https://eclecticlight.co/2024/12/23/will-that-hub-or-dock-slow-your-ssds-or-even-make-them-faster/ Skip to content [eclecticlight] The Eclectic Light Company Macs, painting, and more Main navigation Menu * Downloads * Freeware * M-series Macs * Mac Problems * Mac articles * Macs * Art hoakley December 23, 2024 Macs, Technology Will that hub or dock slow your SSDs, or even make them faster? [tb1m2at20gbps] They might all connect to the same ports, but Thunderbolt 3, 4, 5, USB 3 and USB4 are disturbingly different, and few deliver the performance that their up-tos promise. From the figures that I see here at the moment, the most reliably performant in widely available products is USB4, but that's not supported by Thunderbolt 3 on Intel Macs. When your SSD needs to work well with both Mac architectures, you're normally limited to using Thunderbolt 3, often the least up-to of them all. Earlier this month, joevt asked whether "you might be able to connect Thunderbolt 4 dock to have a Thunderbolt 3 host communicate with a USB4 device?" This article tries to answer that, and compares performance of a TB4 hub and a TB5 dock across the range of Mac Thunderbolt ports. In doing so, I think I have discovered how to get an Intel Mac to use USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 at 20 Gb/s, something I've not seen before. Testing Three Macs were used for testing: * iMac Pro (Intel, T2 chip) with macOS 15.1.1, over a Thunderbolt 3 port without USB4 support. * MacBook Pro (M3 Pro) with macOS 15.2, over a Thunderbolt 4/USB4 port. * Mac mini (M4 Pro) with macOS 15.2, over a Thunderbolt 5 port. These represent the three main Thunderbolt ports available in recent Macs: vanilla TB3 in all Intel models, TB4 and USB4 in most Apple silicon Macs up to the base M4 chip, and the latest TB5 alias USB4 2.0 in M4 Pro and M4 Max models. The hub used was a Satechi Thunderbolt 4 Slim Hub, with one TB4 upstream and 3 TB4 downstream ports. The dock was a Kensington SD5000T5 EQ Thunderbolt 5 Triple 4K Docking Station, with one TB5 upstream and 3 TB5 downstream ports. Cables used were CalDigit TB4 and Apple TB5 as appropriate. Test SSDs were a Thunderbolt 3 OWC Envoy Pro FX 4 TB, and a USB4 OWC Express 1M2 enclosure containing a Samsung 990 Pro 2 TB SSD, chosen for their consistent and representative performance. All transfer rates were measured using Stibium with a total of 53 GB of test files of between 2 MB and 2 GB being written or read in random order, according to the test. All apparently anomalous or unexpected results were repeated to confirm they weren't exceptional, and were reproducible. Can a TB4 or TB5 hub/dock connect Intel Macs faster to USB4? When connected via the TB4 hub to the Intel Mac, the USB4 SSD operated at USB 3.2 Gen 2 speed, with read/write of 0.97/0.99 GB/s, as expected. However, when connected via the TB5 hub, it operated at twice that speed, achieving USB 3.2 Gen 2x2, with read/write speeds of 1.83/1.81 GB/s. This was reported in System Information as being at 20 Gb/s, and is the first time I have seen any peripheral connected to a Mac operating at that transfer rate. tb1m2at20gbps However, the Thunderbolt 3 SSD was slower to read when connected through the TB5 dock: through the TB4 hub read speed was 2.62 GB/s, and for the TB5 dock 2.13 GB/s. Thus, when connected via the TB5 dock, TB3 and USB4 performance were similar. tb345table1 Consolidated results for all tests are given in the summary table above. TB4 hub performance As should be expected, all speeds measured through the TB4 hub were limited to within the approximately 3 GB/s transfer rates normally delivered by the 32 Gb/s available in Thunderbolt 3 and 4. That led to a reduction in read speeds of the USB4 SSD from 3.2-3.5 GB/s when connected directly to an Apple silicon Mac, to 2.9 GB/s when accessed through the TB4 hub. However, write speeds for the TB3 SSD were further reduced to half TB3, at about 1.4 GB/s. I reported this previously when originally testing TB4 hubs with TB3 SSDs, and can only presume it's a limitation imposed by the chipset used in some TB3 SSDs, as it doesn't affect all, and doesn't affect USB4 through the TB4 hub. This isn't predictable. TB5 dock performance Speeds measured through the TB5 dock were generally at least as good as those through the TB4 hub with three notable exceptions: * Write speed from a TB5 port to a TB3 SSD through a TB5 dock fell to 0.42 GB/s, little more than 10% of that of a direct connection and similar to that expected from a SATA SSD operating over USB 3.2 Gen 2. This is a catastrophic effect for which I can offer no explanation, despite demonstrating it on several different occasions with the same combination of host port, dock and SSD. * Write speed from a TB5 port to a USB4 SSD through a TB5 dock fell to 2.3 GB/s, about 62% of that expected. * Write speeds to a TB3 SSD through a TB5 dock occur at about half the expected speed, just as those through a TB4 hub. There's currently a problem with writing from a TB5 host port to either TB3 or USB4 SSDs through a TB5 dock. As the first TB5 hubs become available in the New Year, it will be interesting to see whether they too exhibit similar limitations. Hopefully this will prove to be a firmware problem that can be fixed easily. TB4 hub or TB5 dock? Neither the TB4 hub nor the TB5 dock can be recommended without significant reservations, as neither delivers comparable performance to direct connections. For the TB4 hub, those limit all USB4 performance to a maximum of about 3 GB/s, and halve TB3 write speeds. For the TB5 dock, write speeds are again limited, catastrophically in the case of TB3 SSDs from a host TB5 port. The only way to determine whether your intended combination of Mac, hub or dock, and SSD will deliver the performance you expect is to test them in combination yourself. That hasn't changed since the introduction of the first TB4 hubs, and the addition of TB5 has only complicated this, as it's just another up-to where anything could happen. Conclusions * If a USB4 SSD is to be used with an Intel Mac, connecting it via a TB5 dock could almost double its performance, but a TB4 hub doesn't help. * Connecting a TB3 SSD to any Mac via a TB4 hub or TB5 dock is likely to reduce its write speed to about 1.5 GB/s or less. * Connecting a USB4 SSD to an Apple silicon Mac via a TB4 hub will reduce its read and write speeds below 3 GB/s. * Some combinations of host port, hub/dock and SSD can result in more severely impaired performance. Those are unpredictable, and can only be discovered by careful testing in combination. * Thunderbolt 3, 4, 5 and USB4 are up-tos that can sometimes perform remarkably poorly. Share this: * Twitter * Facebook * Reddit * Pinterest * Email * Print * Like Loading... Related Posted in Macs, Technology and tagged Apple silicon, hub, Intel, SSD, TB4, TB5, Thunderbolt, USB4. Bookmark the permalink. 21Comments Add yours 1. 1 [a6d54e9182f7] EcleX on December 23, 2024 at 9:21 am Reply Thanks for the interesting and revealing article; twice for the conclusions. It is really remarkable what you discovered and I think that no one had found before: "In doing so, I think I have discovered how to get an Intel Mac to use USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 at 20 Gb/s, something I've not seen before" and "When connected via the TB4 hub to the Intel Mac, the USB4 SSD operated at USB 3.2 Gen 2 speed, with read/write of 0.97/0.99 GB/ s, as expected. However, when connected via the TB5 hub, it operated at twice that speed, achieving USB 3.2 Gen 2x2, with read/write speeds of 1.83/1.81 GB/s. This was reported in System Information as being at 20 Gb/s, and is the first time I have seen any peripheral connected to a Mac operating at that transfer rate". Amazing discovery!!! LikeLiked by 2 people 2. 2 [0ec713bb57fc] joevt on December 23, 2024 at 10:44 am Reply Apple added USB 3.2 gen 2x2 20 Gbps support to Sonoma and Sequoia (better late than never, I guess). A couple methods for connecting a USB 20 Gbps device to a Mac are discussed in a MacRumors thread. One option is to insert a PCIe USB 3.2 gen 2x2 XHCI controller into a Thunderbolt PCIe expansion chassis. I posted in the MacRumors thread some Intel Mac benchmarks for a ASMedia ASM3242 installed in a Sonnet Echo Express III-D (Thunderbolt 3 Edition). The ASM3242 is a single port controller. You have confirmed that a Thunderbolt 5 controller of a Thunderbolt 5 dock does contain a USB 3.2 gen 2x2 XHCI controller. I suppose the Thunderbolt 5 dock has at least three 20 Gbps ports, possibly four like Thunderbolt 4 controllers. The ioreg from a Thunderbolt 5 dock connected to a Thunderbolt 3 host will list the number of ports and if those ports are from the XHCI controller or a USB hub. Note that Intel says USB 20 Gbps is not required to get Thunderbolt 5 certification. Apple Macs have only 10 Gbps for USB 3.x. Also, Thunderbolt 5 can support 3 displays but only 2 is required for Thunderbolt 5 certification. Apple Silicon only supports 2 displays per Thunderbolt 3/4/5 port. You did not test USB 20 Gbps with an Apple Silicon Mac. I think this requires a Thunderbolt 3 dock between the Apple Silicon Mac and the Thunderbolt 5 dock to disable USB tunnelling. This would negate the benefit of 80 Gbps connections and more docks means more latency. It is disappointing that a USB4 device could not negotiate 40 Gbps speed from a Thunderbolt 4/5 dock connected to a Thunderbolt 3 host. I believe the USB4 spec does mention this as a possibility but maybe I read it wrong. The cable used was 40 Gbps compatible? The OWC Express 1M2 product page says the cable is USB-C 40 Gbps. I wonder if a Thunderbolt 4 cable would have different behavior. The OWC Express 1M2 product page says it contains an ASMedia ASM2464PD but does not mention the USB 3.2 gen 2x2 speed of 20 Gbps. The ASMedia ASM2464PD page does mention the USB 20 Gbps feature. It also mentions Thunderbolt compatibility so I wonder why OWC couldn't get Thunderbolt compatibility to work? I suppose it would require an extra crystal for the 20.625 Gbps Thunderbolt timing at least. The OWC Express 1M2 does present itself as a PCIe NVMe device when working at 40 Gbps? Or is it a special 40 Gbps USB device? I don't think such a thing exists but if it is then that would explain why it wouldn't work with a Thunderbolt 3 host. I don't have anything to say about why a 40 Gbps connected device would have < 20 Gbps performance. That's just weird. It's like the data is a car hitting every red light even though there's no traffic. LikeLiked by 4 people + 3 [a6d54e9182f7] EcleX on December 23, 2024 at 12:31 pm Reply Thanks for the information. You said "Apple added USB 3.2 gen 2x2 20 Gbps support to Sonoma and Sequoia". Is that in Apple documentation? LikeLiked by 1 person o 4 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on December 23, 2024 at 1:14 pm Reply I can't find anything, even for the latest M4 Macs. Indeed, if you look in Apple Support Communities (for what that's worth), you'll see repeated and recent denials of any support for USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 even on Apple silicon Macs. Howard. LikeLike o 5 [0ec713bb57fc] joevt on December 23, 2024 at 1:38 pm Reply I tested the ASM3242 with multiple macOS versions back to Catalina. Sonoma and Sequoia were the only ones that succeeded at full 20 Gbps. In earlier macOS versions, a 20 Gbps USB device might work at 10 Gbps or 480 Mb/s or not at all. One might be able to use the open source GenericUSBXHCI.kext with earlier versions of macOS to achieve 20 Gbps. The difference between 10 Gbps and 20 Gbps is probably a single setting. Apple would have had to gone out of their way to make USB 20 Gbps not work. They had similar shenanigans with 10 Gbps support. The XHCI spec regarding different USB 3.x speeds is simple and allowing for future speeds should have been easy but Apple made sure that only known speeds would be allowed. LikeLiked by 1 person # 6 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on December 23, 2024 at 3:45 pm Thank you. Howard. LikeLike + 7 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on December 23, 2024 at 12:34 pm Reply Thank you. Now I'm completely confused, as Apple doesn't mention this, either in release notes or the specs for its latest models. For example, the two USB-C ports on the front of my Mac mini M4 Pro are specified as being "Two USB-C ports with support for USB 3 (up to 10Gb/s)", and those in Intel Macs don't specify any more than that. Does this apply to all Macs? I can see how it could be achieved, perhaps, in Apple silicon firmware, but Intel Macs don't have that flexibility, do they? There's an easier way to tell whether the Mac ports do support Gen 2x2 now - connect a Gen 2x2 SSD to them. I might have one around here somewhere, and will see if that now works. Of course, I didn't see 20 Gb/s on my Mac mini, as I connected the USB4 SSD to one of its Thunderbolt 5 ports, so it connected at 40 Mb/s rather than any fallback mode. As I wrote in the article, when connecting Thunderbolt 4 in these tests, I used a short CalDigit TB4 cable that fully supports 40 Gb/s. So a Thunderbolt 4 cable has the behaviour I have detailed above. OWC has been explicit since it first announced the Express 1M2 enclosure that it doesn't support Thunderbolt 3, and when used with pure TB3 on the host, it falls back to USB 3.2 Gen 2. Apparently they too aren't aware that Intel Macs can support Gen 2x2, which is another puzzle as they really do know their stuff, and test extensively with Macs. Howard. LikeLike o 8 [0ec713bb57fc] joevt on December 23, 2024 at 1:58 pm Reply I did not say that you can enable 20 Gbps with the built-in USB ports of an Intel or Apple Silicon Mac. I said that you can add USB 20 Gbps by adding a PCIe USB 3.2 gen 2x2 XHCI controller (either in a PCIe slot of a Mac that has PCIe slots or a PCIe slot of a Thunderbolt 3 PCIe expansion chassis) or by using a Thunderbolt 5 controller which contains a USB 3.2 gen 2x2 XHCI controller. The Thunderbolt 5 controller may be that of a Thunderbolt 5 dock (for Macs that support Thunderbolt) or it may be that of a Thunderbolt 5 add-in card (similar to how you can get USB 3.1 gen 2 from Thunderbolt 3/4 add-in cards for Macs that don't have Thunderbolt - though I don't think Thunderbolt 5 add-in cards have been tested this way yet). Regarding the Thunderbolt cables, you said you used a CalDigit Thunderbolt 4 cable and a Apple Thunderbolt 5 cable. I assumed those were used to connect the docks to the Macs and that you used the cable that came with the SSD to connect the SSD to the docks. LikeLiked by 1 person # 9 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on December 23, 2024 at 3:45 pm Thank you. "I did not say that you can enable 20 Gbps with the built-in USB ports of an Intel or Apple Silicon Mac." I agree. What perhaps wasn't as clear to me as it might have been is that Macs still don't support USB 3.2 Gen 2x2, or a 20 Gb/s mode in USB4. For the overwhelming majority of Mac users, that's the only important fact. Sure, if you spend $$$ for a specialist expansion chassis your Mac should be able to support 20 Gb/s over USB 3 (ish). But that's hardly going to be useful to someone who has a neat little, relatively cheap USB 3.2 2x2 SSD that will still only deliver 'up-to' 10 Gb/s or 1 GB/s to their Mac. Regarding cables, what I wrote was quite explicit: "Cables used were CalDigit TB4 and Apple TB5 as appropriate." Nowhere did I say that I used any cables supplied with the SSDs. While I do use those reviewing products, as the assumption is that the vendor supplies what the user will use, without them having to buy additional cables, I only use reputable and marked cables during tests like this, which I think is best practice. Howard. LikeLike + 10 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on December 23, 2024 at 1:12 pm Reply I think I might have an explanation over the apparent appearance of USB 3.2 Gen 2x2: that isn't what this 20 Gb/s is, as it's actually USB4 20 Gb/s mode, which seems to be different! I doubt whether Gen 2x2 is available in the chipsets used in Intel Macs. After all, if Apple could just enable that in a software driver, why didn't it do so years ago? However, there is an apparently different 20 Gb/s mode within the USB4 specification, which is intended to supersede that in Gen 2x2. I suspect that Apple has enabled that in its drivers for Apple silicon Macs. As they're far more flexible, being based on Arm cores in the Fabric, that is something that seems feasible. But that wouldn't explain the behaviour of this TB5 dock with an Intel Mac's TB3 port, which doesn't have a 20 Gb/s fallback mode AFAIK. Yet that's what it was reporting here, in the screenshot. Howard. LikeLike o 11 [0ec713bb57fc] joevt on December 23, 2024 at 2:37 pm Reply The screenshot contains info only for the 20 Gbps OWC Express 1M2. Other info that may be useful: # The Thunderbolt/USB4 hierarchy (Thunderbolt tab of System Information.app). Is the SSD represented as a device here? # The USB hierarchy (USB tab of System Information.app): The USB hub and or USB bus. Is the SSD a USB mass storage device? If so, then you would see a media section in the screenshot showing the partitions. # PCIe information (PCI tab of System Information.app). Is there a PCIe device representing the USB bus? Or is the SSD represented as an NVMe device? In either case, there is a PCI class code (a number that is converted to a string in the Type column) and PCI vendor and device IDs. I don't think USB4 20 Gbps is a mode that a XHCI controller can use. However, besides the XHCI controller, a Thunderbolt 4/5 controller includes a USB4 controller. It would be interesting if the USB4 device was connected to that but I've never seen this. As far as I know, Thunderbolt 4/5/USB4 tunnels DisplayPort, USB 3.x, and PCIe. The USB4 wikipedia page mentions USB3 Gen T tunneling which is different than the USB3.x tunnelling that I have seen (and Intel Macs probably don't use any form of USB tunnelling unless this is happening between the Thunderbolt 5 dock and the SSD). I believe the screenshot is showing an XHCI 20 Gbps connection between the XHCI controller of the Thunderbolt 5 dock and the USB/NVMe bridge of the ASM2464PD. The other info described above may help to confirm that. LikeLiked by 1 person # 12 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on December 23, 2024 at 3:47 pm Thank you. I will be posting more details in a separate article over Christmas, now I've had a chance to run some tests with another USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 SSD. Sorry to be a teaser, but there's a bit too much info to put in comments, and I think the results merit an article of their own. Howard. LikeLike 3. 13 [698683038b7d] Walt on December 23, 2024 at 12:36 pm Reply Howard, this YouTuber, Wayne Fox's video claims he reported a write transfer speed while using the OWC 1M2 connected to a Kensington SD5000T5 dock connected to a M4 Max MBP. He indicates the Kensington tech he spoke with has forwarded the results to their engineering department. The tech indicated a probable firmware update will be needed to fix the low write transfer speed. Obviously, take his results with a grain of salt since I'm not sure about the validity of some of his statements. Plus, his video, like a lot of YT media testing videos, seems to use the least of my favorite media transfer testing applications, Blackmagicdesign Disk Speed Test. The Kensington SD5000T5 testing begins at approximately the 8:27 minute mark in the video in case you're interested. LikeLiked by 1 person + 14 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on December 23, 2024 at 1:17 pm Reply Thank you. I did watch that some time ago. It's an impressive theatrical performance, but whether it actually demonstrates what he claims, I have no idea. Blackmagic is great for videos - in both ways! - but absolutely the last test that I would use. In fact, I ceased using it years ago. You'll be delighted to know that I have confirmed this in more rigorous testing here on at least 3 separate occasions now. So I think it's real, although whether it's a general problem, I don't know. Howard. LikeLike 4. 15 [684c8b45db12] jmaher5b5c6912e5 on December 23, 2024 at 3:50 pm Reply Howard, The TB5 cables; "Active" or "Passive"? Wondering if Active cables would make a difference? LikeLiked by 1 person + 16 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on December 23, 2024 at 4:04 pm Reply Both my Thunderbolt 5 cables (and all my TB4 cables) are 1 metre or less and passive. I don't know of any Apple TB5 cable longer than that, and don't know that it's offering Active cables that are any longer. For such short lengths, passive cables should be ideal, AFAIK. Howard. LikeLike 5. 17 [c7644d8c2e85] rgmenke84a2729c7c on December 23, 2024 at 3:53 pm Reply Howard, You are going to need a Hub Connectivity Matrix to sort this out. Great testing by the way. I think we all would like the hubs to automagically move between the various standards maximizing transfer speed. Me, I'm still trying to get my new robovac to navigate the downstairs... LikeLiked by 1 person + 18 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on December 23, 2024 at 4:06 pm Reply Thank you. Once I get my hands on a TB5 hub in the New Year, this could get more complex still. I'm also currently testing for a follow-up article on USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 support probably on Christmas Day. Howard. LikeLike o 19 [a6d54e9182f7] EcleX on December 23, 2024 at 4:32 pm Reply Looking forward to all that. It will be a great gift for all (including Apple's lack of documentation-information about such important topic)! LikeLiked by 1 person 6. 20 [b4b313396553] markelp846ad389dd on December 23, 2024 at 4:47 pm Reply Thank you again for a fascinating and clear analysis. You rightfully highlight the manufacturer's "up to" performance marketing. Which, of course, is dependent on allocating the full bandwidth of a single Thunderbolt connection from the host computer, through the dock to the target test device. Yet the purpose of their hub/dock product is to split that single connection into multiple connections. It would be interesting to understand the performance impact of a "real world" configuration such as a 5K display, 2.5 Gb/s Ethernet, keyboard/mouse and multiple storage device(s) sharing a single Thunderbolt connection. It may be presumed, but can you confirm no other devices (display, networking, etc) are attached to the hub/dock other than the target test SSD enclosure? LikeLiked by 1 person + 21 [87cc8acbb0b9] hoakley on December 23, 2024 at 5:51 pm Reply I'm sorry, I should have made this clear: there were only two devices connected to the hub/dock at any time, the host Mac upstream, and the test SSD downstream. Of course TB3 promises to deliver up-to 32 Gb/s of data together with support for at least one display within its total 40 Gb/s, and TB5 promises even more over its 80/120 Gb/ s. Whether either really delivers that or it's mere marketing optimism is even more complex. In the past I have run some tests with display and SSD, and most Mac users shouldn't need to add much more to that. Howard. LikeLike Leave a comment Cancel reply [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Quick Links * Free Software Menu * System Updates * M-series Macs * Mac Troubleshooting Summary * Mac problem-solving * Painting topics * Painting * Long Reads Search Search for: [ ] [Search] Monthly archives * December 2024 (60) * November 2024 (73) * October 2024 (78) * September 2024 (77) * August 2024 (75) * July 2024 (77) * June 2024 (71) * May 2024 (79) * April 2024 (75) * March 2024 (81) * February 2024 (72) * January 2024 (78) * December 2023 (79) * November 2023 (74) * 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 Apple silicon backup Big Sur Blake bug Catalina Consolation Console Corinth Delacroix Disk Utility El Capitan extended attributes Finder firmware Gatekeeper Gerome HFS+ High Sierra history of painting iCloud Impressionism landscape LockRattler log M1 Mac Mac history macOS macOS 10.12 macOS 10.13 macOS 10.14 macOS 10.15 macOS 11 macOS 12 macOS 13 macOS 14 malware Metamorphoses Mojave Monet Monterey Moreau MRT myth narrative OS X Ovid painting performance Pissarro Poussin privacy Renoir riddle Rubens Sargent scripting security Sierra SilentKnight Sonoma SSD Swift Time Machine Tintoretto Turner update upgrade Ventura xattr Xcode XProtect Statistics * 18,404,573 hits Blog at WordPress.com. Footer navigation * Free Software Menu * About & Contact * Macs * Painting * Downloads * Mac problem-solving * Extended attributes (xattrs) * Painting topics * SilentKnight, Skint, 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 * Versatility & Revisionist * Text Utilities: Nalaprop, Dystextia and others * PDF * Keychains & Permissions * Updates * Spundle, Cormorant, Stibium, Dintch, Fintch and cintch * Long Reads * Mac Troubleshooting Summary * M-series Macs * Mints: a multifunction utility * VisualLookUpTest * Virtualisation on Apple silicon * System Updates * Saturday Mac Riddles * Last Week on My Mac * sysctl information Secondary navigation * Search Post navigation Painting poetry: Alfred, Lord Tennyson Solutions to Saturday Mac riddles 287 Search for: [ ] [Search] Begin typing your search above and press return to search. Press Esc to cancel. * Comment * Reblog * Subscribe Subscribed + [croppe] The Eclectic Light Company Join 6,356 other subscribers [ ] Sign me up + Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now. * + [croppe] The Eclectic Light Company + Customize + Subscribe Subscribed + 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 [b]