OSX gone bad...
DaveB
400mhz g3 that I used for testing web pages - that's ALL it's used
for, I used PCs and Linux workstations for development. Anyway, OSX
will no longer install any software - there have been no changes made
to the machine, (it's running 10.1.something) it has plenty of disk
space and i've never bothered installing anything except browsers on
it.
So for example I tried to install Safari, since every other browser
seems to completely suck on the platform and although it mounts the
image, and I accept the terms etc, it fails to install. I can click
the Safari icon, and it appears briefly in the task bar, then
disappears. Same if I attempt to upgrade Netscape or Mozilla. Anyway,
this isn't really the real reason I'm posting, just a general rant -
wondering if anyone else has had the same problem - I can't be
bothered to look into it to be honest...
What I'd like to know is which Linux distro would people here suggest
for this machine? It has 1/2 gig of RAM, and 30GB HD so there's no
problem with space. I've only used Linux on X86, so I have no idea
what works best on the Mac. I'm giving the machine away to my young
nephews, so something with a nice default desktop would be best (I
would reinstall OSX, but it's just so damned slow even I get annoyed
with it (this is also why I only used it when I REALLY had to) so I'm
thinking a 10 year old and 12 year old would get p*ssed off pretty
quickly). It'll only be used for web browsing, email and chat so I'm
guessing the 400mhz g3 will be up to it?
Is Linux on the PowerPC as well developed as the X86 versions - same
kernel versions, hardware support etc?
Greg Weston
<d...@kitkot.nomod.co.uk.org.com.eu.ltd.uk.jp> wrote:
> I've had OSX on an old imac since it first appeared. It's just a
> 400mhz g3 that I used for testing web pages - that's ALL it's used
> for, I used PCs and Linux workstations for development. Anyway, OSX
> will no longer install any software - there have been no changes made
> to the machine, (it's running 10.1.something) it has plenty of disk
> space and i've never bothered installing anything except browsers on
> it.
>
> So for example I tried to install Safari, since every other browser
> seems to completely suck on the platform and although it mounts the
> image, and I accept the terms etc, it fails to install. I can click
> the Safari icon, and it appears briefly in the task bar, then
> disappears.
a) I'm confused. It failed to install but there was an icon for you to
click? Perhaps you missed something; the result of the Safari installer
is a single icon in the same directory from which the installer ran.
b) You're running 10.1.something. The Safari download page, as well as
the main product page clearly state that Safari requires 10.2. And,
yes, 10.2 was a substantial upgrade from 10.1 under the hood.
> Same if I attempt to upgrade Netscape or Mozilla.
Those I can't speak for. Never tried to use either of them under OS X.
> I'm giving the machine away to my young
> nephews, so something with a nice default desktop would be best (I
> would reinstall OSX, but it's just so damned slow even I get annoyed
> with it (this is also why I only used it when I REALLY had to) so I'm
> thinking a 10 year old and 12 year old would get p*ssed off pretty
> quickly).
Honestly, I'd go the "reinstall OS X" route. Do a fresh clean install
and there's no reason it should be annoyingly slow on the config you
describe. You'll be giving them a robust UNIX-ey system with a decent
UI and the option of a free very high-quality toolchain should either
of them be interested in programming.
Personally I'm a fan of NetBSD over any of the Mac-hosted Linux distros.
G
DaveB
<gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
[...]
>> So for example I tried to install Safari, since every other browser
>> seems to completely suck on the platform and although it mounts the
>> image, and I accept the terms etc, it fails to install. I can click
>> the Safari icon, and it appears briefly in the task bar, then
>> disappears.
>
>a) I'm confused. It failed to install but there was an icon for you to
>click? Perhaps you missed something; the result of the Safari installer
>is a single icon in the same directory from which the installer ran.
Yeah, it installed in the sense the icon was there - but obviously it
didn't install correctly since it fails to launch (as with virtually
everything else).
>b) You're running 10.1.something. The Safari download page, as well as
>the main product page clearly state that Safari requires 10.2. And,
>yes, 10.2 was a substantial upgrade from 10.1 under the hood.
Well maybe that's it then. It would be nice if Apple didn't suppress
the error messages so I could have found out. If I'd attempted to
install an app in Linux (via RPM, Tarball or apt) I'd have errors for
failed dependencies (not sure what Windows does - I've not encountered
the problem there yet). I don't fancy paying Apple again for the
upgrade to 10.2 when experience suggests there will be little, if any
improvement.
>> Same if I attempt to upgrade Netscape or Mozilla.
>
>Those I can't speak for. Never tried to use either of them under OS X.
NS6 was a complete joke. It worked, just. The last version of Mozilla
that managed to install still crawled (testing scripting speed showed
it performing at less than 10% the speed of a 1.2ghz athlon at the
time). I only really used to test on IE though, which itself is pretty
dire on OSX - rendering bugs, methods and objects missing + slow.
>> I'm giving the machine away to my young
>> nephews, so something with a nice default desktop would be best (I
>> would reinstall OSX, but it's just so damned slow even I get annoyed
>> with it (this is also why I only used it when I REALLY had to) so I'm
>> thinking a 10 year old and 12 year old would get p*ssed off pretty
>> quickly).
>
>Honestly, I'd go the "reinstall OS X" route. Do a fresh clean install
>and there's no reason it should be annoyingly slow on the config you
>describe.
And yet... I could understand the beta being slow (debugging code
still in there maybe, yadda yadda yadda) - but once I upgraded to 10.1
I could see little if any improvement. There were less bounces before
an app opened only because it seemed to bounce things more slowly. I
won't bother ranting about the numerous other problems involving NFS,
Samba,DVD playback etc, but they didn't inspire confidence. I hated
OS9 with a passion, BTW so it wasn't nostalgia.
>You'll be giving them a robust UNIX-ey system with a decent
>UI and the option of a free very high-quality toolchain should either
>of them be interested in programming.
Well, this is why I'm going with Linux. Can't see either of them
taking up programming (if you knew them, you'd come to the same
conclusion I'm sure!) I'm giving it a few months tops before one of
them pours coke into the top to "see what happens". Still, it'll get
more use than it does here until it's inevitably involved in some
"accident" :-).
>Personally I'm a fan of NetBSD over any of the Mac-hosted Linux distros.
I've always used Linux (about 7 years now), so I'm pretty confident I
can solve just about any problem on that platform - and while I'm sure
*BSD is similar, I'll stick with what I'm happiest with I think.
Driver support has always been better (more developers I guess), and
it's being developed faster. Having said that, I have no idea if the
modem, sound and graphics chipsets in the imac have decent drivers
though - any advice appreciated. Actually the sound probably doesn't
matter so much, just the modem and gfx...
Greg Weston
<d...@kitkot.nomod.co.uk.org.com.eu.ltd.uk.jp> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 02:00:19 GMT, Greg Weston
> <gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> So for example I tried to install Safari, since every other browser
> >> seems to completely suck on the platform and although it mounts the
> >> image, and I accept the terms etc, it fails to install. I can click
> >> the Safari icon, and it appears briefly in the task bar, then
> >> disappears.
> >
> >a) I'm confused. It failed to install but there was an icon for you to
> >click? Perhaps you missed something; the result of the Safari installer
> >is a single icon in the same directory from which the installer ran.
>
> Yeah, it installed in the sense the icon was there - but obviously it
> didn't install correctly since it fails to launch (as with virtually
> everything else).
No, it fails to launch because you're trying to run it on a version of
the OS that doesn't meet its minimum requirements.
> >b) You're running 10.1.something. The Safari download page, as well as
> >the main product page clearly state that Safari requires 10.2. And,
> >yes, 10.2 was a substantial upgrade from 10.1 under the hood.
>
> Well maybe that's it then. It would be nice if Apple didn't suppress
> the error messages so I could have found out. If I'd attempted to
> install an app in Linux (via RPM, Tarball or apt) I'd have errors for
> failed dependencies (not sure what Windows does - I've not encountered
> the problem there yet). I don't fancy paying Apple again for the
> upgrade to 10.2 when experience suggests there will be little, if any
> improvement.
The installer, IIRC, is simply a disk image with an auto-run feature
that copies the contents and unmounts the image. It would be more
correct to gripe about Safari silently quitting instead of giving a
meaningful message. Not that this helps much.
> >Honestly, I'd go the "reinstall OS X" route. Do a fresh clean install
> >and there's no reason it should be annoyingly slow on the config you
> >describe.
>
> And yet... I could understand the beta being slow (debugging code
> still in there maybe, yadda yadda yadda) - but once I upgraded to 10.1
> I could see little if any improvement.
a) 10.2 is known to be faster than prior releases.
b) You shouldn't find 10.1 particularly slow on the config you
describe. I used 10.0 and 10.1 on slower CPUs with less memory and, at
least for the aspects I care about enough to notice, did not consider
it substantially slower than Mac OS 9 on the same machine or Windows NT
on a moderately more powerful x86.
> I won't bother ranting about the numerous other problems involving
> NFS, Samba,DVD playback etc, but they didn't inspire confidence.
And you shouldn't have had problems with SMB and DVD playback.
> I hated OS9 with a passion, BTW so it wasn't nostalgia.
Okay, but maybe your dislike of OS 9 propogated to a general bias
against the Mac. I always get a little leery of people who use words
like love and hate and passion about an OS. On the other hand, I still
think it's more likely there was just something awry with the install.
G
Tobias Ernst
> What I'd like to know is which Linux distro would people here suggest
> for this machine? It has 1/2 gig of RAM, and 30GB HD so there's no
> problem with space. I've only used Linux on X86, so I have no idea
> what works best on the Mac. I'm giving the machine away to my young
> nephews, so something with a nice default desktop would be best (I
> would reinstall OSX, but it's just so damned slow even I get annoyed
> with it (this is also why I only used it when I REALLY had to) so I'm
> thinking a 10 year old and 12 year old would get p*ssed off pretty
> quickly). It'll only be used for web browsing, email and chat so I'm
> guessing the 400mhz g3 will be up to it?
If that's true, then why don't you install OS 9? If you really had OSX
since it appeared, you should have got a OS 9 CD with it (Jaguar ships
without OS 9, but 10.0 and 10.1 did).
OS 9 will be a lot faster on that hardware, and it seems to be the ideal
platform for web, email + chat for a 12 year old.
No idea what Linux version would suit you. I use Linux in many contexts,
but using Linux on Mac hardware sounds somewhat strange to me - after
all I bought that fucking expensive hardware only because of the
operating system ... :-)
Regards,
Tobias.
DaveB
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>> What I'd like to know is which Linux distro would people here suggest
>> for this machine? It has 1/2 gig of RAM, and 30GB HD so there's no
>> problem with space. I've only used Linux on X86, so I have no idea
>> what works best on the Mac. I'm giving the machine away to my young
>> nephews, so something with a nice default desktop would be best (I
>> would reinstall OSX, but it's just so damned slow even I get annoyed
>> with it (this is also why I only used it when I REALLY had to) so I'm
>> thinking a 10 year old and 12 year old would get p*ssed off pretty
>> quickly). It'll only be used for web browsing, email and chat so I'm
>> guessing the 400mhz g3 will be up to it?
>
>If that's true, then why don't you install OS 9? If you really had OSX
>since it appeared, you should have got a OS 9 CD with it (Jaguar ships
>without OS 9, but 10.0 and 10.1 did).
I'm not sure if this is a joke or if you're actually serious here. I
actually bought a Mac for my gran a couple of years ago that came with
OS9, and also had to use it at a previous job due to a hardware
shortage at the time. Now I'm no Windows advocate (I use it since I
have to use certain software that's not available for Linux), but I
had heard good things about usability, stability etc. The usability
issue is open to debate, and I'm sure there have been enough arguments
here about that, however, I found it so easy to crash that I simply
gave up on it. My gran does use her machine and accepts the lockups as
par for the course even though she hardly pushes it (email and web).
As a long term Linux user, I jumped at the chance to erase all traces
of OS9 and install a version of *nix - I tried to like it, I really
did but the sluggish (albeit stylish) interface was excrutiating to
use, so I thought I'd wait for the proper release - which was also too
slow. I even bought the extra RAM to try to speed it up, but it didn't
help. So I returned to the PC.
The strange thing is, I looked around for help with the OS9 lockups,
only to be told "you must be lying", "OS9 hasn't crashed ever on my
machine" etc, yet reading the same posters after their OSX upgrades,
revealed them claiming OSX was much more stable, and didn't crash,
unlike previous versions?!
>No idea what Linux version would suit you. I use Linux in many contexts,
>but using Linux on Mac hardware sounds somewhat strange to me - after
>all I bought that fucking expensive hardware only because of the
>operating system ... :-)
Well that was my original reason, but it hasn't resulted in a usable
machine, and in my view OS9 would be too unstable, and OSX too slow.
Linux seems the ideal alternative for my situation. I've been looking
around, and YellowDog seems a good bet, so I'll be trying that.
DaveB
<gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >Honestly, I'd go the "reinstall OS X" route. Do a fresh clean install
>> >and there's no reason it should be annoyingly slow on the config you
>> >describe.
>>
>> And yet... I could understand the beta being slow (debugging code
>> still in there maybe, yadda yadda yadda) - but once I upgraded to 10.1
>> I could see little if any improvement.
>
>a) 10.2 is known to be faster than prior releases.
>b) You shouldn't find 10.1 particularly slow on the config you
>describe. I used 10.0 and 10.1 on slower CPUs with less memory and, at
>least for the aspects I care about enough to notice, did not consider
>it substantially slower than Mac OS 9 on the same machine or Windows NT
>on a moderately more powerful x86.
Well it was significantly slower on the iMac. There appeared to be
literally thousands of other people saying the same, as a quick search
of Google will reveal. I'm surprised you didn't notice much difference
when your slower machine had to reflow/redraw translucent, true-colour
windows in realtime instead of just using outline dragging though,
where a few hundred pixels would be drawn. It certainly made a
difference here. The resizing was so slow I could see the window being
redrawn behind the mouse (running top at the same time in a terminal
showed almost 100% CPU use just moving/resizing). You must realise I'd
been using PCs since DOS+Windows 3.0, and couldn't remember any of
those working as slowly (actually I've used a Sun workstation that was
pretty pitiful, but that was like 8 years old).
>> I won't bother ranting about the numerous other problems involving
>> NFS, Samba,DVD playback etc, but they didn't inspire confidence.
>
>And you shouldn't have had problems with SMB and DVD playback.
I did fix things eventually, the Samba mount was only accomplished by
adding numerous key-value pairs in Netinfo manager (which lacks any
sort of help - I had to scour usenet) but it moved files very slowly
compared to the Windows and Linux boxes on the same network. The DVD
drive started working again with 10.1. NFS was a nightmare, since
failed attempts to mount from a server resulted in a mountpoint that
couldn't be used again until after a reboot - it also required a share
be open to an insecure port and umount didn't unmount the drive
(again, it required a reboot - or did, maybe they fixed it?)
>> I hated OS9 with a passion, BTW so it wasn't nostalgia.
>
>Okay, but maybe your dislike of OS 9 propogated to a general bias
>against the Mac.
Not really, I like the design of the hardware. Admittedly I my first
exposure to the platform was in a new job while waiting for another
Windows machine to arrive. I was basically left to find my own way
about, and the combination of single mouse button, "shared" menu bar
and precarious "collaberative multi-tasking" in which a single app
crash would lock the machine - frequently - didn't help matters.
If I were truly biased, I wouldn't have spent around 3,000 quid on the
hardware + software (OSX) - as it is though I can't see me buying
another though - maybe the MP3 player as I seem to remember it can be
used with Linux.
>I always get a little leery of people who use words
>like love and hate and passion about an OS. On the other hand, I still
>think it's more likely there was just something awry with the install.
Yeah, maybe I was unlucky - I'll see how it runs with YD linux and
take it from there. I'm pretty sure I can have that running quickly,
if it's anything like its X86 counterparts. I'm pretty sure I'll also
be able to remove half the RAM for one of my machines and it'll still
be fine!
Ray Fischer
>I've had OSX on an old imac since it first appeared. It's just a
>400mhz g3 that I used for testing web pages - that's ALL it's used
>for, I used PCs and Linux workstations for development. Anyway, OSX
>will no longer install any software - there have been no changes made
>to the machine, (it's running 10.1.something) it has plenty of disk
>space and i've never bothered installing anything except browsers on
>it.
>
>So for example I tried to install Safari, since every other browser
>seems to completely suck on the platform and although it mounts the
>image, and I accept the terms etc, it fails to install.
Maybe Safari requires OS 10.2?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Greg Weston
<d...@kitkot.nomod.co.uk.org.com.eu.ltd.uk.jp> wrote:
She shouldn't. While it is, in the abstract, easy to hose Mac OS < X
with an abberant application, such behavior is not inescapable and
should not be expected as the norm. I really can't recall the last time
I had to reboot a Mac running 9.x.
G
Greg Weston
<d...@kitkot.nomod.co.uk.org.com.eu.ltd.uk.jp> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 06:57:00 GMT, Greg Weston
> <gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> >Honestly, I'd go the "reinstall OS X" route. Do a fresh clean install
> >> >and there's no reason it should be annoyingly slow on the config you
> >> >describe.
> >>
> >> And yet... I could understand the beta being slow (debugging code
> >> still in there maybe, yadda yadda yadda) - but once I upgraded to 10.1
> >> I could see little if any improvement.
> >
> >a) 10.2 is known to be faster than prior releases.
> >b) You shouldn't find 10.1 particularly slow on the config you
> >describe. I used 10.0 and 10.1 on slower CPUs with less memory and, at
> >least for the aspects I care about enough to notice, did not consider
> >it substantially slower than Mac OS 9 on the same machine or Windows NT
> >on a moderately more powerful x86.
>
> Well it was significantly slower on the iMac. There appeared to be
> literally thousands of other people saying the same, as a quick search
> of Google will reveal. I'm surprised you didn't notice much difference
> when your slower machine had to reflow/redraw translucent, true-colour
> windows in realtime instead of just using outline dragging though,
> where a few hundred pixels would be drawn. It certainly made a
> difference here.
That would be the "aspects I care about" clause. I don't spend enough
time resizing windows to be bothered by a slight stutter. And a
_slight_ stutter is what I saw when I tried to verify what other people
were telling me about how inherently abyssmal it was. Not as bad, as I
said, as NT 4 (which has a less complex UI to draw) on a faster
machine.
> The resizing was so slow I could see the window being
> redrawn behind the mouse (running top at the same time in a terminal
> showed almost 100% CPU use just moving/resizing).
See, to me that's aberrant behavior. I agree completely with your lack
of satisfaction with that kind of performance. But I can't reproduce
it. I similarly had people telling me that their text editor couldn't
keep up with slow typing but the same program on a machine half the
speed kept up with my fast typing without breaking a sweat.
> You must realise I'd been using PCs since DOS+Windows 3.0,
I've been using them longer still.
> >> I won't bother ranting about the numerous other problems involving
> >> NFS, Samba,DVD playback etc, but they didn't inspire confidence.
> >
> >And you shouldn't have had problems with SMB and DVD playback.
>
> I did fix things eventually,
Okay, but I'll restate: you shouldn't have had problems that needed to
be fixed. I've used the SMB client in 10.1 and 10.2 at least twice a
week to move a substantial amount of data since 10.1 shipped. It didn't
take...
> the Samba mount was only accomplished by
> adding numerous key-value pairs in Netinfo manager (which lacks any
> sort of help - I had to scour usenet)
... and it didn't ...
> but it moved files very slowly
> compared to the Windows and Linux boxes on the same network.
G
DaveB
<gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >a) 10.2 is known to be faster than prior releases.
>> >b) You shouldn't find 10.1 particularly slow on the config you
>> >describe. I used 10.0 and 10.1 on slower CPUs with less memory and, at
>> >least for the aspects I care about enough to notice, did not consider
>> >it substantially slower than Mac OS 9 on the same machine or Windows NT
>> >on a moderately more powerful x86.
>>
>> Well it was significantly slower on the iMac. There appeared to be
>> literally thousands of other people saying the same, as a quick search
>> of Google will reveal. I'm surprised you didn't notice much difference
>> when your slower machine had to reflow/redraw translucent, true-colour
>> windows in realtime instead of just using outline dragging though,
>> where a few hundred pixels would be drawn. It certainly made a
>> difference here.
>
>That would be the "aspects I care about" clause. I don't spend enough
>time resizing windows to be bothered by a slight stutter. And a
>_slight_ stutter is what I saw when I tried to verify what other people
>were telling me about how inherently abyssmal it was. Not as bad, as I
>said, as NT 4 (which has a less complex UI to draw) on a faster
>machine.
Well we certainly have had different experiences then. One thing I'll
admit that MS have always gotten right has been the window
movement/resizing. Since this is all hardware accelerated it's little
wonder really. The only time I've seen bad performance has been when
using the VGA unaccelerated drivers during an install. I believe the
problem with the iMac (and reports seem to back this up) is that the
graphic chipset is incapable of accelerating the type of graphic
display OSX uses. I can enable translucent windows on this Windows
machine, but only by using the card-specific control panel.
>> The resizing was so slow I could see the window being
>> redrawn behind the mouse (running top at the same time in a terminal
>> showed almost 100% CPU use just moving/resizing).
>
>See, to me that's aberrant behavior. I agree completely with your lack
>of satisfaction with that kind of performance. But I can't reproduce
>it.
Strange. If you noticed the windows "stuttering" when moved/resized,
then this would suggest the CPU was unable to redraw at the maximum
framerate. This should only happen if it's maxed out, shouldn't it? So
what does top report when you're doing this?
>> You must realise I'd been using PCs since DOS+Windows 3.0,
>
>I've been using them longer still.
Ok, well technically I've been using computers for over 20 years, but
the Spectrums, BBCs, Amiga and Harris 500 didn't seem relevent ;-)
>> >> I won't bother ranting about the numerous other problems involving
>> >> NFS, Samba,DVD playback etc, but they didn't inspire confidence.
>> >
>> >And you shouldn't have had problems with SMB and DVD playback.
>>
>> I did fix things eventually,
>
>Okay, but I'll restate: you shouldn't have had problems that needed to
>be fixed. I've used the SMB client in 10.1 and 10.2 at least twice a
>week to move a substantial amount of data since 10.1 shipped. It didn't
>take...
>
>> the Samba mount was only accomplished by
>> adding numerous key-value pairs in Netinfo manager (which lacks any
>> sort of help - I had to scour usenet)
I'd like to have known the "quick" way of doing it - it would have
saved an hour! In my case, I had to set up a new server, with the
relevent keys etc - with no help from NetInfo, then mount it manually
every time I needed to access files. In Win I have network drives that
automount, and in Linux I just type smb:\\machineName\share (or
automount, but I tend to use NFS instead) and there it is! I actually
wanted to use NFS (what with it being *BSD it should have been simple)
but it was too flakey. I think I probably would have been happier if
Apple hadn't changed the way the system worked, but placing all the
config data into the Netinfo file (a lot like the Windows registry)
instead of leaving the config files in /etc as any *nix system will by
default.
Anyway, I'm getting off topic a bit - I have Linux running on it now,
and it all seems to be working well - definitely faster! I've not
tested the modem or sound yet but hopefully it'll work... I'll have to
reconnect the speakers though - I pulled the wires as that damned
startup sound used to bellow out whenever starting up OSX.
Greg Weston
<d...@kitkot.nomod.co.uk.org.com.eu.ltd.uk.jp> wrote:
> >That would be the "aspects I care about" clause. I don't spend enough
> >time resizing windows to be bothered by a slight stutter. And a
> >_slight_ stutter is what I saw when I tried to verify what other people
> >were telling me about how inherently abyssmal it was. Not as bad, as I
> >said, as NT 4 (which has a less complex UI to draw) on a faster
> >machine.
>
> Well we certainly have had different experiences then. One thing I'll
> admit that MS have always gotten right has been the window
> movement/resizing.
And yet I get the same stuttering on NT that I do on OS X while the NT
box is faster and has a better video card (although neither card is
great).
> >> The resizing was so slow I could see the window being
> >> redrawn behind the mouse (running top at the same time in a terminal
> >> showed almost 100% CPU use just moving/resizing).
> >
> >See, to me that's aberrant behavior. I agree completely with your lack
> >of satisfaction with that kind of performance. But I can't reproduce
> >it.
>
> Strange. If you noticed the windows "stuttering" when moved/resized,
> then this would suggest the CPU was unable to redraw at the maximum
> framerate. This should only happen if it's maxed out, shouldn't it?
There could be other things stalling it. The OS X window manager is
fundamentally different from the older Mac OS one or the Windows one.
> So what does top report when you're doing this?
Don't know. That machine is gone and nothing faster replicates the
problem for me. I should probably say that the stuttering I saw was on
the slowest supported model - a cacheless G3/233.
> >> You must realise I'd been using PCs since DOS+Windows 3.0,
> >
> >I've been using them longer still.
>
> Ok, well technically I've been using computers for over 20 years, but
> the Spectrums, BBCs, Amiga and Harris 500 didn't seem relevent ;-)
Same here. I started programming a little over 20 years ago with a bit
of user experience before that.
> >> >And you shouldn't have had problems with SMB and DVD playback.
> >>
> >> I did fix things eventually,
> >
> >Okay, but I'll restate: you shouldn't have had problems that needed to
> >be fixed. I've used the SMB client in 10.1 and 10.2 at least twice a
> >week to move a substantial amount of data since 10.1 shipped. It didn't
> >take...
> >
> >> the Samba mount was only accomplished by
> >> adding numerous key-value pairs in Netinfo manager (which lacks any
> >> sort of help - I had to scour usenet)
>
> I'd like to have known the "quick" way of doing it
In the Finder, choose Connect (Cmd-K) to bring up the graphical UI that
mounts network shares. If you know where you're going, just type
smb://server_name_or_addr/share_name and hit enter. Then enter your
authentication info if you haven't told the local machine to cache it
on a previous mount. End of task. You can save it as a favorite and
avoid the dialog or make an alias once it's mounted so that future
mounts are accomplished by double-clicking the alias (mimicking the act
of opening any local volume). I think there's automount functionality,
but the alias is good enough for my needs. I literally haven't got a
clue what you're talking about when you describe the need to "set up a
new server with relevant keys."
> I think I probably would have been happier if
> Apple hadn't changed the way the system worked, but placing all the
> config data into the Netinfo file (a lot like the Windows registry)
> instead of leaving the config files in /etc as any *nix system will by
> default.
Other commercial Unix systems use mechanisms similar to NetInfo. It's
becoming common as Unix moves to the desktop. And NetInfo isn't really
"a lot" like the Registry. Superficial resemblance.
G
DaveB
<gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >> the Samba mount was only accomplished by
>> >> adding numerous key-value pairs in Netinfo manager (which lacks any
>> >> sort of help - I had to scour usenet)
>>
>> I'd like to have known the "quick" way of doing it
>
>In the Finder, choose Connect (Cmd-K) to bring up the graphical UI that
>mounts network shares. If you know where you're going, just type
>smb://server_name_or_addr/share_name and hit enter. Then enter your
>authentication info if you haven't told the local machine to cache it
>on a previous mount. End of task. You can save it as a favorite and
>avoid the dialog or make an alias once it's mounted so that future
>mounts are accomplished by double-clicking the alias (mimicking the act
>of opening any local volume). I think there's automount functionality,
>but the alias is good enough for my needs. I literally haven't got a
>clue what you're talking about when you describe the need to "set up a
>new server with relevant keys."
Well my share ended up in the list of servers after hacking about with
Netinfo, so I could just click on it from the finder or something -
can't remember now.
>> I think I probably would have been happier if
>> Apple hadn't changed the way the system worked, but placing all the
>> config data into the Netinfo file (a lot like the Windows registry)
>> instead of leaving the config files in /etc as any *nix system will by
>> default.
>
>Other commercial Unix systems use mechanisms similar to NetInfo. It's
>becoming common as Unix moves to the desktop. And NetInfo isn't really
>"a lot" like the Registry. Superficial resemblance.
Well Sun doesn't and since SCO is all but dead, they're the last major
UNIX vendor - most others have gone Linux (I believe SGi will convert
in the near future). I would have liked a switch so the machine could
read the normal config files rather than relying on a single binary
file that's only accessible via a couple of tools (think regedit on
Win).
BTW, I'm VERY impressed with Yellow Dog Linux on the iMac. The install
was cake; just booted from the CD, wiped the hard drive and had it
running inside 30 minutes (I it can be used to dual boot with OSX if
required but I really don'r see myself ever using it again). It really
is *much* faster, and I really like using the machine now, whereas I
couldn't be bothered to switch it on before as OSX made it a pain to
use - I'm sorry I promised to give it to my nephews now!
Just about everything works straight away - accelerated X server (I
tend to use Gnome, but it also has KDE and TWM), sound, ethernet and
modem. Hell, even the scrollwheel on the optical mouse works! I'm
going to have to compile/find a DVD player but that shouldn't be a
huge problem; I've had to do that on every Linux distro. The one thing
I did notice is that NFS is broken, but since I'm not keeping it here
on my network that won't be a problem ("mount -t smbfs..." works just
fine though). I've removed half the RAM, but it barely reaches 90MB
unless you load up Mozilla and some other apps - so 256MB is more than
enough.
DaveB
<gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
[...OS9...]
>> issue is open to debate, and I'm sure there have been enough arguments
>> here about that, however, I found it so easy to crash that I simply
>> gave up on it. My gran does use her machine and accepts the lockups as
>> par for the course even though she hardly pushes it (email and web).
>
>She shouldn't. While it is, in the abstract, easy to hose Mac OS < X
>with an abberant application, such behavior is not inescapable and
>should not be expected as the norm. I really can't recall the last time
>I had to reboot a Mac running 9.x.
I lost so much work having to use that first Mac at the job before
getting the SGI that I got into the habit of saving every minute or so
from the text editor I was using. I could lock it just by opening a
share with one of the other Macs one of the designers was using, or
even just printing, so I learned not to do it! It wouldn't actually
"lock" totally with the share, but become so slow it was impossible to
use. Even things like testing Flash movies (I was writing some
Actionscript at the time) was "fun". To play the movie at the correct
speed, one would have to continuously move the mouse around in circles
on the desk. If you stopped, so did the movies, or at least become
very slow ;-) (And yes, the power cycling was disabled, thanks). There
were a million and one other issues - I wasted hours disabling and
enabling extensions, installing updates and god knows what else. I
honestly don't think it was used by anyone after I finally escaped
except to test for scripting problems with the Mac ports of IE and
Netscape 4 at the time (the reason I bought my iMac, BTW).
The designer would have the similar problems with crashes on her Mac
(G4, mostly used for Photoshop, ImageReady and Flash work) - although
not quite so extreme. So with my gran's that's 4 out of 4 that crashed
frequently/very frequently (I only fiddled with the first one at work
and my own so I don't think it was all my fault). My own didn't crash
once I installed OSX, which also suggests it wasn't a hardware issue.
The fact Apple themselves gave up cludging OS9 (which was a patched
version of OS8, which was a patched version of OS7 etc) seems to
indicate even they knew it was a huge job to fix and started anew with
*BSD.
to...@aplawrence.com
: use. Even things like testing Flash movies (I was writing some
: Actionscript at the time) was "fun". To play the movie at the correct
: speed, one would have to continuously move the mouse around in circles
: on the desk. If you stopped, so did the movies, or at least become
: very slow ;-) (And yes, the power cycling was disabled, thanks). There
That is so funny..
Many years ago I was sitting in the office of the VP of a local newspaper.
She was printing something from her Mac, and it was taking forever.
I told her that if she moved her mouse around, it would print faster.
Of course I was totally pulling her leg. I made up a very plausible
strory about the Mac having to wait for interrupts from the printer
to know that each character was printed. I explained that moving
the mouse generated more interrupts than the Mac could handle while
printing, so the print driver would stop worrying about interrupts
and would just shove the characters out as fast as the printer could
print them.
She understood just enough that it sounded right.. and she convinced
herself that yes, if she wiggled the mouse about, the print speed
increased.
Yes, I know. I'm cruel :-)
A week later, I happened to be in her office again, and she was printing,
and talking to me, and moving her mouse around.. and the President walked
in. He looked at her with a very puzzled look and asked her why she was
moving the mouse so strangely. She started to say "Because Tony said.."
and just about then she saw the grin I just could not suppress and she
caught on..
She threw me out of her office :-)
The President just about doubled over laughing..
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux resources: http://aplawrence.com
Inexpensive phone/email support
Download Free Mac OS X Skills Test: http://pcunix.com/skilltests.html
Greg Weston
> DaveB <d...@kitkot.nomod.co.uk.org.com.eu.ltd.uk.jp> wrote:
> : use. Even things like testing Flash movies (I was writing some
> : Actionscript at the time) was "fun". To play the movie at the correct
> : speed, one would have to continuously move the mouse around in circles
> : on the desk. If you stopped, so did the movies, or at least become
> : very slow ;-) (And yes, the power cycling was disabled, thanks). There
>
> That is so funny..
>
> Many years ago I was sitting in the office of the VP of a local newspaper.
> She was printing something from her Mac, and it was taking forever.
>
> I told her that if she moved her mouse around, it would print faster.
> Of course I was totally pulling her leg. I made up a very plausible
> strory about the Mac having to wait for interrupts from the printer
> to know that each character was printed. I explained that moving
> the mouse generated more interrupts than the Mac could handle while
> printing, so the print driver would stop worrying about interrupts
> and would just shove the characters out as fast as the printer could
> print them.
>
> She understood just enough that it sounded right.. and she convinced
> herself that yes, if she wiggled the mouse about, the print speed
> increased.
>
> Yes, I know. I'm cruel :-)
Sadly, depending on how the relevant processes are written, it _is_
plausible with a cooperative scheduler. I once saw an installer in
Windows 3.1 that was reproducibly faster if the user kept moving the
mouse. Why? Because in an effort to be friendly to the other running
processes it was only actually doing work a little bit at a time on
each pass through the event loop. Moving the mouse was one way to keep
the event loop from blocking.
The same thing _could_ be done in Mac OS < X. It's equally wrong on
both platforms.
G
Greg Weston
<d...@kitkot.nomod.co.uk.org.com.eu.ltd.uk.jp> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:29:48 GMT, Greg Weston
> <gwesto...@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> >> the Samba mount was only accomplished by
> >> >> adding numerous key-value pairs in Netinfo manager (which lacks any
> >> >> sort of help - I had to scour usenet)
> >>
> >> I'd like to have known the "quick" way of doing it
> >
> >In the Finder, choose Connect (Cmd-K) to bring up the graphical UI that
> >mounts network shares. If you know where you're going, just type
> >smb://server_name_or_addr/share_name and hit enter. Then enter your
> >authentication info if you haven't told the local machine to cache it
> >on a previous mount. End of task. You can save it as a favorite and
> >avoid the dialog or make an alias once it's mounted so that future
> >mounts are accomplished by double-clicking the alias (mimicking the act
> >of opening any local volume). I think there's automount functionality,
> >but the alias is good enough for my needs. I literally haven't got a
> >clue what you're talking about when you describe the need to "set up a
> >new server with relevant keys."
>
> Well my share ended up in the list of servers after hacking about with
> Netinfo, so I could just click on it from the finder or something -
> can't remember now.
Yep. I can get that effect through the normal interface. Sounds like
you did by hand something that the system will do automatically for
you. Why it apparently _wasn't_ doing it I can't answer since I wasn't
there when you were trying.
> >> I think I probably would have been happier if
> >> Apple hadn't changed the way the system worked, but placing all the
> >> config data into the Netinfo file (a lot like the Windows registry)
> >> instead of leaving the config files in /etc as any *nix system will by
> >> default.
> >
> >Other commercial Unix systems use mechanisms similar to NetInfo. It's
> >becoming common as Unix moves to the desktop. And NetInfo isn't really
> >"a lot" like the Registry. Superficial resemblance.
>
> Well Sun doesn't
Funny. Solaris was one specific example I was thinking of.
> and since SCO is all but dead, they're the last major
> UNIX vendor - most others have gone Linux (I believe SGi will convert
> in the near future). I would have liked a switch so the machine could
> read the normal config files rather than relying on a single binary
> file that's only accessible via a couple of tools (think regedit on
> Win).
Except that's _not_ what it does, which is why I asserted that it had
only a superficial resemblance to the registry. NetInfo provides a
unified interface for querying and editing network- and
security-related information gathered from several sources. The
registry, as you note, is a couple of big, proprietary binary files
that have become a catch-all for any key/value information anyone can
dream up.
> I've removed half the RAM, but it barely reaches 90MB
> unless you load up Mozilla and some other apps - so 256MB is more than
> enough.
256MB is also more than enough on my OS X development machine. I give
up. I'm completely confused as to the source of the difficulties you've
had with Mac OS X on that machine. They are not the norm.
G
Elden Fenison
> No idea what Linux version would suit you. I use Linux in many
> contexts, but using Linux on Mac hardware sounds somewhat strange to
> me - after all I bought that fucking expensive hardware only because
> of the operating system ... :-)
LOL! So true! In this aspect... Apple's strategy of locking their OS in
with their hardware seems to be working eh? I bought Apple hardware for
the same reason... OS X was just too cool to ignore.
--
-=Elden=-
http://www.moondog.org