Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MacInWin" data-source="post: 1899283" data-attributes="member: 396914">And that is my entire point. Integrated storage (to NOT call it a &quot;drive&quot; and confuse folks) means that when/if the storage fails, the clone is of no use getting that machine going again. So, for an owner of a Mx Mac, clones are of less use than before. Not useless, just less useful. Before, you could have a dead drive but a working CPU and boot from the clone and be running in minutes. But now, if the &quot;drive&quot; portion of the System on a Chip dies, the CPU goes with it, so that clone isn't as much use. Only if you have a second Mac will it be immediately useful. So the use case for clones is different on a Mx Mac than it was on the Intel architecture.Creating a clone of an Mx Mac may (or may not) be as easy as it was before, but the end result is still less useful overall. It has lost one of the key (at least for me) uses in that if the &quot;drive&quot; dies, it cannot boot the machine. That's not the fault of the developers, it's more how Apple has developed the architecture and boot sequence. One use for clones which is not being used much at this point but which may become more useful down the road is to be able to change macOS versions for testing. When Monterey is replaced, it may be possible to either keep the Monterey clone and install the next version internally, or keep Monterey internally and install the new version to an external drive to test drive it. And as long as the hardware storage doesn't have any issues, that should still work. What will be key is how Apple will handle the &quot;owner&quot; permissions in that environment. One can hope they are going to be flexible!But let me be clear, clones are still part of my backup strategy overall. Just not the same way. I don't think that's &quot;bad information,&quot; just reality.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MacInWin, post: 1899283, member: 396914"] And that is my entire point. Integrated storage (to NOT call it a "drive" and confuse folks) means that when/if the storage fails, the clone is of no use getting that machine going again. So, for an owner of a Mx Mac, clones are of less use than before. Not useless, just less useful. Before, you could have a dead drive but a working CPU and boot from the clone and be running in minutes. But now, if the "drive" portion of the System on a Chip dies, the CPU goes with it, so that clone isn't as much use. Only if you have a second Mac will it be immediately useful. So the use case for clones is different on a Mx Mac than it was on the Intel architecture. Creating a clone of an Mx Mac may (or may not) be as easy as it was before, but the end result is still less useful overall. It has lost one of the key (at least for me) uses in that if the "drive" dies, it cannot boot the machine. That's not the fault of the developers, it's more how Apple has developed the architecture and boot sequence. One use for clones which is not being used much at this point but which may become more useful down the road is to be able to change macOS versions for testing. When Monterey is replaced, it may be possible to either keep the Monterey clone and install the next version internally, or keep Monterey internally and install the new version to an external drive to test drive it. And as long as the hardware storage doesn't have any issues, that should still work. What will be key is how Apple will handle the "owner" permissions in that environment. One can hope they are going to be flexible! But let me be clear, clones are still part of my backup strategy overall. Just not the same way. I don't think that's "bad information," just reality. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Name this item. 🍎