OSX upgrade
T i m
I was talking to a local lad / neighbour just now and he asked me (!)
the best way to do an upgrade from Tiger to L / SL, on his TFT iMac.
I suggested there were two distinct trains of thought on this one ...
straight 'upgrade' and the 'wipe / fresh install'. I also mentioned
there were pros and cons to each (but I knew I was on fairly unknown
(to me re OSX) territory here).
Nutshell.
Fresh install gives you a nice clean system but you will have to
re-install apps, return data and re-configure settings etc.
Upgrade is potentially 'easier' (retains all yer data / settings) but
*may* carry over old issues and be more likely to create new ones
(that may not be there after a fresh install)?
I suggested he back up all his apps [1] and data to an external drive
and go for the upgrade. If that fails big time then he's in a good
position for a fresh install?
Was I even close?
Cheers, T i m
[1] Can you simply copy the contents of the Applications folder to an
external drive and copy them back to the new one (mostly)?
Woody
> Hi All,
>
> I was talking to a local lad / neighbour just now and he asked me (!)
> the best way to do an upgrade from Tiger to L / SL, on his TFT iMac.
>
> I suggested there were two distinct trains of thought on this one ...
> straight 'upgrade' and the 'wipe / fresh install'. I also mentioned
> there were pros and cons to each (but I knew I was on fairly unknown
> (to me re OSX) territory here).
>
> Nutshell.
>
> Fresh install gives you a nice clean system but you will have to
> re-install apps, return data and re-configure settings etc.
>
> Upgrade is potentially 'easier' (retains all yer data / settings) but
> *may* carry over old issues and be more likely to create new ones
> (that may not be there after a fresh install)?
Thats about right.
I have never done a clean install on an OSX machine, unless I was
selling the computer. However, there is more chance of soemthing going
wrong if there are old applications left over.
> I suggested he back up all his apps [1] and data to an external drive
> and go for the upgrade. If that fails big time then he's in a good
> position for a fresh install?
Thats a good idea - having a backup never hurts!
> [1] Can you simply copy the contents of the Applications folder to an
> external drive and copy them back to the new one (mostly)?
You can, except some of the applications that come with the system will
be the newer, and you will be copying old applications over them.
Also preferences etc wont be saved unless you copy preferences and some
applications require things from application support.
--
Woody
James Jolley
Actually, yes. Rather good considering you're more of a windows guy.
anyway, I personally always erase and install, migrating things
manually from a backup drive or a time machine backup.
Best
-James-
T i m
wrote:
>> [1] Can you simply copy the contents of the Applications folder to an
>> external drive and copy them back to the new one (mostly)?
>
>You can, except some of the applications that come with the system will
>be the newer, and you will be copying old applications over them.
Understood. Could you be more selective then, just copying over the
non inbuilt stuff?
>
>Also preferences etc wont be saved unless you copy preferences and some
>applications require things from application support.
Ok ta. Is 'application support' a folder?
Cheers, T i m
T i m
wrote:
>
>Actually, yes.
Cool.
> Rather good considering you're more of a windows guy.
Actually I'm a 'hardware guy', OS's are just something you have to use
to make use of the hardware. ;-)
>anyway, I personally always erase and install, migrating things
>manually from a backup drive or a time machine backup.
I've forwarded Woody's reply so it's up to him now. The bottom line is
for him to make sure he has all his data and licence codes somewhere
safe.
Cheers, T i m
Woody
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:42:30 +0000, use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
> wrote:
>
>
> >> [1] Can you simply copy the contents of the Applications folder to an
> >> external drive and copy them back to the new one (mostly)?
> >
> >You can, except some of the applications that come with the system will
> >be the newer, and you will be copying old applications over them.
>
> Understood. Could you be more selective then, just copying over the
> non inbuilt stuff?
Well, you could just copy and skip duplicates.
> >Also preferences etc wont be saved unless you copy preferences and some
> >applications require things from application support.
>
> Ok ta. Is 'application support' a folder?
Its in ~/Library
--
Woody
Fred McKenzie
T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> I suggested he back up all his apps [1] and data to an external drive
> and go for the upgrade. If that fails big time then he's in a good
> position for a fresh install?
Tim-
When you first run a fresh installation of the OS, you have the option
of transferring your Applications, preferences and Data from an older
computer (or a Time Machine backup) to the new one. It apparently uses
Migration Assistant.app to do the transfers.
What I've done is to make a clone of the HD to a separate (FireWire)
hard drive, reformat the HD, install the OS, and use Migration Assistant
to restore data and applications from the clone.
Disk Utility can be used to create a clone of your HD if you boot from
an OS installation disk, but some people recommend Carbon Copy Cloner to
do it.
Fred
T i m
wrote:
>In article <jjarf5tbjh0qchrt7...@4ax.com>,
> T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> I suggested he back up all his apps [1] and data to an external drive
>> and go for the upgrade. If that fails big time then he's in a good
>> position for a fresh install?
>
>Tim-
>
>When you first run a fresh installation of the OS, you have the option
>of transferring your Applications, preferences and Data from an older
>computer (or a Time Machine backup) to the new one. It apparently uses
>Migration Assistant.app to do the transfers.
>
>What I've done is to make a clone of the HD to a separate (FireWire)
>hard drive, reformat the HD, install the OS, and use Migration Assistant
>to restore data and applications from the clone.
Neat.
>
>Disk Utility can be used to create a clone of your HD if you boot from
>an OS installation disk, but some people recommend Carbon Copy Cloner to
>do it.
Ok. So I guess that tends to be a bit more subtle than a straight
blanket copy and may pick up / out details from other folders that
could otherwise let left / lost / trodden on?
I'll fwd this to him as well, thanks.
Cheers, T i m
J. J. Lodder
> Hi All,
>
> I was talking to a local lad / neighbour just now and he asked me (!)
> the best way to do an upgrade from Tiger to L / SL, on his TFT iMac.
>
> I suggested there were two distinct trains of thought on this one ...
> straight 'upgrade' and the 'wipe / fresh install'. I also mentioned
> there were pros and cons to each (but I knew I was on fairly unknown
> (to me re OSX) territory here).
>
> Nutshell.
>
> Fresh install gives you a nice clean system but you will have to
> re-install apps, return data and re-configure settings etc.
>
> Upgrade is potentially 'easier' (retains all yer data / settings) but
> *may* carry over old issues and be more likely to create new ones
> (that may not be there after a fresh install)?
>
> I suggested he back up all his apps [1] and data to an external drive
> and go for the upgrade. If that fails big time then he's in a good
> position for a fresh install?
Someone I know runs the original 10.0,
with a few upgrades and on some new machines.
For some strange reason he thinks
that it should be called 10.6.2,
Jan
T i m
Lodder) wrote:
>
>Someone I know runs the original 10.0,
>with a few upgrades and on some new machines.
>For some strange reason he thinks
>that it should be called 10.6.2,
>
And we know how you feel about upgrades Jan. ;-)
T i m
Rowland McDonnell
When I went from 10.4.11 to 10.6, I used the migration assistant to copy
all my user account stuff over but absolutely nothing else.
Even that approach meant I had problems due to cruft carrying over
buggering things up on the new OS.
I'd not dream of daring to copy applications over wholesale - re-install
from fresh hopefully new copies, that's what I've been doing.
Lots of things that worked under 10.4.11 don't work under 10.6, and lots
of things that work on a PPC Mac don't work on an Intel Mac.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
Isn't this what Migration Assistant is for? It handles the version
checking and finding files in ~/Library and /Library and all that.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Never sleep with anyone crazier than you are.
T i m
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>> I was talking to a local lad / neighbour just now and he asked me (!)
>> the best way to do an upgrade from Tiger to L / SL, on his TFT iMac.
>>
>>
>> [1] Can you simply copy the contents of the Applications folder to an
>> external drive and copy them back to the new one (mostly)?
>
>When I went from 10.4.11 to 10.6, I used the migration assistant to copy
>all my user account stuff over but absolutely nothing else.
So does this work in-situ? ie, You are running 10.4 and want to
upgrade to 10.5, does Migration Assistant apply?
>
>Even that approach meant I had problems due to cruft carrying over
>buggering things up on the new OS.
Ok.
>
>I'd not dream of daring to copy applications over wholesale - re-install
>from fresh hopefully new copies, that's what I've been doing.
Ok but I though that was a 'selling feature' of OSX, that you could
just drag / drop apps about, unlike Windows and it's registry? Or are
you saying that OSX is evolving into Windows now? ;-)
>
>Lots of things that worked under 10.4.11 don't work under 10.6,
Understood.
> and lots
>of things that work on a PPC Mac don't work on an Intel Mac.
Ok (and to be expected etc).
Cheers, T i m
Mark Bestley
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:57:41 +0000,
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
>
> >> I was talking to a local lad / neighbour just now and he asked me (!)
> >> the best way to do an upgrade from Tiger to L / SL, on his TFT iMac.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] Can you simply copy the contents of the Applications folder to an
> >> external drive and copy them back to the new one (mostly)?
> >
> >When I went from 10.4.11 to 10.6, I used the migration assistant to copy
> >all my user account stuff over but absolutely nothing else.
>
> So does this work in-situ? ie, You are running 10.4 and want to
> upgrade to 10.5, does Migration Assistant apply?
Yes - Migration Assistant is for a 10.x to 10.x+ release not a minor
version.
> >
> >Even that approach meant I had problems due to cruft carrying over
> >buggering things up on the new OS.
>
> Ok.
> >
> >I'd not dream of daring to copy applications over wholesale - re-install
> >from fresh hopefully new copies, that's what I've been doing.
>
> Ok but I though that was a 'selling feature' of OSX, that you could
> just drag / drop apps about, unlike Windows and it's registry? Or are
> you saying that OSX is evolving into Windows now? ;-)
Yes you can drag apps - however how do you customise them, store data
etc. These things are stored outside the application bundles - in
~/Library/Application Support or ~/Library/Preferences. You could start
from a fresh state by not copying these things over.
The problem with Windows Registry is that it is one big binary file -
Apples's preferences are separate text (often XML) or simple well known
binary format(plist) files. So it is harder to corrupt it all - if there
is a problem then usually only one app will have a problem on OSX.
Also for Windows every app has an installer and often will overwrite
existing preferences etc, with an OSX app it has to look to see if it
has preferences first and so does not overwrite them Properly written
Windows apps would work but the number of badly written ones seem quite
high - it is not that hard to meet all the MS guidelines for correct
behaviour but Windows developers seem not to read them.
For 10.5 to 10.6 I copied these files but reinstalled all apps - usually
new copies to get the latest version but others I copied from Time
machine backup. - the main benefit is that the list of Applications is
much shorter so the Dock Application stack (and XMenu Application list)
are now usable ie don't take up the whole screen and have to scroll.
> >
> >Lots of things that worked under 10.4.11 don't work under 10.6,
>
> Understood.
>
> > and lots
> >of things that work on a PPC Mac don't work on an Intel Mac.
In my experience most things work on an upgrade (it does depend on what
apps you use). Rowland uses different apps and sees more issues (I don't
have any Adobe apps)
--
Mark
T i m
wrote:
>T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:57:41 +0000,
>> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> I was talking to a local lad / neighbour just now and he asked me (!)
>> >> the best way to do an upgrade from Tiger to L / SL, on his TFT iMac.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [1] Can you simply copy the contents of the Applications folder to an
>> >> external drive and copy them back to the new one (mostly)?
>> >
>> >When I went from 10.4.11 to 10.6, I used the migration assistant to copy
>> >all my user account stuff over but absolutely nothing else.
>>
>> So does this work in-situ? ie, You are running 10.4 and want to
>> upgrade to 10.5, does Migration Assistant apply?
>
>Yes - Migration Assistant is for a 10.x to 10.x+ release not a minor
>version.
Sorry, I really meant 'is it for a single box OS upgrade' rather than
an old to new machine upgrade. You have answered my question anyway
(thanks). ;-)
>
>> >
>> Ok but I though that was a 'selling feature' of OSX, that you could
>> just drag / drop apps about, unlike Windows and it's registry? Or are
>> you saying that OSX is evolving into Windows now? ;-)
>
>Yes you can drag apps - however how do you customise them, store data
>etc.
<shrug>
> These things are stored outside the application bundles - in
>~/Library/Application Support or ~/Library/Preferences.
Ah, that's why. However, is it not possible for an app to have it's
settings within it's own file / folder structure. I know that would
mean all users would share the same settings but for many apps that
wouldn't be an issue anyway would it?
> You could start
>from a fresh state by not copying these things over.
Understood.
>
>The problem with Windows Registry is that it is one big binary file -
>Apples's preferences are separate text (often XML) or simple well known
>binary format(plist) files.
Like INI files etc.
> So it is harder to corrupt it all - if there
>is a problem then usually only one app will have a problem on OSX.
Ok.
>
>Also for Windows every app has an installer and often will overwrite
>existing preferences etc,
Hmm, I've often been surprised how persistent some settings can be
(often to good effect). You delete an app and later install a later
version and it offers to pick up and use your old settings.
> with an OSX app it has to look to see if it
>has preferences first and so does not overwrite them
Ok.
> Properly written
>Windows apps would work but the number of badly written ones seem quite
>high
I can't say I have noticed either way, maybe I'll pay more attention
in future.
> - it is not that hard to meet all the MS guidelines for correct
>behaviour but Windows developers seem not to read them.
<Rolls eyes>
>
>For 10.5 to 10.6 I copied these files but reinstalled all apps - usually
>new copies to get the latest version but others I copied from Time
>machine backup. - the main benefit is that the list of Applications is
>much shorter so the Dock Application stack (and XMenu Application list)
>are now usable ie don't take up the whole screen and have to scroll.
>
Ok. I'm not familiar with all of that (TM / XMenu) but maybe 'laddo'
(who has the Mac) is. (I'll fwd this to him).
Cheers, T i m
Clive Sinclair
Windoze machine - fresh install everytime. Ensure data is backed up and
you have ALL serial numbers, etc for software.
Mac's - upgrade method. Never had any problems.
As always - make a full backup before doing either. Apple OS's do a much
cleaner/better job of the upgrade route.
My 2.5yr old Macbook Pro has gone from Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard with
no problems and no reduction in speed.
--
Clive
We don't die, we just stop paying taxes.
T i m
>> [1] Can you simply copy the contents of the Applications folder to an
>> external drive and copy them back to the new one (mostly)?
>>
>>
>My take...
>
>Windoze machine - fresh install everytime. Ensure data is backed up and
>you have ALL serial numbers, etc for software.
>
>Mac's - upgrade method. Never had any problems.
>
>As always - make a full backup before doing either. Apple OS's do a much
>cleaner/better job of the upgrade route.
>
>My 2.5yr old Macbook Pro has gone from Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard with
>no problems and no reduction in speed.
Cheers, forwarded to laddo.
T i m
Mark Bestley
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:23:39 GMT, news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
> wrote:
>
> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:57:41 +0000,
> >> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> > These things are stored outside the application bundles - in
> >~/Library/Application Support or ~/Library/Preferences.
>
> Ah, that's why. However, is it not possible for an app to have it's
> settings within it's own file / folder structure. I know that would
> mean all users would share the same settings but for many apps that
> wouldn't be an issue anyway would it?
>
Yes for machine wide see /Library/Application Supoort or
/Library/Preferences - you will need to have an admin acount and sudo
(or GUI equivalent for that) - Also /Network/Library might work for site
wide - I haven't tried that
> > You could start
> >from a fresh state by not copying these things over.
>
> Understood.
> >
> >The problem with Windows Registry is that it is one big binary file -
> >Apples's preferences are separate text (often XML) or simple well known
> >binary format(plist) files.
>
> Like INI files etc.
>
Some apps use init directly but yes similar
--
Mark
T i m
wrote:
>> Ah, that's why. However, is it not possible for an app to have it's
>> settings within it's own file / folder structure. I know that would
>> mean all users would share the same settings but for many apps that
>> wouldn't be an issue anyway would it?
>>
>
>Yes for machine wide see /Library/Application Supoort or
>/Library/Preferences - you will need to have an admin acount and sudo
>(or GUI equivalent for that) - Also /Network/Library might work for site
>wide - I haven't tried that
w w w ooosh (a bit). I (mostly) get the idea and recognise the words
but all that Nix cmd line stuff is all pretty alien to me (as far as
the actual command and certainly the syntax especially). Whilst I have
been able to muck my way through getting the later distros of Ubuntu
working on several machine (when it hasn't worked out of the box) it's
mostly Google > copy / paste into terminal > then it either works or
doesn't. [1]
>
Cheers, T i m
[1] Like I was trying to update OO from 3.0? to 3.1 (or 3.11). Google
gave me what seemed like a very specific answer yet it just didn't
work. I then tried it other ways including downloading 'a' file
directly from the OO website but then gave up trying to do /
understand what to do with it. The walk through used terms that were
themselves alien or didn't work (or work for me). Even tips like 'You
might have to login or run as Admin / Root' suggested stuff that was
just too frustrating (as the chance of success was slight) and just
not worth the effort. I know what they are suggesting, just not the
right way to do it in each instance. It's coming across stuff like
that reminds me just how difficult some folk can find all this sort of
thing and hence why I'm rarely critical of them.
p.s. I think I later read that the repository that should have
contained the OO update was empty, but how they knew that or we able
to check eludes me. At least that offered some sort of explanation re
why it wasn't working.
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> > > and lots
> > >of things that work on a PPC Mac don't work on an Intel Mac.
>
> In my experience most things work on an upgrade (it does depend on what
> apps you use). Rowland uses different apps and sees more issues (I don't
> have any Adobe apps)
The only Abobe app I can think of having used at all is Acrobat Reader,
and I've not installed that on the new Mac at all.
One thing about Rowland is that he uses a *LOT* of apps, and a *LOT* of
them are old. And he notices the faults when they occur, while many
posters here seem to gloss over problems and pretend that they don't
exist.
Rowland McDonnell
> news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
>
> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > These things are stored outside the application bundles - in
> >~/Library/Application Support or ~/Library/Preferences.
>
> Ah, that's why. However, is it not possible for an app to have it's
> settings within it's own file / folder structure.
Yes, but that's not how Macs have done things - ever, or at least, never
officially.
> I know that would
> mean all users would share the same settings but for many apps that
> wouldn't be an issue anyway would it?
It's a crazy way to do things. Prior to MacOS X, application settings
were mostly kept on a per Mac basis in the System Folder (but sometimes
kept as you describe.)[1]
Once you get a multi-user machine, things get more interesting and
setting apps up on a system-wide basis is not something that a normal
user should be able to do if you want a secure and stable computer
system. So it's important to make application settings on a
user-by-user basis.
[snip]
> >The problem with Windows Registry is that it is one big binary file -
> >Apples's preferences are separate text (often XML) or simple well known
> >binary format(plist) files.
>
> Like INI files etc.
plist files are all XML AIUI, it's just that they are mostly `complied'
into binary form somehow these days. A pukka plist editor will
translate from machine to human readable form and back quite seamlessly.
> > So it is harder to corrupt it all - if there
> >is a problem then usually only one app will have a problem on OSX.
>
> Ok.
E.g., at the moment all is working perfectly well on my new 10.6.2 iMac
- except that AppleWorks no longer runs.
ISTR that happening before under 10.4.11, and it was a bugger to sort
out...
> >Also for Windows every app has an installer and often will overwrite
> >existing preferences etc,
>
> Hmm, I've often been surprised how persistent some settings can be
> (often to good effect). You delete an app
... which does not delete any of the settings, or application support
files, or caches, or...
> and later install a later
> version and it offers to pick up and use your old settings.
[snip]
Look in
~/Library/Preferences
That's why your old settings are used.
~/Library/Application Support
is worth a look, too.
If you want to totally and utterly remove all trace of an application,
you have to remove the preference files, and any other files associated
with it (app support files, caches, and - well, sometimes one has to
poke around).
Rowland.
[1] Yes I know, I know - let's just keep is simple, who cares about
exactly how the old System Folder was structured?
Rowland McDonnell
> news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
>
> >> Ah, that's why. However, is it not possible for an app to have it's
> >> settings within it's own file / folder structure. I know that would
> >> mean all users would share the same settings but for many apps that
> >> wouldn't be an issue anyway would it?
> >>
> >
> >Yes for machine wide see /Library/Application Supoort or
> >/Library/Preferences - you will need to have an admin acount and sudo
> >(or GUI equivalent for that) - Also /Network/Library might work for site
> >wide - I haven't tried that
>
> w w w ooosh (a bit). I (mostly) get the idea and recognise the words
> but all that Nix cmd line stuff is all pretty alien to me
Hold on - he's mostly just giving you file system paths.
The other bit is:
Normal users are banned by file permissions from modifying all the
fragile bits of Mac file systems. To modify such parts of the file
system, you need to either have logged on as a admin user, or to `do it
at the command line using sudo' - which makes the command line think
that you're `root' (the unix super user who is god).
/Library/Application Support
means: `top level of boot disc, Library folder, then inside that you'll
find the Application Support folder'
Very much like MS-DOS/Windoze, except that when billg's lot bought QDOS
and sold it on to IBM they ended up using forward slashes as a file path
delimiter.
Get the application Pseudo.
[snip]
Rowland McDonnell
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> >> I was talking to a local lad / neighbour just now and he asked me (!)
> >> the best way to do an upgrade from Tiger to L / SL, on his TFT iMac.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] Can you simply copy the contents of the Applications folder to an
> >> external drive and copy them back to the new one (mostly)?
> >
> >When I went from 10.4.11 to 10.6, I used the migration assistant to copy
> >all my user account stuff over but absolutely nothing else.
>
> So does this work in-situ? ie, You are running 10.4 and want to
> upgrade to 10.5, does Migration Assistant apply?
I connected the old 10.4.11 iMac to the new 10.6.0 iMac and told the
Migration Assistant to get on with it.
[snip]
> >I'd not dream of daring to copy applications over wholesale - re-install
> >from fresh hopefully new copies, that's what I've been doing.
>
> Ok but I though that was a 'selling feature' of OSX, that you could
> just drag / drop apps about, unlike Windows and it's registry? Or are
> you saying that OSX is evolving into Windows now? ;-)
You can shuffle apps around willy nilly for the most part - all on one
Mac. But a lot of apps are a bit fragile and you're best off installing
them from fresh when getting a new OS or computer. Get the latest
versions, don't copy over prefs or caches or any settings or /anything/
like that, that's my line.
Why? Because every time I've tried it, I've had trouble.
I'm having trouble even now as it happens, due to a bit of that having
happened when I used the Migration Assistant.
It's quite normal to have trouble like that, for all I expect Peter
Ceresole to leap in now and explain that it's always worked perfectly
for him.
[snip]
Mark Bestley
> T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
> >
> > >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > These things are stored outside the application bundles - in
> > >~/Library/Application Support or ~/Library/Preferences.
> >
> > Ah, that's why. However, is it not possible for an app to have it's
> > settings within it's own file / folder structure.
>
> Yes, but that's not how Macs have done things - ever, or at least, never
> officially.
>
The main issue is that under new OSs there is protection for the program
area - a normal user cannot write to the program area so you cannot add
to the app. This is one reason why OSX and Unix are less affected by
viruses, Windows does allow a user to install and write application area
- later versions stop this but they did not go the full way as people
objected.
> > I know that would
> > mean all users would share the same settings but for many apps that
> > wouldn't be an issue anyway would it?
>
> It's a crazy way to do things. Prior to MacOS X, application settings
> were mostly kept on a per Mac basis in the System Folder (but sometimes
> kept as you describe.)[1]
>
> Once you get a multi-user machine, things get more interesting and
> setting apps up on a system-wide basis is not something that a normal
> user should be able to do if you want a secure and stable computer
> system. So it's important to make application settings on a
> user-by-user basis.
>
When OSX first came out some developers said this is what they did and
splitting data to a user directory was too difficult. This also occured
for Windows apps pre NT. Both OSs were where one user account on a
machine - now with multiple accounts for machine you have to do this as
good programs did before - but the number of bad programs is quite high.
And some apps - Eclipse seem still to do this so is installed for me
only.
And if you want to enforce corporate standards across all users there
are more complex tools to do this. (e.g. Active Directory and ane thing
that what MS and Apple server versions of the OS start doing)
> [snip]
>
> > >The problem with Windows Registry is that it is one big binary file -
> > >Apples's preferences are separate text (often XML) or simple well known
> > >binary format(plist) files.
> >
> > Like INI files etc.
> E.g., at the moment all is working perfectly well on my new 10.6.2 iMac
> - except that AppleWorks no longer runs.
>
> ISTR that happening before under 10.4.11, and it was a bugger to sort
> out...
>
Did Appleworks ever work usfully on any OSX :( Use Open Office or iWorks
or MS Office now.
> > >Also for Windows every app has an installer and often will overwrite
> > >existing preferences etc,
> >
> > Hmm, I've often been surprised how persistent some settings can be
> > (often to good effect). You delete an app
>
> ... which does not delete any of the settings, or application support
> files, or caches, or...
>
> > and later install a later
> > version and it offers to pick up and use your old settings.
An uninstaller should offer to delete settings. The usual case is that
people complain more if the settings are deleted when you uninstall by
mistake so I'll be charitable and say the uninstaller does this
deliberately.
OSX does not have a defined way of unintstalling.
--
Mark
Mark Bestley
All agreed. A decent application if it wants to save in share areas will
do this by prompting you for an admin account and you don't really need
to know where this is stored (unless things go wrong)
Psedo is a great app and is unchnaged from OSX 10.2 - and one of the few
PPC apps that I use see
<http://personalpages.tds.net/~brian_hill/pseudo.html>
At some stage discussing permissions and shared data you have to use
some technical language as it is based on accumulated knowledge, if you
had to explain from basics each time the explanation would be long and
here on usenet the writer has no idea what the reader knows. You cannot
just do it all from a list of instructions you have to have some
understanding of the issues. If you don't understand you have to ask
more questions and the person explaining knows where to expand.
--
Mark
David Empson
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > E.g., at the moment all is working perfectly well on my new 10.6.2 iMac
> > - except that AppleWorks no longer runs.
> >
> > ISTR that happening before under 10.4.11, and it was a bugger to sort
> > out...
> >
>
> Did Appleworks ever work usfully on any OSX :( Use Open Office or iWorks
> or MS Office now.
AppleWorks 6.2.9 works fine for me under 10.6.2, as it has under every
earlier version of Mac OS X.
I can only recall three issues I've encountered with AppleWorks running
on Mac OS X:
One instance where it stopped working and I couldn't track down why. I
was able to resolve it by reinstalling from the original media and
reapplying the 6.2.9 update.
The "~/Documents/AppleWorks User Data/Starting Points/Recent Items"
folder getting so big that AppleWorks slows to a crawl or fails to
launch. AppleWorks keeps an alias in there for every document it has
ever opened, and it never deletes them automatically.
Someone managed to put an alias to their hard drive into the Recent
Items folder. AppleWorks got stuck during launch - it was trying to
recursively process the entire hard drive to generate icons for every
file, and probably doing it in an inifinite loop when it reached Recent
Items again.
I'm no longer using AppleWorks for new documents - I've switched to
iWork; I still use it occasoinally for older documents that I haven't
converted, or for helping other people who are still using AppleWorks.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Pd
> I'm no longer using AppleWorks for new documents - I've switched to
> iWork; I still use it occasoinally for older documents that I haven't
> converted, or for helping other people who are still using AppleWorks.
AppleWorks is a fab little package, and hasn't been superseded, just
discontinued. Apple produce a word processor, a spreadsheet and a
presentation application, but still don't have replacements for the
database, drawing and painting aspects.
I was sure AppleWorks also had terminal emulation for comms at one
point, but I just looked and it's not there now. Perhaps my memory is
playing up.
--
Pd
Jim
<http://www.56k.com/terminal/claris.shtml>
Jim
--
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK
My Oasis of Calm has dried up. However, my Garden of Angry is
flourishing quite nicely.
Pd
> > I was sure AppleWorks also had terminal emulation for comms at one
> > point, but I just looked and it's not there now. Perhaps my memory is
> > playing up.
> >
>
> <http://www.56k.com/terminal/claris.shtml>
Thanks - so it was during its brief incarnation under the Claris banner.
--
Pd
Jim
Looks that way. I wonder why Apple dropped it when they brough it back
in-house?
Now you've got me all nostalgic for ZTerm...
Pd
> Now you've got me all nostalgic for ZTerm...
I used ZTerm the first time I ever logged into a bulletin board, at all
of 300 baud. It was so cool watching the letters arrive one by one and
appear on the screen.
--
Pd
Jim
A bit like my Wyse-60 firewall-logger.
My Wyse 120 is set at a far more sensible 9600 baud.
Woody
Oh yes, that feeling of horror when you realised you did a list, and now
the thing was going to time out before it finished and there was nothing
you could do to stop it, just sit and watch the text lethargicly scroll
up the screen!
--
Woody
David Empson
> David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
> > I'm no longer using AppleWorks for new documents - I've switched to
> > iWork; I still use it occasoinally for older documents that I haven't
> > converted, or for helping other people who are still using AppleWorks.
>
> AppleWorks is a fab little package, and hasn't been superseded, just
> discontinued. Apple produce a word processor, a spreadsheet and a
> presentation application, but still don't have replacements for the
> database, drawing and painting aspects.
I never used the AppleWorks Database. I was using FileMaker Pro probably
from when I started using the Mac. The AppleWorks database is similar to
early versions of FileMaker, but its minor differences irritate me
greatly (e.g. different keyboard shortcuts for creating records and
switching modes).
I used the Draw module once or twice, but anything it can do is also
achievable in Pages or Numbers.
I never used the Paint module or Presentation module (but I did use the
Communciations module in earlier versions).
> I was sure AppleWorks also had terminal emulation for comms at one
> point, but I just looked and it's not there now. Perhaps my memory is
> playing up.
Was in version 4, probably version 5 as well.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
James Dore
> On 2009-11-18, Pd <peter...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > I was sure AppleWorks also had terminal emulation for comms at one
>>> > point, but I just looked and it's not there now. Perhaps my memory is
>>> > playing up.
>>> >
>>>
>>> <http://www.56k.com/terminal/claris.shtml>
>>
>> Thanks - so it was during its brief incarnation under the Claris banner.
>
> Looks that way. I wonder why Apple dropped it when they brough it back
> in-house?
>
> Now you've got me all nostalgic for ZTerm...
Hey, I use it weekly for setting up new switches. Works just fine with a
Keyspan USB-Serial adapter.
Cheers,
--
James Dore
New College IT Officer
james.dore@new / it-support@new
Jim
> > Now you've got me all nostalgic for ZTerm...
>
> Hey, I use it weekly for setting up new switches. Works just fine with
> a
> Keyspan USB-Serial adapter.
>
> Cheers,
By "it" do you mean ZTerm or Claris?
Jim
James Dore
Oh, yes - ZTerm. There was/is a PPC version that still works on 10.6.
Thing is, I haven't found anything else that does the job as effectively.
Jim
>>
>>> > Now you've got me all nostalgic for ZTerm...
>>>
>>> Hey, I use it weekly for setting up new switches. Works just fine with
>>> a
>>> Keyspan USB-Serial adapter.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>
>> By "it" do you mean ZTerm or Claris?
>
> Oh, yes - ZTerm. There was/is a PPC version that still works on 10.6.
>
> Thing is, I haven't found anything else that does the job as effectively.
>
I tend to use a Tandy 100 whenever I need to do any serial device twiddling.
But then I would, wouldn't I?
James Dore
> On 2009-11-18, James Dore <james...@new.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Now you've got me all nostalgic for ZTerm...
>>>>
>>>> Hey, I use it weekly for setting up new switches. Works just fine with
>>>> a
>>>> Keyspan USB-Serial adapter.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> By "it" do you mean ZTerm or Claris?
>>
>> Oh, yes - ZTerm. There was/is a PPC version that still works on 10.6.
>>
>> Thing is, I haven't found anything else that does the job as
>> effectively.
>>
>
> I tend to use a Tandy 100 whenever I need to do any serial device
> twiddling.
>
> But then I would, wouldn't I?
>
> Jim
Hah! <google> - Neat. I can't cut'n'paste my setup scripts into that
though.
I'd like a Psion MC400 again.
Cheers,
Jim
>>>
>>> Oh, yes - ZTerm. There was/is a PPC version that still works on 10.6.
>>>
>>> Thing is, I haven't found anything else that does the job as
>>> effectively.
>>>
>>
>> I tend to use a Tandy 100 whenever I need to do any serial device
>> twiddling.
>>
>> But then I would, wouldn't I?
>
> though.
I only tend to use it for setting stuff like baud rates and making sure
cabling is correct. But it's useful from time-to-time.
> I'd like a Psion MC400 again.
<Google> Ooooh, nifty. Don't have one of those.
James Dore
> On 2009-11-18, James Dore <james...@new.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh, yes - ZTerm. There was/is a PPC version that still works on 10.6.
>>>>
>>>> Thing is, I haven't found anything else that does the job as
>>>> effectively.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I tend to use a Tandy 100 whenever I need to do any serial device
>>> twiddling.
>>>
>>> But then I would, wouldn't I?
>>
>> Hah! <google> - Neat. I can't cut'n'paste my setup scripts into that
>> though.
>
> I only tend to use it for setting stuff like baud rates and making sure
> cabling is correct. But it's useful from time-to-time.
>
>> I'd like a Psion MC400 again.
>
> <Google> Ooooh, nifty. Don't have one of those.
Had one for my first year at University (1992) and was ace for long stints
in the Library (well, I did manage them once or twice) - 8 AA batteries
lasted about two weeks. Then I came home and some toerag burgled my folks
over the summer, and nicked it. Git.
It spoke to printers and PC's with parallel ports, which was handy. Not
even the CompSci students had laptops then, and I was doing, erm, American
Studies....
Jim
>>
>>> I'd like a Psion MC400 again.
>>
>> <Google> Ooooh, nifty. Don't have one of those.
>
> Had one for my first year at University (1992) and was ace for long stints
> in the Library (well, I did manage them once or twice) - 8 AA batteries
> lasted about two weeks. Then I came home and some toerag burgled my folks
> over the summer, and nicked it. Git.
>
> It spoke to printers and PC's with parallel ports, which was handy. Not
> even the CompSci students had laptops then, and I was doing, erm, American
> Studies....
My favourite 'stone age' laptops are the Tandy 100s, closely followed by the
Z88 machines. Their rubber keyboards made them ideal for typing in places
where a more clacky keyboard would be frowned upon.
T i m
wrote:
>At some stage discussing permissions and shared data you have to use
>some technical language as it is based on accumulated knowledge, if you
>had to explain from basics each time the explanation would be long and
>here on usenet the writer has no idea what the reader knows.
Understood.
> You cannot
>just do it all from a list of instructions you have to have some
>understanding of the issues.
Not completely true.
I have copied and pasted a whole swathe of instructions from a good
tutorial into terminal and it has worked. I would have no idea
*whatsoever* how to have fixed any of it had it not worked (or indeed
when it doesn't work).
> If you don't understand you have to ask
>more questions and the person explaining knows where to expand.
Indeed, or go without.
I guess that's why I'm less 'interested' in OSX as some / many. If I'm
in Windows and need to do some command line stuff I'm ok as I've spent
quite a while supporting PC / MS - DOS / NOS systems for a living.
Maybe it's because of that I'm not (and never really have been)
'interested' in OS's or apps as a subject in themselves (unlike
hardware) ... I get called to a fault, I click / type some stuff, it
works I move on. I might subconsciously take note in the event in case
it pops up again but have no interest in the event itself.
Nix is frustrating even to the point of reading a .man page and not
having it fly off the screen ... or being able to print it out when
it's the printing subsystem is what I'm trying to sort in the first
place.
Also I still rely on what I understand are aliases put in for DOS
people ... like DIR instead of ls (is it?) etc.
I'd like to be in a position to be comfortable with Nix but not
interested in putting in the effort required (having no need as such,
Windows working perfectly for me etc).
Along with many things I'd 'like' to be able to do they will have to
wait till I've at least done some of the things I should do.
Cheers, T i m
Peter Ceresole
> > I'd like a Psion MC400 again.
>
> <Google> Ooooh, nifty. Don't have one of those.
Awfully nice, but not as downright good and practical for me as the
Amstrad NC200.
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
> Now you've got me all nostalgic for ZTerm...
Nostalgic? I still use it, on the Tibook that I use for dialup- with a
Keyspan USB-serial adapter. As a spanner for maintaining the modem
connection, it can't be beat.
--
Peter
Jim
It was certainly a damn fine bit of software.
Jim
>
>> > I'd like a Psion MC400 again.
>>
>> <Google> Ooooh, nifty. Don't have one of those.
>
> Awfully nice, but not as downright good and practical for me as the
> Amstrad NC200.
Another one I don't have, although I have a slight aversion to Amstrad kit.
zoara
> Ah, that's why. However, is it not possible for an app to have it's
> settings within it's own file / folder structure. I know that would
> mean all users would share the same settings but for many apps that
> wouldn't be an issue anyway would it?
I can't think of any example where it *wouldn't* be an issue, to be
honest.
-zoara-
--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
David Sankey
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
Disagree.
Versaterm Pro was what we swore by.
Kind regards,
Dave
Peter Ceresole
> > Awfully nice, but not as downright good and practical for me as the
> > Amstrad NC200.
>
> Another one I don't have, although I have a slight aversion to Amstrad kit.
I used an Amstrad SM2400 modem, which was the first one I got which ran,
at the time, at a decent speed (2400 woo-hoo!) for a reasonable price. I
used it on Fidonet, and it was great.
The other thing was a CPC6128 which was simply terrific, with sideways
ROMs including Protext, and a plugin 3.5" floppy drive. I worked with
that machine for several years, writing scripts, at a time when nobody
else was making anything like as nice for anything like as low a price
(and I'm including the BBC Micro in that). At work I had a PCW8512,
where I ran Protext in CP/M. When the NC200 came along. It had Protext
built in and it was a no-brainer to get one. As they all used 3.5"
floppies, the whole set was hugely integrated and flexible. I could
write wherever I was, including in the park, and I never had any
reliability problems with Amstrad kit. It was just dead practical, and I
was a happy computer user long before my colleagues.
--
Peter
Jim
>
>> > Awfully nice, but not as downright good and practical for me as the
>> > Amstrad NC200.
>>
>> Another one I don't have, although I have a slight aversion to Amstrad kit.
>
> I used an Amstrad SM2400 modem, which was the first one I got which ran,
> at the time, at a decent speed (2400 woo-hoo!) for a reasonable price. I
> used it on Fidonet, and it was great.
>
> The other thing was a CPC6128 which was simply terrific, with sideways
> ROMs including Protext, and a plugin 3.5" floppy drive.
Not sure I'm understanding that last bit - they had built-in 3" (not 3.5")
drives. Was there also an addon 3.5" drive?
> I worked with
> that machine for several years, writing scripts, at a time when nobody
> else was making anything like as nice for anything like as low a price
> (and I'm including the BBC Micro in that).
I think the nearest BBC Micro would have been the Master Compact, but that
was a year later. Not sure how prices would have compared. The Amstrads were
nice machines back then, but I had Very Bad Times with their PC models
(after the 1512 and 1640 which were great).
> At work I had a PCW8512,
> where I ran Protext in CP/M. When the NC200 came along. It had Protext
> built in and it was a no-brainer to get one. As they all used 3.5"
> floppies, the whole set was hugely integrated and flexible. I could
> write wherever I was, including in the park, and I never had any
> reliability problems with Amstrad kit. It was just dead practical, and I
> was a happy computer user long before my colleagues.
Jim
m--
Jim
>
>> > Awfully nice, but not as downright good and practical for me as the
>> > Amstrad NC200.
>>
>> Another one I don't have, although I have a slight aversion to Amstrad kit.
>
> I used an Amstrad SM2400 modem, which was the first one I got which ran,
> at the time, at a decent speed (2400 woo-hoo!) for a reasonable price. I
> used it on Fidonet, and it was great.
My first direct connect (as opposed to accoutic coupler) modem was a Demon
Modem for the BBC Micro. It wasn't exactly "lacking BABT approval" as
"utterly, utterly banned from being connected to the phone network and if we
catch you doing it we'll burn your house down to be safe".
BT *really* didn't like it. Mainly because it had all the internal quality
of, well, somthing utterly lacking in internal (and electrical) quality.
Peter Ceresole
> Not sure I'm understanding that last bit - they had built-in 3" (not 3.5")
> drives. Was there also an addon 3.5" drive?
No, just any old 720k 3.5" drive would plug into it. It fitted nicely on
top of the 3" drive, almost as though purpose built. And the CPC would
use both without any additional software. Combine that with a RAM drive
(which was an accessory) and CP/M overlays, and the whole thing was
surprisingly powerful.
--
Peter
Jim
I never knew that. That does indeed sound rather spiffy.
Jim
Rowland McDonnell
> Pd <peter...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
> > David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm no longer using AppleWorks for new documents - I've switched to
> > > iWork; I still use it occasoinally for older documents that I haven't
> > > converted, or for helping other people who are still using AppleWorks.
> >
> > AppleWorks is a fab little package, and hasn't been superseded, just
> > discontinued. Apple produce a word processor, a spreadsheet and a
> > presentation application,
Pages isn't a WP, and can't be used by someone who's familiar with the
WP paradigm unless they learn the Pages way first. I've not yet
bothered - there's a lot of very slow tutorial to work through.
The iWork spreadsheet can't do graphs even as well as AppleWorks can.
[snip]
> I used the Draw module once or twice, but anything it can do is also
> achievable in Pages or Numbers.
Not that I can tell, it can't.
[snip]
> > I was sure AppleWorks also had terminal emulation for comms at one
> > point, but I just looked and it's not there now. Perhaps my memory is
> > playing up.
>
> Was in version 4, probably version 5 as well.
Never had a clue how to use the CW terminal emulator myself. Any time I
wanted to do anything like that, I downloaded an app for the job from
the 'net. Umm. ZTerm, yes. And it's not like I didn't read the CW
manual to try to work out how to use its terminal emulator - failure.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> Nix is frustrating even to the point of reading a .man page and not
> having it fly off the screen ...
You need to track down a tutorial on using the shell(s) available via
the MacOS X Terminal application. Man pages are intended to torment
rather than inform.
> or being able to print it out when
> it's the printing subsystem is what I'm trying to sort in the first
> place.
Get the app manopen.
> Also I still rely on what I understand are aliases put in for DOS
> people ... like DIR instead of ls (is it?) etc.
Huh?
harry:~ rowland$ dir /
-bash: dir: command not found
harry:~ rowland$ DIR
-bash: DIR: command not found
There ain't no such aliases here.
> I'd like to be in a position to be comfortable with Nix but not
> interested in putting in the effort required (having no need as such,
> Windows working perfectly for me etc).
[snip
Look, call it Unix, won't you? Nix is a children's author.
<http://www.garthnix.co.uk/>
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> One instance where it stopped working and I couldn't track down why. I
> was able to resolve it by reinstalling from the original media and
> reapplying the 6.2.9 update.
Me too.
> The "~/Documents/AppleWorks User Data/Starting Points/Recent Items"
> folder getting so big that AppleWorks slows to a crawl or fails to
> launch. AppleWorks keeps an alias in there for every document it has
> ever opened,
Oh no it doesn't. At least, that's not how it works here. And what
aliases *are* in that folder here are mostly utter bollocks and broken.
Whatever's going on there, it's never worked properly. Just broken.
But you put me on to something - I'd totally forgotten about that
folder. So: AppleWorks wasn't working, just crashed on launch.
I've just deleted ~/Documents/AppleWorks User Data/
Now AppleWorks works as usual.
[snip]
> I'm no longer using AppleWorks for new documents - I've switched to
> iWork; I still use it occasoinally for older documents that I haven't
> converted, or for helping other people who are still using AppleWorks.
I suppose the day will come when AppleWorks no longer works - but until
then, I can't see any reason to change. It does me - why spend money
and time on replacement software when it's not necessary?
<shrug> I've got a problem, though.
I need a Classic application for doing a search-and-replace job to link
an AppleWorks document to LaTeX for output. I can't use it under 10.6,
and I can't find a MacOS X application that permits the same sort of
search-and-replace on a text file.
MacOS X still hasn't caught up with the previous line of the MacOS...
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) wrote:
> > >
> > > >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > These things are stored outside the application bundles - in
> > > >~/Library/Application Support or ~/Library/Preferences.
> > >
> > > Ah, that's why. However, is it not possible for an app to have it's
> > > settings within it's own file / folder structure.
> >
> > Yes, but that's not how Macs have done things - ever, or at least, never
> > officially.
> >
>
> The main issue is that under new OSs there is protection for the program
> area
No, there are permissions so set on the usual places to install
applications and system-wide OS extensions.
There is no reason one should not plonk an app in a user directory -
beyond the fact that means it's tricky to make it available to anyone
else without causing security problems and some apps assume that they're
in /Applications and won't work right if they're not.
> - a normal user cannot write to the program area so you cannot add
> to the app. This is one reason why OSX and Unix are less affected by
> viruses, Windows does allow a user to install and write application area
> - later versions stop this but they did not go the full way as people
> objected.
>
> > > I know that would
> > > mean all users would share the same settings but for many apps that
> > > wouldn't be an issue anyway would it?
> >
> > It's a crazy way to do things. Prior to MacOS X, application settings
> > were mostly kept on a per Mac basis in the System Folder (but sometimes
> > kept as you describe.)[1]
> >
> > Once you get a multi-user machine, things get more interesting and
> > setting apps up on a system-wide basis is not something that a normal
> > user should be able to do if you want a secure and stable computer
> > system. So it's important to make application settings on a
> > user-by-user basis.
> >
>
> When OSX first came out some developers said this is what they did and
> splitting data to a user directory was too difficult.
Huh? Really? What kind of total bloody morons were *they*?
>This also occured
> for Windows apps pre NT. Both OSs were where one user account on a
> machine - now with multiple accounts for machine you have to do this as
> good programs did before - but the number of bad programs is quite high.
I don't follow you there. I know of no MacOS X apps that do not have
user specific settings.
> And some apps - Eclipse seem still to do this so is installed for me
> only.
>
> And if you want to enforce corporate standards across all users there
> are more complex tools to do this. (e.g. Active Directory and ane thing
> that what MS and Apple server versions of the OS start doing)
I have no idea what this might be referring to.
> > [snip]
> >
> > > >The problem with Windows Registry is that it is one big binary file -
> > > >Apples's preferences are separate text (often XML) or simple well known
> > > >binary format(plist) files.
> > >
> > > Like INI files etc.
>
> > E.g., at the moment all is working perfectly well on my new 10.6.2 iMac
> > - except that AppleWorks no longer runs.
> >
> > ISTR that happening before under 10.4.11, and it was a bugger to sort
> > out...
> >
>
> Did Appleworks ever work usfully on any OSX :( Use Open Office or iWorks
> or MS Office now.
Eh? AppleWorks and ClarisWorks before are both rather nice.
OpenOffice.org and MS Office can't do what I'm doing with AppleWorks as
far as I can tell. Last time I looked at iWork, it was impossible to
create useful graphs with it, so that's out too. Nor does iWork have a
database.
> > > >Also for Windows every app has an installer and often will overwrite
> > > >existing preferences etc,
> > >
> > > Hmm, I've often been surprised how persistent some settings can be
> > > (often to good effect). You delete an app
> >
> > ... which does not delete any of the settings, or application support
> > files, or caches, or...
> >
> > > and later install a later
> > > version and it offers to pick up and use your old settings.
>
> An uninstaller should offer to delete settings.
Should it? Why?
> The usual case is that
> people complain more if the settings are deleted when you uninstall by
> mistake so I'll be charitable and say the uninstaller does this
> deliberately.
>
> OSX does not have a defined way of unintstalling.
<puzzled> How you do mean? I thought it did: `Remove the software and
all files related to it'.
Rowland McDonnell
> Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > > Awfully nice, but not as downright good and practical for me as the
> > > Amstrad NC200.
> >
> > Another one I don't have, although I have a slight aversion to Amstrad kit.
>
> I used an Amstrad SM2400 modem, which was the first one I got which ran,
> at the time, at a decent speed (2400 woo-hoo!) for a reasonable price. I
> used it on Fidonet, and it was great.
>
> The other thing was a CPC6128 which was simply terrific, with sideways
> ROMs including Protext, and a plugin 3.5" floppy drive. I worked with
> that machine for several years, writing scripts, at a time when nobody
> else was making anything like as nice for anything like as low a price
> (and I'm including the BBC Micro in that).
It's not surprising that it beat the basic BBC Micro, what with the
CPC6128 being a late 1985 model and the BBC Micro being a 1981 job IIRC.
If you wanted a computer for writing scripts, the Amstrad machines were
superb - they really were very good at being stand-alone WPs.
At the time, the only competition in that field and a similar price I
can think of would have been a BBC Micro variant with a ROM WP. But
I've used both a BBC Micro and an Amstrad PCW8512, and I reckon that for
all jobs barring WPing, the BBC Micro is superior. For WPing, the
dedicated Amstrad machine wins hands down.
I'm less convinced, looking at what I see on-line, that an Amstrad
CPC6128 would have been as good for WPing as the dedicated WP machines,
which had *very* clear built-in monitors which did very well for basic
WP work.
> At work I had a PCW8512,
> where I ran Protext in CP/M. When the NC200 came along. It had Protext
> built in and it was a no-brainer to get one. As they all used 3.5"
> floppies,
Mind you, beats the the 3" floppies used for the PCW line...
>the whole set was hugely integrated and flexible. I could
> write wherever I was, including in the park, and I never had any
> reliability problems with Amstrad kit.
[snip]
I once taught WPing (etc) at a 6th form for my sins. I should have
asked some questions when it was explained to me that both typing
teachers were off long-term sick with stress...
I think I found out part of it: one typing room was filled with Windoze
PCs. The other had Amstrad PCWs. Absolutely *ALL* the lessons in the
Windoze room were distrupted by the machinery. Not one lesson in the
Amstrad room was disrupted by the machinery.
T i m
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>> Nix is frustrating even to the point of reading a .man page and not
>> having it fly off the screen ...
>
>You need to track down a tutorial on using the shell(s) available via
>the MacOS X Terminal application. Man pages are intended to torment
>rather than inform.
>
Not just me then!
>> or being able to print it out when
>> it's the printing subsystem is what I'm trying to sort in the first
>> place.
>
>Get the app manopen.
Ok.
>
>> Also I still rely on what I understand are aliases put in for DOS
>> people ... like DIR instead of ls (is it?) etc.
>
>Huh?
>
>harry:~ rowland$ dir /
>-bash: dir: command not found
>
>harry:~ rowland$ DIR
>-bash: DIR: command not found
>
>There ain't no such aliases here.
Sorry, I'm talking more generic here ... typically in Linux as OSX
seems to have a better GUI for semi technical stuff at least.
>
>> I'd like to be in a position to be comfortable with Nix but not
>> interested in putting in the effort required (having no need as such,
>> Windows working perfectly for me etc).
>
>[snip
>
>Look, call it Unix, won't you?
I'll call it Linux then. ;-)
T i m
Rowland McDonnell
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> >> Nix is frustrating even to the point of reading a .man page and not
> >> having it fly off the screen ...
> >
> >You need to track down a tutorial on using the shell(s) available via
> >the MacOS X Terminal application. Man pages are intended to torment
> >rather than inform.
> >
> Not just me then!
Nope.
> >> or being able to print it out when
> >> it's the printing subsystem is what I'm trying to sort in the first
> >> place.
> >
> >Get the app manopen.
>
> Ok.
See why I told you to do that now?
> >> Also I still rely on what I understand are aliases put in for DOS
> >> people ... like DIR instead of ls (is it?) etc.
> >
> >Huh?
> >
> >harry:~ rowland$ dir /
> >-bash: dir: command not found
> >
> >harry:~ rowland$ DIR
> >-bash: DIR: command not found
> >
> >There ain't no such aliases here.
>
> Sorry, I'm talking more generic here ... typically in Linux as OSX
> seems to have a better GUI for semi technical stuff at least.
Huh? The command line ain't no GUI.
> >> I'd like to be in a position to be comfortable with Nix but not
> >> interested in putting in the effort required (having no need as such,
> >> Windows working perfectly for me etc).
> >
> >[snip
> >
> >Look, call it Unix, won't you?
>
> I'll call it Linux then. ;-)
MacOS X is Unix, not Linux.
Peter Ceresole
> At the time, the only competition in that field and a similar price I
> can think of would have been a BBC Micro variant with a ROM WP.
Yes. One of the other Horizon producers used a BBC Micro with a ROM
based WP. It was okay, but as far as I could see not remotely as
configurable and easy to use as the Amstrad CPC with Protext.
As for the monitors, the CPC colour monitor was rather soft- I didn't
like it. But the green monitor was excellent, expecially running black
text on a green screen, where the apparent rez was much higher. My
Protext startup routine was a submit file (in CP/M, or a BASIC program
on the CPC) that set the screen colours and various key functions, then
called Protext, on ROM or in CP/M.
The CPC was too slow to do much more than word processing, although it
handled Fidonet very well indeed in CP/M because of its ability to swap
in overlays from RAM disk.
However, word processing and address storage were what I needed for
earning a living, and it did those extremely well at an unbeatable
price. And I had a lot of fun with it mainly learning, without trying,
quite a lot about simple batch file programming.
--
Peter
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > At the time, the only competition in that field and a similar price I
> > can think of would have been a BBC Micro variant with a ROM WP.
>
> Yes. One of the other Horizon producers used a BBC Micro with a ROM
> based WP. It was okay, but as far as I could see not remotely as
> configurable and easy to use as the Amstrad CPC with Protext.
People mostly think that what they are used to is easier to use than
stuff they're not used to.
If that producer had a non-Master BBC Micro - well, a 1981 machine based
on a 1970s architecture before anyone had much clue about GUIs is sure
to be less easy to learn to use than a 1985 machine informed by GUIs
(even if that 1985 machine isn't actually any faster). But once you'd
learnt how to use one of those ROM based WPs on a Beeb, they were
actually quite nice and not at all hard to use. It's just that you had
to read the manual, as we did in those days - you didn't get much by way
of help on the screen...
Okay, okay, so the ROM based WPs I met on Beebs weren't up to Locoscript
power, even if they did work faster.
As far as configuring stuff on a BBC Micro - *everything* could be
modified, if you were clever enough. You could hack into almost
anything - the OS helped (yes, it really did have a real, if primitive,
OS), and the documention pointed you in the right direction. Okay, some
things required deep hackery, but some things were meant to be modified.
And again, you had to read the manual to find out and wouldn't get
on-screen hints so you'd not be able to learn how to do any of that
stuff just sat at the machine without paperwork.
> As for the monitors, the CPC colour monitor was rather soft- I didn't
> like it. But the green monitor was excellent, expecially running black
> text on a green screen, where the apparent rez was much higher.
Hmm. Righto. Never tried that myself.
> My
> Protext startup routine was a submit file (in CP/M, or a BASIC program
> on the CPC) that set the screen colours and various key functions, then
> called Protext, on ROM or in CP/M.
>
> The CPC was too slow to do much more than word processing,
Rubbish - it could run CP/M, it had a decent speed CPU, there was a
*LOT* of useful stuff it could do. Process control and data logging,
for example - well, assuming you could hook it up to external hardware
of the right sort. Hell, disc drives meant you could have used it for
financial work too if you'd wanted to. And why not a spreadsheet?
Dunno if one was available, but that would have worked well if it was.
>although it
> handled Fidonet very well indeed in CP/M because of its ability to swap
> in overlays from RAM disk.
>
> However, word processing and address storage were what I needed for
> earning a living, and it did those extremely well at an unbeatable
> price.
I'm with you up to `at an unbeatable price'.
> And I had a lot of fun with it mainly learning, without trying,
> quite a lot about simple batch file programming.
Uhuh.
Mark Bestley
> Mark Bestley <news{@bestley.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> > The main issue is that under new OSs there is protection for the program
> > area
>
> No, there are permissions so set on the usual places to install
> applications and system-wide OS extensions.
>
> There is no reason one should not plonk an app in a user directory -
> beyond the fact that means it's tricky to make it available to anyone
> else without causing security problems and some apps assume that they're
> in /Applications and won't work right if they're not.
>
By protection I meant permissions on the directory (as in the next
paragraph). If you put an app in a /Applications /Network/Applications
or ~/Applications and one or two others the services subsystem will find
it otherwise thus the app does not get registered automatically. Apple
says "This operation is analogous to "rebuilding the desktop" in earlier
versions of Mac OS." :)
> > > > I know that would
> > > > mean all users would share the same settings but for many apps that
> > > > wouldn't be an issue anyway would it?
> > >
> > > It's a crazy way to do things. Prior to MacOS X, application settings
> > > were mostly kept on a per Mac basis in the System Folder (but sometimes
> > > kept as you describe.)[1]
> > >
> > > Once you get a multi-user machine, things get more interesting and
> > > setting apps up on a system-wide basis is not something that a normal
> > > user should be able to do if you want a secure and stable computer
> > > system. So it's important to make application settings on a
> > > user-by-user basis.
> > >
> >
> > When OSX first came out some developers said this is what they did and
> > splitting data to a user directory was too difficult.
>
> Huh? Really? What kind of total bloody morons were *they*?
>
Those who used the mac way of "application settings were mostly kept on
a per Mac basis in the System Folder" ie not in a user directory and
said that as MacOS did that before they would not change. I forget which
apps as I could not use them and as you say if they can't follow that
rule what else will they get wrong.
Probably the same developers who use installers who don't check they
have permissions and just fail so you have to login as an admin user to
install.
> >This also occured
> > for Windows apps pre NT. Both OSs were where one user account on a
> > machine - now with multiple accounts for machine you have to do this as
> > good programs did before - but the number of bad programs is quite high.
>
> I don't follow you there. I know of no MacOS X apps that do not have
> user specific settings.
>
> > And some apps - Eclipse seem still to do this so is installed for me
> > only.
> >
> > And if you want to enforce corporate standards across all users there
> > are more complex tools to do this. (e.g. Active Directory and ane thing
> > that what MS and Apple server versions of the OS start doing)
>
> I have no idea what this might be referring to.
>
There are ways of setting up preferences etc across more than one user
and machine and also not allowing users to change these.
.
>
> Eh? AppleWorks and ClarisWorks before are both rather nice.
>
> OpenOffice.org and MS Office can't do what I'm doing with AppleWorks as
> far as I can tell. Last time I looked at iWork, it was impossible to
> create useful graphs with it, so that's out too. Nor does iWork have a
> database.
>
Agreed with iWorks graphs.
> > > > Hmm, I've often been surprised how persistent some settings can be
> > > > (often to good effect). You delete an app
> > >
> > > ... which does not delete any of the settings, or application support
> > > files, or caches, or...
> > >
> > > > and later install a later
> > > > version and it offers to pick up and use your old settings.
> >
> > An uninstaller should offer to delete settings.
>
> Should it? Why?
>
If you really want to get rid of it it should be able to remove all the
apps files. e.g. if you try a new app and find that it is no use you
would want to remove its preferences. see T i m'spoint about not
deleteing settings caches etc.
> > The usual case is that
> > people complain more if the settings are deleted when you uninstall by
> > mistake so I'll be charitable and say the uninstaller does this
> > deliberately.
> >
> > OSX does not have a defined way of unintstalling.
>
> <puzzled> How you do mean? I thought it did: `Remove the software and
> all files related to it'.
>
How do you know what files are related to it. Some other packaging
solutions will have this information and remove preference and other
files.
--
Mark
T i m
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>> >Get the app manopen.
>>
>> Ok.
>
>See why I told you to do that now?
Erm, no, not yet because I don't predict I'll be going into OSX or
Linux (assuming the suggestion also applies to that) for weeks.
>
>> Sorry, I'm talking more generic here ... typically in Linux as OSX
>> seems to have a better GUI for semi technical stuff at least.
>
>Huh? The command line ain't no GUI.
No, but stuff that might have had to be done in terminal on say Ubuntu
would probably be done via a GUI panel / applet / setting under OSX.
Whilst I don't prefer OSX over XP I do like the fact it's more
'Windows' than (say) Ubuntu (so prefer it for that reason).
>
>> >> I'd like to be in a position to be comfortable with Nix but not
>> >> interested in putting in the effort required (having no need as such,
>> >> Windows working perfectly for me etc).
>> >
>> >[snip
>> >
>> >Look, call it Unix, won't you?
>>
>> I'll call it Linux then. ;-)
>
>MacOS X is Unix, not Linux.
Indeed, however I was talking generically about 'Nix' stuff as opposed
to the Windows / DOS stuff. <weg>
T i m
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Mark Bestley <news{@bestley.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > > The main issue is that under new OSs there is protection for the program
> > > area
> >
> > No, there are permissions so set on the usual places to install
> > applications and system-wide OS extensions.
> >
> > There is no reason one should not plonk an app in a user directory -
> > beyond the fact that means it's tricky to make it available to anyone
> > else without causing security problems and some apps assume that they're
> > in /Applications and won't work right if they're not.
> >
>
> By protection I meant permissions on the directory (as in the next
> paragraph).
I guessed that, which is why I referred to `permissions' myself.
> If you put an app in a /Applications /Network/Applications
> or ~/Applications and one or two others the services subsystem will find
> it otherwise thus the app does not get registered automatically.
You what?
> Apple
> says "This operation is analogous to "rebuilding the desktop" in earlier
> versions of Mac OS." :)
Could you expand more? I know about the Launch Services database. As I
understand it, that'll pick up an app from anywhere.
I've certainly used apps from their disc images, for example.
> > > > > I know that would
> > > > > mean all users would share the same settings but for many apps that
> > > > > wouldn't be an issue anyway would it?
> > > >
> > > > It's a crazy way to do things. Prior to MacOS X, application settings
> > > > were mostly kept on a per Mac basis in the System Folder (but sometimes
> > > > kept as you describe.)[1]
> > > >
> > > > Once you get a multi-user machine, things get more interesting and
> > > > setting apps up on a system-wide basis is not something that a normal
> > > > user should be able to do if you want a secure and stable computer
> > > > system. So it's important to make application settings on a
> > > > user-by-user basis.
> > > >
> > >
> > > When OSX first came out some developers said this is what they did and
> > > splitting data to a user directory was too difficult.
> >
> > Huh? Really? What kind of total bloody morons were *they*?
> >
> Those who used the mac way of "application settings were mostly kept on
> a per Mac basis in the System Folder" ie not in a user directory and
> said that as MacOS did that before they would not change.
Some might have done so. Certainly not all, and probably not even most.
> I forget which
> apps as I could not use them and as you say if they can't follow that
> rule what else will they get wrong.
Quite. I've never met a MacOS X app like that myself.
> Probably the same developers who use installers who don't check they
> have permissions and just fail so you have to login as an admin user to
> install.
Never met that one.
> > >This also occured
> > > for Windows apps pre NT. Both OSs were where one user account on a
> > > machine - now with multiple accounts for machine you have to do this as
> > > good programs did before - but the number of bad programs is quite high.
> >
> > I don't follow you there. I know of no MacOS X apps that do not have
> > user specific settings.
> >
> > > And some apps - Eclipse seem still to do this so is installed for me
> > > only.
> > >
> > > And if you want to enforce corporate standards across all users there
> > > are more complex tools to do this. (e.g. Active Directory and ane thing
> > > that what MS and Apple server versions of the OS start doing)
> >
> > I have no idea what this might be referring to.
> >
> There are ways of setting up preferences etc across more than one user
> and machine and also not allowing users to change these.
Righto.
> > Eh? AppleWorks and ClarisWorks before are both rather nice.
> >
> > OpenOffice.org and MS Office can't do what I'm doing with AppleWorks as
> > far as I can tell. Last time I looked at iWork, it was impossible to
> > create useful graphs with it, so that's out too. Nor does iWork have a
> > database.
> >
>
> Agreed with iWorks graphs.
<puzzled> So you think iWorks has a database?
btw, I'm telling you that OOO and MS Office can't do what I want because
I've tried.
> > > > > Hmm, I've often been surprised how persistent some settings can be
> > > > > (often to good effect). You delete an app
> > > >
> > > > ... which does not delete any of the settings, or application support
> > > > files, or caches, or...
> > > >
> > > > > and later install a later
> > > > > version and it offers to pick up and use your old settings.
> > >
> > > An uninstaller should offer to delete settings.
> >
> > Should it? Why?
> >
> If you really want to get rid of it it should be able to remove all the
> apps files. e.g. if you try a new app and find that it is no use you
> would want to remove its preferences. see T i m'spoint about not
> deleteing settings caches etc.
Hmm. Okay.
> > > The usual case is that
> > > people complain more if the settings are deleted when you uninstall by
> > > mistake so I'll be charitable and say the uninstaller does this
> > > deliberately.
> > >
> > > OSX does not have a defined way of unintstalling.
> >
> > <puzzled> How you do mean? I thought it did: `Remove the software and
> > all files related to it'.
>
> How do you know what files are related to it.
I don't, but the method is defined, even if it's not implemented as
something which can be done by the machine.
> Some other packaging
> solutions will have this information and remove preference and other
> files.
Uhuh.
Peter Ceresole
> > The CPC was too slow to do much more than word processing,
>
> Rubbish - it could run CP/M, it had a decent speed CPU, there was a
> *LOT* of useful stuff it could do.
Yes. But it did it very slowly- and for instance in CP/M it was very
slow for comms work. The CPC in AMSDOS was considerably quicker, but
then there were fewer apps. Still, I could have a spreadsheet and a
database. I just never needed either.
I'm sure it could do process control work, but then that wouldn't
require high speed.
I built (with my Fido sysop) a 386/16 PeeCee, and as you would expect
that was hugely faster, even for word processing.
--
Peter
David Empson
> I've got a problem, though.
>
> I need a Classic application for doing a search-and-replace job to link
> an AppleWorks document to LaTeX for output. I can't use it under 10.6,
> and I can't find a MacOS X application that permits the same sort of
> search-and-replace on a text file.
TextWrangler/BBEdit has multi-file search and replace, as long as you
are dealing with plain text files.
I've never needed to do this sort of thing with formatted documents so
haven't investigated what can be achieved with the various word
processors.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I've got a problem, though.
> >
> > I need a Classic application for doing a search-and-replace job to link
> > an AppleWorks document to LaTeX for output. I can't use it under 10.6,
> > and I can't find a MacOS X application that permits the same sort of
> > search-and-replace on a text file.
>
> TextWrangler/BBEdit has multi-file search and replace, as long as you
> are dealing with plain text files.
I need something more automated that I can get using TextWrangler - I
need a solution that I don't have to set up by hand ever damned time I
want to do it, as I had under - oooh, let's see, MacOS 7.6.1. Highly
advanced MacOS X denies me the ability entirely. Yes, TextWrangler can
do search and replace, but you have to set everything up by hand every
time, and that's no bloody good at all.
And in any case, while I am dealing with plain text files, I can't see
any way to operate on charcodes in those plain text files which are
outside the usual ASCII range - when using the OS X tools I've met for
this sort of thing, although I've got a Classic app that does the job
lovely.
> I've never needed to do this sort of thing with formatted documents so
> haven't investigated what can be achieved with the various word
> processors.
I'm not sure what that might mean.
Rowland McDonnell
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:21:32 +0000,
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
>
> >> >Get the app manopen.
> >>
> >> Ok.
> >
> >See why I told you to do that now?
>
> Erm, no, not yet because I don't predict I'll be going into OSX or
> Linux (assuming the suggestion also applies to that) for weeks.
ManOpen.app is a MacOS X application. If it works on anything else, I'd
be utterly gobsmacked.
It solves the problem of trying to read and/or print man pages on Macs,
which is a major pain via the Terminal.
[snip]
> >> >> I'd like to be in a position to be comfortable with Nix but not
> >> >> interested in putting in the effort required (having no need as such,
> >> >> Windows working perfectly for me etc).
> >> >
> >> >[snip
> >> >
> >> >Look, call it Unix, won't you?
> >>
> >> I'll call it Linux then. ;-)
> >
> >MacOS X is Unix, not Linux.
>
> Indeed, however I was talking generically about 'Nix' stuff as opposed
> to the Windows / DOS stuff. <weg>
Nix is a children's author. Why not refer to Unix, which is what you
mean? Calling Unix `Nix' is just annoyingly wrong.
There's no way I could have guessed you were `talking generically about
'Nix' stuff as opposed to the Windows / DOS stuff' - I don't see that
doing so makes any sense at all in the context of this thread.
<shrug> Oh, I get it, you just wanted to be an annoying shit for the
sake of being annoying. Fair enough.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > The CPC was too slow to do much more than word processing,
> >
> > Rubbish - it could run CP/M, it had a decent speed CPU, there was a
> > *LOT* of useful stuff it could do.
>
> Yes. But it did it very slowly-
<shrug> How slow is that?
>and for instance in CP/M it was very
> slow for comms work.
Wasn't everything back then?
> The CPC in AMSDOS was considerably quicker, but
> then there were fewer apps. Still, I could have a spreadsheet and a
> database. I just never needed either.
You never 'needed' the computer at all. You were writing - a card index
for addresses and a tripewriter would have sufficed. You've surely met
the sort of journo (now very nearly totally extinct in developed
nations) who never gave up working that way?
btw, I've met the sort of journo who started out on manual typewriters.
Watching *THEM* at it is quite something. Top typing speed lower than
mine - but an error rate of about 1/100th of mine, and a finished
article out in one pass. It was like watching a sorceror at work, the
first time I saw that process.
> I'm sure it could do process control work, but then that wouldn't
> require high speed.
You've got some funny ideas about process controlling, you have. A lot
of jobs like that need a real time OS because guaranteed response times
are *VITAL*.
All depends on the job in hand.
But consider: the LHC at CERN is run on a `process control' basis by a
whole bunch of computers. You think that can get away without
near-instantaneous response to dump the beam if a fault occurs? 'cos it
can't. You should read about the LHC"s beam dump - that's when you get
to understand just how *fast* the whizzy little particles in the beam
are going, and just how heavy they get when they're doing so.
> I built (with my Fido sysop) a 386/16 PeeCee, and as you would expect
> that was hugely faster, even for word processing.
I don't have such expectations. All depends on the software. If that
ancient slow 386 machine you cite were running Windoze, it could have
been a nasty slug. I've used 486 Windoze boxes that struck me as slower
than my old Beeb - due to software inefficiencies, I suppose.
T i m
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>ManOpen.app is a MacOS X application. If it works on anything else, I'd
>be utterly gobsmacked.
Ok.
>
>It solves the problem of trying to read and/or print man pages on Macs,
>which is a major pain via the Terminal.
Good.
>
>> Indeed, however I was talking generically about 'Nix' stuff as opposed
>> to the Windows / DOS stuff. <weg>
>
>Nix is a children's author.
Is he/she <shrug>.
>Why not refer to Unix, which is what you
>mean? Calling Unix `Nix' is just annoyingly wrong.
Ah, maybe one of us doesn't understand the (my) use. I was using 'Nix'
as a shortcut for Unix and Linux and those OS's that were based on
either.
>
>There's no way I could have guessed you were `talking generically about
>'Nix' stuff as opposed to the Windows / DOS stuff' - I don't see that
>doing so makes any sense at all in the context of this thread.
Sorry to have confused you (but I was).
>
><shrug> Oh, I get it, you just wanted to be an annoying shit for the
>sake of being annoying. Fair enough.
Nope, but thanks anyway.
Cheers, T i m.
Rowland McDonnell
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
[snip]
> >> Indeed, however I was talking generically about 'Nix' stuff as opposed
> >> to the Windows / DOS stuff. <weg>
> >
> >Nix is a children's author.
>
> Is he/she <shrug>.
Yes. I realise that a lot of people aren't interested in books. I am.
Nix could also mean other things, you know.
> >Why not refer to Unix, which is what you
> >mean? Calling Unix `Nix' is just annoyingly wrong.
>
> Ah, maybe one of us doesn't understand the (my) use. I was using 'Nix'
> as a shortcut for Unix and Linux and those OS's that were based on
> either.
Erm? I'm not sure I understand that. Anyway, `Nix' doesn't mean that
to my mind and the term is already far too heavily laden to have another
ad hoc meaning if you ask me.
I use Unix-ish or Unix-alike or similar term for that kind of thing.
But MacOS X is not based on Unix as I understand the idea to be meant -
it *IS* Unix (with additions), rather than `something like but not quite
Unix' which is what `based on Unix' is listed as `what people mean by
that' in my brain.
> >There's no way I could have guessed you were `talking generically about
> >'Nix' stuff as opposed to the Windows / DOS stuff' - I don't see that
> >doing so makes any sense at all in the context of this thread.
>
> Sorry to have confused you (but I was).
I don't follow.
> ><shrug> Oh, I get it, you just wanted to be an annoying shit for the
> >sake of being annoying. Fair enough.
>
> Nope, but thanks anyway.
Be aware that what I reported is what your behaviour appeared to be to
me.
T i m
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>Yes. I realise that a lot of people aren't interested in books. I am.
I'm not uninterested in books, any more than I'm interested in them or
anything that isn't required for basic life or that I don't have a
special interest in. I certainly haven't found books a particularly
good form of 'entertainment' (outside the few I have read [1]), nor do
I find the medium 'easy' (possibly due to my word blindness / ADD) but
they do sometimes serve a purpose (when they are in the form of
manuals)[2]. ;-)
>
>Nix could also mean other things, you know.
Of course but shouldn't have done in the context of our discussion
(terminal / cmd line / Linux / Unix / OSX stuff). If we are having
this discussion now because I inadvertently confused you with my use
of 'Nix' then you now know what I intended.
>
<snip Nix chat>
>
>> ><shrug> Oh, I get it, you just wanted to be an annoying shit for the
>> >sake of being annoying. Fair enough.
>>
>> Nope, but thanks anyway.
>
>Be aware that what I reported is what your behaviour appeared to be to
>me.
Understood, that's why I said 'Nope' (because your understanding of
what you thought I was trying to do was wrong, even if that was the
actual outcome ... and you are Rowland) and the 'thanks anyway' was
for your tolerance of that situation with your 'Fair enough'. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
[1] I think the time I actually 'read' books was when reading them to
/ with the kids as they were growing up.
Because I have suffered with tinnitus most of my adult life I find it
difficult to concentrate when not totally engrossed in something. I
was just scanning some old school reports and from 1st year at primary
to last year at college they all read the same. "Timothy is easily
distracted, talks too much and could do better if he tried". I never
tried because I wasn't interested in any of it, especially at the slow
speed most of it was being delivered. I built a full size wooden
rowing boat in woodwork class at my secondary school but even then
only because it was easy and I didn't want a bathroom cabinet (or
bookends!). ;-)
[2] I do have quite a few books, often bought on impulse (cheap,
pretty, funny, 'look interesting') or because I feel I should have
such (Mac Bible etc). Most of them remain un-read past a quick flick
through or the odd specific reference but I still respect the medium,
look after and find difficult to throw away (and never have, yet).
zoara
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> >Why not refer to Unix, which is what you
> >mean? Calling Unix `Nix' is just annoyingly wrong.
>
> Ah, maybe one of us doesn't understand the (my) use. I was using 'Nix'
> as a shortcut for Unix and Linux and those OS's that were based on
> either.
Much as Rowland likes to huff and puff about how annoyingly wrong people
are when they use terms he's unfamiliar with, it doesn't mean he's
right.
"Nix", or more usually (and geekily) "*nix" is the correct terminology
for unix and similar systems. Rowland's insistence you refer to them as
"Unix" (sic, capitalisation) is wrong, because many nixes are not UNIX;
Linux is not, though OSX is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix-like
-zoara-
--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
Richard Tobin
zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>for unix and similar systems. Rowland's insistence you refer to them as
>"Unix" (sic, capitalisation) is wrong, because many nixes are not UNIX;
>Linux is not, though OSX is.
That's a trademark matter, and even if it turned out that the
trademark was enforcable (that is, hadn't become a generic term), it
would only apply to those who are engaged in trade. What the rest of
use the term for is up to us. And outside the world of trademark
law, Linux is certainly a variety of Unix.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Rowland McDonnell
> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >for unix and similar systems. Rowland's insistence you refer to them as
> >"Unix" (sic, capitalisation) is wrong, because many nixes are not UNIX;
> >Linux is not, though OSX is.
>
> That's a trademark matter,
I thought it was a technical spec matter.
> and even if it turned out that the
> trademark was enforcable (that is, hadn't become a generic term), it
> would only apply to those who are engaged in trade.
And even then only if you were using the term by way of trade - there is
no ban on a tradesman using any term he likes in general.
> What the rest of
> use the term for is up to us. And outside the world of trademark
> law, Linux is certainly a variety of Unix.
Technical specs?
Rowland McDonnell
> T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> > real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> >
> > >Why not refer to Unix, which is what you
> > >mean? Calling Unix `Nix' is just annoyingly wrong.
> >
> > Ah, maybe one of us doesn't understand the (my) use. I was using 'Nix'
> > as a shortcut for Unix and Linux and those OS's that were based on
> > either.
>
> Much as Rowland likes to huff and puff about how annoyingly wrong people
> are when they use terms he's unfamiliar with, it doesn't mean he's
> right.
Much as Zoara likes to sneer and deride me when I make a broad point
that collides with his narrow world view, it doesn't mean he's right.
> "Nix", or more usually (and geekily) "*nix" is the correct terminology
> for unix and similar systems.
But it's not.
> Rowland's insistence you refer to them as
> "Unix" (sic, capitalisation) is wrong,
No it's not.
> because many nixes are not UNIX;
> Linux is not,
Is there no Linux distro that meets a current Unix spec?
> though OSX is.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix-like
Yes, but that's bollocks.
Never mind - there is, as usual, no possible way in which I could engage
in an intelligent discussion with you on this, since you are so
blinkered and narrow minded and bigoted on subjects like this.
James Dore
<real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>> > real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>> >
>> > >Why not refer to Unix, which is what you
>> > >mean? Calling Unix `Nix' is just annoyingly wrong.
>> >
>> > Ah, maybe one of us doesn't understand the (my) use. I was using 'Nix'
>> > as a shortcut for Unix and Linux and those OS's that were based on
>> > either.
>>
>> Much as Rowland likes to huff and puff about how annoyingly wrong people
>> are when they use terms he's unfamiliar with, it doesn't mean he's
>> right.
>
> Much as Zoara likes to sneer and deride me when I make a broad point
> that collides with his narrow world view, it doesn't mean he's right.
>
>> "Nix", or more usually (and geekily) "*nix" is the correct terminology
>> for unix and similar systems.
>
> But it's not.
It is a widely-accepted (amongst the *nix-using community) shorthand.
>> Rowland's insistence you refer to them as
>> "Unix" (sic, capitalisation) is wrong,
>
> No it's not.
>
>> because many nixes are not UNIX;
>> Linux is not,
>
> Is there no Linux distro that meets a current Unix spec?
Linux is more exactly GNU/Linux - and one of the recursive expansions of
GNU at it's inception (or shortly thereafter) was
GNU's
Not
UNIX
Linux may meet the Unix spec, which it was designed to do, but it was
developed to avoid intellectual property infringement on UNIX (and the
MINIX system under which it was originally written) itself, and not
require licensing from the UNIX IP holders (see Novell vs. SCO ad
nauseam). Development took place with code from GNU under GPL licensing,
which because of the aims of the original developers, effectively
precluded the use of commercial software from UNIX or MINIX.
So, while Linux may "meet the Unix spec" it is not a UNIX. This may seem
like splitting hairs, but once you delve further into to guts of the
respective branches, it matters.
>> though OSX is.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix-like
>
> Yes, but that's bollocks.
In what way? It may not cite particular references, but the information is
generally correct.
> Never mind - there is, as usual, no possible way in which I could engage
> in an intelligent discussion with you on this, since you are so
> blinkered and narrow minded and bigoted on subjects like this.
Not when you're throwing broad dismissive comments like "that's bollocks"
about, no.
Cheers,
--
James Dore
New College IT Officer
james.dore@new / it-support@new
Richard Tobin
Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>> >for unix and similar systems. Rowland's insistence you refer to them as
>> >"Unix" (sic, capitalisation) is wrong, because many nixes are not UNIX;
>> >Linux is not, though OSX is.
>> That's a trademark matter,
>I thought it was a technical spec matter.
I think it's clearer to refer to the various specifications
as Posix. That way you can say, for example, that Linux does
not conform to Posix 2008, without suggesting that it's not
part of the Unix family.
zoara
> In article
> <687155741280637027.9...@news.individual.net>,
> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >for unix and similar systems. Rowland's insistence you refer to them
> > as
> >"Unix" (sic, capitalisation) is wrong, because many nixes are not
> > UNIX;
> >Linux is not, though OSX is.
>
> That's a trademark matter, and even if it turned out that the
> trademark was enforcable (that is, hadn't become a generic term), it
> would only apply to those who are engaged in trade. What the rest of
> use the term for is up to us. And outside the world of trademark
> law, Linux is certainly a variety of Unix.
What about Gnu? Gnu's not UNIX.
The *nix term is known, understood and valid in the world at large, even
if Rowland hasn't heard of it.
Richard Tobin
zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>What about Gnu? Gnu's not UNIX.
Things have changed since 1983:
GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to
Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on
our experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan
to have longer filenames, file version numbers, a crashproof file
system, filename completion perhaps, terminal-independent display
support, and eventually a Lisp-based window system through which
several Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a
screen. Both C and Lisp will be available as system programming
languages. We will have network software based on MIT's chaosnet
protocol, far superior to UUCP. We may also have something
compatible with UUCP.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >for unix and similar systems. Rowland's insistence you refer to them as
> >> >"Unix" (sic, capitalisation) is wrong, because many nixes are not UNIX;
> >> >Linux is not, though OSX is.
>
> >> That's a trademark matter,
>
> >I thought it was a technical spec matter.
>
> I think it's clearer to refer to the various specifications
> as Posix. That way you can say, for example, that Linux does
> not conform to Posix 2008, without suggesting that it's not
> part of the Unix family.
Ah - righto. Yes, that seems like a good way of doing it.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
[snip]
> >> "Nix", or more usually (and geekily) "*nix" is the correct terminology
> >> for unix and similar systems.
> >
> > But it's not.
>
> It is a widely-accepted (amongst the *nix-using community) shorthand.
*nix is not shorthand. Nix was never used when I lurked in Unix places.
*nix is a response to a legal threat, which was invalid. Anyone using
the horribly ugly and pointless term *nix to mean Unix is a wimp or an
idiot and has no sense of aesthetics.
And anyone using the term Nix when they mean Unix is being deliberately
awkward.
You're wrong about all the rest of it too but I can't be bothered
explaining because you're sure to treat me and my post with further
insulting contempt.
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> The *nix term is known, understood and valid in the world at large, even
> if Rowland hasn't heard of it.
Your sneering assumptions are as usual created to give insult - not to
mention being totally wrong. As usual.
The *nix term is a bastardized term of extreme ugliness, which was
created by spineless wimps mistakenly submitting to an perceived threat
of legal action against anyone breaching the alleged trademark
protection against the term Unix - which matter has been dismissed
elsewhere in this thread.
There is no justification for claiming that my statements are wrong, nor
is there any justification beyond humour for using the term Nix or *nix
to describe Unix.
And why do you have to be so fucking abusive, eh?
zoara
> In article
> <457689169280755037.9...@news.individual.net>,
> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >What about Gnu? Gnu's not UNIX.
>
> Things have changed since 1983:
>
> GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to
> Unix.
Sounds like it's UNIX-like, but not UNIX.
Is the iPhone OS a proper UNIX OS?
Richard Tobin
Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>*nix is a response to a legal threat, which was invalid.
That doesn't match my memory, though I haven't checked it.
Long before there were any lawsuits, there were versions of Unix with
names like "xenix", "genix", "minix", "forty-two-nix". Some of these
were just ports of AT&T or Berkeley Unix, others were
reimplementations. I think you'll find the term *nix was used to
refer to these collectively, with the asterisk having the obvious
meaning.
James Dore
<real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> James Dore <james...@new.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> [snip]
>
> You're wrong about all the rest of it too but I can't be bothered
> explaining because you're sure to treat me and my post with further
> insulting contempt.
Well, since you asked so nicely :->
HTH, HAND
chris
> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not refer to Unix, which is what you
>>>> mean? Calling Unix `Nix' is just annoyingly wrong.
>> for unix and similar systems.
>
> But it's not.
It is, because Unix (whichever way you spell it) is one thing. Unix-like
or *nix is a group of OSes (including Unix) that have, over time,
conformed to a standard (POSIX, I think?).
That way anything that will work on one unix-like will work on them all,
now. That has not always been the case.
>> Rowland's insistence you refer to them as
>> "Unix" (sic, capitalisation) is wrong,
>
> No it's not.
>
>> because many nixes are not UNIX;
>> Linux is not,
>
> Is there no Linux distro that meets a current Unix spec?
Nope. Linux is not Unix or Solaris or AIX etc. Although it behaves in a
very similar manner, it does not conform to the same standards. Things
that work with Linux are not guaranteed to work on Unix/Solaris/AIX and
vice versa. They are similar enough that it's pretty easy to port over
from one to the other.
Projects like MacPorts do exactly that for Linux tools to work on the
Unix mach kernel as used in OSX.
>> though OSX is.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix-like
>
> Yes, but that's bollocks.
How so?
Pd
> The *nix term is a bastardized term of extreme ugliness, which was
> created by spineless wimps mistakenly submitting to an perceived threat
> of legal action against anyone breaching the alleged trademark
> protection against the term Unix
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
--
Pd
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> >*nix is a response to a legal threat, which was invalid.
>
> That doesn't match my memory, though I haven't checked it.
<shrug> It's what was written some time ago, I do remember that - lots
of people made the claim, anyway.
> Long before there were any lawsuits, there were versions of Unix with
> names like "xenix", "genix", "minix", "forty-two-nix".
Before lawsuits? Surely not?
> Some of these
> were just ports of AT&T or Berkeley Unix, others were
> reimplementations. I think you'll find the term *nix was used to
> refer to these collectively, with the asterisk having the obvious
> meaning.
But there were lots of other Unix-alike OSes, such as A/UX and Apollo's
Domain OS and so on. Not all had *nix-style names. I didn't seen *nix
until the lawsuit threat got mentioned.
Rowland McDonnell
> Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > >What about Gnu? Gnu's not UNIX.
> >
> > Things have changed since 1983:
> >
> > GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to
> > Unix.
>
> Sounds like it's UNIX-like, but not UNIX.
If it runs like a fish and barks like a fish, then it's a fish even if
someone has written `Dog' on the side of it.
> Is the iPhone OS a proper UNIX OS?
Before you address that question, you need to work out how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin. Then you might understand what's wrong
with your question.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> > zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Why not refer to Unix, which is what you
> >>>> mean? Calling Unix `Nix' is just annoyingly wrong.
> >> "Nix", or more usually (and geekily) "*nix" is the correct terminology
> >> for unix and similar systems.
> >
> > But it's not.
>
> It is, because Unix (whichever way you spell it) is one thing. Unix-like
> or *nix is a group of OSes (including Unix) that have, over time,
> conformed to a standard (POSIX, I think?).
The POSIX standard was created to bring order to the mess of
Unix-related OSes.
[snip]
Unix came first, Unix split into many branches, and then the POSIX
standards were invented to deal with it.
That does not mean that something which is not compliant with a given
POSIX standard cannot reasonably be called Unix. Lots of real Unixes
from the past don't meet any POSIX standard. Many of them pre-date
POSIX.
If you insist that compliance to a POSIX standard is required for an OS
to be `real Unix', then I can't help feeling that all early versions of
the original Unix don't count as real Unix in your book.
Richard Tobin
Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>> Long before there were any lawsuits, there were versions of Unix with
>> names like "xenix", "genix", "minix", "forty-two-nix".
>Before lawsuits? Surely not?
The USL/Berkeley/BSDI lawsuit was brought in 1992. I don't recall
any ealier ones. The systems I mentioned are from the mid-80s.
But as I said, this is just based on my memory.
>But there were lots of other Unix-alike OSes, such as A/UX and Apollo's
>Domain OS and so on. Not all had *nix-style names.
Well, technically, the Unix compatibility of Domain went under the
name "Domain/IX"...
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Long before there were any lawsuits, there were versions of Unix with
> >> names like "xenix", "genix", "minix", "forty-two-nix".
>
> >Before lawsuits? Surely not?
>
> The USL/Berkeley/BSDI lawsuit was brought in 1992. I don't recall
> any ealier ones. The systems I mentioned are from the mid-80s.
Some millennia after the first lawsuits, that.
> But as I said, this is just based on my memory.
>
> >But there were lots of other Unix-alike OSes, such as A/UX and Apollo's
> >Domain OS and so on. Not all had *nix-style names.
>
> Well, technically, the Unix compatibility of Domain went under the
> name "Domain/IX"...
Really? Blimey. I never knew that. But is that an `ix' or a `9' on
the end?