- Last Active
lkrupp said:bluefire1 said:I guess us peasants will have to settle for the standard AW7 Apple models.
I can honestly say the money would not be the first reason for me to pass on getting a Hermes edition. The bands just look both dumb and uncomfortable; "fashion" over function. I wouldn't wear it if someone gave me one. They seem to be different solely for their ability to stand out as a conspicuous consumption item.
There definitely are differences between a Porsche and a Chevy's functions, though there are significantly diminishing returns on the extra comfort/function for the money. It is definitely a luxury but not only just for showing off while you get from point A to point B.
maltz said:JamesBrickley said:neilm said:So unless Apple has re-engineered Time Machine, they presumably must have updated APFS to support hard links. Anyone know?Do you have a source for that? I'd love more detail. I've replicated Time Machine-like backups on my ZFS pool using local snapshots and offsite replication. But ZFS has been light years ahead of APFS in those areas (and others) which is a huge shame, because my homegrown ZFS solution is FAR faster (in browsing historical snapshots and off-device replication) and far more space efficient than Time Machine.Surely this would be bigger news, though, if Time Machine has remotely approached ZFS efficiency.https://eclecticlight.co/2020/06/29/apfs-changes-in-big-sur-how-time-machine-backs-up-to-apfs-and-more/
"APFS doesn’t support directory hard links, so can’t use the same mechanism when storing Time Machine backups. Instead, what appears to function as a form of virtual file system is created using new features in APFS. The volume assigned the role of Backup appears to be a regular APFS volume, and is protected from normal access, even by root. File data is kept as usual in the container’s Physical Store, to which file data is copied during each backup. Apple hasn’t indicated whether this continues to be whole files, or whether only changed data are copied."