Eh?
OSX has IMHO always been better at finding Windows Shares than er, um, Windows itself....
Maybe this just makes it better?
I was looking through the documentation for Mavericks - the next major Mac OS X release - to find out more about the tags and other extra metadata we'll soon be able to add to our files. The feature was mentioned during the keynote at last week's Apple Worldwide Developer Conference in California. It made me wonder whether …
Serious question...
Please tell me how! All of my Windows machines can see all my of Windows network shares. Including the file server where everything is stored (this one is important!).
The Apple machine... Occasionally sees the media machine or the file server, but nothing else and only infrequently at that :(
Whatever about finding them, MacOS X performance on SMB shares is appalling, and has been for a while. About 3x slower than AFP. I remember this performance used to be better, so it's interesting to learn why it has happened.
As for the author preferring NFS, it really doesn't work for a fileshare, on MacOS at least: when you write a file to the remote store, your numeric UID is what gets applied to the remote filesystem's inode, which makes the file unreadable by anyone else unless their UID magically happens to be the same as yours. At the time there was no way to fix this (it's a client issue), so it was straight to AFP (for performance reasons outlined above).
I second this!! my nice rack Qnap array is seen by everything in network neighbourhood, on all the windows boxes, but getting it to showup in the OSX server is a sod... and if it does show, odds are its not browseable... command K works mostly but it would be nice if it behaved as easily (and consistently) as on the windows machines...
but then... this is a windows AD/Mac OD combined network, unlike Eadons pure Soul -> Mac existence...
I had a QNap box that stopped speaking to my Macs after Mountain Lion was released. Apple apparently messed about with AFP and Qnap has been slow in catching up with the changes. I then had problems getting consistent smb mappings with QNAP.
Moved to Synology for my NAS and have had no problems with SMB mappings at all using the Macs.
Up until I bought the Synology box, I always found it a nightmare to do any home network sharing.
I ended up buying Apple because I got tired of having to rebuild my wintel machines every six months or so. It was taking up some valuable life credit units. Although all is not sunny with OS X, I'm still a fan (not a fanboi, though.)
Out of curiosity I noticed that the spend on new hardware for the marketing department was higher than the IT department, turns out in marketing they all need their monitors to be bigger then everyone else’s, white and have pictures of fruit on the back, because, you know, they update twitter better…
This post has been deleted by its author
Oh, I’m sorry, what colour are they? “off-white-shiny?” “lightning-white?” “Gloss-light-silver-cream?” whatever, they are not matt black.
Is that a typical response from an apple lover, so obsessed with their ‘shiny’ they get pissed off when people get the colour wrong they resort to swearing, while ignoring the point?
They are unnecessary overpriced bits of kit for the job, adding an extra support function as the guys in desktop now need to double up and make sure everything also works on Macs.
Also I’m pretty sure that should read – “at least get your facts fucking straight”, unless of course you were referring to my facts about fucking?
If you are going to use unnecessarily course language in your butt-hurt fan-boi response at least use it correctly…
This post has been deleted by its author
Erm, it's made of aluminium, so aluminium? Overpriced? Apple's 27" ThunderBolt display isn't even the most expensive in it's class. NEC, HP, and LG all have SKU's that are more expensive. Or are you commenting on Macs in general? Unnecessary? Depends on what you do with it. If you are going to troll, have the decency to be correct *while* you troll.
"Out of curiosity I noticed that the spend on new hardware for the marketing department was higher than the IT department, turns out in marketing they all need their monitors to be bigger then everyone else’s, white and have pictures of fruit on the back, because, you know, they update twitter better…"
Mmmmm... yes... Because we all know that Adobe will give away new copies for free of their $2000 software suites (...more if you do both document AND video work...) if a customer switches computing platforms. I hope that you're in accounting or something, because any of the IT people at MY workplace would factor in the cost of replacing software AS WELL as hardware when talking about switching platforms.
Besides -- why does IT need faster computers...? As long as you've got an OS and a basic word processor you can write code. Job done. (NB: I'm being sarcastic here. The difference between us is that, unlike yours, MY sarcasm actually has some small basis in fact.)
Your (apparent) argument that marketing people don't do "real" work, needing real computers that run real software that costs real money to replace is, at best, ignorance or, at worst, intentional trolling.
This post has been deleted by its author
1st, Thank you for backing up the point I was making, to be honest I had not factored in the software, It was a blasé comment on something I had noticed, yet I had not invested much thought into it.
I saw two types of new hardware coming into the floor of the office I work in over a couple of days, a load of same make Matt black laptops to replace our old ones, as we have that makes dock stations (you know, that way we save money) and a case load of shiny new Macs to the marketing team, personally I don’t work in purchasing or have anything to do with the installation, let alone budget so I was only aware ‘we’ were getting new laptops.
2nd point, IT doesn’t need faster computers, IT needs newer computers, don’t tell me your office is full of pristine BBC Micros?
3rd Point, I didn’t say marketing doesn’t do ‘real’ work, the attempt at humour, which it seems most people understood, is they don’t need huge shiny new Mac’s to do their work, if they do, I have to wonder what they have been doing the last few years when they were using the same basic build as everyone else, or did I miss something and Adobe no longer works on Windows?
4th point, who said I was being sarcastic?
The change to SMB/CIFS was already well documented elsewhere.
I also fail to see how the change in the preferred network filesystem stack implies that AFS is less secure than SMB2. I think your headline is deliberately provocative and the article does not back up your claim.
"SMB2 is the new default protocol for sharing files in OS X Mavericks. SMB2 is superfast, increases security, and improves Windows compatibility."
Finally! Incredibly it's still a ball ache to connect Mac OS X up to various Windows and Linux VMs, this will be a very good step in the correct direction. This has only taken them about 12 years since the OS release...
Great news, our 250+ Macs are bound to AD and work 'perfectly' in that respect, but we have had to retain Mac OS X Server-hosted AFP-shared Home Directories due to poor application compatibly when using SMB Windows 2003/2008R2/2012-hosted Homes (Even iPhoto doesn't work).
While Windows Server 2012 works well enough to seriously consider a move to unified Home Directories regardless of client platform, there are a few niggles which I hope Maverick will address.
Mac OS hasn't used resource forks for what 10 years...apart from on SMB shares, so hopefully that can be addressed somehow. It is also interesting that things like the file versioning feature - Versions are not currently supported on Windows Shares (probably due to volume format) so if they address all this I will be pleased.
Stops it for .DS_Store files on network drives but you still get .AppleDouble directories. Removable storage still gets .DS_Store and ._* splattered everywhere.
Only if you have a limited Microsoft filesystem on your removable media. Put a MacOS filesystem on your media and it will behave as Steve Jobs intended.
You mean Apple turns to Free Software, not Microsoft, when they want speed and security. I'm nearly certain that it's the Free Software SMB2 implementation called Samba, not Microsoft's proprietary implementation, that they'll be using.
Apple has a long history of using Free Software components for all the bits that were too tricky or expensive to reimplement yet another time in proprietary fashion.
Actually, it's highly likely Apple is using MSFTs code under license given that they released their own implementation a few years ago.
Otherwise, building your own SMB implementation from scratch would be a nightmare (as the SAMBA team found out early on...).
Which would also explain why they are favoring SMB over NFS or AFP. After all, they already have a license and a dev team dedicated to it.
Now if shares would just auto-remount after my Mac goes to sleep, it would be perfect.... (yes, I know all the ways this is supposed to work, but they just don't...)