Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MacOS High Sierra

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 630 posts

Re: MacOS High Sierra

#61

Post by 4ad »

aneidon wrote: post #55
4ad wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll settle for when shared iCloud albums support a decent size and resolution. iCloud Photos is frustratingly bad, but I don't want to buy into other cloud ecosystem, like Google's. Does anybody know if it's possible to replicate the integration with Photos on both iOS and macOS, so I could write my own sync thing?

Not aware of those issues, what exactly are the limitations?

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202299

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202786

Some highlights:

> When shared, photos taken with standard point-and-shoot cameras, SLR cameras, or iOS devices have up to 2048 pixels on the long edge.

> Videos can be up to five minutes in length and are delivered at up to 720p resolution.

> Maximum shared albums an owner can share: 100

> Maximum shared albums a user can subscribe to: 100

> Maximum number of photos and videos from a single contributor across all shared albums, per hour: 1000

Re: MacOS High Sierra

#62

Post by aneidon »

petercooper wrote: post #58
aneidon wrote: post #39

The biggest change I’m hoping for (but not expecting) is the ability to sort shared iCloud albums by time taken, not time added to the album. Currently they’re all but useless for something like a shared album from a vacation, because it groups photos by when family members upload them. I tend to upload photos at the end of each day, but other family members who were shooting on a normal camera waited until the end o…

The biggest change I’m hoping for (but not expecting) is the ability to sort shared iCloud albums by time taken, not time added to the album. This isn't a criticism of you, but when a major OS update comes down to trivia like this, it seems a bit of a shame to me. I remember the 10.2-10.6 releases and just how significant they were and it feels like rearranging deck chairs in comparison nowadays.

Just to clarify, I’m very excited overall for the update, although of course it is lots of under-the-hood stuff. When I wrote biggest I meant the biggest feature I’m not sure will be launching with the update.

Re: MacOS High Sierra

#63

Post by coldtea »

petercooper wrote: post #58
aneidon wrote: post #39

The biggest change I’m hoping for (but not expecting) is the ability to sort shared iCloud albums by time taken, not time added to the album. Currently they’re all but useless for something like a shared album from a vacation, because it groups photos by when family members upload them. I tend to upload photos at the end of each day, but other family members who were shooting on a normal camera waited until the end o…

The biggest change I’m hoping for (but not expecting) is the ability to sort shared iCloud albums by time taken, not time added to the album. This isn't a criticism of you, but when a major OS update comes down to trivia like this, it seems a bit of a shame to me. I remember the 10.2-10.6 releases and just how significant they were and it feels like rearranging deck chairs in comparison nowadays.

>This isn't a criticism of you, but when a major OS update comes down to trivia like this, it seems a bit of a shame to me.

There's a whole new FS that went into production in something like 4-5 years (unheard of) among lots of over things...

Re: MacOS High Sierra

#64

Post by microtonal »

twobyfour wrote: post #15
feketegy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would wait at least a couple of weeks until all the quirks are ironed out. Especially if you're a programmer, allow a little time for all the apps to catch up and update their versions. High sierra comes with big changes like the Apple File System, and I'm sure there are a lot of stuff going on under the hood.

Yup, it's a well established truism at this point that if you need a stable system (or don't have excellent data backups) you should never install the .0 version of any Apple OS. And while many Cocoa apps should be forwards-compatible out of the box, if you rely on Homebrew it may be several months before the packages you need are all updated.

if you rely on Homebrew it may be several months before the packages you need are all updated.

A large part of software in Homebrew is already pre-compiled (bottled) for High Sierra:

    % find Formula -name '*.rb' | wc -l
    4363
    % find Formula -name '*.rb' -exec grep "sha.*:high_sierra" {} \; | wc -l
    3634
Most of the stuff that I have been installing the last one or two weeks was installed as bottles.

Re: MacOS High Sierra

#65

Post by [deleted] »

petercooper wrote: post #60
smcleod wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, American dates are confusing and illogical at the best of times, I wish America would standardise on the international ascending order date style of 25/09/2017.

I hope we'd all standardize on the opposite: 2017-09-25.. it sorts properly when used in file and document names :-)

[deleted]

Re: MacOS High Sierra

#66

Post by aneidon »

4ad wrote: post #61
aneidon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not aware of those issues, what exactly are the limitations?

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202299 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202786 Some highlights: > When shared, photos taken with standard point-and-shoot cameras, SLR cameras, or iOS devices have up to 2048 pixels on the long edge. > Videos can be up to five minutes in length and are delivered at up to 720p resolution. > Maximum shared albums an owner can share: 100 > Maximum shared albums a user can subscribe to:…

Ugh, wasn’t aware of that. That plus my annoyances with the sorting will definitely make me reconsider using the shared albums as the primary way of sharing family photos.

Re: MacOS High Sierra

#67

Post by pazra »

mrmondo wrote: post #53

The biggest change I’ve noticed since testing each of the betas and now running the final release is the significant decrease in interface / UI latency, it feels significantly faster to use and is a welcome upgrade.

That'll be because Windowserver now uses Metal 2 to render UI, so if Apple's claims that it's 10x faster than Metal 1, then that's probably where the UI performance improvements have come from.

Re: MacOS High Sierra

#68

Post by yoz-y »

pantulis wrote: post #11

What about performance on older machines? My mid-2010 MBP is still supported, but I'm afraid of switching if performance takes a hit. It has dual 512GB SSDs and 8GB RAM, so it runs Sierra with more or less success, but it's usable. With all this filesystem level changes, does High Sierra have more hardware requirements than Sierra?

I have installed 10.13 on a mid-2009 macbook pro using the installer patcher hack. It works quite fine, I did not notice any difference with Sierra. I have a single 256MB SSD and 8GB RAM. On a side note, I did not get the APFS update, I assume this is because it is a third party SSD.

Re: MacOS High Sierra

#69

Post by falsedan »

feketegy wrote: post #4
cjsuk wrote: post #2

Does anyone know of any issues with this before I press the button?

I would wait at least a couple of weeks until all the quirks are ironed out. Especially if you're a programmer, allow a little time for all the apps to catch up and update their versions. High sierra comes with big changes like the Apple File System, and I'm sure there are a lot of stuff going on under the hood.

beta has been public for like 3 months, most apps have updated already.

Re: MacOS High Sierra

#70

Post by falsedan »

toyg wrote: post #27
soneil wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're supported, they're just not upgraded to apfs. At the moment, only SSDs get upgraded automatically. Not entirely clear why, or whether that's a long-term plan.

> Not entirely clear why Might have something to do with the fact that APFS was designed explicitly with SSDs in mind.

So an early version of the beta set up Fusion drives with APFS, and then the next version switched them back to HDFS. I don't know the exact issue, but I would roll back like that if I saw there were data corruption/data loss issues.
Post reply on HN