does this.

Jon,

MacIssues has a discussion on this topic that may be worth your review.

FWIW, I use Permanent Eraser (freeware) and strongly endorse it. There are four erasing/deleting levels:
Simple: 1X
DoE: 3X
DoD: 7X
Gutman: 35X

Thanks, Harv. I knew about the MacIssues article. However, my question is not about securely deleting items but force-emptying the trash when the normal command refuses to work. Have you tried this with OnyX in EC? Here's the link for downloading: http://www.titanium.free.fr/onyx.html

Jon,

If what you want to do is (merely) force-emptying the trash, then Permanent Eraser does that. Of course, it does that securely.

Or, am I still confused?

Harv,

It's not the same thing. To be specific, I tried to empty the trash and got a message that this could not be done because the file in the trash was "in use" (which wasn't true). It seems to me that Permanent Eraser will securely empty the trash (that is, empty the trash normally and then overwrite the files) but not force the trash to empty.

If you download OnyX (from my link), see if the Cleaning tab has an option to force-empty the trash. That option exists in the Yosemite and all previous versions.

Jon,

Many times, when I tried to empty the trash, I got the same alerts as you. Sometimes, I lacked the proper permission, the file was otherwise locked, or whatever.

Regardless, once the file was in the trash and I clicked on Permanent Eraser, it always got deleted.

Perhaps there is an exception somewhere, but I have yet to experience that.

Good to know, Harv. Thanks.

At Artie505's suggestion the sub-thread that started with MG209's post about the OnyX warning against securely erasing SSDs has been split off into its own thread

Apple seeds fourth OS X 10.11.1 beta with potential Microsoft Office 2016 fix

so it was an Apple bug, or they're just nerfing a workaround to humor office?

Office 2016 for Mac update doesn't include fix for crashes under OS X El Capitan