Win95 errors in a PC-based Design Studio (Switch to Apple?)
Les Juby
THE PROBLEM
A corporate customer runs eight PC based high-end graphics
workstations on Win95, most of which are experiencing up to three or
so "Illegal Program Operation" errors per day. Downtime is huge and
the customer is querying the wisdom of using PC systems. Here in
South Africa the graphics design market is dominated by Apple so we
are looking for benchmarks. Where else are PC systems big for
high-end graphics and do they have the problems we experience; and if
not what are we doing wrong.?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies for the cross-posting but how else to reach LAN
administrators of design studios.? *Please* copy any replies to
l...@webpro.co.za as I don't frequent these groups - bad netiquette I
know, but I can't afford to miss your (ahem) wise replies.!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THEPROBLEM (continued.....)
..... As this is happening to several machines it seems reasonable to
assume that the cause is system wide. A few machines have presented
VxD errors with the "blue screen of death" but this has largely been
solved with matching more compatible RAM.
The customer is experiencing up to three hours downtime per day per
machine with lost data files, restorations and occassional registry
rebuilds.
INDIVIDUAL MACHINE SPECIFICATIONS
All Pentium class ranging from P120 through to MMX166, all Intel. RAM
ranges from 64mB to 128mB, SCSI (Initio) adapters and SCSI (Quantum)
hard drives. Jaz drives, both internal and external. A noticable
amount of errors (Illegal Prog Op) have tripped when accessing faulty
Jaz disks and the incidence of IPO errors seems higher on the MMX
machines.
OPERATING SYSTEMS (OS) AND NETWORK OPERATING SYSTEMS (NOS)
The customer decided some years back to install the Artisoft
Corestream Server NOS and accessed the server and other workstations
with LANtastic for Windows. This was upgraded to LANtastic 7.0 for
Win95 when the workstation OSs were upgraded to Windows 95.
The decision to stay with LANtastic for Win95 as opposed to using
Win95's networking features was taken after comparing the file
transfer speeds and printer delivery speeds.
Servers (two - one Lt7/95 on Corestream, the other Lt7/95 on Win95)
are used for Font Libraries, shared printers and access to mass
storage devices (Bernoulli, Magneto-Opticals, CD readers and CD-Write
drives)
APPLICATION SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT
All machines are running at least three graphics programs opened
concurrently; Adobe Photoshop, Pagemaker and CorelDRAW.
Files created can be huge - up to 300 or 400mB in PageMaker.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED
1) Take out the LANtastic NOS and go straight Win 95 peer-to-peer or
NT-Server. This is the medium term plan which will be implemented
over the next three months.
2) Go for the NT-Server NOS and have the workstations run under the
NT Workstation OS.
3) Rebuild Win95 on each machine by reformatting and reinstalling to
remove bloated .ini and configuration files. This program is just
starting.
4) Consider introducing Apple Macs and grow that section of the
network introducing more Macs as PCs age and need upgrading. A
"radical" approach as the client's investment in PC equipment is
relatively large. And a solution is not guaranteed.
5) We are concerned that the IPO errors are confined mainly to the
Chaintech motherboard MMX machines. Are these known MMX problems,
and/or could BIOS incompatibility be involved.?
6) User logs indicate that PageMaker is always open when errors
occur, but it is the core application and the client couldn't possibly
not use it for testing purposes. But some sources accuse PageMaker of
perhaps being the cause.!
HELP - Can anyone please offer any other problem solving
suggestions.????
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Les Juby
Prosoft Microsystems / Webpro Internet Services
Durban - KwaZulu-Natal - South Africa
Tel: +27 31 838344 Fax: +27 31 844928
l...@webpro.co.za or a/hrs:les...@iafrica.com
http://www.webpro.co.za/clients/prosoft/
http://www.webpro.co.za/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kym ap Rhys
Les Juby wrote:
>
> THE PROBLEM
> A corporate customer runs eight PC based high-end graphics
> workstations on Win95, most of which are experiencing up to three or
> so "Illegal Program Operation" errors per day. Downtime is huge and
> the customer is querying the wisdom of using PC systems. Here in
> South Africa the graphics design market is dominated by Apple so we
> are looking for benchmarks. Where else are PC systems big for
> high-end graphics and do they have the problems we experience; and if
> not what are we doing wrong.?
>
Hi,
If you are running MMX machines you should have Windows 95 build 2
loaded - it is more stable than build 1 with MMX processors. I myself
use PM 6.01 and PM6.5, Photoshop 4.01 and CorelDraw 7 on Windows 95
machines (166MMX with 128Mbytes of Ram and one with an evil SCSI chain
of scanners, disks, CDRom cutter, and Zip drives). Some are Peer to
Peer, and some use Novell and NT networking.
I rarely experience crashes (except with MS Office, but, hey - what's
new?) and any others I have had came down to bad SCSi drivers (the
iomega ones are s**t - I now always reinstall the latest adaptec drivers
after a Zip update).
Graphics drivers can also cause unexpected hangs - make sure you have
the latest revs for your cards.
Make sure you have all the relevant patches from Adobe loaded as well.
Duff removable storage (such as Jazz and Zip) can cause a 'blue screen'
error, but this should not take the whole O/S out!
You may find an upgrade to Windows NT workstation would help - but only
if all your hardware is supported - also I have seen strange Photoshop
issues with NT that are not there with 95.
Hope this helps some...
Kym
Arimo
My suggestions:
In my company i have installed NT4 on all graphic machines due to
the instability of Windows 95.
Nowadays you find drivers for almost all hardware for NT4.
My recent crashes caused by graphic software are about: 1-3/month
compared with Win 95: 1-3/day, Win 3.1: 3-8/day.
The Problem/switch to Apple:
Where in the world isn´t the graphics design market dominated by Apple?.
There is no need to look for benchmarks; your choice of software/hardware
for
PC-environment is vastly greater than for the Macintosh (for less cost if
you
know what you´re buying).
Except for one of our customers, all of them are using PC-machines. What a
problem
it would be for us/them if we would use any other platform because we are
sending
files to each other all the time.
We have one Mac (connected to our NT server) in our company mainly to
convert
some files that one of our employees brought from his former company with
him.
They worked only with Macs, and after a few weeks he in fact admitted that
working
with NT4 (=PC for Mac people) is easier and more logical than with the Mac.
Even I have difficulties to understand the logic of Mac. Installing fonts,
hardware, software
anything under NT4 is much easier for me compared with Mac (or Win 95 for
that matter).
The Problem continued...
NT4 is in fact much more reliable than Win 95.
Remember to install the latest hardware drivers---very important.
Individual Machine Specifications:
Our graphic machines are 200-2x300 MHz intel custom build (=no Compacs,
Dells, IBMs..)
with RAM from 128-512 MB.
Don´t be fooled by the MHz. I found that except for some Photoshop filters,
a 200 Mhz
performs very well if you have enough RAM/hard drive space.
Operating systems...
Lantastic was an unbeatable program under win 3.x but I found no need to
use it under Win95 and now that we are using NT4, I don´t know if there
even is a version that supports it.
Speed...?. I haven´t noticed.
Application software environment:
If your PageMaker files are in fact that large your swap disk must have
4 to 6 times larger free disk space (=1.6 - 2.4 GB + other applications you
have
open that use it), do you have that?
Hardly.
Split up the work to smaller units.
I often have up to 5 "heavy" graphic applications open at the same time
+ of course Microsoft Outlook, Explorer, Acrobat Distiller..Exchange etc.
with very few problems. (I have only 600-800 MB free space on my swap
drive.)
anonymous
Sorry. This post is so filled with mis-information about the Macintosh
that I can't let it stand unchallenged.
Arimo wrote:
> My suggestions:
>
> The Problem/switch to Apple:
>
> Where in the world isnæ„’ the graphics design market dominated by Apple?.
> There is no need to look for benchmarks; your choice of software/hardware
> for PC-environment is vastly greater than for the Macintosh (for less cost
> if you know what you愉e buying).
Wrong. If you suggest that there is more/better software in the graphic
design field available for Windows than for Macintosh, you are woefully
misinformed. In fact, it's quite the opposite. While it may be true
that overall, there are a greater total number of software titles
available for Windows than for Macs, how much of that software do you
really intent to use? The plethora of specialty, PC vertical market
software, or software for statitics, accounting, running a bowling
league, etc. is meaningless if you are in the business of graphic
design. This would explain why the graphic design professionals doing
work at the top of their fields are virtually all using Macs, and why
service bureaus are still overwhelmingly Mac-oriented. Sure, you can
point to cases where Windows has made inroads to these markets, but to
suggest that someone should choose Windows PCs over Macs because of the
availability of graphic design software is, well, it's just plain wrong.
> Except for one of our customers, all of them are using PC-machines. What a
> problem it would be for us/them if we would use any other platform because
> we are sending files to each other all the time.
This suggests to me that you don't understand file format issues. The
only real issue for most shops with both Macs and PCs is getting files
onto the PC systems. Macs have been able to do this -- transparently --
for years. It's not difficult on a Windows machine either, you just
have to restrict the Mac files to the more limited PC options (file
names, etc.). But it shouldn't be a big deal regardless of what system
you're using. It is a no-brainer if you're paying any attention at all.
> We have one Mac (connected to our NT server) in our company mainly to
> convert some files that one of our employees brought from his former
> company with him.
> They worked only with Macs, and after a few weeks he in fact admitted that
> working with NT4 (=PC for Mac people) is easier and more logical than with
> the Mac.
Great. People should use whatever computers that make the most sense
for them, and that give them the least grief. For most design
professionals, that means a Macintosh. If you're happier with a PC, by
all means that's what you should use.
> Even I have difficulties to understand the logic of Mac. Installing fonts,
> hardware, software anything under NT4 is much easier for me compared with
> Mac (or Win 95 for that matter).
Well, you are in a tiny minority there. I can tell you from many years
of experience dealing with thousands of users of both platforms that the
headaches and hassles encountered by users of PC hardware and Windows
dwarf anything that Mac users typically encounter. Yes, we can always
find isolated cases where Mac users had lots of trouble, and some people
certainly do enjoy trouble-free experiences with their PCs. But I can
tell you with no uncertainly that on the whole, keeping Macs running and
working productively, changing hardware, installing software, and making
everything work together is a piece of cake compared to maintaining a
Windows machine. When things go wrong on a Mac (and they will
eventually, on any computer system), they're simple to fix. When things
go wrong on PC, they become a lengthy and painful nightmare all too
often.
I don't want to start a flame war here (fat chance....Mac-bashers will
undoubtedly rise to take the bait and pile on). Look: everyone should
use whatever computer they wnat to. But it's tough for those of us who
see the real impact of platform choice and how it effects users' lives
every day to sit back and let people purporting to be experts spread
misinformation and let it go unchallenged.
May whatever computer you choose treat you well.
Steve Yates
In <6cnehs$avr$1...@phys-news0.kolumbus.fi>, "Arimo" <ami...@bocks.fi> writes:
>Lantastic was an unbeatable program under win 3.x but I found no need to
>use it under Win95 and now that we are using NT4, I don´t know if there
>even is a version that supports it.
LANtastic for NT was released recently.
For the original poster, I would recommend making sure you have the latest
video drivers for your cards. Buggy video drivers are actually fairly common in the
PC world. In a pinch, set one PC to use the generic VGA driver and see if the
problems disappear. While you won't have SVGA screen resolutions, you might
find out if the video card/drivers are the problem.
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Yates
SRT Enterprises
s...@xnet.com
http://www.xnet.com/~srt
------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Millett
My firm has 9 PC workstations running under W95 and one Mac.
Although I agree with most of your comments, I would like to point out that our
Mac gives us more grief than the PC's, in file transfer such as file names and
extensions, Illustrator 7 eps's, ,networking on NT servers, Print drivers for
one printer, and downloading Mac files to a PC based internet.
(we eradicated that problem by connecting the mac seperatly to the Internet)
All in all, the 2 different platforms are on par, remember, it's not really the
machine you use, but how well the Software Companies have made the product for
each platform. The majority of software is available on both and pretty much
inter-changeable.
I am not sexist, and I have used Macs and PC's daily for 6 years on the high end
of design and print.
There are still grounds where both Mac and PC's have to get right, but that
bridge is getting closer and closer with one day, there will be no difference
which platform you use.
Synth
Actually all you are doing is showing your own ignorance of you Mac
knolwedge. Any profeesional graphics package worth having is available for
both platforms, with the exception being 3D which is,
believe it or not (probably not because u seem very narrow minded in your
focus) is dominated by the Windows platform. Simply stated there is more 3D
stuff available for the PC than the Mac.
anonymous wrote in message <34EF65...@adobe.com>...
Kym ap Rhys
anonymous wrote:
>
> This suggests to me that you don't understand file format issues. The
> only real issue for most shops with both Macs and PCs is getting files
> onto the PC systems. Macs have been able to do this -- transparently --
> for years. It's not difficult on a Windows machine either, you just
> have to restrict the Mac files to the more limited PC options (file
> names, etc.). But it shouldn't be a big deal regardless of what system
> you're using. It is a no-brainer if you're paying any attention at all.
>
Oh I wish this were really true! In fact technically it is (although I
have few problems reading Mac files on my PC - but had to buy s/w to do
so form a Zip drive). I have had no end of problems sending files from
PC to bureaus with Macs - in many cases the operators just don't seem to
know HOW to read a PC file on a Mac :-( On one occassion I had to go to
the bureau in person and show them how (and I don't even use a Mac!)
Give me a bureau with a network and the staff that know how to use it
any day - then they can read the files on the native machine (be it PC,
Unix or Mac) and work on it on the platform of their choice!
Regards
Kym ap Rhys
WebStylers
You're right. Many service bureaus have poorly trained staff. I had to
show one how to output PC PageMaker 5.0 files. Luckily I had previous
service bureau experience or they would never have been able to output
my files.
Wayne
Anthony
anonymous wrote in message <34EF65...@adobe.com>...
>Wrong. If you suggest that there is more/better software in the graphic
>design field available for Windows than for Macintosh, you are woefully
>misinformed. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
I agree... then again, there's ten times more software for PCs overall than
there is for the Mac. But does any of this really matter? All the
important stuff is available for _both_ platforms. No major vendor of
graphics software is going to forget either type of computer--there's just
too much of a market on both sides. What this means, in turn, is that other
factors will determine your success in the graphics field--I find it hard to
believe that anyone will go bankrupt in the graphics field just because he
decided to use a PC instead of a Mac, and conversely nobody is going to get
rich just because he chose a Mac over a PC.
If you use a computer exclusively for Photoshop, for example, about the only
difference between a PC and a Mac is the logo you see when you turn on the
machine.
>This would explain why the graphic design professionals doing
>work at the top of their fields are virtually all using Macs, and why
>service bureaus are still overwhelmingly Mac-oriented.
I think inertia explains that more than anything else. At one time, Macs
were so far ahead that it would have been suicide to use a PC
professionally. However, times have changed, and now either platform is
fine. It takes a long time for the old-timers to retire, though, and they
still prefer their Macs. Besides, if they are already using the Macs and
are happy with them, why change? Although there are no glaring
disadvantages to using Windows for graphics nowadays, neither are there any
compelling reasons to switch to Windows if you already are using Macs.
--
Anthony
Steven
So people using Macs are inert oldtimers that need to be phased out?
Take a look into the G3 Macs. They kick ass!
I think DOS should be phased out.
ste...@sifre.demon.nl
(remove * if present)
NSW APA APA
Steven wrote in message <888262130.19612...@news.demon.nl>...
>So people using Macs are inert oldtimers that need to be phased out?
>Take a look into the G3 Macs. They kick ass!
>I think DOS should be phased out.
>
Don't worry its days are numbered. Windows 98 claims to be a totally new
operating system DOS free.
NSW APA APA
>
>APPLICATION SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT
>All machines are running at least three graphics programs opened
>concurrently; Adobe Photoshop, Pagemaker and CorelDRAW.
>Files created can be huge - up to 300 or 400mB in PageMaker.
>
I think your problem is obvious. How are they running up such huge Pagemaker
files? Are they using a publish/subscribe system for their graphics or are
they just copying each entire graphic into Pagemaker? Pagemaker is designed
to work best with previewed images linked to source files. If they are doing
this and still have these huge files then they need to break down the files
and link them with the book command. Though without knowing exactly what is
blowing the files up to such huge levels it is difficult to offer accurate
advice.
If they have to keep the files this size then all the systems are going to
need more RAM (like double), and you will probably need to move your OS to
NT 4.0. Win 95 is always going to have problems staying stable under that
kind of workload.
Colin Wilson
Les Juby wrote:
<snip>
> Files created can be huge - up to 300 or 400mB in PageMaker.
There's your problem. No Pagemaker file should be that big. How long do
they take to open?
Try linking graphic files (rather than storing in the publication) to
keep the Pagemaker size down, and/or split your Pagemaker files into
several. If your graphics are EPS, watch out for bloated header files
being created on import into Pagemaker
Other than than, stick up to 1Gb RAM in each machine ;-)
Colin Wilson
Publishing Innovations
Rochester
Steven wrote:
> So people using Macs are inert oldtimers that need to be phased out?
> Take a look into the G3 Macs. They kick ass!
> I think DOS should be phased out.
>
> ste...@sifre.demon.nl
> (remove * if present)
What's this about DOS being phased out? I don't know anyone who bothers
with DOS anymore. DOS is phased out (my apologies to those who are
perfectly happy and productive with their DOS apps and never need to
update them again).
Steven
NoS...@thanks.com
> >Take a look into the G3 Macs. They kick ass!
> >I think DOS should be phased out.
> >
> operating system DOS free.
Yeah, sure, that's a good one. They claimed the same thing about Win 95
before it came out, "no more DOS!" Hogwash. Horsepuckey.
Look, Windows -- all versions of Windows -- are built upon the
foundations of DOS. I'll believe that DOS is dead when plug-and-play
actually works, and when Bill Gates actually invents something.
NSW APA APA
Rochester wrote in message <34F264A2...@mail.mountain.wave.cat>...
>Steven wrote:
>
>> So people using Macs are inert oldtimers that need to be phased out?
>> Take a look into the G3 Macs. They kick ass!
>> I think DOS should be phased out.
>>
>> ste...@sifre.demon.nl
>> (remove * if present)
>
>What's this about DOS being phased out? I don't know anyone who bothers
>with DOS anymore. DOS is phased out (my apologies to those who are
>perfectly happy and productive with their DOS apps and never need to
>update them again).
>
Windows95 sits atop a DOS base. You can't have Windows95 without DOS.
Windows98 is going to do away with all the final vestiges of DOS.
Steven
So will it have a resource fork or what?
Rochester
NoS...@Thanks.com wrote:
> NSW APA APA wrote:
> > Steven wrote in message <888262130.19612...@news.demon.nl>...
> > >So people using Macs are inert oldtimers that need to be phased out?
> > >Take a look into the G3 Macs. They kick ass!
> > >I think DOS should be phased out.
> > >
> > Don't worry its days are numbered. Windows 98 claims to be a totally new
> > operating system DOS free.
>
> Yeah, sure, that's a good one. They claimed the same thing about Win 95
> before it came out, "no more DOS!" Hogwash. Horsepuckey.
>
> Look, Windows -- all versions of Windows -- are built upon the
> foundations of DOS. I'll believe that DOS is dead when plug-and-play
> actually works, and when Bill Gates actually invents something.
Its true that Win 98 will have an option to DOS, but the OS itself is not a DOS
program, nor does anyone I know use DOS any longer. NT doesn't support DOS at
all. You might be confusing the CMOS screens with DOS, you know, the one's that
identify drives and memory and SCSI cards and such to the hardware. Plug and
Play has worked for me. Never had a problem, ever. Who cares who invents what,
as long as we get to use it and find it useful.
But really, except for a few diehards, either individuals or businesses, who
haven't bothered or needed to upgrade in recent years DOS is not used. There's
Windows, UNIX, Linux, NEXT-Step, BeOS, etc., etc. I use it for one thing. A
game I happen to enjoy from a couple of years back. I could ditch it if I
liked. No loss to my productivity thats for sure. All the new stuff is for
Windows, and the 3 or 4 of the 100s of new titles that are DOS die quickly,
which is good. Now let me get back to Bruce Lee for the Commodore 64 here. How
did they make such great games run on a system with 64K of Ram and no OS anyway?
Rochester
Steven wrote:
> Guess Bill really fooled you! :-)
No. He hasn't. Unless somehow Bill Gates has cast a spell over me so that
everyone I see using NT is, in actuality, using DOS then Steven, you are very
much mistaken. If you are refering to the fact that directory paths still
start with C: and so forth, then yes, this sort of lingo is a holdover.
However the fact that there is a drive known to the system's BIOS as C:
doesn't mean the OS is DOS. Its no different then the Mac, or any other
computer for that matter. You have your main hard-drive, call what you like,
then you have directories on that HD, and within those directories, more
directories too. On each of these systems, somewhere deep within the OS, and
within the hardware itself, the hard-drive isn't actually called a hard-drive,
its called 00101001 or something of that sort.
Steven
I thought you were using windows 95...
But if this explaination satisfies you that's fine.
Rochester
NSW APA APA wrote:
> Rochester wrote in message <34F264A2...@mail.mountain.wave.cat>...
> >Steven wrote:
> >
> >> So people using Macs are inert oldtimers that need to be phased out?
> >> Take a look into the G3 Macs. They kick ass!
> >> I think DOS should be phased out.
> >>
> >> ste...@sifre.demon.nl
> >> (remove * if present)
> >
> >What's this about DOS being phased out? I don't know anyone who bothers
> >with DOS anymore. DOS is phased out (my apologies to those who are
> >perfectly happy and productive with their DOS apps and never need to
> >update them again).
> >
> Windows95 sits atop a DOS base. You can't have Windows95 without DOS.
> Windows98 is going to do away with all the final vestiges of DOS.
Windows NT does not sit atop a DOS base. You can have Windows NT without
DOS.I'm not sure how Win98 will be, but I hear it will offer DOS support.
Bill Brickley
Rochester wrote:
>>Windows98 is going to do away with all the final vestiges of DOS.
>Windows NT does not sit atop a DOS base. You can have Windows NT
>without DOS.I'm not sure how Win98 will be, but I hear it will offer
>DOS support.
NT is a full 32-bit OS that's capable of emulating DOS -- in much the same
way a PowerMac or a UNIX machine does -- it's pretending thru software. The
fact that it _looks_ a lot like Win95 these days is strictly a
marketing-based GUI choice on the part of MicroSoft. NT and 95 are very
distant evolutionary cousins. Win98 will be identical in OS structure to
Win95. The GUI will be based on the IEx4 model and there will be lots of
tweaks and driver improvements, but the kernel remains almost exactly the
same. Many people who choose to upgrade may find they have problems with
older software (as in CDR 6 or 7) because the IEx4 GUI adds lots of new dlls
and registry entries that may conflict. I _think_ the safe choice for most
people will be to wait another year for NT 5 Workstation (consumer edition)
to come out and stabilize for a while, then make the big move. Then it's
bye bye to DOS for real.
RE: The Mac/PC debate. Any machine you can afford that does the job you need
it to do without getting in your way is the right machine for you. 3 years
ago I felt like a stranger in a strange land because I created everything on
a PC and the graphic/arts industry was centered around Macs. (And why was
it so Mac-centric? Because back around 1985 or 86 Linotron formed an
alliance with Adobe and Apple to create the first affordable imaging systems
and tried to sell them to every single printer and publisher in the world.
Compugraphic and everybody else had to follow suit or get left behind.
Companies used to paying $100k for a 2-terminal typesetting system jumped at
the chance to install a system that would allow them to add as many $5000
Macs as they could afford to the network [Appletalk! sheesh!], all of which
would allow complete pagination and even scanning and halftone output.)
That's no longer the case. Even the little service bureau attached to a
local print shop has added PCs to their mix with Corel, Pagemaker and
MS-Office apps on-hand to handle their business clients who try to do some
of their graphics in-house. (I still give them PS Print files because I know
they won't mess with any of my settings.)
I suspect that eventually Apple will find itself in the same position as
Compugraphic and Linotron -- having to ally itself with a bigger company in
order to hang on to the market niche it fills so well. Their prices will
never drop because the demand will never materialze. But Apple and the Mac
will continue to evolve and compete in the graphics arena just as Lino and
CG did, and we'll all be better off for their doing so. And maybe, just
maybe, someday, we'll have an OS that does run on any platform and never
crashes. Actually, we've got one now that's doing quite well thanks to the
Internet -- it's called UNIX and even tho it's one of the oldest OS's
around, it's still one of the most capable and reliable.
-bill
Jeff Cochran
>1) Take out the LANtastic NOS and go straight Win 95 peer-to-peer or
>NT-Server. This is the medium term plan which will be implemented
>over the next three months.
Smart idea.
>2) Go for the NT-Server NOS and have the workstations run under the
>NT Workstation OS.
Maybe smart idea, NT isn't necessarily imperative on the workstation.
>3) Rebuild Win95 on each machine by reformatting and reinstalling to
>remove bloated .ini and configuration files. This program is just
>starting.
This may help, but only temporarily. If it does help at all it's
because you're finally getting the right drivers installed.
>4) Consider introducing Apple Macs and grow that section of the
>network introducing more Macs as PCs age and need upgrading. A
>"radical" approach as the client's investment in PC equipment is
>relatively large. And a solution is not guaranteed.
Another okay choice, but a little drastic I think, considering the
hardware investment.
>5) We are concerned that the IPO errors are confined mainly to the
>Chaintech motherboard MMX machines. Are these known MMX problems,
>and/or could BIOS incompatibility be involved.?
Not MMX, but maybe motherboard related. Good hardware usually has
fewer problems.
>6) User logs indicate that PageMaker is always open when errors
>occur, but it is the core application and the client couldn't possibly
>not use it for testing purposes. But some sources accuse PageMaker of
>perhaps being the cause.!
You posted about large Pagemaker files, which is a good source of your
problem. Why do you have such large files? Link to external
graphics, don't included them. Pagemaker needs swap space and memory
space of 3-4 times the file size, so if you're looking at 300-400 MB
files, you should have 512 MB of RAM or more on each system, plus a
couple Gigs of free hard drive space.
Make sure you have good hardware, clone products give you more grief.
Get good memory and match all banks. Get the correct hardware
drivers, especially video and SCSI drivers. Check your blue-screen
error messages with Microsoft's Technet to find the answers.
Jeff
Paul G
Kym ap Rhys wrote in message <34F058...@dhios.demon.co.uk>...
>anonymous wrote:
I have had no end of problems sending files from
>PC to bureaus with Macs - in many cases the operators just don't seem to
>know HOW to read a PC file on a Mac :-( On one occassion I had to go to
>the bureau in person and show them how (and I don't even use a Mac!)
>Give me a bureau with a network and the staff that know how to use it
>any day - then they can read the files on the native machine (be it PC,
>Unix or Mac) and work on it on the platform of their choice!
>
>Regards
>
>Kym ap Rhys
Yup, I know that one. I do a colour newspaper twice a year and as part of a
distribution package get get the files output at a local newspaper company.
Guess who uses a mac twice a year?
Paul G
Tom N.
>> >Steven wrote:
>> >
>> >> So people using Macs are inert oldtimers that need to be phased out?
>> >> Take a look into the G3 Macs. They kick ass!
>> >> I think DOS should be phased out.
>> >>
Except the G3's top out at 368 megs of ram and only have 3 PCI slots.
And DOS is phased out in the pro market, we use NT
T.
Steven
You're right about those G3 specs. They're meant as mid level systems, not
high end. We're yet to see what apple will offer in the high end segment of
the market. Development seems to go so fast that systems are outdated before
they get to the market. According to Apple the market for systems with more
than 3 PCI slots and more empty bays is very small compared to the market the
G3s are targeting. There are ways around the limitations of the G3 systems
though. Buy a (cheap) 9600 and upgrade it with a G3 processor card or take a
look at Umax.
About DOS: Why do your files need extensions then?
NT vs Mac report: http://macworld.zdnet.com/pages/april.98/Feature.4233.html
ste...@sifre.demon.nl
(remove * if present)
Tom N.
Steven wrote in message <350016A7...@sifre.demon.nl>...
>You're right about those G3 specs. They're meant as mid level systems, not
>high end. We're yet to see what apple will offer in the high end segment of
>the market. Development seems to go so fast that systems are outdated
before
>they get to the market. According to Apple the market for systems with more
>than 3 PCI slots and more empty bays is very small compared to the market
the
>G3s are targeting. There are ways around the limitations of the G3 systems
>though. Buy a (cheap) 9600 and upgrade it with a G3 processor card or take
a
>look at Umax.
>
>About DOS: Why do your files need extensions then?
Probably the same reason all your files need data forks.
T.
Steven
NT does not need data? :-)
I take it you mean the resource fork?
Well, the resource fork is a smart way of dealing with this information. It
stays with the file it belongs to. Independent of the state of the system. If
your registry gets corrupted you have a lot of orphans on your hand. I can
throw away my system without even touching this information. I can send files
to other people without having to worry if their registry is in the same state
as mine. Bill gates chose to stick with DOS because he wanted the market
share. He's a businessman. Apple chose to create a new superior file system
that's suitable for all the different graphical file formats that emerged.
Each got what they wanted.
Anthony
NTFS is a fail-safe file system that does not lose entries in a catastrophic
crash. You must be thinking of Windows 95.
--
Anthony
Steven wrote in message <889279709.18366...@news.demon.nl>...
Steven
Can you educate me as to how NTFS is different from the W95 FS?
Does it not rely on a registry and filename extensions?
What do you mean with the word "entries"?
ste...@sifre.demon.nl
(remove * if present)
Shane D. Killian
Steven wrote:
>
> Can you educate me as to how NTFS is different from the W95 FS?
> Does it not rely on a registry and filename extensions?
> What do you mean with the word "entries"?
>
extension has *NOTHING* to do with the file system; it's merely the way
Windows recognizes files. (Which I find infinitely more appealing than
the mac; I don't know how many times I've downloaded a mac executable
file that the mac couldn't figure out what to do with! In Windows, you
just rename the extension.)
NTFS differs from FAT (the Win95 system) in many ways: It allows for
greater partition space, file/folder-based security, compression, block
suballocation, better fault tolerance, and a bunch of other
improvements.
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"If someone doesn't begin making sense around here,
I'm going to become most annoyed!"
--Delenn, Babylon 5: "Between the Darkness and the Light"
Patrik Fagard
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 21:48:32 +0100, Steven <steven@sifre*.demon.nl>
wrote:
>Can you educate me as to how NTFS is different from the W95 FS?
>Does it not rely on a registry and filename extensions?
>What do you mean with the word "entries"?
I think you are confusing a few things here. The registry has nothing
to do with the storage of files and you won't loose any files or file
extentions if the registry is lost.
It does however store wich file extentions are associated with wich
application.
If the registry crashes, it doesn't mean your files or extentions are
lost, only the associations.
Double clicking on "picture.bmp" will be default open msPaint because
in the registry, *.bmp extentions are associated with that particular
application.
If that association where to be lost, windows will consider the
extention *.bmp as an unknown file format and doubleclicking on
picture.bmp will result in giving you a list of all installed
applications to choose from. (you can then also choose if you wish to
associate the chosen application with that particular file extention)
If you where to open "picture.bmp" from msPaint though, it would
recognize that extention without any problems since msPaint and all
other applications don't use the registry to recognize if they support
that file extention or not.
Greetings,
Patrik
Steven
Please don't shout at me. I admit I am more ignorant about the PC than
about the Mac. At least I admit it. That's why I ask to be educated. I
understand the file system has to do with the way the computer stores
things on a disk. As far as I know the "resource fork vs file extension"
question that's being discussed here does have something to do with the
file system. The file system of a Macintosh (MFS, HFS, HFS+) creates a
resource fork for certain data of a file. For example, all text in dialog
boxes is usually kept in resources and not within program code itself. This
makes it easy to localize software for international markets and edit all
kinds of things in the interface. Without having to recompile the software,
you can edit the text resources to match the target language. The resource
fork also holds icons, creator codes, file type codes, labels, added
comments etc. of any file you create.
The PC uses the extensions method because of it's DOS roots. Their newest
file systems still don't have the rich provisions the Mac offers since
1984. I think even Bill Gates would admit this. (Not in public though;-)
What's a "Mac executable"? We don't use this term. At least I've never
heard it in a Mac environment. I think this shows that it's not the Mac
that can't figure out what to do but that it's you that can't figure it
out.
ste...@sifre.demon.nl
(remove * if present)
Shane D. Killian wrote:
> Steven wrote:
> >
> > Can you educate me as to how NTFS is different from the W95 FS?
> > Does it not rely on a registry and filename extensions?
> > What do you mean with the word "entries"?
> >
Steven
Thanks for your informative response. It shows I'm not confusing things.
Rochester came op with the difference between NTFS and the Windows 95 file
system. The original argument was, in my mind, the Mac resource fork solution
versus the PC file extension/registry solution. Rochester's argument that NT is
different from W95 does not bring down my argument since, like you describe,
NT uses the extension/registry solution the same way W95 does. I never
suggested that actual files were lost in case of a crash. I'm just saying the
link is lost. Just like you describe. My point is that on a Mac this link is
practically never lost. And certainly never for all files of all applications
at once. Every file takes this information with it where it goes.
ste...@sifre.demon.nl
(remove * if present)
Anthony wrote:
>
> NTFS is a fail-safe file system that does not lose entries in a catastrophic
> crash. You must be thinking of Windows 95.
>
> --
> Anthony
Patrik Fagard wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 21:48:32 +0100, Steven <steven@sifre*.demon.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >Can you educate me as to how NTFS is different from the W95 FS?
> >Does it not rely on a registry and filename extensions?
> >What do you mean with the word "entries"?
>
CF
I have to laugh at these Mac/PC debates....BORING.
I think the field of graphic arts could probably use
either system or operating system. And I'm sure both can
handle the files stored on them. MOVE ON...
I use Win95 on a PC...big deal. The reason?...I already knew
PCs and I didn't want to learn another operating system
for little or no gain. Secondly, in the NJ/NY Area PCs
can be had for peanuts. I don't see the same market here for the Mac.
I don't know if that differs in other parts of the country.
If I blowout a video card during the day, I can goto the store
and be back and running with a hour. That is more important
to me.
~Chris
Although it is nice to look at a file extension and know
what is belongs to or is associated with. And at less than
$2 a CD for backingup I could careless about a registry problem.
~Chris
Steven
If looking at a file's extensions to know what kind of file format it is in,
is something nice, then what would it be if your OS looked at the file for you
and knew what application created it? Insanely great? Knowing the file format
is not the same as knowing it's creator.
If someone tells you he's more concerned about fried video cards than registry
problems you know what platform they're on! And if they tell you they paid
for this with peanuts you can guess what species they belong to. :-) (joke to
make it less boring, not to be taken personally though)
ste...@sifre.demon.nl
(remove * if present)
Mark Durgee
Steven wrote in message <889390131.4262....@news.demon.nl>...
>Can you educate me as to how NTFS is different from the W95 FS?
>Does it not rely on a registry and filename extensions?
NTFS is designed for security and performance. I don't know any specifics
other than permissions are built into the file system, it is less prone to
fragmentation, built in compression.
NT can use the DOS (FAT or File Allocation Table) file system also.
Yes they both still rely on using the extension to make an association to an
application. If the registry got nuked, I'd be a lot more worried about a
lot of other things than file associations.
Mark Durgee
CF
First off...I've NEVER had a video card blowout on me.
I was saying it's nice to have a store nearby that I can goto
and purchase one, install it and be back up and running within the hour.
Also, I've never experienced a registry problem. I was pointing
out that since blank CD's can be had for less than $2 bucks,
backup is dirt cheap. So I don't loose sleep over it at all.
Second...for example, .bmp is a graphic extension and just by
double clicking on the filename Win95 will launch an app and
auto-dislpay the image. Another is .wav, a sound extension,
same here if double clicked an app is launched to play it.
So yes Win95 does know what/who created it AND what you
assume to use it for. Win95 also allows you to associate YOUR
choice of which app should be launched...nice feature, I'd say.
And by using *.bmp in a file open menu will show only .bmp filenames
and not any others than would only be in the way.
Makes it very easy to locate all files of a given type.
Third...Show me ANY company not concerned with COST.
Why would you want to spend MORE on a system that WILL NOT
be any better at the job your need it for????????
Four...AGAIN the MAC vs. PC debate is BORING and POINTLESS.
~Chris
Rochester
Steven wrote:
> Thanks for your informative response. It shows I'm not confusing things.
> Rochester came op with the difference between NTFS and the Windows 95 file
> system. The original argument was, in my mind, the Mac resource fork solution
> versus the PC file extension/registry solution. Rochester's argument that NT is
> different from W95 does not bring down my argument since, like you describe,
> NT uses the extension/registry solution the same way W95 does. I never
> suggested that actual files were lost in case of a crash. I'm just saying the
> link is lost. Just like you describe. My point is that on a Mac this link is
> practically never lost. And certainly never for all files of all applications
> at once. Every file takes this information with it where it goes.
>
> ste...@sifre.demon.nl
> (remove * if present)
Actually Steven I've never actually mentioned NTFS (at least I don't recall writing
about the differences between it and FAT32 on W95), and it is indeed like the
extension/registry system in W95 and it is indeed not as good as the Mac OS file
system. Still, there are other things about the Mac OS I'm not to fond and still
prefer NT as a result, and I still believe that they are basically interchangeable
as far as productivity goes with Mac ahead in Print and NT ahead in 3D.
Cheers,
Rochester
Steven
This may look like a point for PCs but it is a point for the Mac in in the
bigger picture. The Mac has a lower total cost of ownership.
ste...@sifre.demon.nl
(remove * if present)
Steven
You're right, I'm very sorry to have mixed you up with someone else. Your
opinion seems fairly balanced. I'm not going to argue with it. Especially
because the 3D field is not my forte. Again, sorry about the mixup.
Anthony
Steven wrote in message <35044BBF...@sifre.demon.nl>...
> [...] The file system of a Macintosh (MFS, HFS, HFS+) creates a
>resource fork for certain data of a file. For example, all text in dialog
>boxes is usually kept in resources and not within program code itself. This
>makes it easy to localize software for international markets and edit all
>kinds of things in the interface. Without having to recompile the software,
>you can edit the text resources to match the target language. The resource
>fork also holds icons, creator codes, file type codes, labels, added
>comments etc. of any file you create.
>
>The PC uses the extensions method because of it's DOS roots. Their newest
>file systems still don't have the rich provisions the Mac offers since
>1984.
NTFS in Windows NT has the equivalent of resource forks, although it is not
used very much at present because using it extensively would impact
compatibility with more primitive Windows platforms. Under NTFS, these are
called file attributes. One contains the file's name, another contains its
security descriptor, another contains its data content, etc. Additional
attributes can be added quite easily, but no existing applications make use
of this, as far as I know.
--
Anthony
Anthony
NTFS implements attributes, which are the same as the resource forks you
describe. The extension behavior you description is a concession to prior
Windows platforms for compatiblity; the Windows NT operating system allows
you to access attributes directly, although no existing applications do this
(for the sake of compatibility).
NTFS is _much_ more advanced than FAT. Only a small part of its potential
is currently in use. When all the older Windows systems die, I suppose NTFS
will be used in a way that more closely approaches its potential.
--
Anthony
Steven wrote in message <889487379.24417....@news.demon.nl>...
>Thanks for your informative response. It shows I'm not confusing things.
>Rochester came op with the difference between NTFS and the Windows 95 file
>system. The original argument was, in my mind, the Mac resource fork
solution
>versus the PC file extension/registry solution. Rochester's argument that
NT is
>different from W95 does not bring down my argument since, like you
describe,
>NT uses the extension/registry solution the same way W95 does. I never
>suggested that actual files were lost in case of a crash. I'm just saying
the
>link is lost. Just like you describe. My point is that on a Mac this link
is
>practically never lost. And certainly never for all files of all
applications
>at once. Every file takes this information with it where it goes.
>
>ste...@sifre.demon.nl
>(remove * if present)
>
>
>
>Anthony wrote:
>>
>> NTFS is a fail-safe file system that does not lose entries in a
catastrophic
>> crash. You must be thinking of Windows 95.
>>
>> --
>> Anthony
>
>
>
>Patrik Fagard wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 21:48:32 +0100, Steven <steven@sifre*.demon.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Can you educate me as to how NTFS is different from the W95 FS?
>> >Does it not rely on a registry and filename extensions?
Anthony
Actually, I don't like the idea of tying files to applications. Windows 95
hides extensions and determines which applications to call for a file
automatically, but I prefer to see the extensions and decide for myself
which application to call in many cases. The automatic user-friendly stuff
is a pain just as often as it is a help.
For example, I have multiple graphics applications on my machine. I don't
especially like having the computer decide for me which of these should be
used with each of my graphics files.
--
Anthony
Steven wrote in message <889630463.20279...@news.demon.nl>...
>If looking at a file's extensions to know what kind of file format it is
in,
>is something nice, then what would it be if your OS looked at the file for
you
>and knew what application created it? Insanely great? Knowing the file
format
>is not the same as knowing it's creator.
>If someone tells you he's more concerned about fried video cards than
registry
>problems you know what platform they're on! And if they tell you they paid
>for this with peanuts you can guess what species they belong to. :-) (joke
to
>make it less boring, not to be taken personally though)
>
>ste...@sifre.demon.nl
>(remove * if present)
>
>
>
J. Phillips
Anthony wrote in message ...
>Actually, I don't like the idea of tying files to applications. Windows 95
>hides extensions and determines which applications to call for a file
>automatically, but I prefer to see the extensions and decide for myself
>which application to call in many cases. The automatic user-friendly stuff
>is a pain just as often as it is a help.
>
>For example, I have multiple graphics applications on my machine. I don't
>especially like having the computer decide for me which of these should be
>used with each of my graphics files.
>
Here's a trick I learned for selecting which program you use to open / edit
a file in 95/NT:
1. Create a shortcut on your desktop for each of your programs you wish
to use.
2. Open the Windows Explorer and go down to the sub-directory
..\Windows\SendTo (or the equivalent depending if your system is set up for
multiple users)
3. Create a folder called 'programs' or something.
4. Move or copy the Shortcuts to the directory and close Explorer.
Now, every time you find a file, even if it is associated with a default
viewer, you can now right click on the file, go to the Send To > Programs
menu item & select the application of your choice. As long as the actual
extension (*.jpg etc...) is one that the application recognizes, the app
will open with that file.
Basically what is going on here is a drag & drop onto the shortcut icon. It
does require that the application be able to recognize the file extension
and know what to do with it, but I have used this technique for almost 2
years with very few glitches.
J Phillips
fli...@hotmail.com
CF
Anthony wrote:
>
> Actually, I don't like the idea of tying files to applications. Windows 95
> hides extensions and determines which applications to call for a file
> automatically, but I prefer to see the extensions and decide for myself
> which application to call in many cases. The automatic user-friendly stuff
> is a pain just as often as it is a help.
>
> For example, I have multiple graphics applications on my machine. I don't
> especially like having the computer decide for me which of these should be
> used with each of my graphics files.
>
Anthony, start Explorer. Under 'View' on the menu bar goto 'options'
then you can turn 'on' the extensions and Win95 will no longer
hide them from you.
Skip Reilley
You can also add multiple program associations to open files with. As
you know, when you right click on a file you have several options, one of
which is to open it in the application it's associated with. You can add to
this right-click menu (through an open folder) by going into View|Folder
Options|File Types and then selecting which Registered File Types you would
like to change. Click the Edit button on the right side of the popup window.
You'll get another window, and here's where you can work your magic.
In the lower part of the window you might see commands such as Open or
Print or whatever. These are the choices you see when you right-click on a
file. You can add your own by clicking the New button. Once there, the
Action text box is where you'd type the command that you want to see during
the right-click operation, and below that you add the command line to make
it happen.
For instance, when I click on a *.gif file, it automatically loads in
Photoshop. But when I right click on it I have the choice of Photoshop,
Paint Shop Pro or Print. I did this by adding these commands in the manner
described above.
One other thing... you'll notice a "Use DDE" check box at the bottom of
the last window. DDE is Dynamic Data Exchange, it's used for a number of
things including opening multiple instances of a single program and for
opening files into an already open application. It's command lines are very
useful and often necessary to make it work, but I can't remember all the
details right off hand. You can figure it out easily enough by looking at
other files that have "Use DDE" checked.
Good Luck!
--
Skip Reilley
skp2malu@silconDOTcom
http://silcon.com/~skp2malu/index.htm
CF wrote in message <35089A...@erols.com>...
CF
In all honesty I liked Win3.1's file open boxes way better.
It had a feature were you could begin typing the name of a file
and it would autoscroll the filenames list and display those
starting with what you have begun to type. Then if you saw
the file in that list you could double click it and be on your way.
Win95 will do this but you have to click in the file list area
THEN begin typing. I liked it better the old way. You could
see and edit what you had typed and the list would update itself.
I have over 13,500 pm5 files and it allowed me to acces
then much faster.
~Chris
CF
Steven wrote:
>
> This may look like a point for PCs but it is a point for the Mac in in the
> bigger picture. The Mac has a lower total cost of ownership.
>
> > Why would you want to spend MORE on a system that WILL NOT
> > be any better at the job your need it for????????
> >
> > Four...AGAIN the MAC vs. PC debate is BORING and POINTLESS.
> >
> > ~Chris
Maybe, I couldn't tell you lately, but I just upgraded
a Pentium 100 to a Pentium 233 for only $220 bucks retail.
I could probably have done better at a PC Show.
The motherboard and chip were at the store and I was able
to do the upgrade in a few hours. I lost zero time
and the new system is working jez fine.
~Chris
Gordon Woolf
Many thanks -- I'd been equally annoyed about losing the ability to
type in partial names and hadn't realised you could click in the file
space and do that. How many others are still struggling...
Gordon Woolf, The Worsley Press, Hastings, Vic., Australia
--- Book publishers and sub-contract newspaper page production ---
Our books: www.peg.apc.org/~worsley
Our PageMaker newsletters: www.peg.apc.org/~worsley/newsletter.html
CF
Your quite welcome...the other trick is you have type without stopping,
If you pause like "Sam...p...l...e" you'll only get to 'Sam'.
Plus, you can't visually see what you type, I hate that too.
The other solution would be like sam*.* which you were probably
suffering with as I was.
~Chris
Anthony
I use TweakUI from the PowerToys suite to accomplish this (as well as other
interesting things).
--
Anthony