What is the last fully upgradeable mac mini?

[strawbale]

from https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-12-monterey-on-unsupported-macs-thread.2299557/

 

[The Point and Shoot Pro]

from https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-12-monterey-on-unsupported-macs-thread.2299557/

Key word is UNSUPPORTED.

--
Fronterra Photography Tours
One Lens, No Problem
The Point and Shoot Pro

 

[Mbruinsma]

Maybe at your interest:

I am using a MacBook Pro Mid 2012 with macOS Sierra, the latest OS of using the HFS+ file system. With this setup I can still use Apple’s Aperture, making bootable clones, do my own maintenance (if storage or RAM fails), etcetera.

Now these new M1 chips of Apple are interesting, but I’m not very keen on the ongoing how-to-lock-someone-in strategy. So even when I would end up buying some of their new stuff, I cannot imagine, giving up the freedom that still exists in my Mid 2012 machine.

-Mark-

 

[Tom_N]

Maybe at your interest:

I am using a MacBook Pro Mid 2012 with macOS Sierra, the latest OS of using the HFS+ file system.

I'm not sure which Mid-2012 MBP you have – but all of them can run High Sierra, Mojave, and Catalina.

With this setup I can still use Apple’s Aperture, making bootable clones, do my own maintenance (if storage or RAM fails), etcetera.

Aperture was discontinued in 2015, and as a 32-bit application, it won't run on Catalina.

However, Sierra is not the last OS that works with HFS+ volumes. While APFS is the preferred file system for SSDs, HFS+ support is still present in all of the later OSes, and many users of those OSes choose HFS+ when formatting HDDs.

 

[Mbruinsma]

Maybe at your interest:

I am using a MacBook Pro Mid 2012 with macOS Sierra, the latest OS of using the HFS+ file system.

I'm not sure which Mid-2012 MBP you have – but all of them can run High Sierra, Mojave, and Catalina.

The 13 inch. Yes, I know, but Metal 2 in High Sierra and Mojave gives a bug with Aperture. Aperture and Catalina is even further off (no official support). Another reason why I don’t want to use High Sierra, Mojave or Catalina anymore, is that cloning (restore) in Disk Utility is - putting it mildly - troublesome.

With this setup I can still use Apple’s Aperture, making bootable clones, do my own maintenance (if storage or RAM fails), etcetera.

Aperture was discontinued in 2015, and as a 32-bit application, it won't run on Catalina.

However, Sierra is not the last OS that works with HFS+ volumes. While APFS is the preferred file system for SSDs, HFS+ support is still present in all of the later OSes, and many users of those OSes choose HFS+ when formatting HDDs.

I’m sorry, but normally when you install High Sierra, Mojave or Catalina on a drive, the installer will convert HFS+ into APFS. But rightfully so you mention that Now there seem ways to get around that, but for what? When someone still uses a HDD as boot-up drive? In my case I use a SSD and To me it still will give me troubles for Aperture and the Restore function in Disk Utility.

Before using the internet under Sierra starts to fail, I will use a second computer with a different OS for those purposes. Or maybe even an iPad, who knows.

The security angst for not running the latest OS, is not my real worry at this point in my life.

-Mark-

 

[strawbale]

from https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-12-monterey-on-unsupported-macs-thread.2299557/

Key word is UNSUPPORTED.

depends, keyword is (also) potentially patchable

 

[The Point and Shoot Pro]

from https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macos-12-monterey-on-unsupported-macs-thread.2299557/

Key word is UNSUPPORTED.

depends, keyword is (also) potentially patchable

Still is not supported where you can turn on your system and install without fooling around. So I will pass.

--
Fronterra Photography Tours
One Lens, No Problem
The Point and Shoot Pro

 

[Tom_N]

I am using a MacBook Pro Mid 2012 with macOS Sierra, the latest OS of using the HFS+ file system.

Sierra is not the last OS that works with HFS+ volumes. While APFS is the preferred file system for SSDs, HFS+ support is still present in all of the later OSes, and many users of those OSes choose HFS+ when formatting HDDs.

I’m sorry, but normally when you install High Sierra, Mojave or Catalina on a drive, the installer will convert HFS+ into APFS. But rightfully so you mention that Now there seem ways to get around that, but for what? When someone still uses a HDD as boot-up drive? In my case I use a SSD and To me it still will give me troubles for Aperture and the Restore function in Disk Utility.

I am running High Sierra right now, off an external SSD formatted using HFS+. The steps to get there weren't anything special.

1. Start with an iMac with an internal HDD, running High Sierra.

2. Get an external SSD. (A larger one, as I needed more space.)

3. Reformat the SSD as HFS+.

4. Use Carbon Copy Cloner to back up the internal High Sierra installation to the external HFS+ SSD, thus creating a bootable HFS+ SSD.

5. Select the external SSD in Startup Disk Preferences, and reboot.

Now maybe if I had installed High Sierra on the SSD (rather than cloning my existing High Sierra installation), the macOS installer would have converted the SSD to APFS format. It sounds like that's what happens when using the macOS installer on internal SSDs:

https://www.macworld.com/article/23...olume-must-be-apfs-other-drives-can-wait.html

The High Sierra installer did not convert my internal HDD to APFS, and High Sierra does not have any problems working with any of my HFS+ formatted drives / partitions.

 

[Mbruinsma]

Hmm… interesting…

The reason not to use APFS on a HDD is known; a quote after Google search (to avoid bad formulations by myself): “The reason APFS is not supported on hard disks is because the copy-on-write scheme that APFS uses causes significant file fragmentation that can severely affect the performance of spinning disks, much more so than a traditional file system. That problem affects all file systems that employ copy-on-write.”

But also in the times of HFS+: “Does a Mac defrag itself? Since the launch of Apple's operating system OS X 10.2 in 2002, Macs automatically prevent file fragmentation and can defrag themselves. ... Also, your Mac will automatically check whether a file is highly fragmented (stored in more than eight different sectors). If it is, the system automatically defragments it.” So, does this hurt a SSD much, considering wear leveling?

And therefore out of curiosity: Why did you choose HFS+ over APFS on a (external) SSD?

I suspect that these workarounds become cumbersome with Big Sur or Monterey, because having a bootable clone is already a big obstacle (if not impossible).

 

[lightandaprayer]

The reason not to use APFS on a HDD is known; a quote after Google search (to avoid bad formulations by myself): “The reason APFS is not supported on hard disks is because the copy-on-write scheme that APFS uses causes significant file fragmentation that can severely affect the performance of spinning disks, much more so than a traditional file system. That problem affects all file systems that employ copy-on-write.”

I recommend reading this November 2021 article by Howard Oakley on the subject of data fragmentation: Explainer: defragmentation . Here is a very short excerpt that is most germane. . .

APFS is perfectly usable on hard disks used primarily to store files without repeatedly changing them, such as APFS Time Machine backups and archives.

Recently I upgraded my 2018 Mac Mini from Mojave to Big Sur. I happened to ask for advice from Dave Nanian of SuperDuper fame regarding future backups to my external HDDs. The only thing he told me to do differently was to reformat the backup partition from HFS+ to APFS. We discussed the ramifications of doing this and he was very clear that it was fine to do it.

Personally, I generally take 3 year old Reddit posts with a grain of salt. . . ;-)

 

[mackey1001]

I got the M1 16gb 256gb Mac Mini, and I wouldn't have gotten anything older. The new CPU is just that good, and that model a great value. Attach a 27 inch monitor and a 2TB SSD, and it's a great daily driver OR toy for fun.

 

[Tom_N]

And therefore out of curiosity: Why did you choose HFS+ over APFS on a (external) SSD?

Out of habit.
The fastest external interface on this machine is FireWire 800, which makes things run, overall, a bit slower than they ran with the internal HDD, before it became full. There's lots of free space on the SSD (for now), which probably helps with wear-leveling.

 

[JPAlbert]

Mbrusins:
"Since the launch of Apple's operating system OS X 10.2 in 2002, Macs automatically prevent file fragmentation and can defrag themselves."

No.
They don't.
If you don't believe me, download a copy of iDefrag (free to use since Coriolis discontinued it) check a platter-based HDD, and see for yourself. Can be either a bootable drive (copy of the OS on it) or a non-bootable drive (just data).

An old copy of Drive Genius can show this, as well.

Again, if you don't believe me, try it and see for yourself. Then come back here and tell us what you've seen.

 

[Tom_N]

Mbrusins:
"Since the launch of Apple's operating system OS X 10.2 in 2002, Macs automatically prevent file fragmentation and can defrag themselves."

No.
They don't.
If you don't believe me, download a copy of iDefrag (free to use since Coriolis discontinued it) check a platter-based HDD, and see for yourself. Can be either a bootable drive (copy of the OS on it) or a non-bootable drive (just data).

An old copy of Drive Genius can show this, as well.

Again, if you don't believe me, try it and see for yourself. Then come back here and tell us what you've seen.

HFS+ doesn't eliminate all fragmentation, but it is designed to try to reduce it. Like NTFS and many other modern OSes, it uses an extent-based allocation scheme – where there can be multiple contiguous blocks in one fragment, and where the filesystem will prefer to use smaller numbers of fragments.

https://developercoach.com/file-system-fragmentation/

According to this article, HFS+ will defragment some files on the fly. The files must meet certain constraints:

"The file in question must be less than 20 MB, the system must have booted at least 3 minutes ago, and there must be a minimum of 8 extents, and the file must not have been updated in the last minute, to prevent thrashing."

APFS is optimized for SSDs, and is reportedly much more free and loose with the creation of extents than HFS+ is. With SSDs, there's a relatively small penalty for fragmentation … avoiding rewrite penalties is the name of the game. What APFS is doing may make sense for SSDs, but it is a reason why many people are sticking with HFS+ for HDDs.

 

[Mbruinsma]

The reason not to use APFS on a HDD is known; a quote after Google search (to avoid bad formulations by myself): “The reason APFS is not supported on hard disks is because the copy-on-write scheme that APFS uses causes significant file fragmentation that can severely affect the performance of spinning disks, much more so than a traditional file system. That problem affects all file systems that employ copy-on-write.”

I recommend reading this November 2021 article by Howard Oakley on the subject of data fragmentation: Explainer: defragmentation . Here is a very short excerpt that is most germane. . .

APFS is perfectly usable on hard disks used primarily to store files without repeatedly changing them, such as APFS Time Machine backups and archives.

Recently I upgraded my 2018 Mac Mini from Mojave to Big Sur. I happened to ask for advice from Dave Nanian of SuperDuper fame regarding future backups to my external HDDs. The only thing he told me to do differently was to reformat the backup partition from HFS+ to APFS. We discussed the ramifications of doing this and he was very clear that it was fine to do it.

Personally, I generally take 3 year old Reddit posts with a grain of salt. . . ;-)

Lightandaprayer, first of all Tom and I were getting to talk about the use of a spinning boot drive (HDD), formatted at HFS+ with macOS High Sierra or later. Keeping in mind that Apple pushes the use of APFS forward under those OSes.

So although you point out correctly to an interesting article written by Howard Oakley that APFS does not cause problematic fragmentation on HDDs used for backups and archives. You don’t quote the following sentence of that same article: “But the few users condemned to boot macOS versions requiring APFS from a hard disk will vouch that will never be from choice.”

Mind boggling to me why you left that sentence out and finish your post with the phrase: “Personally, I generally take 3 year old Reddit posts with a grain of salt…” Especially when this Reddit post does not necessarily contradict the statements / findings of Howard Oakley’s article.

 

[Mbruinsma]

Thank you for answering the question.

 

[Mbruinsma]

JPAlbert, it wasn’t my personal quote; I just spotted it @ Google when I wanted to know: why HFS+ is dealing better against disk fragmentation than APFS? I appreciate the recommendation / reminder.

For the rest I join myself with the reply already posted by Tom_N.

 

[The Point and Shoot Pro]

What are the steps to getting Monterey installed on a late 2012. I can get one for 250 ish dollars locally. Also will all apple features work as intended on a "ported" system?

--
Fronterra Photography Tours
One Lens, No Problem
The Point and Shoot Pro

 

[Tom_N]

What are the steps to getting Monterey installed on a late 2012.

The latest version of macOS that runs on a Late 2012 Mac Mini without hacking is Catalina (which is two major versions behind Monterey).

Late 2012 Mac Minis have model IDs Macmini6,1 (2.5 Ghz) or MacMini6.2 (2.3 and 2.6 Ghz). (MacTracker) The MacRumors thread about patching Monterey to run on unsupported Macs shows Macmini6,x with a '++' meaning "Catalina supported system capable of running Monterey with Kepler (Beta 7+) and/or HD4000 patches."

Also will all apple features work as intended on a "ported" system?

The thread says that "Apple and all patch developers are not responsible for any potential damage or loss caused by using pre-release software or unofficial support patches." Use such patches at your own risk.

Some features are not available on Late 2014 Minis and so certainly won't be available on unsupported Late 2012 ones. These include Universal Control (scheduled to come out this spring), and AirPlay support for playing audio or video from another Apple device.

There are also features that are Apple-Silicon-exclusive, like the ability to run some iPhone and iPad apps , or the features mentioned in this article:

https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/25/macos-monterey-here-are-the-features-exclusive-to-m1-macs/

 

[Mbruinsma]

To: The Point and Shoot Pro,

Patches are done at your own risk.

Honestly, what is the risk? You can always wipe the internal drive and install a former official supported OS again, right?

Trying to answer my own question: the only thing that could end up differently, is the ‘Boot ROM Version’ (also called EFI firmware). Once macOS Monterey is installed you will have a newer ‘Boot ROM Version’ on your computer.

When you wipe your internal drive, you wipe the little hidden EFI partition as well (only when you choose ‘Free Space’ (=unformatted)). Problem solved, right? Well… no, and no! First it is not stored in the EFI, but in the PRAM / NVRAM. For normal users like me, impossible to change. Now I have read vaguely something about flashing your SMC (System Management Control) (NVRAM is part of it?!), but you need a real capable technician for doing that. Myself I wonder if you cut off the power, leave the computer for months untouched, would it lose its stored data on that Non-Volatile Random Access Memory? In other words: how long keeps NVRAM its data when there is no power at all?

In case of going back, what would it matter, if the computer has a more recent firmware than the downgraded OS normally would have? If the two OSes are not too far apart in age, most likely the answer is: nothing. But the further apart... who knows.

Example of my own experience: I got macOS 10.15.7 (Catalina) installed on a wiped SSD in fall 2020. Made a Disk Image of that drive and for test purposes I tried to restore that Disk Image on another drive. With Mojave a year before I couldn’t get it to work, but now it just worked as in “the old days” (Yosemite / El Capitan).

In January 2021 I got the first Security Update of Catalina, that changed the firmware and now I could not restore from my former mentioned Disk Image anymore. Oh my goodness. (Really, it starts to restore, does the verification, but just a second before finishing, the system comes with an error code!) (Planned obsolescence; intentional crippled; red flagged at the end! Whatever you wanna call it.) I’m not 100% sure if the new firmware made the change, but my suspicion is high. Wiping the SSD (Free Space) and then reinstalling 10.15.7 again (from the usb-installer) did not help. Nor did this change the firmware.

Anyway the new firmware does not seem to give problems running macOS Yosemite, El Capitan and Sierra. Nor does it hinder restoring when I am using Yosemite, El Capitan or Sierra); it only seems to affect when I am using High Sierra, Mojave and Catalina.

I wrote this down to be aware of the “risk” involved, because I am amazed how many people patch their OS, when using old hardware. But then again I can also boot my computer with Mac OS X Lion without a hiccup.

Finally, if you’re ready to go, I have another link (than Tom_N) for How-to-download-Monterey-on-a-2012-MacBook-Pro (or a Late 2012 Mac Mini respectively): How to install Monterey on a 2012 MacBook Pro .

Tell us about your findings.

-Mark-