Although Apple does not offer discounts on their latest and greatest models, they do discount older models. And they very aggressively sell Apple Certified refurbished hardware:
The reason Apple Services exist is to sell Apple hardware. Putting the kabosh on clones and lower prices on Macs, giving away regular and frequent software upgrades, and limiting the Mac product lines to a few very distinct models, along with offering industry leading services are among the biggest reasons why Steve Jobs was able revive Apple from certain death.
While all you say is true, I canāt see why any of it has to do with allowing bootable clones. I understand that one of the reasons (advantages?) for APFS is data security. However, IMO thatās a different priority for different users. I, for one, would gladly dispense with that if what I got in return was bootable clones, believing that if I caught a virus Iād notice it, but it wouldnāt yet be on my clone, from which I could easily recover. Admittedly a risk, but a risk Iād be willing to take. But I can imagine many others who wouldnāt nor even should want that potentially risky trade-off.
My solution to this would be to let the user decide, and personally set the software accordingly: no, medium, high, or iron-clad-industrial-strength security. Each may have advantages, risks, and trade-offs. Of course, best would be highest security without sacrificing any functionality at all (yes, like the bootable clones so dear to my heart), but maybe thatās not an option.
Bootable backups on Apple Silicon Macs running macOS Big Sur 11.3 and later
Apple has partially resolved the issues between Apple Silicon Mac storage and its ASR replication utility, so weāre now able to offer this functionality within CCC. Note that CCC will not automatically start copying the System volume on your Apple Silicon Mac. If your backup disk does not already have an installation of Big Sur, reselect āMacintosh HDā as the source to your backup task if you would like to create a bootable backup. Or donāt do that. Instead you can continue to maintain a feature-rich, Data Only backup on these Macs, which is our primary recommendation.
CCC still supports making bootable backups on Intel Macs running Big Sur too, that functionality has been available since 5.1.23 released in November.
Prior to upgrading from Catalina last autumn, I did backups using both Superduper and CCC. I was never a Time Machine user. Too clunky. When Big Sur corrupted itself on my daily driver and prevented updating (recommended due to the huge recent security issue), the only option was, I thought, the age-old trusty wipe and restore. Nope! The separate hidden volume for System Files screwed that up, along with Big Surās inability to drill into libraries. There is simply no way to recover when something like this occurs because the OS refuses to let me see anything beyond the equivalent of idiot lights in a Ford Pinto. Far too much is hidden and inaccessible.
After flailing about for days, I finally restored Mojave from a much older backup from when I upgraded to a SSD in July. That got the Macbook running. But recent stuff was still hidden in the bowels of Big Surās inaccessible Data volume on the backup drives.
Loading this weekās backup drives did nothing as the app settings and my Word database, amongst other things that I could not recover via Big Sur were hidden. I eventually recovered them using Windows 10 and an APFS reading utility! Really, Apple? Thatās the only recovery solution? Thatās just wrong,
Before this, I was considering buying a replacement MBPro. And I will: a refurbed top of the line mid 2015 unit for $900, the best ever by all accounts before Appleās laptops jumped the shark in 2016 and got worse since. And I will stick with rock-solid recoverable-from-backup Mojave. Iāll also be able to upgrade the computer as needed, unlike these current everything-soldered monstrosities with extra storage and RAM costing an arm and a leg.
Why did Apple do this? Would Jobs have allowed all this to happen?
Yepā¦it is and CCC has also released an update that does this now that Apple has fixed whatever the issue was with ASR preventing them from happening.
I own both SD and CCC but the only one that gets used is CCC because itās over all a more functional product. SDā¦iās designed to clone entire drives and it does that well but using it as a backup program to backup folders or sync folders on various drives/shared computers is problematic at best (at least it was the last time I used the app) and the author isnāt interested in making that easier (I asked him and he told me he had no interest in anything but the whole disk cloning capability).
You can do folder backups with SD but setting them up is a pain and really hard to get right. CCC on the other handā¦has a much more friendly interface for doing that while not losing the easy to select clone the whole drive optionā¦and as such itās the backbone of my onsite backup schemes. Itās even replaced Time Machine on our laptops because even though TM is supposed to backup to network volumes it doesnāt work worth a darn, fails for no reason, and only uses .dmg files instead of a Finder readable folder structure. CCC OTOH does this wonderfully including mounting and dismounting of the very same share on my iMac that repeatedly and routinely fails.
SD is niceā¦but itās pretty much a one trick pony and thatās fine but it wonāt do as an every day backup program.
Which is exactly why I like SD. I already have a myriad of specialized tools for syncing/backup/versioning of individual files and folders (incl. TM), and I can script and schedule most of those at will. But what I really need is a simple and efficient tool to do entire disk clones at a certain point in time. SD makes that easy and thereās even a usable free tier for those that need no more. Iām thrilled SD 3.5 will soon be out of beta so even Big Sur volumes can be properly cloned (at least as far as Big Sur allows/requires) with one click of a button.
Thereās nothing wrong with SDā¦it is just for me Finder readable backups are far better than any compressed/archived/whatever type of backups and I donāt see much point in using two different tools when one will do both jobs. SD is no betterā¦or worseā¦for setting up a full disk clone than CCC is but the actually usable abilities to sync folders for additional portions of a backup scheme make it a better choice IMOā¦but I can see the attraction of a single minded tool if thatās the way a particular user rolls.
Nothing wrong with either way of doing itā¦different strokes and all that:-)
Apple will definitely not support this in the future:
Back in December I had a conference call with Apple about the reliability and functionality of ASR on macOS and regarding Apple Silicon Macs in particular. They indicated that they were working to resolve the ASR/Apple Fabric issue, but they made it very clear that copying macOS system files was not something that would be supportable in the future. Many of us in the Mac community could see that this was the direction Apple was moving, and now we finally have confirmation.
Chaserā¦
When trying to boot from an external driveā¦ the internal drive has to work, or elseā¦
The lightweight operating system on that volume (āiBootā) evaluates the integrity of the boot assets and authenticates the OS on that external device, then proceeds with the boot process from that external device. What does all of that mean? In theory it means that Apple Silicon Macs cannot boot at all if the internal storage fails. Lacking a Mac whose internal storage I was willing to damage to prove this, I contacted the authoritative experts within Apple in April and they unambiguously confirmed that that is the actual result ā you canāt boot an Apple Silicon Mac if the internal storage has died.
Soā¦ even as someone who likes to have a lot of backups (I currently use Backblaze, Arq, Time Machine, and CCC), I see no point in even trying to make a bootable backup anymore.
This should be especially worrisome to people who only have one Mac, however. Previously, if you woke up and your Mac had ādiedā you had a chance to boot it from a bootable backup. Now you do not. If you rely on your Mac for your livelihood, what would you do if you were without it for 3? 7? 10? days while it had to be shipped off for repairs?
In hindsight, Adamās original article was very much "reading the tea leavesā of what the future was going to hold, even if we didnāt like the message.
As Howard Oakley wrote in January, yes you canāt boot an external volume if the internal flash is completely destroyed. Butā¦
The APFS container required for booting an external volume is one that is not updated very often. Much like the BootROM flash on Intel Macs. If it gets wiped, it can be replaced from another Mac running Configurator 2.
Yes, this will not be possible if the internal flash is completely inoperable, but this is assumed to be a very rare condition. Itās not much different from the flash in your phone - when was the last time you saw it fail (without having been physically damaged)?
Unfortunately, this does seem to be taking a few steps backward. I used to make non-bootable backups using Retrospect. In order to recover, I would reinstall the OS (back then, from an installer DVD), then reinstall Retrospect, then restore my backup over the newly-installed system.
It looks like weāll be going back to the same thing. Which now begs the question: What advantage is there to a disk-clone utility over something that puts files in a database/archive (e.g. Retrospect or even Time Machine) if the backup isnāt bootable?
Retrospect et al means you canāt get to it without Retrospect or whatever and if for whatever reason it isnāt available or the company goes dead or the archive gets ever so slightly corrupted youāre out of luck. Finder readable backups have less likelihood of corruption and you only lose the corrupted file and they can be used as a source for Migration Assistant. These daysā¦as long as you have another bootable drive you can recover but it does mean booting from that drive after macOS updates to update the backup as well.
I remember reading, quite some years ago, probably on TidBits, the words of a clever man (I forget who, can anyone remember?): āThe Mac is an appliance!ā
This is becoming more true than ever before. Once you carry a Mac home from the shop it has become one of the appliances in your house, just like the dishwasher orthe refrigerator. You can do a lot of more interesting things with your Mac than with the refrigerator, but just like the refrigerator you are not going to update or extend it. You buy a new one if you are not satisfied with its capacity (in litres/gallons/centigrades or GB/screen real estate).
So: no more backups/restores of the system, Apple will deliver the system, you just take care of your data.
Maybe we are lucky that there are still independent suppliers of software out there like Microsoft Office, Firefox, Bombich and others.
I love my Mac but I hope that the Mac Universe will not become completely closed so 2024 will not be like 1984
Thatās a very pessimistic attitude. If Apple would ever decide to turn their stuff into actual appliances, with no ability to run any apps other than those provided by Apple, it would doom their products.
Without a robust infrastructure of third-party applications, people will immediately flock to a platform that has such an infrastructure, be that Windows, Android, Linux or anything else.
The days of computers that can only run manufacturer-supplied apps went away in the 60ās. And the days of phones that can only run manufacturer-supplied apps went away in 2008 (when Apple created the iOS App Store). Very few consumers will ever be willing to go back to that world.
Well, this reared its head this week. An unusually long startup on my main iMac prompted a Disk Utility drive check which reported an issue it couldnāt fix. All online advice on the issue said backup, wipe, test and reinstall.
So I used my regular utility, Chronosync, which has a kinda workaround bootable clone option. As long as your target drive has Big Sur installed on it and as long as that version matches your Macs version, you can clone the Data section of your internal APFS drive to the Data section of the external APFS drive.
And actually, itās not so bad or cumbersome as I initially thought. Installing the OS direct from the installer as opposed to cloning it feels more reliable for a start. If thereās a mismatch between the OSās, ie if you update your Mac but not the drive, Chronosync will pop up an error message, prompting you to boot from your backup and update. Which is, as they point out, a good thing to check. So thatās now a scheduled backup in Chronosync from here on.
Anyway, it all went smoothly. The speed of the external SSD off the Thunderbolt port was pretty good, I might explore getting a larger one than the 1Tb internal drive I have.
Iāve been holding out updating my 2020 Intel MBAir from Catalina to Big Sur mostly because of the no bootable clones issue. Iām a long-time SuperDuper fan, and yesterday, after I read Dave Nanianās most recent blog post (https://www.shirt-pocket.com/blog/), and despite the fact that I almost always stay away from betas, I DLād SD v. 3.5 B3, and updated to BS. First of all, I was quite relieved to find that all my software (except for Kensigtonās TrackballWorks; no big deal) works fine with BS; big relief!
I then made a completely new clone with SD (āerase, then copyā, not āsmart copyā) on an external SSD. Crossing my fingers, I restarted, booting into the clone. IT WORKED FINE, WITHOUT A HITCH, JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS HAS!!! And I was able to reboot into my Macās drive again, also without even a hiccup.
So: Bootable clones of BS can be made, at least on Intel Macs.
The main issue with bootable backups and BS was related to M1 Macs. Intel Macs donāt need internal storage working to get to things like boot loader or recovery (they have that on firmware soldered to the board). M1 Macs do (there is a container on the internal SSD that holds things like 1TR). That is the root of the issue. Howard Oakley has lots of interesting articles on the topic. Hereās a recent one summarizing where we stand as of right now.
The BootROM firmware on Intel Macs is on flash storage, but itās separate from the systemās SSD so data only gets written to it when there are firmware updates, which happens very infrequently. So thereās very little chance of ever hitting its write limit, although a power surge or other physical damage can still trash it.
The M1 uses a special APFS container on the SSD for its equivalent of the BootROM code. Whether it will remain usable once the SSD hits its write limit is a very interesting question that I donāt think anybody (at least anybody outside of Appleās hardware engineering team) can answer.
It appears to me the time for technical handwringing is over, and there needs to be action either on the part of Apple, the Apple user base, or both. I for one cannot accept this limitation as it is, and require a machine that will boot in the event of a complete storage failure. Apple has created a boot mechanism that is fundamentally broken from a right to repair perspective. Does anyone have any suggestions on wording for a petition to attempt to press Apple in to doing the right thing here? Any other petitions out there yet? This new boot limitation on M1 Macs can not be left to stand. Many users will be leaving the platform, I suspect, if it remains unchanged. Which - given the increased effort Iāve had to spend to maintain my small fleet of home Macs over the years, would suit me just fine. But for many users, they are ālocked inā to the Apple ecosystem. We need to fight for them.
Iām with Howard on this one. The writing is on the wall. Bootable clones are on their way out. Apple has a few good arguments for doing things the way they are doing on M1. Thereās certainly downsides too (and yes, I personally will also miss bootable clones), but itās hard to argue they must reverse course. My money is on this being one of those things we one day will look back on with a fond memory, like the programmerās key.
tidbits (no pun intendedā¦well, maybe a little):