Re: Mavericks core technology Overview

[JF Mezei]

On 13-06-10 18:20, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> http://images.apple.com/osx/preview/docs/OSX_Mavericks_Core_Technology_Over
> view.pdf

Hope there is a way to disable App Nap for older applications that don't
make the system call. Stuff like encoding videos is often done with a
background window which would cause the system to put it into "App nap"
mode.

Timer Coalescing may be neat for power saving of CPU, but what happens
when you have an application that expects precise timing ? If the OS
decides to delay timer deliveries by half a second here and there, it
makes that application calculate incorrect sampling of frequencies etc.

That document still talks about Ausosave and Versions with no mention of
an easy way to disable them. Will have to use Google to find the tricks
that had been posted here a few weeks ago.

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-10-2013 18:20, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> Read it at
> <http://images.apple.com/osx/preview/docs/OSX_Mavericks_Core_Technology_Over
> view.pdf>
>
> It's only 35 pages.

How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)


--
Wes Groleau

Ostracism: A practice of sticking your head in the sand.

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <51b689f3$0$12204$c3e8da3$6901...@news.astraweb.com>,

Agreed there. I don't want background tasks to get App Nap by default.
Timer coalescing is good and I'm surprised that it was just now added.

Very much missing from 10.9:
I don't see anything addressing accidental Autosave file corruption on
shared files. 'Versions' are keep on the boot drive where they don't
stay in sync with shared documents. My workaround at my job is to use
no Apple apps newer than 10.6.

HFS+ upgrades. VM compression will help offset some performance lost to
Autosave, Versions, and OS X bundles but it's still quite slow. I doubt
the new flash drive ever gets pushed to its limits except for very large
files. Lack of built-in snapshots makes Time Machine a massive resource
hog.

There's no mention of finer-grained locking or better concurrency in the
kernel except for VM compression. It's quite corse now and some simple
I/O operations, like writing to a TCP/IP socket, can bog down the whole
system.

Apple File Protocol is deprecated? Apple didn't lose the source code
again, did they?
--
I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam

[JF Mezei]

On 13-06-10 23:35, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

> Apple File Protocol is deprecated? Apple didn't lose the source code
> again, did they?

I didn't read it as being deprecated, just that it was no longer the
default one and was kept to connect to older machines.

[nospam]

In article <kp64c3$jkm$1...@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau

<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)

ask microsoft. apple would need to license it.

if it's anything like wma/wmv, it ain't cheap.

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-10-2013 23:27, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)
>

> I don't know and I don't care.

I don't know and I do care. NFS, SAMBA, and such
don't cut it when the Mac is at home and the Windows
is at work.

Read-only FTP folders in Finder is another anachronism.

--
Wes Groleau

“To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying
Amen to what the world tells you you should prefer,
is to have kept your soul alive.”
— Robert Louis Stevenson

[Jolly Roger]

In article <kp64c3$jkm$1...@dont-email.me>,
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 06-10-2013 18:20, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > Read it at
> > <http://images.apple.com/osx/preview/docs/OSX_Mavericks_Core_Technology_Over
> > view.pdf>
> >
> > It's only 35 pages.
>
> How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)

Nobody cares.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[Jolly Roger]

In article <kp6a33$9er$1...@dont-email.me>,

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 06-10-2013 23:27, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >> How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)
> >
> > I don't know and I don't care.
>
> I don't know and I do care. NFS, SAMBA, and such
> don't cut it when the Mac is at home and the Windows
> is at work.
>
> Read-only FTP folders in Finder is another anachronism.

Learn to use the tools at your disposal.

[nospam]

In article <jollyroger-3BB36...@news.individual.net>,

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> > How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)
>
> Nobody cares.

given that there are at least two products that offer ntfs read/write,
quite a few people care.

[Jim Gibson]

In article <jollyroger-3BB36...@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <kp64c3$jkm$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
> > On 06-10-2013 18:20, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > > Read it at
> > >
> > > <http://images.apple.com/osx/preview/docs/OSX_Mavericks_Core_Technology_Ov
> > > er
> > > view.pdf>
> > >
> > > It's only 35 pages.
> >
> > How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)
>
> Nobody cares.

Not true. My life would have been easier on my previous project if I
had been able to read and write NTFS external files on a Mac.
Fortunately, my current project is pretty much Mac-only.

--
Jim Gibson

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-11-2013 00:59, Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <kp6a33$9er$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>> On 06-10-2013 23:27, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>>> How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)
>>>
>>> I don't know and I don't care.
>>
>> I don't know and I do care. NFS, SAMBA, and such
>> don't cut it when the Mac is at home and the Windows
>> is at work.
>>
>> Read-only FTP folders in Finder is another anachronism.
>
> Learn to use the tools at your disposal.

I now how to use the tools at my disposal. And one of them is Windowss.
Microsoft, to my knowledge has never attempted to
read any Mac format. Apple on the other hand does half the job.

I know they're smart enough to do it, but by doing it half-way
and not saying why, people less savvy assume they can't.


--
Wes Groleau

From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
O God of Truth, deliver us.
--Leslie Dixon Weatherhead
--Rabbi Mordechai M. Kaplan
--ancient prayer
--unknown
--(no attempt at attribution)
(a thousand thanks to someone who can tell me who
really wrote it AND persuade me they're not making it up!)

[nospam]

In article <kp8jtg$c6t$1...@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau

<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> >> Read-only FTP folders in Finder is another anachronism.
> >
> > Learn to use the tools at your disposal.
>
> I now how to use the tools at my disposal. And one of them is Windowss.
> Microsoft, to my knowledge has never attempted to
> read any Mac format. Apple on the other hand does half the job.
>
> I know they're smart enough to do it, but by doing it half-way
> and not saying why, people less savvy assume they can't.

actually, apple did say why. they said that having ftp support
read/write was difficult. and it is, to an extent.

the problem is that third parties did it and with far less resources
than apple has, which means they're not all that smart after all.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <110620131111409838%jimsg...@gmail.com>,

Ok, a small number of people care. I find there are easier ways, if only
you look.

[nospam]

In article <jollyroger-E6F1D...@news.individual.net>,

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> > > > How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)
> > >
> > > Nobody cares.
> >
> > Not true. My life would have been easier on my previous project if I
> > had been able to read and write NTFS external files on a Mac.
> > Fortunately, my current project is pretty much Mac-only.
>
> Ok, a small number of people care. I find there are easier ways, if only
> you look.

such as?

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.06.10 23:35 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <51b689f3$0$12204$c3e8da3$6901...@news.astraweb.com>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 13-06-10 18:20, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> http://images.apple.com/osx/preview/docs/OSX_Mavericks_Core_Technology_Over
>>> view.pdf
>>
>> Hope there is a way to disable App Nap for older applications that don't
>> make the system call. Stuff like encoding videos is often done with a
>> background window which would cause the system to put it into "App nap"
>> mode.
>>
>> Timer Coalescing may be neat for power saving of CPU, but what happens
>> when you have an application that expects precise timing ? If the OS
>> decides to delay timer deliveries by half a second here and there, it
>> makes that application calculate incorrect sampling of frequencies etc.
>>
>> That document still talks about Ausosave and Versions with no mention of
>> an easy way to disable them. Will have to use Google to find the tricks
>> that had been posted here a few weeks ago.
>
> Agreed there. I don't want background tasks to get App Nap by default.
> Timer coalescing is good and I'm surprised that it was just now added.

They're all fine improvements (so to speak) for laptops/mobile and I
hope they can be disabled on a desktop. That said I don't have anything
that is a "real time" app on my desktop so it's probably not a big deal.
It /may/ affect things like ICE while scanning film, so I'll watch for
that.



--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.06.11 21:51 , Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 06-11-2013 00:59, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> In article <kp6a33$9er$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06-10-2013 23:27, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>>>> How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)
>>>>
>>>> I don't know and I don't care.
>>>
>>> I don't know and I do care. NFS, SAMBA, and such
>>> don't cut it when the Mac is at home and the Windows
>>> is at work.
>>>
>>> Read-only FTP folders in Finder is another anachronism.
>>
>> Learn to use the tools at your disposal.
>
> I now how to use the tools at my disposal. And one of them is Windowss.
> Microsoft, to my knowledge has never attempted to
> read any Mac format. Apple on the other hand does half the job.

They do the whole job at reading it. Nobody is forcing them (nor should
they) to write it.

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-11-2013 22:06, nospam wrote:
> <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>>> Read-only FTP folders in Finder is another anachronism.
>>>

>>> [snip]

>>
>> I know they're smart enough to do it, but by doing it half-way
>> and not saying why, people less savvy assume they can't.
>
> actually, apple did say why. they said that having ftp support
> read/write was difficult. and it is, to an extent.

Internet Explorer (shudder) had drag-n-drop FTP in both directions in
version five.

--
Wes Groleau

Words of the Wild Wes
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-11-2013 23:43, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Jim Gibson <jimsg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>>>> How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)
>>>
>>> Nobody cares.
>>
>> Not true. My life would have been easier on my previous project if I
>> had been able to read and write NTFS external files on a Mac.
>> Fortunately, my current project is pretty much Mac-only.
>
> Ok, a small number of people care. I find there are easier ways, if only
> you look.

ANY way that works is easier than one that doesn't.

But suppose it did actually work--care to tell us what method
is easier than plugging a portable drive into a USB port?

[Paul Sture]

In article <110620132206277420%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

Actually, ftp is pretty difficult, especially when you throw in whatever
Microsoft's interpretation of it does, (or doesn't, depending on your
point of view).

--
Paul Sture

[Laszlo Lebrun]

Mac Fuse, google for it.

--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)

[nospam]

In article <kpcj3t$lmu$1...@tota-refugium.de>, Laszlo Lebrun

<lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:

> >>>>> How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)
> >>>>
> >>>> Nobody cares.
> >>>
> >>> Not true. My life would have been easier on my previous project if I
> >>> had been able to read and write NTFS external files on a Mac.
> >>> Fortunately, my current project is pretty much Mac-only.
> >>
> >> Ok, a small number of people care. I find there are easier ways, if only
> >> you look.
> >
> > such as?
> >
> Mac Fuse, google for it.

that's installing the missing ntfs r/w capability.

apparently there is a secret method that's supposedly easier.

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-17-2013 21:55, Lewis wrote:
> That's because MSFT didn't care about security or doing anything right.
> They did a half-assed ftp in IE that was terrible. But it worked
> sometimes for some people. One our servers we went to quite a lot of
> trouble and effort to keep IE from connecting to the ftp servers.
> Finally, we just retired the ftp protocol completely.

It may have been insecure (of COURSE it was insecure--it was FTP) but it
worked flawlessly every time for me. The ONLY difference I ever saw
from a local folder was the speed.

Apple did something similar in OS 9 with Network Browser (NB). But NB
was not only noticeably different from Finder, it also crashed nearly
every time.

Why Apple had so much trouble with it, I don't know. But I don't
believe security was the reason.

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-17-2013 21:51, Lewis wrote:
> In message <kp64c3$jkm$1...@dont-email.me>

> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 06-10-2013 18:20, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> Read it at
>>> <http://images.apple.com/osx/preview/docs/OSX_Mavericks_Core_Technology_Over
>>> view.pdf>
>>>
>>> It's only 35 pages.
>
>> How many years is NTFS going to remain read-only ? (!!)
>

> Forever. NTFS is a MSFT proprietary format.

Irrelevant. Apple knows how to read it, therefore
they could write it if they wanted to. They don't want to,
for reasons that I do not know.