XYMer's Home away from Home

When http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com is down (i.e. always)
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:47 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9511
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
You don't have to get an SSD from OWC, any SSD will do so long as you're running a reasonably current OS. Older OSes you have to do some trickery but 10.10.4 and up just use the trimforce command from Terminal and you're on your way.

As far as mounting, you do need an adapter, since the drive carriers are 3.5", the SSD is 2.5", and the drive's SATA connector needs to be located precisely where a HD connector's would be. I've seen third party adapters that basically sit in-line with the SSD, so the adapter's connector plugs into the motherboard, then the adapter plugs into the drive, basically a small circuit board connecting the two points together. Seems like a lot could go wrong with that method, having it directly plug into the board ala OWC is a better option. They only charge $17.75 for it, at that point why not.

SSDs are currently supply constrained and have been going up in price since last year, but supposedly some time next year all the factories will be converted to the newer types of NAND and prices will start falling again. Six months ago you could get a 512GB drive for around $140, now they're usually around $180...

I really should have bought 1TB when they were around $200, but, nah, they'll just keep falling in price, I'll pick one up later... :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 838
roam wrote:
Good recovery, Señor el paz.
On SSDs, MB is most knowledgeable. Personally I think they are a little overpriced but I don't doubt their speed.


@roam:

Thanks for your reply, again, there didn't seem to be a notification on your "congrats senor el paz" post . . . . Was still wondering on the feedback on "trays n tools" for SSD installation . . . but, until recently I was thinking the same thing on SSD, but, it's just for sh*ts n giggles to explore the phenom of what the SSD provides . . . .

I wasn't too much of a "speed freak" as I was generally "OK" with the PPC 1.2 GHz with maxed out 2 GB RAM . . . but, with the Xenon processor and the raging 16 GB of RAM . . . mixed in with OpenSUSE Tumbleweed 4.12 kernel . . . I started to get an idea of what the fuss for computer speed is all about . . . . Might be amusing to add an SSD into the mix for it????

No rush on it, I think my MBPro HD is found to be "old" or some aspects tested "pre-fail" as my older PPC units, I would go for an SSD to get a bit more boost from the C2D processor, etc . . . keeping that computer going as the daily schlepper is higher priority than getting the MP to be "faster" . . . but, it's all "games" . . . . :whip:

e.e.p.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9511
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
If you want a reasonably decent speed boost, you could replace the HD with a current unit. Seagate's 3.5" 1TB and 2TB SSHD units have been reliable for me - 7200rpm plus a little SSD to speed booting. Though if you're switching OSes all the time the SSD won't do much.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 838
MonkeyBoy wrote:
If you want a reasonably decent speed boost, you could replace the HD with a current unit. Seagate's 3.5" 1TB and 2TB SSHD units have been reliable for me - 7200rpm plus a little SSD to speed booting. Though if you're switching OSes all the time the SSD won't do much.


@MB:

So, trying to get the message . . . bang for the buck, a Seagate 7200 rpm HD would be a better value of an upgrade, depending on the speed of the 1 TB HD that is installed there now . . . but then you say, "plus a little SSD to speed booting" . . . which I wasn't thinking of going huge on the SSD, maybe cutting it for OSX, and some space for linux filesystem, and then put the /home folder in the HD . . . . I think it's a little harder to do that with OSX on the install, but similarly additional folders could be made in the HD . . . I get that part.

But, what do you mean, "If you are switching OSs the SSD won't do much . . ." ???? I do like "variety" but I'm not jumping from OS to OS every five minutes, I tend to run one for a day or so, then whenever I shut it down for a day or so, on reboot I might switch the OS . . . the SSD component only gives a faster boot time, and after that . . . you are saying "it's not worth it"??

Obviously if I'm better off trying another HD that might be faster than the 1TB HD that came with the MPro . . . if I can't resist the SSD choice, any thoughts on the "tools and tray"?? We need the tray . . . and then if we have some screwdrivers that's all the "special tools" that are needed to get the SSD into the tray and loaded/installed in the '12 MPro???

e.e.p.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9511
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
An SSHD is an SSD plus an HD, all in one unit. Think of it as a HD that includes a flash drive, and over the normal course of events it makes a copy of the blocks accessed during boot to the flash drive. They're minimally more expensive than a normal 7200rpm HD, and definitely do speed up booting. But if you flip-flop OSes on the same drive that won't help, since different OSes access different blocks so it'd be perpetually trying to optimize the boot for different OSes. Of course if you used one HD per OS then that wouldn't come into play, because then it'd only be trying to optimize the OS that's on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 838
MonkeyBoy wrote:
An SSHD is an SSD plus an HD, all in one unit. Think of it as a HD that includes a flash drive, and over the normal course of events it makes a copy of the blocks accessed during boot to the flash drive. They're minimally more expensive than a normal 7200rpm HD, and definitely do speed up booting. But if you flip-flop OSes on the same drive that won't help, since different OSes access different blocks so it'd be perpetually trying to optimize the boot for different OSes. Of course if you used one HD per OS then that wouldn't come into play, because then it'd only be trying to optimize the OS that's on it.


@MB:

OK, I did see the "SSHD" and figured it would be something different . . . a "hybrid" or what does Mac call them "fusion drive"??? So I get that going that hybrid direction won't do much for me and my need for "more than just one" OS . . . but, that hasn't necessarily deterred me from going for a straight SSD, which the system will be able to "add" that into its boot options; which boot time isn't entirely a problem . . . and I would only have two, or maybe three OSs to choose from, so it would only need to figure out a few "optimizations" . . . . But, just for generally "good times" blasting around on the internet is what the choice for an SSD would be for in the MP . . . . On the laptop with the C2D cpu, there boot time is somewhat of a factor, that would probably go SSD when and if the HD "passes."

But, since I posted my previous post I tried to check to see what HD I now have in the MP, looking in "System Report" shows my "storage" and how I have the 1 TB cut up in the areas that OSX can "see" . . . not acknowledging the non-OSX partitions, etc . . . but it doesn't show me any "facts" such as is this a 5200 rpm unit or is it a 7200 rpm?? I kind of rifled around through the various options . . . that may show up in OpenSUSE Yast . . . but, since I got this computer used I don't know if this HD is "stock" or aftermarket . . . any way to check the HD stats via console or another GUI app . . . other than, popping the side panel and physically looking at the HD? It's not that I'm complaining about the speed of this computer, and possibly going to a "fast" HD might give me "more for less" . . . possibly this HD is "a fast one" . . . not sure from your post whether there is such an animal as a Seagate 7200rpm HD . . . or the 7200 is only for the hybrid?

If I would abandon the "I have to have an SSD" in the desktop idea, then I would just be looking for an "internal back-up" disk, which might be cheaper than buying an external HD set-up . . . and then "space" would be more "spacious" for less money; could be the "smarter" decision for the multi-slotted HD computer . . . whereas in laptop-land there aren't as many choices for running HDs all over the place like in this computer . . . this one I can still add three HD/SSD/SSHD's . . . .

[Edit: I looked around on OWC's "used Mac Pro" choices and I see that many of the 2012 units have a "1TB 7200rpm HDD" so that is likely what I also have . . . another one showed a few choices for "Mercury Extreme Pro 6G SSD" of various capacities."]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9511
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
A fusion drive is a HD and an SSD combined by software into a single logical device. They're two different drives that the OS treats as a single logical device, but at a certain level the storage subsystem still sees two devices.

An SSHD is a single device, not two. The system never sees them as different devices, the drive itself manages everything. For a time WD made a drive that was an SSD and an HD in one 3.5" HH bay connected via a port multiplier, so the system saw the two drives on one port, but it had issues since not every system liked the port multiplier. And you had to install software to use it. And WD was kind of iffy about keeping it updated. Compared to that an SSHD is a lot less complicated and simplistic.

Keep in mind the age of the HD is also a determining factor, not just 5400rpm vs. 7200rpm. I have a 120GB 7200rpm drive in a system at home (its an old system in my storage room, not one that sees regular use), it's not going to be anywhere as fast as your 7200rpm 1TB, and similarly a newer 7200rpm 1TB drive will be faster than yours. All things being equal, the more densely the data is packed the higher the transfer rate should be. Your 2012 drive probably has four platters in it, while the 1TB drives I bought for systems at work a couple years ago are skinny little things with only 1 platter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 838
@MB:

Thanks for the details . . . "more platters" sounds more better . . . . So the "take home" message is that I don't need to know about the SSD "tray & tools" that are offered by OWC along with their SSDs, because I won't be able to take advantage of the SSD's potential "speed" if I try to multi-boot on it??? so there is no point or benefit to adding a SSD or a SSHD since I would probably cut it up into partitions of all types of OS . . . ????

And, it would be a better value if I want to partition a drive to get a newer 1TB let's say, Seagate 3.5" HDD which will just snap into one of the HD slots . . . sans "tray" and sans any "tools"???? Possibly will give longer life than a SSD and would be faster than the 2012 understanding of HD technology??? :coffee: :classic-eek: :emphatic-eek: :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9511
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
All things being equal, more platters is better. But they're not equal in this case. 4 platters for 1TB is a quarter the density of 1 platter for 1TB. Eight heads have to be seeked and aligned versus two.

Your 2012 should have come with four drive trays for 3.5" HDs. One had a drive in it, the other three are empty. You just shut down, screw a new drive into an empty tray and voila, you have another drive available.

The reason you need a tray from OWC for an SSD is because the SSD is 2.5". For 3.5" you just use the existing trays.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 838
@MB:

Thanks for the follow-up . . . so I would "need" the tray if I was going to go for the SSD option . . . . I'll try to post back whenever I pull the trigger on another drive of some type . . . .

e.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 838
MonkeyBoy wrote:
You don't have to get an SSD from OWC, any SSD will do so long as you're running a reasonably current OS. Older OSes you have to do some trickery but 10.10.4 and up just use the trimforce command from Terminal and you're on your way.

As far as mounting, you do need an adapter, since the drive carriers are 3.5", the SSD is 2.5", and the drive's SATA connector needs to be located precisely where a HD connector's would be. I've seen third party adapters that basically sit in-line with the SSD, so the adapter's connector plugs into the motherboard, then the adapter plugs into the drive, basically a small circuit board connecting the two points together. Seems like a lot could go wrong with that method, having it directly plug into the board ala OWC is a better option. They only charge $17.75 for it, at that point why not.

SSDs are currently supply constrained and have been going up in price since last year, but supposedly some time next year all the factories will be converted to the newer types of NAND and prices will start falling again. Six months ago you could get a 512GB drive for around $140, now they're usually around $180...

I really should have bought 1TB when they were around $200, but, nah, they'll just keep falling in price, I'll pick one up later... :roll:


@MB:

Seems like I also missed this post as well, the notifications seem to be intermittent . . . anyway, thanks for posting that reply . . . . That's the first I'm hearing about needing a terminal command "trimforce" to format a drive?? rather than DU in OSX??

I'm thinking now that the MBP might get the SSD, but for the home desktop unit, seems like the Seagate 1TB SATA3 HD is roughly $65 or so through various suppliers, and might be a better way to go as far as bang for the buck, huge storage, plenty of room for slicing and dicing for various back-ups . . . . I'm thinking that my '12 MP is NOT SATA3, but that the HD would be "backwards compatible" to whatever it is?? SATA 1 or 2???

Does this product look like it would be plug n play? Seagate 1TB SATA 3.0 Desktop 3.5-Inch Internal Hard Drive (ST310005N1A1AS) Or should I be looking for the exact spec that the MP is built with, SATA x?? rather than the SATA3?

e.e.p.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9511
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Your 2012 MBP is 6Gb SATA. The 2012 MP... I think it's 6Gb SATA too. The motherboard in '09 to '12 are the same, the difference is firmware & CPUs (well, GPUs, RAM, and OEM drives too). I know 2008 MBPs have 6Gb SATA. 6Gb SATA has been around for a LONG time, I would kind of be surprised if a workstation class system from '09 didn't have it. The drive should seamlessly fall back to 3Gb SATA, its when you need to fall back to versions older than 3Gb that you have... problems...

Here's a 1TB HDD from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LNJBA2I/

And a 1TB SSHD:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IEKG484/

To be honest, Squishy Tia knows a lot more about MPs than I do. To me they're just PCs. And I mean that in a good way.

Speaking of which, I tucked my old GT 740 into a 2010 MP, installed NVidia's 10.12.6 drivers, and everything is snappier. My plan is to get a GTX 1050, tuck it into a single tower, and if it goes well grab 9 more... It would give us a nice buffer of old MP GPUs for the other MPs strew around here and there, and the video editing/rendering lab can certainly use the GPU acceleration. It is a little disconcerting to not see any video until OS X loads... can't get rid of the old cards in case something goes wrong...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 838
MonkeyBoy wrote:
Your 2012 MBP is 6Gb SATA. The 2012 MP... I think it's 6Gb SATA too. The motherboard in '09 to '12 are the same, the difference is firmware & CPUs (well, GPUs, RAM, and OEM drives too). I know 2008 MBPs have 6Gb SATA. 6Gb SATA has been around for a LONG time, I would kind of be surprised if a workstation class system from '09 didn't have it. The drive should seamlessly fall back to 3Gb SATA, its when you need to fall back to versions older than 3Gb that you have... problems...
Here's a 1TB HDD from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LNJBA2I/
And a 1TB SSHD:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IEKG484/
To be honest, Squishy Tia knows a lot more about MPs than I do. To me they're just PCs. And I mean that in a good way.
Speaking of which, I tucked my old GT 740 into a 2010 MP, installed NVidia's 10.12.6 drivers, and everything is snappier. My plan is to get a GTX 1050, tuck it into a single tower, and if it goes well grab 9 more... It would give us a nice buffer of old MP GPUs for the other MPs strew around here and there, and the video editing/rendering lab can certainly use the GPU acceleration. It is a little disconcerting to not see any video until OS X loads... can't get rid of the old cards in case something goes wrong...


@MB:

Thanks for the link to the Amazon HD, that's ten bucks cheaper than the one I found on Staples website through the Seagate web site . . . they have slightly different part numbers . . . I'll have to check the difference in a bit . . . but, that would make it very affordable to add HDs . . . the MP I have is the '12, the MBPro is '09 sold new in '10 . . . . So far the MBPro HD is showing "OK . . . .

I'm a "belt & suspenders" guy, and I used to have two ext HD back-ups, but, one died awhile back so I could be expecting the second one to go out at some point . . . seems easier/cheaper to add int HDs to the MP . . . call it an "elegant PC" or what have you . . . .

e..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 838
et al:

So I looked over the choices of HD suggested by MB and compared a few choices on the OWC suggested list, and within the few options that were in that $49.99 range the features were fairly comparable, but the Staples choice I found only had 32MB cache v 64 for the Barracuda, and then it appears that the Barracuda uses way less electricity when "idle" . . . so I went with the suggestion from MB and pulled the trigger . . . "free shipping" puts it several days away.

In the meanwhile, a couple of questions come to mind, if I want the "newer, fresher, faster" HD to be the default boot option, still planning on doing the multi-boot set up, etc . . . do I need to put that drive in the number one slot, where I assume the "older" HD is now residing? Moving the existing drive from one to let's say two, and then using OSX DU from #2 to format the drive into pieces of itself??

Or, do I need to keep the old drive in number one slot . . . format the new drive . . . and then either move them to new for number one, and older for number two?

I haven't done the multiple drives in one computer before, and then I have the mix of various OSX installs, with the GRUB booted choices of various versions of OpenSUSE . . . and then a new HD . . . with variations of the same thing, might keep it more simple, the **new** OSX 10.13 High Sierra formatted as HFS+ up front, and then later in the HD a Tumbleweed . . . with something I haven't tried, a Geckolinux MATE "rolling" edition . . . based on TW, sort of like Ubuntu is to Debian I believe.

Right now if I want OSX options I use the alt key on boot, and if I want OpenSUSE I just boot and the GRUB window opens and gives me the list of choices . . . so TW is the "default" boot if I just hit the power button and stand back . . . . I'm imagining it might be a tad "different" with two HD's?? Or mobo "sees all, tells all" . . . no worries, mate; they all get added into the list in a fluid fashion?? :fishsmack: :coffee: :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9511
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
I would put the new drive in a new slot. Then copy whatever OS you use the most onto the new drive. Once you're sure it works you can remove it from the old drive and reassign the space. Note that if we're talking OS X, it won't "expand" partitions "up" in disk utility, only "down." So if you copy the first partition on the disk, then delete it, you wouldn't be able to expand partition 2 (assuming its located after 1) down into that space. Your best option is to erase the first partition, clone the second onto it, delete the second, then expand the first to encompass all the space. Kind of pointless busy work.

Obviously I don't know how much work it would be to put Linux onto the 2nd disk, I assume it'd need its own GRUB and whatnot like it was a fresh installation on a new system. In ye olden PC days you would always install the bootloader onto the first device in the system, because it could only boot off that device. Then from there it would springboard to boot off additional devices or a partition on the first device. In the brave new world you can select any device to boot from, so the bootloader should live on the drive you're booting from. Mac hardware & OS X is all EFI booting which is the second way of doing things.

I haven't tried this in the new 10.11+ version of Disk Utility so it might be a little different... In the new disk utility when you create 3 partitions it creates partition 1 to encompass the whole disk, then shrinks it, creates partition 2 in the space it just shrunk away from, shrinks 2, then creates partition 3 in the last bit of space. It takes FOREVER to setup a disk from scratch this way. And good luck setting up multiple disks with the same partition structure, every time it shrinks it never goes to the same size, so setting up two disks from scratch w/same instructions yields two disks with different size partitions on each.

I... really don't like the new Disk Utility... and it also can't perform any image operations from the recovery partition or bootable installation media environment. Only way is to resort to Terminal and so far I've just sidestepped it by just using 10.10 media or recovery partitions. Reinventing the wheel just to reinvent the wheel isn't a good thing, Apple...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 838
@MB:

Thanks for the details, appreciate that, yes, I am aware of the issues with partitioning in OSX, not being able to move the "top line" of a partition, only the bottom. And even the problems of the newer DU, compared to the old . . . I've run into all of those problems . . . . I have 10.9 installed in the first partition, which I think is more clear; I think for one mission though that the 10.9 DU wouldn't do something I needed to do, then I had to use the "pie chart DU" of 10.12 . . . which put a partition in a wacky place . . . .

Anyway, when you say "copy the system into the partition" . . . are you meaning something like right-clicking and picking "copy" for the the drop down menu? I saw some mention of something like this from a poster on the Lubuntu Users listserve where they "copied" the home folder from one system into an install on another HD in the computer . . . "very fast" they said.

Or, do you mean to clone the system into the partition as "copying"??? Traditionally for adding OSX into partitions I have used CCC to move an extant system into a drive, but possibly for the new drive the OSX possibly would be "fresh"?? Although I'm not sure whether OSX lets that happen, it can only upgrade from an existing install, at minimum a ML install or cloned version of 10.12 and then upgrade from there to 10.13 . . . .

And, yes, Linux is a special case . . . I'm used to doing fresh installs of linux, in my sleep . . . possibly it could be done with "dd" . . . but I don't know what I'm doing with "dd" to know enough that the data will go where it's supposed to . . . . But, that could be where indeed the right-click on a "home" folder might "copy" that over into a new linux install . . . .

Thnx,

e.e.p.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 8:13 pm
Posts: 9511
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
I meant cloning, not just a simple Finder copy. You're copying data from one partition to another, just not using Finder to do it. To move a bootable OS X installation format the new disk HFS+ with GPT/GUID partitioning then use CCC or SuperDuper to copy OS X from one to the other. For Linux the steps are different depending on what flavor of Linux you're running. Moving /home/ or another folder with special partitions isn't quite as simple because you need to keep the special permissions on the folder and subfolders intact, copy the symlinks as symlinks and not their target files, etc. dd is usually how I do it but I'm always going up to larger partitions. When you move to a smaller partition you have to resort to other methods, which escape me because I never do it that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 838
Thanks, that's what I thought, just was confirming . . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 838
Thought I had posted back on this HD addition to the family, but seems not. So I did pull the trigger on the Seagate Barracuda, and followed MB's instructions, seems like the PO or mac of trades shorted me on one of the 4 HD trays, as there was only 3 of them, and the numbers weren't sequential . . . but I put the new drive in slot 4 . . . as I am using an "old" version of CCC it wouldn't "clone" my 10.12 system over into the new drive, so I ran a fresh install of .12 and then used migration assistant to move **everything** over, and it did a seemingly good job, set up the admin and user accounts that I had, etc . . . .

And, it booted up and all was well . . . since then I've added an OpenSUSE Tumbleweed partition, and a Gecko MATE "rolling" partition . . . . Next stop, once I get a faster internet connection, month, or more . . . I'll try for the 10.13 download and install in second partition . . . . And, then I'll need to erase the 10.12 system partition in the old HD so that Time Machine can use that as the "back-up" partition, rather than trying to move the whole system back into whence it came; and, then I can also erase the TW GNOME partition on the old drive and try to "meld" it back into one of the larger empty partitions . . . . Other things to do right now, but, it is "fun" to have lots of options . . . GRUB even picked up the old linux systems without having to ask it to . . . . I can range from 10.9 to 10.12, and various OpenSUSE flavors to choose from . . . today it is Gecko "rolling" MATE . . . .

Thanks again for the pointers.

e.e.p.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group