MacInTouch Amazon link...

macOS 10.14 Mojave

Channels
Apple
I've been experimenting with the Mojave beta preview on an external "test SSD". Up until a few days ago, I was able to load the developer preview releases 1, 2, 3 and 4 without problems. But then (after developer preview 5 was released), the Software Update preference pane will no longer "find" new software to download. ... Any ideas on how to "jump start" Software Update into working again?
When there seem to be glitches in finding Apple updates, I use LockRattler from Howard Oakley (The Eclectic Light Company).
 


It took about 4 tries, 1 manual reinstall and 4 automatic reboots before Beta 6, Build 18A353d, got installed. Then I found that all printing had been disabled.

My HP LaserJet printer could not print nor could my Canon MG772 all-in-one printer. Both gave me this warning:
Stopped - Unable to startup session, error = -10.

I could scan with the Canon, just not print.

There are many reporting the same error message at the Beta user forum.
 


It took about 4 tries, 1 manual reinstall and 4 automatic reboots before Beta 6, Build 18A353d, got installed. Then I found that all printing had been disabled. My HP LaserJet printer could not print nor could my Canon MG772 all-in-one printer. Both gave me this warning:
Stopped - Unable to startup session, error = -10.
I could scan with the Canon, just not print. There are many reporting the same error message at the Beta user forum.
Although I have had no problems updating Mojave betas, I had not tested printing on Beta 6 until reading this thread. Result of testing,
Stopped ... error = -10

This is on a Samsung M3322 using either Ethernet or AirPrint. Production systems with 10.13.6 and older continue to print properly to this printer.

Can anyone decode that error number?
 


Both of my HP LaserJet printers worked fine. But I hadn't printed with Mojave up until a few minutes ago, so they were installed from scratch. (This was with yesterday's beta.)
 


Although I have had no problems updating Mojave betas, I had not tested printing on Beta 6 until reading this thread. Result of testing,
Stopped ... error = -10
This is on a Samsung M3322 using either Ethernet or AirPrint. Production systems with 10.13.6 and older continue to print properly to this printer. Can anyone decode that error number?
So I'm going to throw a completely unresearched, long shot out: In Activity Monitor, get the PID (process ID) of the cupsd process, then, in Terminal, kill that process with the command:

sudo killall -9 nnnn

(where nnnn is the cupsd PID)

cupsd will respawn with a new PID. Check whether printing then works.

I don't have a neat packaged explanation, nor do I have or use Mojave yet. I have had the most persistent, annoying problem with printing after a restart or (sometimes) upon changing network environments. Had the problem for a couple years, across major OS upgrades and other changes. This was the only procedure that worked. I hope it helps someone.
 


The release notes for the current beta state:
Apple said:
Printing
New Issues
• Users may be unable to print. (42727628)
I wouldn't waste too much time trying to resolve it - it sounds like something is currently broken.
 




A quick note for anyone use BT client Vuze ... 18A377a breaks it ... and freezes my MacBook Pro requiring a hard reset. Running in Safe mode makes no difference. It worked in 18A371a.
 




Two posts about Mojave & AppleEvents. They get technical.

Shirt Pocket Software said:
macOS Mojave: Opening New Vistas in Security for Mac Users
... But in some ways, it [Mojave] takes an iOS "sandbox" approach to the task, and that makes things worse, not only for "traditional" users who use the Mac as a Mac (as opposed to a faster iPad-with-a-keyboard), but for regular applications as well.
Felix Schwarz said:
macOS Mojave gets new APIs around AppleEvent sandboxing – but AEpocalyse still looms
... No support for whitelisting apps also means there's no fallback for legacy apps that - for any reason - don't work well, or at all, with AppleEvent sandboxing.

The lack of documentation around AppleEvent sandboxing means developers either aren't aware of the changes - or can't know in time how they can prepare their apps for them.
 


More on Mojave and AEpocalyse.
Michael Tsai said:
AEDeterminePermissionToAutomateTarget Added, But AEpocalyse Still Looms
What’s up with the documentation this year? We’re now on beta 9, but Apple hasn’t mentioned this important stuff anywhere but the headers. And there are still no release notes for Foundation, Core Data, and other frameworks besides AppKit.
...
Apple has been talking a good game lately about the Mac and professional users, but actions like this either make it seem like mere talk or point to division within the company. The general idea of AppleEvent sandboxing is not a bad one, but the rollout was botched. Apple did not seem to be aware of how disruptive this would be for developers or how much it will degrade the user experience for customers. That is impossible to square with the idea that it understands and cares about pro users. Or, alternatively, Apple understood this but development was way behind schedule and, for no discernible reason, it decided to rush ahead rather than take the time to get it right for macOS 10.15.
 


Michael Tsai said:
Honestly, I have never seen Apple adding such essential limitations so late in the beta. In this case, in beta 6. Add that to the more or less complete lack of communication about this vast limitation, and you are bound for trouble.

The limited way that Apple seems to offer to developers to tell the users why they want AppleEvent access to an app (only a single text string per application for all AppleEvent-related actions to all possible other applications!) - and the very lame idea from Apple to name this new dialog "xx wants to control yy", will cause all kinds of important features in so many apps to break.

Developers now suddenly need to test every single one of these places in their code and add graceful, defensive code that explains to users, if and why a feature failed in macOS 10.14.

And this all was added so late that it will be impossible to ship stable and good new applications when Apple decides to release the new macOS.

This totally reminds me of the failed introduction of the really badly designed "Sandbox" in Mac OS X 10.7....
 



On another note regarding the Apple Event: a notice on Mojave's upcoming release. Well, I got what must be the Mojave GM yesterday, having been a public beta tester. For my requirements, Mojave is much better at this time than previous releases. Microsoft Office, Quicken 2007(Lion) and the old iStat Pro - all 32-bit apps - work well.
 


On another note regarding the Apple Event: a notice on Mojave's upcoming release. Well, I got what must be the Mojave GM yesterday, having been a public beta tester. For my requirements, Mojave is much better at this time than previous releases. Microsoft Office, Quicken 2007(Lion) and the old iStat Pro - all 32-bit apps - work well.
Likewise ... there is no "beta" attached to the number ... and Vuze, which the betas broke, now works again.
 


On another note regarding the Apple Event: a notice on Mojave's upcoming release. Well, I got what must be the Mojave GM yesterday, having been a public beta tester. For my requirements, Mojave is much better at this time than previous releases. Microsoft Office, Quicken 2007(Lion) and the old iStat Pro - all 32-bit apps - work well.
Well, having stuck with Sierra (as High Sierra is a slug) and not being a developer, I am wondering whether Apple has managed to get Mojave performing as fast as Sierra; or is Mojave just more of what I didn't need in High Sierra? Any comments?
 


So I am still on El Capitan. I had been holding back on updates to keep my other Macs in sync with my old 2009 white MacBook, but it recently died - and with Mojave coming out, I expect there will be no more security updates. I'm wondering which system I should move to now, or if I should wait a bit more to see how Mojave shakes out. I have a 2010 Mini server (booting from an external FireWire 800 SSD) and a 2016 MacBook Air.
 



On another note regarding the Apple Event: a notice on Mojave's upcoming release. Well, I got what must be the Mojave GM yesterday, having been a public beta tester. For my requirements, Mojave is much better at this time than previous releases. Microsoft Office, Quicken 2007(Lion) and the old iStat Pro - all 32-bit apps - work well.
Having been a developer on the Mac platform for over a decade, I can assure you that 'GM', when dealing with Apple software releases, doesn't mean what it used to in the past - in fact several of us developers have a running joke as to what it means these days, most of which aren't suitable for print on MacInTouch; however one of my favourites is "General Malaise", given that it gets unleashed onto the general public.
 


I've had near-zero problems running High Sierra (now 10.13.6) on my laptop (late 2013 MacBook Pro with SSD) or an old 2011 iMac, in which I swapped an SSD for its spinner HD. My experience with that older iMac is that once the SSD was installed, the "Sierras" (including APFS) run just fine.

On the basis of my very positive experience, I plan to jump on the bleeding edge of Mojave, despite the fact that it doesn't seem to have any genuinely useful new features. I'm doing so because Apple claims to be including in Mojave improved performance for "older systems," which would benefit me.

FWIW, I'm actually dreading next year's system update, which will abandon Macs using older graphics cards. It will either force me to buy new hardware or to stall my System software in order to continue using the "ancient" 2011 iMac.
 



I have been running Mojave on my 2016 MacBook Pro for quite a while, using beta copies and now the GM. I am now running it on my 2015 iMac, too. I have had no problems.

I would not run the current version of Mojave, as my experience suggests that Little Snitch, Carbon Copy Cloner, Default Folder, and Drive Genius all need special Mojave versions until updates are completed.

On another note, I print drawing sets in PDF, where loading the PDFs in the same file, like jpegs, is important. The last thing I need is to either manipulate the PDF drawings into a single file or print the drawings one at a time. I have been using Apple Preview 9 to print my drawings as one operation. Preview 9 works in Mojave for this function.
 


While we're on the subject of High Sierra (macOS 10.13), do people here consider it worth using at all?

So the question now is: Does it make any sense to upgrade these three Macs or should I just leave them as they are (maybe upgrading the Mini server to Sierra) until I can replace them with new hardware (probably some time next year, if the family budget allows it)?
For the machines with SSDs, High Sierra is fine, though if you're not having trouble now, I wouldn't be bothered much to upgrade. I honestly can't recall anything special about it.

Mojave will be a different matter. It's actually the first upgrade in a while I'm interested in, but it's also coming with the downside of no more 32-bit compatibility. I've a few occasionally run programs and a few games (ahhhhh, Bejeweled 3 and Zuma's Revenge) that aren't going to work...
 


... Mojave will be a different matter. It's actually the first upgrade in a while I'm interested in, but it's also coming with the downside of no more 32-bit compatibility. I've a few occasionally run programs and a few games (ahhhhh, Bejeweled 3 and Zuma's Revenge) that aren't going to work...
No. Mojave will be the last to support 32-bit apps.
 


Like many here, my experience is, macOS 10.12.6 Sierra is the new 10.6.8 Snow Leopard. It's very stable and it's where I'm staying until MacInTouchers vet a new stable future OS.

I'm becoming increasingly pessimistic about Apple's ability to create stable, easy-to-use operating software. The best (worst?) you can say is their OS software quality is keeping pace with laptop hardware quality. ...
 




Ric Ford

MacInTouch
I'm wondering which system I should move to now, or if I should wait a bit more to see how Mojave shakes out.
Here's some advice from Adam Engst:
TidBITS said:
Apple Reveals iOS 12, Mojave, watchOS 5, and tvOS 12 Ship Dates
...
I’ve been running Mojave betas all summer on my MacBook Air, and honestly, I will not be installing the final release of Mojave on my 27-inch iMac right away. I’ve seen too many quirks and problems, many related to the new privacy protections (see “Mojave’s New Security and Privacy Protections Face Usability Challenges,” 10 September 2018). Some of my Keyboard Maestro macros have stopped working, and I haven’t yet been able to figure out why. I’ve also been annoyed by the constant nagging of utility apps asking to control other apps or access privacy-protected data.

Therefore, I recommend that you wait to install Mojave on your main Mac until two things are true:
  • Apple has released at least 10.14.1, if not 10.14.2. We hope those updates will squash early bugs and smooth out the authorization requests.
  • You have verified, through community comments or discussions with developers, that your essential apps—particularly utilities!—will run properly in Mojave.
And see also Graham Needham's FAQs:
 


I would not run the current version of Mojave, as my experience suggests that Little Snitch, Carbon Copy Cloner, Default Folder, and Drive Genius all need special Mojave versions until updates are completed.
Little Snitch, Carbon Copy Cloner and Default Folder have now all released Mojave-compatible versions. I'm not holding my breath for Drive Genius, though...
 


Well, I am totally flummoxed by my experiences with Mojave and CCC over the last 24 hours. Perhaps someone with a higher pay grade might enlighten me.

- I initiated a Mojave install from a Sierra-booted Mac with the destination an HFS+ volume of an external (spinning) USB3 hard drive. After the installation (and a reboot or two), the new Mojave volume was APFS. I had thought that the USB external spinning hard drive's volume would remain HFS+.​
- I tried using the latest version of Carbon Copy Cloner to clone this APFS Mojave installation over to an internal SSD HFS+ volume, and CCC refused with some verbiage about "wrong format". It would permit copying a few files (which I did not do). Wouldn't even let me begin a "clone" process. Shame on me for not making a screenshot, as an email from Mike Bombich says that should not have happened; CCC should permit cloning an APFS Mojave volume to an HFS+ volume (and have it remain HFS+).​
- I wiped the extra partitions from both the internal SSD (Apple's) and the external USB 3 hard drive, then repartitioned each with one extra HFS+ volume. So, both internal SSD and external hard drive had two HFS+ partitions each.​
- I then repeated the process of installation and, as I originally had thought, the external hard drive's HFS+ volume stayed as HFS+ with the new Mojave installation.​
- I then used CCC to clone and it did behave as expected​
I'll note one other thing which may be useful: After the initial Mojave installation last night (which ended up APFS), I downloaded Paragon's "apfsconvert" app (which alleges it can convert APFS volumes to HFS+ volumes non-destructively). It took about an hour, but it did work as advertised. I then used CCC to make a read-only disk image of that volume and used that image (via CCC) to write it back out to a blank HFS+ volume. No problems. Booted fine.

Searching the web seems to indicate conflicting claims:
1. Mojave will not convert external volumes to APFS if the installer is provided with that as the destination.​
2. Same as above, but an external SSD will be converted to APFS.​
3. Mojave will convert all destination volumes (regardless of location—internal/external— or type—spinning/SSD) to APFS.​
Again, for those who are developers and are privy to the documentation, which is true?

Additionally, other posts I've read claim that doing an HFS+ Mojave install will not permit Software Update to actually install anything new, as Apple has deprecated HFS+ and is worried about borking something. If Mojave is supported on external HFS+ hard drives, this claim can't possibly be true.
 


Additionally, other posts I've read claim that doing an HFS+ Mojave install will not permit Software Update to actually install anything new, as Apple has deprecated HFS+ and is worried about borking something. If Mojave is supported on external HFS+ hard drives, this claim can't possibly be true.
Here's the weird part: I have a regular hard drive formatted in the HFS+ format and installed the first Mojave beta on it. Throughout the beta series, I had no problems updating the betas through Software Update in System Preferences. My Mac configuration: Mac Pro 5,1 (2012) with the AMD Radeon HD 7950 3072MB graphics card (Metal-compliant).
 


Well, I am totally flummoxed by my experiences with Mojave and CCC over the last 24 hours. Perhaps someone with a higher pay grade might enlighten me.

- I initiated a Mojave install from a Sierra-booted Mac with the destination an HFS+ volume of an external (spinning) USB3 hard drive. After the installation (and a reboot or two), the new Mojave volume was APFS. I had thought that the USB external spinning hard drive's volume would remain HFS+.​
- I tried using the latest version of Carbon Copy Cloner to clone this APFS Mojave installation over to an internal SSD HFS+ volume, and CCC refused with some verbiage about "wrong format". It would permit copying a few files (which I did not do). Wouldn't even let me begin a "clone" process. Shame on me for not making a screenshot, as an email from Mike Bombich says that should not have happened; CCC should permit cloning an APFS Mojave volume to an HFS+ volume (and have it remain HFS+).​
- I wiped the extra partitions from both the internal SSD (Apple's) and the external USB 3 hard drive, then repartitioned each with one extra HFS+ volume. So, both internal SSD and external hard drive had two HFS+ partitions each.​
- I then repeated the process of installation and, as I originally had thought, the external hard drive's HFS+ volume stayed as HFS+ with the new Mojave installation.​
- I then used CCC to clone and it did behave as expected​
I'll note one other thing which may be useful: After the initial Mojave installation last night (which ended up APFS), I downloaded Paragon's "apfsconvert" app (which alleges it can convert APFS volumes to HFS+ volumes non-destructively). It took about an hour, but it did work as advertised. I then used CCC to make a read-only disk image of that volume and used that image (via CCC) to write it back out to a blank HFS+ volume. No problems. Booted fine.

Searching the web seems to indicate conflicting claims:
1. Mojave will not convert external volumes to APFS if the installer is provided with that as the destination.​
2. Same as above, but an external SSD will be converted to APFS.​
3. Mojave will convert all destination volumes (regardless of location—internal/external— or type—spinning/SSD) to APFS.​
Again, for those who are developers and are privy to the documentation, which is true?

Additionally, other posts I've read claim that doing an HFS+ Mojave install will not permit Software Update to actually install anything new, as Apple has deprecated HFS+ and is worried about borking something. If Mojave is supported on external HFS+ hard drives, this claim can't possibly be true.
I'll reply to myself here simply to clarify why CCC had difficulties with what I was trying to do (and this comes directly from Mike Bombich). I was attempting to clone a macOS 10.14 installation while booted in Sierra 10.12; APFS is considered "beta" in Sierra, so CCC was being properly cautious by preventing me from cloning a volume running a beta filesystem while booted into an older OS. As a rule (Mike says), do not clone newer while booted in older. Makes perfect sense but, of course, I never considered that when I tried to follow Alice down the rabbit hole. The fact that I was able to successfully clone a Mojave volume that had been converted to HFS+ while booted in Sierra was probably dumb luck (that Mike still doesn't recommend). Shows you how amazing CCC really is, eh? Thank you, Mike!
 



...The fact that I was able to successfully clone a Mojave volume that had been converted to HFS+ while booted in Sierra was probably dumb luck (that Mike still doesn't recommend). Shows you how amazing CCC really is, eh? Thank you, Mike!
Not dumb luck. The filesystem you cloned while booted in Sierra was HFS+. The format of the filesystem is the relevant detail, not the version of any data stored within it.
 


Additionally, other posts I've read claim that doing an HFS+ Mojave install will not permit Software Update to actually install anything new, as Apple has deprecated HFS+ and is worried about borking something. If Mojave is supported on external HFS+ hard drives, this claim can't possibly be true.
Reading the macOS 10.14 Mojave on Unsupported Macs thread on MacRumors, it appears that you can do a full install onto HFS+ but Software Update will not allow you to do an update. So if you want to update on an HFS+ volume you need to download the full installer for each point release and update using that.
 



I would be extremely interested if any MacInTouchers more capable than me were testing to determine if Mojave "works" on a non-Metal iMac (in my case, mid-2011 iMac 27"). I'd love to upgrade for the performance improvements, if it's possible to do so. I'm not a heavy graphics user, but I probably don't really realize all the ways "Metal" graphics affects my systems.
Thanks for any advice.
 


The detailed and comprehensive Ars Technica review of Apple's Mac OS Mojave is out:
Andrew Cunningham said:
macOS 10.14 Mojave: The Ars Technica review

...

The good
  • Dark Mode looks rad, and Accent Colors inject some much-needed personality into the Mac interface.
  • Quick Actions and the new Quick Look are genuinely useful and extend the Finder's functionality in unique ways.
  • Stacks do what they promised to do, though they won't stack folders.
  • Password auditing, generation, and syncing features may be as good as a password manager for a lot of people.
  • New first- and third-party security features are promising, though still unproven.
  • Siri can talk to HomeKit now, at long last.
  • Favicons! In! Safari! Tabs!
  • APFS comes to HDDs and Fusion Drives.
  • Initial release feels quick and stable, to an extent that early versions of High Sierra just didn't.
The bad
  • We'll need to wait for developers to add support for Dark Mode, Continuity Camera, and a whole bunch of other features before they're as useful as they seem like they'll be.
  • New iOS apps are, at best, proofs-of-concept with relatively limited usefulness in a desktop operating system.
  • It's the end of the line for legacy 32-bit apps and anything that still uses OpenGL or OpenCL.
  • Security code autofill encourages the use of insecure SMS-based two-factor authentication.
  • Not many changes or improvements to core first-party apps.
The ugly
  • Since it requires Metal, Mojave drops support for a ton of old Macs that would otherwise be perfectly capable of running it.
 


Amazon disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Latest posts