https://eclecticlight.co/2023/11/03/m3-macs-theres-more-to-performance-than-counting-cores/ Skip to content [eclecticlight] The Eclectic Light Company Macs, painting, and more Main navigation Menu * Downloads * M-series Macs * Mac Problems * Mac articles * Art * Macs * Painting hoakley November 3, 2023 Macs, Technology M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores I was yet again spectacularly wrong in speculating that we had another eight months to wait before Apple would release the first Macs with M3 chips. Another few days and the first will be upon us, and the fortunate few will start bragging or moaning about their performance. That has suddenly grown more complex: the number of each CPU core type has diversified with the M3 Pro in particular. This article looks at some of the factors involved in comparing CPU performance across Apple's expanded range of M-series chips. Core capability The terms Performance and Efficiency are convenient labels, but there's important detail in the architecture of core types. E cores achieve their enhanced energy efficiency by a combination of running at lower frequency and having fewer processing units. Each of the M1's Icestorm E cores are roughly half a Firestorm P core, so all other factors being equal, an Icestorm E core would be expected to perform at about half the throughput of a Firestorm. Although I haven't seen similar analysis for the M2's Blizzard (E) and Avalanche (P) cores, I would expect a similar difference, and in the M3. Frequency management Not only do the core types differ in their maximum frequencies, typically over 3 GHz for P and 2 GHz for E cores, but their frequency management can be quite different depending on which chip they're running in. Frequency control of both core types is highly dynamic, and they can go from idle to maximum remarkably quickly when required. This became apparent when I looked at P and E core frequency management in the basic M1 and M1 Pro/Max chips. m1allcoresfloatupd This graph shows the relationship between the rate of executing tight CPU code loops of basic floating point arithmetic with only register access, and the number of threads, equating to the number of cores being used. The upper solid line shows this relationship for P cores being used at maximum Quality of Service (QoS). Each thread effectively adds 0.15 billion loops/second to total throughout, whether on an original M1 (+ points) or M1 Pro ( unfilled diamonds). Although not shown here, on an M1 Pro that line continues up to its total of eight P cores. The broken line below shows the same relationship for E cores in an original M1, this time each thread adding 0.033 billion loops/second, 22% of the throughout of each P thread. Shown in red, though, are the equivalent points for the two E cores in an M1 Pro (or Max): with one thread, throughput is the same as an original M1, but with both cores active, throughput more than doubles that of two threads on the original chip. That's macOS controlling the E core frequency to ensure that M1 Pro and Max chips don't perform any slower than those in the original M1, and in fact are here slighter faster than all four E cores together, running at 1000 MHz. Cluster architecture In M-series chips CPU cores don't operate independently, but are grouped together into clusters of up to four cores that share L2 cache and are run at the same frequency. In M1 and M2 chips, most P clusters have consisted of four cores, while E clusters have been either two or four in size. M3 Pro chips are the first for Apple silicon Macs in which there are two clusters of 4 and 2 cores, for each of the core types. That begs the question as to whether macOS will manage those with 4-core clusters activated first, leaving the 2-core clusters idling until they're needed, or it will activate the 2-core clusters first. Although this will have little effect on performance, it should be significant for energy use. E cores aren't just for background threads While P cores do deliver high performance, never underestimate the work that can be done by E cores. Sonoma's new Game Mode dedicates the two E cores in M1 Pro and Max chips to the game, and in practice that works very well. M3 Pro chips with their six E cores may well not hand over all of those in Game Mode, but even four dedicated E cores should deliver ample for a wide range of apps, particularly those in which GPU performance is more critical. In contrast, lightweight virtualisation of macOS loads P cores first, and the impact of running host apps alongside a macOS VM could limit performance more on an M3 Pro (6P + 6E) compared to an M1 Pro/Max (8P + 2E). Beware of benchmarks Although we're going to hear a lot of results from benchmarking apps like Geekbench, remember that the tests they run don't simulate real-world CPU usage. For instance, they're designed to run the same processes on each core when being used to measure multicore performance. In reality, macOS should manage distribution of the very different threads running in real-world use, to make best use of the cores available. Benchmark results are but part of the evaluation of performance. When you hear anyone making claims that the 6P + 6E design of the M3 Pro is merely 50% more than a regular M3 chip with its 4P + 4E, or slightly over half an M3 Max at 12P + 4E, get them to show you their evidence. Measuring and comparing the performance of Apple's new M3 chips has become much more complicated, and that's before we've even considered the GPU. Finally, be very wary of what you see in Activity Monitor's CPU History window. While it does show broad trends in the distribution of workload across different cores, it doesn't take account of frequency. There's a world of difference between an E core running at 100% and a frequency of 1 GHz and a P core running at 100% and well over 3 GHz. If you want the full picture, then you have to resort to tools like powermetrics. Share this: * Twitter * Facebook * Reddit * Pinterest * Email * Print * Like this: Like Loading... Related Posted in Macs, Technology and tagged Apple silicon, benchmarks, cores, CPU, M1, M2, M3, performance. Bookmark the permalink. 23Comments Add yours 1. 1 [01ae53f8f710] Michele Galvagno on November 3, 2023 at 8:26 am Reply I believe the biggest difference will be seen in Unified Memory usage when it comes to performance. There's an article on AnandTech that shows how both M3 and M3 Pro have lower-bit channels (192 vs 256), and lower general bandwidth. We will have to see how much this will impact performance since all we hear now is pure (and funny?) speculation. With most memory specs switching to a 3x model, have you considered they may have changed the architecture to clusters of 3 cores? Or are the 11- and 14-core variants just 3x4 and 4x4 with 1 and 2 cores shut down? The only issue I have with this lack of clarity is that most users--myself included--will have one shot at purchasing the new machine, and if the performance will not be good (or if it will be overkill) it will be clear only far after the return window has expired. Personally, I could go with 36GB of UM, but 48-64 would be better. Yet, the top of the line M3 Max (that unlocks those options!) is way too much for the non-DNA scientist I am! 96GB is too expensive, so about everything seems like a potentially frustrating choice. I understand the increase in pricing for the Max variant, the leap from the M2 Max seems ginormous, at least in potential. This time I will not wait for the M4, though, even if I hoped they added FaceID to Macs at long last. Thanks for your most accurate reading as always! I will not care about number benchmarks, but there are a few (very few) good reviewers out there who test exact real-life workflows (for example, for audio editing, there is ONE reviewer who said the only good thing: buy all the UM you can, as libraries will not ask your opinion on whether you need it or not!) LikeLiked by 1 person + 2 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on November 3, 2023 at 10:12 am Reply Thank you, Michele. It all depends on what you're doing, of course. For some users, memory amount is critical, while for others it's just a matter of ensuring they don't dip into VM very often. From what we saw in 14.1, the M3 series may well have a new memory controller too. I don't know how M3 cores are grouped into clusters. Clearly there's no point in clusters of 1 core, so anything between 2 and 4 would make good sense. However, the lower-price variants are usually one core short of a cluster of 4, rather than designed with clusters of 3. I wish you success in your choice! Howard. LikeLiked by 1 person + 3 [22c6cf9c5b8b] Ralf on November 3, 2023 at 2:34 pm Reply I think Apple makes a lot of money by keeping us in the dark about how much memory we actually (only) need. LikeLiked by 2 people o 4 [01ae53f8f710] Michele Galvagno on November 3, 2023 at 2:36 pm Reply ...also, those memory chips are something they buy from elsewhere, not their secret recipe! The price for each memory upgrade is just insane... and base models are just that 5-10% outside of users' needs [?] LikeLiked by 1 person # 5 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on November 3, 2023 at 2:39 pm Well, yes, but the memory is built into the chip carrier, which is why you can't change it. Howard LikeLike # 6 [01ae53f8f710] Michele Galvagno on November 3, 2023 at 2:47 pm This was true already in 2016, when they started soldering everything in. What I was trying to say is that such LPDDR5-6400 chip is the same found in many other laptops, it's not Apple-specific. Maybe we're paying the soldering tech LikeLiked by 1 person # 7 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on November 3, 2023 at 7:32 pm No, you're comparing pricing on a premium product against that of box-shifters. It's like comparing the price of extras for a BMW with those for a basic Nissan. The same metals and plastics go into each, but what you pay for is very different. Howard. LikeLike # 8 [01ae53f8f710] Michele Galvagno on November 3, 2023 at 7:37 pm Not sure I understand: are you saying that Apple's memory chips are not the same other companies (say, Asus for their premium ProArt laptops) could buy as well? Are they Apple-made? This is not what the AnandTech article seems to explain, but again, maybe I don't understand your point. PS: my 2009 MBP (with replaceable RAM) had incredibly low-quality RAM sticks compared to what could've been put in there. Still they charged a lot for those. LikeLiked by 1 person # 9 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on November 3, 2023 at 8:07 pm Apple's markup was and is higher on all components. Why? Let's make the comparison with Asus, then. 1. Asus has its logic boards designed, case, etc., all fairly standard. It may not even design in-house: a lot of PC manufacturers contract out their design work to specialists. Apple does all its own design, everything from the logic board to the case and the packaging. 2. Asus ships models with a licensed operating system from Microsoft. Apple does all its own OS development in-house. macOS may come free with the Mac, but it's costly to develop and maintain. Apple has to fund thousands (possibly even more than 10,000) engineering teams for that. Asus simply pays Microsoft a per-copy licence for Windows. 3. I know from my grandson's bitter experience with Asus and other PC laptops that they aren't engineered as well as Mac notebooks. He recently had the whole of an Asus (still under warranty) written off by a mains power outage. While that can happen with Mac notebooks, it's unusual because of their better design. Asus just walked away from him, saying that's his problem. 4. After-sales service, Apple Support, and AppleCare (which is usually cheaper than commercial equivalents) all come at a cost that few PC manufacturers come close to. 5. Apple now designs its own chips, even including its own Thunderbolt hardware. How many chips in an Asus are designed by Asus? CPU, GPU, anything-U? I could go on, but the bottom line is that if you want cut-price products, then you're welcome to an Asus or another PC. I'm happy sticking with my premium product. Sure, I'll pay more for it, but then I get so much more in return. Like the BMW and the Nissan. Howard. LikeLiked by 1 person # 10 [01ae53f8f710] Michele Galvagno on November 3, 2023 at 9:15 pm Well, I wouldn't have left the PC world in 2009 after spending ~1200EUR/year on a new laptop (they broke regularly, every year!) if I wanted cut-price products, would I?! I don't think you pay more with Apple (look at top of the line modern Windows laptops from Alienware, Razer, even Microsoft [?]), in the long run you pay much less! The value added by macOS is invaluable, without mentioning the junk PC companies install on new machines. AppleCare is something I add to all my purchases, it's a must have for me but then: was it necessary to increase the cost of one that was already the most expensive one? (399>429 for MBP). Only the chip changed, nothing else, so, no, it wasn't. I thought that, by controlling the whole process, prices for customers would've eventually gone down, not up. I've been proven wrong. That's not to say that I'll stop buying from Apple, I'm just saying that it's becoming increasingly difficult due to local economy reasons. One thing you didn't answer: are those memory chips unique to Apple? From what I've read, they're not. If they're not, they shouldn't charge so much for them (same for the SSDs--690EUR to pass from 1 to 2TB? [?]). This doesn't change anything, of course: they are beautiful products, incredibly efficient & crazy powerful, with a magnificent OS. One just needs to be able to afford the level of the machine needed for their work without feeling pushed against the wall. This is a personal opinion, nothing more. Thanks Michele LikeLiked by 1 person o 11 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on November 3, 2023 at 2:37 pm Reply But how could Apple possibly know that? It has absolutely no idea what you or I do on our Macs, so how could it tell us how much we need to? Howard LikeLike # 12 [22c6cf9c5b8b] Ralf on November 3, 2023 at 2:50 pm Of course you're right. But I have never heard of any real problems with a lack of memory. Customers are worried about the yellow color of the Activity Monitor. However, I would like to have 16 GB instead of 8 GB to better use a VM with Viable or Liviable. LikeLiked by 1 person # 13 [01ae53f8f710] Michele Galvagno on November 3, 2023 at 2:56 pm I'm sorry I don't agree with this. They're in touch with the best professionals from every major field, and on those they tailor the top specs. Then they tone down until they reach a base model that is balanced. Today's machines are balanced per se, out of context and time, but if you look at them, starting a pro machine with 8gb of memory can only be read as a cheap move. That M3 MBP will run out of video memory very fast with that gorgeous display! It will be a glorified Netflix machine, nothing else! Some of my colleagues bought the 8/256 M1/2 blinded by the "Apple memory is better", which is true (that is, better managed, compressed, reutilised, swapped, ...), but 8 is 8, and once it's over it goes over to the SSD. They all regretted their purchase, and complained about having to give more for upgrades later. Base machines today (2024 almost) should start with 16gb and pro ones with 32gb (or 18/36 if 6x modules are used) for the same price or 8/18. I believe they've bought stock of those smaller chips to use and need to justify those somehow. LikeLiked by 1 person # 14 [d58afcd589f0] joethewalrus on November 3, 2023 at 5:47 pm Michele, how did your colleagues come to regret their 8GB RAM purchase? Did their SSD poop out due to too much swapping? Did they experience apps that refused to run? Error messages? Bad performance, which is of course subjective? I'm asking not to challenge you, but because my corporate issued laptop is an M1 with 8GB and I want to know what to look for when it's getting close to time for an upgrade, so I can minimize downtime. LikeLiked by 1 person # 15 [01ae53f8f710] Michele Galvagno on November 3, 2023 at 6:31 pm Hi Joe, No problem, I'll gladly explain. In music production, I'm in notation which is a bit more forgiving but works the same way, audio patches are loaded in RAM. That means that specific portion of memory is no longer available to you for other things. Pro graphic apps such as InDesign & Illustrator require more than 1GB each just to run. Add a few Safari (not even Chrome) tabs, Mail, Notes, a Numbers spreadsheet or two and you're full. Of course the Mac didn't explode, but Safari crashed when adding too many tabs, app switching was slower and swap was very high. In short, their SSD life would fall much quicker than it should have. On my 2016 MacBook Pro, I'm constantly at 14-15GB of memory (out of 16!) in use, and the new UM technology is not going to help there. If you need 15, you need 15! Oh, and that's not counting the video memory for the internal+external displays. I don't know what sector you work in, but while M1 CPU/GPU is more than capable for even 4K editing, when you pair it with 8GB of total memory, you are running a Maserati with empty fuel tank. MacOS is just an incredible OS, capable of making an 8GB memory machine behave as snappy as a workstation PC, but it's not a miracle, it will not perform a single operation--like loading a symphony orchestra patch (~30GB or more)--if there is no memory for it. Apple hides behind the "what most people need" and their aura makes people believe that, when putting 8GB in 2023/4 is just cheap. In 2016, my MBP came standard with 16GB of RAM. That was SEVEN years ago! In the previous seven years, we had gone from standard 4GB to standard 16GB! It should've been at least 32GB now. Oh well... history and ifs are not good friends LikeLiked by 1 person # 16 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on November 3, 2023 at 7:55 pm We are drifting way off thread here - this is about CPU cores, not memory, but here are my observations of what happened, particularly with the launch of the first M1 models. 1. Marketing is the main decider on base specifications, not engineering. That has been obvious in many cases, such as iMacs still with hard disks or Fusion Drives long after other models switched to SSDs. But those are only base models, and no one makes you buy the base - that's your choice. 2. In the early days of the M1, 8 GB models were available more rapidly than 16 GB. Many people that I know who lived to regret buying an 8 GB model did so primarily because they wanted it quicker, rather than waiting, as I did, to get 16 GB models instead. I'm sorry, that was their choice, and their mistake. Impatience can lead to poor decision-making. 3. When you know your apps are memory-hungry, it's obvious that you need to buy a model with ample memory. In the early days of the M1, many bought them with what they knew would be inadequate, because they couldn't wait for the next models that offered more memory. Sorry, I have no sympathy there at all. 4. Unified memory is new, and there were a lot of misleading rumours circulating at the time. Sadly, some people were misled into believing that, coupled with the blistering performance of VM, they didn't need as much memory. Apple didn't provide guidelines, but TBH I don't think Apple had sufficient experience to in any case. 5. There's no simple way to equate memory needed on Intel with that required on Apple silicon. It's incorrect to add Intel main memory and GPU memory, as I've written several times here. Apple silicon Macs manage their memory differently because it's Unified, and that means there are winners and losers. Finding out which are which is a matter of experience, which we all lacked at the time. There's nothing to be done about that, except err on the side of caution. 6. Unified memory management has improved since Big Sur and the apps we used then. For a start, many apps then were still running under Rosetta 2, whereas very few major apps do now. But macOS and many apps weren't as good at using Unified memory then, as they are now that their developers understand more about Unified memory management. So there was a combination of factors involved, some of which have changed now. But there are still many users who can work well with just 8 GB of Unified memory in their Apple silicon Mac, and forcing everyone to pay for a minimum of 16 GB is a nonsense. Caveat emptor - if you're buying an Apple silicon (or any other) Mac, choose its specification carefully. That's your responsibility as a buyer, and applies to CPU/GPU, memory, internal storage and any other options. Howard. LikeLike + 17 [d07aae73e1be] Bert Macklen on November 3, 2023 at 4:04 pm Reply You are spot on with 3/4c clusters. Otherwise.....11 cores is not possible. $200. Either 64GB of CL30 6400 or 4TB of M.2 PCIEx4.0 7600/5800 storage is what I'd use it on. I don't mind spending f money-but on something full ??? That no one answers, I've asked multiple times-even though my work email. But Im highly doubtful that 6+6>8+4. I wish the author had something other than speculations. Oh well. If you need to run day long calculations/multiple hour-I wouldn't stick with the cell phone company. This is going to be the Newton(also an ARM SoC-dunno if TSMC supplied the fabs) because we all remember the last time they chased profits......and that was when they built/engineered gorgeous machines. Even the Trashcan Pro was amazing compared to the innards of the "soldered and stuck" MBP/As. At least get some AI to code you a site-we used WordPress for...nothing lol LikeLiked by 1 person o 18 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on November 3, 2023 at 7:33 pm Reply Thanks for your AI hallucination. They always make me laugh. Howard. LikeLiked by 1 person 2. 19 [929cf326f5c0] rmhausman on November 3, 2023 at 6:16 pm Reply So, considering everything about the M3, comments (yes/no) about trading in my iMac M1 for the new iMac M3 with $500 from Apple against the $1299? LikeLiked by 1 person + 20 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on November 3, 2023 at 7:34 pm Reply What are your reasons for considering the trade-in? What do you do with your M1 that you think would be better with an M3? Howard. LikeLike + 21 [01ae53f8f710] Michele Galvagno on November 3, 2023 at 7:41 pm Reply I would not do that, or at least not that way. Are you finding your M1 iMac being slow or not enough for your needs? If you really want to upgrade, try selling it privately to decrease the amount you need to pay. LikeLiked by 1 person 3. 22 [01b0fad51f3b] Warren Nagourney on November 3, 2023 at 9:02 pm Reply You are absolutely right about the consequences of impatience. Mea culpa for both of my M series Macs: my 8 GB MBA and my 16 GB 16" MBP with the Pro chip. Both are starved of RAM and the second one (my most used machine) has caused me to be very careful with my RAM usage when running certain apps. Apple Photos can take quite a bit of RAM and any iOS simulator when running Xcode can make the memory pressure graph solidly yellow no matter what else is running. I will live with my mistakes and be careful of RAM usage. A MAX MBP might make Xcode builds run somewhat more quickly but the price is too high. Thank you for your comments about these interesting new chips and I look forward to future articles about them. LikeLiked by 1 person + 23 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on November 3, 2023 at 10:49 pm Reply I'm sorry. My first two M1 Macs were both 16 GB, but I knew that I'd replace them soon with first an M1 Pro then an M1 Mac with 32 GB, which has proved more than enough. If I were to buy an M3, then I think I'd go for the same. Howard. LikeLike Leave a Reply Cancel reply [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Quick Links * Downloads * Mac Troubleshooting Summary * M-series Macs * Mac problem-solving * Painting topics * Painting * Long Reads Search Search for: [ ] [Search] Monthly archives * November 2023 (7) * October 2023 (77) * September 2023 (77) * August 2023 (72) * July 2023 (79) * June 2023 (73) * May 2023 (79) * April 2023 (73) * March 2023 (76) * February 2023 (68) * January 2023 (74) * December 2022 (74) * November 2022 (72) * October 2022 (76) * September 2022 (72) * August 2022 (75) * July 2022 (76) * June 2022 (73) * May 2022 (76) * April 2022 (71) * March 2022 (77) * February 2022 (68) * January 2022 (77) * December 2021 (75) * November 2021 (72) * October 2021 (75) * September 2021 (76) * August 2021 (75) * July 2021 (75) * June 2021 (71) * May 2021 (80) * April 2021 (79) * March 2021 (77) * February 2021 (75) * January 2021 (75) * December 2020 (77) * November 2020 (84) * October 2020 (81) * September 2020 (79) * August 2020 (103) * July 2020 (81) * June 2020 (78) * May 2020 (78) * April 2020 (81) * March 2020 (86) * February 2020 (77) * January 2020 (86) * December 2019 (82) * November 2019 (74) * October 2019 (89) * September 2019 (80) * August 2019 (91) * July 2019 (95) * June 2019 (88) * May 2019 (91) * April 2019 (79) * March 2019 (78) * February 2019 (71) * January 2019 (69) * December 2018 (79) * November 2018 (71) * October 2018 (78) * September 2018 (76) * August 2018 (78) * July 2018 (76) * June 2018 (77) * May 2018 (71) * April 2018 (67) * March 2018 (73) * February 2018 (67) * January 2018 (83) * December 2017 (94) * November 2017 (73) * October 2017 (86) * September 2017 (92) * August 2017 (69) * July 2017 (81) * June 2017 (76) * May 2017 (90) * April 2017 (76) * March 2017 (79) * February 2017 (65) * January 2017 (76) * December 2016 (75) * November 2016 (68) * October 2016 (76) * September 2016 (78) * August 2016 (70) * July 2016 (74) * June 2016 (66) * May 2016 (71) * April 2016 (67) * March 2016 (71) * February 2016 (68) * January 2016 (90) * December 2015 (96) * November 2015 (103) * October 2015 (119) * September 2015 (115) * August 2015 (117) * July 2015 (117) * June 2015 (105) * May 2015 (111) * April 2015 (119) * March 2015 (69) * February 2015 (54) * January 2015 (39) Tags APFS Apple AppleScript Apple silicon backup Big Sur Blake bug Catalina Consolation Console Corinth diagnosis Disk Utility Dore El Capitan extended attributes Finder firmware Gatekeeper Gerome HFS+ High Sierra history of painting iCloud Impressionism iOS landscape LockRattler log logs M1 Mac Mac history macOS macOS 10.12 macOS 10.13 macOS 10.14 macOS 10.15 macOS 11 macOS 12 macOS 13 malware Mojave Monet Monterey Moreau MRT myth narrative OS X Ovid painting Pissarro Poussin privacy realism Renoir riddle Rubens Sargent scripting security Sierra SilentKnight SSD Swift Time Machine Turner update upgrade Ventura xattr Xcode XProtect Statistics * 15,810,198 hits Blog at WordPress.com. Footer navigation * About & Contact * Macs * Painting * Language * Tech * Life * General * Downloads * Mac problem-solving * Extended attributes (xattrs) * Painting topics * Hieronymus Bosch * English language * LockRattler: 10.12 Sierra * LockRattler: 10.13 High Sierra * LockRattler: 10.11 El Capitan * Updates: El Capitan * Updates: High Sierra and later * LockRattler: 10.14 Mojave * SilentKnight, silnite, LockRattler, SystHist & Scrub * DelightEd & Podofyllin * xattred, Spotcord, Metamer & xattr tools * 32-bitCheck & ArchiChect * XProCheck, T2M2, Ulbow, Consolation and log utilities * Cirrus & Bailiff * Taccy, Signet, Precize, Alifix, UTIutility, Sparsity, alisma * Revisionist & DeepTools * Text Utilities: Nalaprop, Dystextia and others * PDF * Keychains & Permissions * LockRattler: 10.15 Catalina * Updates * Spundle, Cormorant, Stibium, Dintch, Fintch and cintch * Long Reads * LockRattler: 11.0 Big Sur * Mac Troubleshooting Summary * M-series Macs * Mints: a multifunction utility * LockRattler: 12.x Monterey * VisualLookUpTest * Virtualisation on Apple silicon * LockRattler: 13.x Ventura * System Updates * LockRattler: 14.x Sonoma * Saturday Mac Riddles * Last Week on My Mac Secondary navigation * Search Post navigation High: Volcano Metamer 1.4 adds autosave and more Search for: [ ] [Search] Begin typing your search above and press return to search. Press Esc to cancel. * Comment * Follow Following + [croppe] The Eclectic Light Company Join 3,407 other followers [ ] Sign me up + Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now. * + [croppe] The Eclectic Light Company + Customize + Follow Following + Sign up + Log in + Copy shortlink + Report this content + View post in Reader + Manage subscriptions + Collapse this bar Loading Comments... Write a Comment... [ ] Email (Required) [ ] Name (Required) [ ] Website [ ] [Post Comment] %d bloggers like this: [b]