El Capitan OS X

[d0b33]

At R400+ a pop/single machine.. no thanks, thats ridiculously expensive.


LMAO @Paragon, the VmWare model = buy one, copy future if upgrade fees > 50%. I think software companies need to know better when it comes to consumer software, pricing models like this cause piracy

It is ridiculous, I was pissed when tuxera stopped offering it free.
But there are other free ways of acquiring NTFS write support.
*coughs* KAT *coughs*

Anyway...
Apple offers HFS+ write for windows users via bootcamp, why does Microsoft not offer NTFS drivers for OSX?
That's the real question.

 

[krycor]

Just out of interest sake, why do you need NTFS? I used to think I need it, until I said screw it, and formatted all my externals with ExFAT, which both Windows, OSX and Linux can all read/write. Linux needs a bit more work, but that is the person using the Linux PC's problem.

Distributing via internet is not always ideal particularly when working with clients. And then u have interoperability with other machines for large sizes.. so for non-work machine sometimes i need to share media from home server with others because downloading multiple movies via my home network is not feasible when we talking hd media x lots(guess i will just plug their hdds into my server and do the copy there.. will be faster anyway). So yah it boils down to file size and interoperability. On a personal computing level i don't really care about NTFS support and i actually changed my share drive for clients/others to fat32 as its rare i need large files but yah.. for other peoples drive its a huge limitation.

Can you quickly just copy this thing for me.. of its NTFS.. sorry.. (which is why i carry an ultra thin USB for this quick use cases besides i don't want to get filesystem aids :erm

So a R400+ buck solution is not gonna work for me at all and not worth it given the limited use cases i have it anyway.. its just an annoyance and kinda why i haven't suffered as a result of it

 

[AfricanTech]

Heh, what makes you think NTFS is more secure than ExFAT? If I plug it into my machine where I have admin rights, there is no security blocking me from accessing anything on the NTFS external drive. So what security are you talking about?
Stability? Do you want me to laugh at you? FAT32 is equally stable if not more stable. The only limitation is the 2GB file limit on FAT32, which is fixed in ExFAT.

Some people in this world has huge misconceptions on standard things. Filesystems is no exception it seems.

Uh, no.

Not to be rude, but a quick Google will disabuse you of this notion - here is a nice readable link.

http://www.theeldergeek.com/ntfs_or_fat32_file_system.htm

PS: You also need to get your facts straight - FAT32 has a 4GB file limit not 2GB.

 

[AfricanTech]

It is ridiculous, I was pissed when tuxera stopped offering it free.
But there are other free ways of acquiring NTFS write support.
*coughs* KAT *coughs*

Anyway...
Apple offers HFS write for windows users via bootcamp, why does Microsoft not offer NTFS drivers for OSX?
That's the real question.

sheer bloodymindedness?

 

[AfricanTech]

Acknowledged, Apple doesn't want you using anything other than their own kit, so it kind of explains why there would be no native support. It's Apples nonchalant way of saying "Use an Apple device rather"

Uh, maybe it has more to do with the fact that Apple would need to pay Microsoft a license fee to incorporate native support for it

 

[Enigma_]

Heh, what makes you think NTFS is more secure than ExFAT? If I plug it into my machine where I have admin rights, there is no security blocking me from accessing anything on the NTFS external drive. So what security are you talking about?
Stability? Do you want me to laugh at you? FAT32 is equally stable if not more stable. The only limitation is the 2GB file limit on FAT32, which is fixed in ExFAT.

Some people in this world has huge misconceptions on standard things. Filesystems is no exception it seems.

Errm. Let me dissect your post:

FAT was originally introduced in the late 1970's by Microsoft during the DOS era. NTFS was introduced in the early 1990's. So straight off the bat NTFS is a newer file system. File Access Tables were designed specifically for ease of use as it's more simplistic, by far.

Security:

NTFS is advantageous over FAT. It allows NTFS permission allocations, quota management, individual folder and file management by a particular user.

FAT - Has very little security. Anyone access a FAT/FAT32 drive has full access to it.

Stability:

FAT is susceptible to disk errors and often cannot be corrected. Whereas NTFS volumes are journaled have the ability to recover from errors.

NTFS supports Dynamic Cluster mapping - Avoiding bad sectors in future.

It's also worth noting that FAT32 has a file size limitation and that it does not support anything over 4GB.

FAT32 is essentially dead. Which brings me back to my original statement that it should at least have some native support within OSX.

Hope that clears it up for you, and maybe just maybe would urge you to check your facts before taking an uneducated guess as a response.

 

[Tinuva]

Uh, no.

Not to be rude, but a quick Google will disabuse you of this notion - here is a nice readable link.

http://www.theeldergeek.com/ntfs_or_fat32_file_system.htm

PS: You also need to get your facts straight - FAT32 has a 4GB file limit not 2GB.

You right about the file limit, dont really care about it, but I know its there which is most important.
ps. FAT16 was 2GB file limit, it was upped in FAT32 to 4GB. That said, go test for yourself, sometimes it is limited to 2GB even on FAT32.
pps. I also know you just mentioned that to try and discredit my opinion.

As for the security, you can blindingly believe all the bs you read on the internet, or you can go test for yourself how good that supposedly security of NTFS permissions work. It may work on a office pc where you dont have admin rights, but it most definitely means buggerall on external media, where I have admin rights on my own pc, and can still access everything on the external drive, or delete and wipe it all. Which means, there is no security benefit using NTFS on external media. Don't be stupid and fooled by what you read online.

 

[AfricanTech]

You right about the file limit, dont really care about it, but I know its there which is most important.
ps. FAT16 was 2GB file limit, it was upped in FAT32 to 4GB. That said, go test for yourself, sometimes it is limited to 2GB even on FAT32.
pps. I also know you just mentioned that to try and discredit my opinion.

As for the security, you can blindingly believe all the bs you read on the internet, or you can go test for yourself how good that supposedly security of NTFS permissions work. It may work on a office pc where you dont have admin rights, but it most definitely means buggerall on external media, where I have admin rights on my own pc, and can still access everything on the external drive, or delete and wipe it all. Which means, there is no security benefit using NTFS on external media. Don't be stupid and fooled by what you read online.

Erm okay then...

/backs away carefully

 

[Enigma_]

You right about the file limit, dont really care about it, but I know its there which is most important.
ps. FAT16 was 2GB file limit, it was upped in FAT32 to 4GB. That said, go test for yourself, sometimes it is limited to 2GB even on FAT32.
pps. I also know you just mentioned that to try and discredit my opinion.

As for the security, you can blindingly believe all the bs you read on the internet, or you can go test for yourself how good that supposedly security of NTFS permissions work. It may work on a office pc where you dont have admin rights, but it most definitely means buggerall on external media, where I have admin rights on my own pc, and can still access everything on the external drive, or delete and wipe it all. Which means, there is no security benefit using NTFS on external media. Don't be stupid and fooled by what you read online.

If you enable encryption onto the drive, you'd not have that problem. If you set the ownership of the device and remove other users, it shouldn't allow access to the drive without NTFS permissions needing to be reset. That's not a good enough reason to say NTFS is inferior to FAT.

Whatever you say...

 

[krycor]

Anyway...
Apple offers HFS+ write for windows users via bootcamp, why does Microsoft not offer NTFS drivers for OSX?
That's the real question.

Maybe under the new leadership they will.. the New Microsoft is very into interoperability to get usership up and this is really an issue about OSX support of Microsoft Users/Tech

 

[Tinuva]

If you enable encryption onto the drive, you'd not have that problem. If you set the ownership of the device and remove other users, it shouldn't allow access to the drive without NTFS permissions needing to be reset. That's not a good enough reason to say NTFS is inferior to FAT.

Whatever you say...

Sure you encrypt the drive, and then you give it to someone else to open files from, they will need to get access to it somehow. So the encryption will work, but again it wont make it usable to anyone.

Also, you can use any other encryption on ExFAT too, encryption doesn't have to be native to the filesystem to make it secure.

Saying NTFS is more secure, is a BS reason to want to use that on external media when you want compatibility with as many operating systems and/or devices as possible.

 

[Tinuva]

Errm. Let me dissect your post:

FAT was originally introduced in the late 1970's by Microsoft during the DOS era. NTFS was introduced in the early 1990's. So straight off the bat NTFS is a newer file system. File Access Tables were designed specifically for ease of use as it's more simplistic, by far.

Security:

NTFS is advantageous over FAT. It allows NTFS permission allocations, quota management, individual folder and file management by a particular user.

FAT - Has very little security. Anyone access a FAT/FAT32 drive has full access to it.

Stability:

FAT is susceptible to disk errors and often cannot be corrected. Whereas NTFS volumes are journaled have the ability to recover from errors.

NTFS supports Dynamic Cluster mapping - Avoiding bad sectors in future.

It's also worth noting that FAT32 has a file size limitation and that it does not support anything over 4GB.

FAT32 is essentially dead. Which brings me back to my original statement that it should at least have some native support within OSX.

Hope that clears it up for you, and maybe just maybe would urge you to check your facts before taking an uneducated guess as a response.

You know, out of all that, the only good feature NTFS has over ExFAT for external media, is journaling, and I will concede on that 1 point, you may have a fact that is worthwhile to consider NTFS over ExFAT.

All the other facts, is pointless when it comes to external media that you want to share files to others.
Encryption also doesn't need the filesystem to support it, you can use something else for that, if you really need to store something on external media without others having access to it.

 

[FiestaST]

Things you actually agree to by accepting El Capitan’s software license agreement

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2015/10/19/os-x-el-capitan-license-in-plain-english/

 

[charlieharper]

Busy downloading now... Taking ages.. And I'm on a 100mbps fibre line. :-/

 

[Enigma_]

Busy downloading now... Taking ages.. And I'm on a 100mbps fibre line. :-/

Is that a 100 mini bits per second? Slack, it's been out for a while now

 

[Hemps]

I have an annoying issue, in safari every website except myBB the fonts are clear and easily readable, on myBB only they are blurry?

 

[bwana]

I have an annoying issue, in safari every website except myBB the fonts are clear and easily readable, on myBB only they are blurry?

Try adjusting the theme and see if that makes a difference.

 

[Hemps]

Removed safari cache and reset browser, resized fonts and altered theme but no hope on safari and myBB, whats odd is the main page - http://mybroadband.co.za/news/ is 100% but http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/ is terrible and some subpages are fine and others not.

I have had to switch to chrome which shows all pages perfectly.

 

[bwana]

Removed safari cache and reset browser, resized fonts and altered theme but no hope on safari and myBB, whats odd is the main page - http://mybroadband.co.za/news/ is 100% but http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/ is terrible and some subpages are fine and others not.

I have had to switch to chrome which shows all pages perfectly.

Sorry - but I'm all out of ideas then. I haven't upgraded and really don't have any plans to do so in the foreseeable future.

Just a thought though - I had a Safari update just the other day - are you running the latest version? Mine is currently Version 9.0.1 (10601.2.7.2).

 

[Hemps]

Crazy stuff.

Installed Chrome and imported bookmarks, it then installed adblock as per usual so had an idea adblock might be the reason the myBB is having issues, yes I know myBB relies on adverts to give us goodies and stay UP but I'm at work.

Openend Safari and signed into myBB and all is suddenly right as rain.

Im back on safari ,