f



OS X Slow refresh.

Has anybody else noticed that, if you keep a window open on your desktop 
under 0S X, it takes forever to update when a new file is dropped in?  
Under OS9, they used to show up in seconds - now it seems that I have to 
click on the window to refresh it.  Ideas, anyone?

KCP
0
2/16/2005 8:26:00 PM
comp.publish.prepress 3348 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

123 Replies
519 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 28

K P <powell_on_tour@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Has anybody else noticed that, if you keep a window open on your desktop
> under 0S X, it takes forever to update when a new file is dropped in?
> Under OS9, they used to show up in seconds - now it seems that I have to
> click on the window to refresh it.  Ideas, anyone?
> 
> KCP

Yes

I've noticed that in some cases we have to disconnect from the mounted
server volume (Win2K) and reconnect to see an update.

The OSX finder is slow. Apple is banking on G6's to catch up to it.

Everything about OSX is slow. I can't even run it on a G4 that's a
single cpu. A dual 867 is the minium and that's slow.
0
leeb (1197)
2/17/2005 12:52:32 AM
In article <1gs3dqx.1ijn4y749fqm6N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
 leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
> 
<snip>

> The OSX finder is slow. Apple is banking on G6's to catch up to it.
> 
> Everything about OSX is slow. I can't even run it on a G4 that's a
> single cpu. A dual 867 is the minium and that's slow.

Your setup must have other 'issues'. I'm running OS 10.3.8 quite 
comfortably on a single G4/766 (with 1 GiB RAM, which likely helps quite 
a bit). Someone else here uses it occasionally on her G4/400; at times 
it's noticeably sluggish, but it's far from unuseable even on that 
machine.

-- 
Odysseus
0
2/17/2005 2:21:53 AM
Along this same note I can open a folder on our server with say 200 images 
in it on a OS 9 400 G3 and almost immediately be able to quickly scroll from 
the top to bottom of the folder. On an OSX 1800 G5 it can take 20-30 
seconds. Is this common.
Joe

"K P" <powell_on_tour@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:powell_on_tour-8C184B.15255916022005@news.sentex.ca...
> Has anybody else noticed that, if you keep a window open on your desktop
> under 0S X, it takes forever to update when a new file is dropped in?
> Under OS9, they used to show up in seconds - now it seems that I have to
> click on the window to refresh it.  Ideas, anyone?
>
> KCP 


0
2/17/2005 2:58:42 AM
In article <odysseus1479-at-B3B300.19215316022005@news.telus.net>, 
Odysseus wrote:

>> The OSX finder is slow. Apple is banking on G6's to catch up to it.

>> Everything about OSX is slow. I can't even run it on a G4 that's a
>> single cpu. A dual 867 is the minium and that's slow.

> Your setup must have other 'issues'.

Not necessarily. A big part of how fast a system "feels" -- which is 
mostly a matter of how responsive the GUI is -- is user expectations.
What seems responsive enough to one user might well seem objectionably 
slow to another.

There's no doubt that on identical hardware, MacOS/X is significantly 
less responsive than MacOS9. Whether a particular user finds it to be 
"fast enough" is mostly a matter of what their expectations are.

If they are accustomed to "driving" MacOS9 at full speed, they'll 
notice that MacOS/X is less responsive and will probably find that 
frustrating. If they're not, they might find that MacOS/X is about as 
responsive as MacOS9 ever was for them.

> Someone else here uses it occasionally on her G4/400; at times it's
> noticeably sluggish, but it's far from unuseable even on that
> machine.

I use MacOS/X on a 400 MHz G4, at least some of the time. It's not 
unusable, but it is noticeably less responsive than MacOS9 on the 
same machine, enough so that it's often frustrating (though not 
impossible) to use. I frequently find myself wondering whether my 
mouse clicks have even registered, because it can take two or three 
seconds between clicking things and anything visible happening.

I don't think Apple is banking on G6 CPUs to catch up to it, though I 
do think Lee's got a point: Apple released MacOS/X before their 
hardware (G4 machines, at that time) wasn't really up to running it 
well. It's OK on G5 CPUs, though, or at least, I think so.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/17/2005 5:01:02 AM
> I've noticed that in some cases we have to disconnect from the mounted
> server volume (Win2K) and reconnect to see an update.
>

Lee, if the window seems to be taking to long to update you can create a new 
folder in it which forces the os to refresh it.

Once you get your file from there then you can delete the untitled folder 
from the window.

I think osx should have a command like f5 on the pc which forces a refresh.

Robotman. 


0
invalid171 (7008)
2/17/2005 8:44:46 AM
Lee Blevins wrote:

>K P <powell_on_tour@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Has anybody else noticed that, if you keep a window open on your desktop
>>under 0S X, it takes forever to update when a new file is dropped in?
>>Under OS9, they used to show up in seconds - now it seems that I have to
>>click on the window to refresh it.  Ideas, anyone?
>>
>>KCP
>>    
>>
>
>Yes
>
>I've noticed that in some cases we have to disconnect from the mounted
>server volume (Win2K) and reconnect to see an update.
>
>The OSX finder is slow. Apple is banking on G6's to catch up to it.
>
>Everything about OSX is slow. I can't even run it on a G4 that's a
>single cpu. A dual 867 is the minium and that's slow.
>  
>
Ah well, consider this: running applications under MS-DOS on a Pentium 
IV PC are lightning-fast too compared to other systems that use a GUI.

Olaf.
0
info78 (38)
2/17/2005 10:54:10 AM
In article <1125787.DCqotKRfmc@dupree.null.not>,
 John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> There's no doubt that on identical hardware, MacOS/X is significantly 
> less responsive than MacOS9. 

no, there's no doubt that on identical hardware the OS X FINDER is 
significantly less responsive than the OS9 Finder.

That's way, way different than saying the entire system is 
slower/worse/whatever.

0
elmop (1209)
2/17/2005 10:58:11 AM
In article <1125787.DCqotKRfmc@dupree.null.not>,
 John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> I use MacOS/X on a 400 MHz G4, at least some of the time. It's not 
> unusable, but it is noticeably less responsive than MacOS9 on the 
> same machine, enough so that it's often frustrating (though not 
> impossible) to use. I frequently find myself wondering whether my 
> mouse clicks have even registered, because it can take two or three 
> seconds between clicking things and anything visible happening.

I also use OS X on a G4/400, and have never seen anything like what you 
describe.

You have other issues.  Time for a clean install?

0
elmop (1209)
2/17/2005 10:58:54 AM
Odysseus <odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:

> In article <1gs3dqx.1ijn4y749fqm6N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
>  leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
> > 
> <snip>
> 
> > The OSX finder is slow. Apple is banking on G6's to catch up to it.
> > 
> > Everything about OSX is slow. I can't even run it on a G4 that's a
> > single cpu. A dual 867 is the minium and that's slow.
> 
> Your setup must have other 'issues'. I'm running OS 10.3.8 quite 
> comfortably on a single G4/766 (with 1 GiB RAM, which likely helps quite
> a bit). Someone else here uses it occasionally on her G4/400; at times
> it's noticeably sluggish, but it's far from unuseable even on that 
> machine.

I completely expected responses like this.

Sometimes I think if I said Microsoft Word is not a professional page
layout program there'd be posts in this newsgroup immediately claiming
otherwise.

If you find OSX on a single CPU G4 acceptable for doing production work
then you have far different standards than I do.

That's all.
0
leeb (1197)
2/17/2005 11:16:46 AM
Joe <notgiven@bogus.com> wrote:

> Along this same note I can open a folder on our server with say 200 images
> in it on a OS 9 400 G3 and almost immediately be able to quickly scroll from
> the top to bottom of the folder. On an OSX 1800 G5 it can take 20-30 
> seconds. Is this common.
> Joe

Yes and it sucks.
0
leeb (1197)
2/17/2005 11:16:47 AM
Lee Blevins wrote:

>Odysseus <odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>In article <1gs3dqx.1ijn4y749fqm6N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
>> leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
>>    
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>The OSX finder is slow. Apple is banking on G6's to catch up to it.
>>>
>>>Everything about OSX is slow. I can't even run it on a G4 that's a
>>>single cpu. A dual 867 is the minium and that's slow.
>>>      
>>>
>>Your setup must have other 'issues'. I'm running OS 10.3.8 quite 
>>comfortably on a single G4/766 (with 1 GiB RAM, which likely helps quite
>>a bit). Someone else here uses it occasionally on her G4/400; at times
>>it's noticeably sluggish, but it's far from unuseable even on that 
>>machine.
>>    
>>
>
>I completely expected responses like this.
>
>Sometimes I think if I said Microsoft Word is not a professional page
>layout program there'd be posts in this newsgroup immediately claiming
>otherwise.
>
>If you find OSX on a single CPU G4 acceptable for doing production work
>then you have far different standards than I do.
>
>That's all.
>  
>
Is your videocard Quartz compatible? Have you checked the specs for 
running OSX on your Mac? I've been running OSX 10.2.8 on a Beige G3 @ 
333 Mhz and it was not that slow as you describe. Now running 10.3.8 on 
a G4 @ 867 Mhz and with every update since 10.3 the system seems to get 
faster too. So describe your standards for doing production-work over here.

I use OSX for video-editing and live videoshows, music creation, graphic 
work and server-stuff on a single G4 without any problems. Only slow 
thing about this thing is that rendering a DVD takes a hour or 2 
depening the complexity of the DVD. I do the same kind of work on a PC 
running at 3,4 Ghz. and the thing seems to run a fraction faster but 
there is almost 2 Ghz. diffenence between the two workstations. 
Audio-applications run much smoother on my simple G4 @ 867 compared to 
the PC @ 3,4. I do not have any latency on my sound with the Mac but the 
PC is quite unusable because of the latency problem. So what are you 
doing exactly on your Mac that makes it crawl to it's knees???
0
info78 (38)
2/17/2005 12:47:52 PM
I'm not the OP of this discussion, but I've just got to respond to this
question.

On 2/17/05 6:47 AM, "Olaf" wrote:

> So what are you doing exactly on your Mac that makes it crawl to it's
> knees???

Navigating through the Finder, connecting to network volumes, switching
applications, checking email, opening applications, quitting applications,
typing a message in a text editor, etc. Even on our G5 with 2 gigs of RAM
running OS X 10.3.7 all of the above (as well as many other activities) is
incredibly slow. The OS just lags along while it displays the beach ball of
death. How much system resources do you think that damn beach ball actually
hogs up? Why not just display the little wrist watch?

Tim

0
tmonk1 (342)
2/17/2005 1:11:39 PM
Tim Monk wrote:

>I'm not the OP of this discussion, but I've just got to respond to this
>question.
>
>On 2/17/05 6:47 AM, "Olaf" wrote:
>
>  
>
>>So what are you doing exactly on your Mac that makes it crawl to it's
>>knees???
>>    
>>
>
>Navigating through the Finder, connecting to network volumes, switching
>applications, checking email, opening applications, quitting applications,
>typing a message in a text editor, etc. Even on our G5 with 2 gigs of RAM
>running OS X 10.3.7 all of the above (as well as many other activities) is
>incredibly slow. The OS just lags along while it displays the beach ball of
>death. How much system resources do you think that damn beach ball actually
>hogs up? Why not just display the little wrist watch?
>
>Tim
>
>  
>
Okay, than you are probably very impatiant? Or you've got a screwed up 
OS or Mac. Macs can be quite picky when it comes to RAM. Perhaps one of 
the DDR-RAM modules is not that good. The things you describe not even 
happend for me on a beige G3 @ 300 Mhz with only 512 Mb of RAM. No 
problems on my G4 and at work a dual G5 @ 1,8 Ghz. no problemo. Did you 
check what's going on with the Activity Monitor under Utilities?
0
info78 (38)
2/17/2005 2:58:29 PM
Same thing with me, I blame W2K server, when I have things local it's as 
fast as I want.


-- 

George Abbott
Printing Arts Inc.
8801 Wyoming Ave N.
Brooklyn Park, MN 55445
763.425.4251
geabbott@printingartsinc.com




"Lee Blevins" <leeb@digitalgraphics.net> wrote in message 
news:1gs46pa.1mohout18orr5sN%leeb@digitalgraphics.net...
> Joe <notgiven@bogus.com> wrote:
>
>> Along this same note I can open a folder on our server with say 200 
>> images
>> in it on a OS 9 400 G3 and almost immediately be able to quickly scroll 
>> from
>> the top to bottom of the folder. On an OSX 1800 G5 it can take 20-30
>> seconds. Is this common.
>> Joe
>
> Yes and it sucks. 


0
t2_lurking (19)
2/17/2005 5:54:31 PM
In article <1gs46jb.7tkj39nkoxc2N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:

> If you find OSX on a single CPU G4 acceptable for doing production work
> then you have far different standards than I do.
> 
> That's all.

That's the way I feel about it, too. Using MacOS/X on a G4 is like
trying to run through three feet of water. Sure, you can make progress,
but it ain't fast.

--
0
jdoherty (1055)
2/17/2005 7:16:12 PM
In article <elmop-09533B.05585417022005@text.usenetserver.com>, "Elmo P.
Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <1125787.DCqotKRfmc@dupree.null.not>,
>  John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:
> 
> > I use MacOS/X on a 400 MHz G4, at least some of the time. It's not 
> > unusable, but it is noticeably less responsive than MacOS9 on the 
> > same machine, enough so that it's often frustrating (though not 
> > impossible) to use. I frequently find myself wondering whether my 
> > mouse clicks have even registered, because it can take two or three 
> > seconds between clicking things and anything visible happening.
> 
> I also use OS X on a G4/400, and have never seen anything like what you 
> describe.
> 
> You have other issues.

No, I think not. It's been that way on every G4-based system I've ever
used, including immediately after installing the system.

So unless you have some suggestion as to what these "other issues" might
be, I'm going to assume that you're just one of the people who don't mind
that MacOS/X is less responsive than MacOS9. As I said, some people don't
seem to mind.

--
0
jdoherty (1055)
2/17/2005 7:19:22 PM
Olaf wrote:
> Tim Monk wrote:
>> I'm not the OP of this discussion, but I've just got to respond to this
>> question.
>> On 2/17/05 6:47 AM, "Olaf" wrote:
>>> So what are you doing exactly on your Mac that makes it crawl to it's
>>> knees???
>> Navigating through the Finder, connecting to network volumes, switching
>> applications, checking email, opening applications, quitting 
>> applications,
>> typing a message in a text editor, etc. Even on our G5 with 2 gigs of RAM
>> running OS X 10.3.7 all of the above (as well as many other 
>> activities) is
>> incredibly slow. The OS just lags along while it displays the beach 
>> ball of
>> death. How much system resources do you think that damn beach ball 
>> actually
>> hogs up? Why not just display the little wrist watch?
>> Tim
>>
> Okay, than you are probably very impatiant? Or you've got a screwed up 
> OS or Mac. Macs can be quite picky when it comes to RAM. Perhaps one of 
> the DDR-RAM modules is not that good. The things you describe not even 
> happend for me on a beige G3 @ 300 Mhz with only 512 Mb of RAM. No 
> problems on my G4 and at work a dual G5 @ 1,8 Ghz. no problemo. Did you 
> check what's going on with the Activity Monitor under Utilities?

Yippie! Finally, a subject I (think I) know something about.

My "nearly obsolete" 1Ghz G4 dual with a Gig'o'RAM runs much faster on 
OS X Panther than it did on Jaguar. (Or is it the reverse? Always have 
trouble recalling which big cat arrived later) Check your version, the 
earlier versions don't stack up to the newest one.

Someone else brought up the hardware question: I wouldn't recommend 
serious Mac multi-tasking or running DTP software on anything but a 
Dual. YMMV

Even my beloved G4 sometimes pauses for a few seconds upon window 
changes. I think it's waiting for the sleeping hard drive to spin up to 
speed -- usually happens after I've spent 3 hours editing a simple text 
file in TexEdit. That's just the sort of low resource task that's likely 
to make the HD think it isn't needed. That's my story and I'm sticking 
to it.

A clean OS and application install to a freshly formatted HD, 
particulary if you sometimes need to launch the classic enviornment, 
will do wonderful things for GUI response.

Indesign CS runs like a raped ape on the Mac 1Ghz G4 dual and behaves 
like a pig on the Dell 1.9Ghz Pentium 4 (not-a-dual) as I write this.
--
Robbo in Austin TX
0
2/17/2005 8:07:19 PM
John Doherty wrote:
> In article <1gs46jb.7tkj39nkoxc2N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
> leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
> 
> 
>>If you find OSX on a single CPU G4 acceptable for doing production work
>>then you have far different standards than I do.
>>
>>That's all.
> 
> 
> That's the way I feel about it, too. Using MacOS/X on a G4 is like
> trying to run through three feet of water. Sure, you can make progress,
> but it ain't fast.
> 
> --

I prefer stability over responsiveness any day. I haven't had to zap 
PRAM once a month, rebuild my desktop several times a week, or reboot 
every couple hours, since I got the OS X religion.
--
Robbo in Austin TX
0
2/17/2005 8:14:12 PM
In article <oW6Rd.7748$cW2.6184@fe2.texas.rr.com>, Robert Farr
<not_my_address@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>> That's the way I feel about it, too. Using MacOS/X on a G4 is like
>> trying to run through three feet of water. Sure, you can make progress,
>> but it ain't fast.

> I prefer stability over responsiveness any day. I haven't had to zap 
> PRAM once a month,\

Can't remember the last time I had to do that. It's a once in a blue moon
kind of thing, if even that often.

> rebuild my desktop several times a week

Can't recall the last time I did that, either, and I've certainly never
needed to do it several times a week. What would prompt you to do that?

> or reboot every couple hours

I don't do that, either.

--
0
jdoherty (1055)
2/17/2005 9:13:01 PM
In article <jdoherty-1702051319370001@192.168.2.31>,
 jdoherty@nowhere.null.not (John Doherty) wrote:

<snip>
> 
> No, I think not. It's been that way on every G4-based system I've ever
> used, including immediately after installing the system.
> 
> So unless you have some suggestion as to what these "other issues" might
> be, I'm going to assume that you're just one of the people who don't mind
> that MacOS/X is less responsive than MacOS9. As I said, some people don't
> seem to mind.
> 
There's a big difference between "less responsive" and "unuseable", 
which latter was the original claim. I agree that the OS X Finder is 
considerably slower than OS 9's, especially at accessing network volumes 
(although once a window's contents have been displayed, up- and 
downloading aren't noticeably slower IME). And sure, ID3 under X isn't 
anywhere near as snappy as QX4 under 9 -- but it's doing a heck of a lot 
more, and ID2 under 9 was definitely on the sluggish side. I find Safari 
distinctly faster than any of the browsers I've used in OS 9. Otherwise 
I haven't noticed much difference in the performance of comparable 
applications doing comparable tasks.

As someone else has mentioned, the improved stability of the system goes 
a long way to compensate for such 'petty annoyances' as waiting three 
seconds for a selected file to become renameable. In about a year and a 
half of part-time use (I still spend a fair portion of my workday in OS 
9) I haven't yet had a system crash or freeze, and I've had only one 
episode of misbehaviour (which turned out to be from preference-file 
corruption) necessitating 'downtime' for troubleshooting.

-- 
Odysseus
0
2/17/2005 9:57:13 PM
"Olaf" wrote:

> Okay, than you are probably very impatiant?

Yes, I am! I say, "okay computer, when I click, you respond!" OS X doesn't
do that. OS 9 does--too bad it'll only do one thing at a time.

I also sometimes say, "Patience? I'm not a doctor, I don't have any
patients!" <G>

> Or you've got a screwed up OS or Mac. Macs can be quite picky when it comes
> to RAM. Perhaps one of the DDR-RAM modules is not that good.

Two G4s and our almost brand-new G5. In one of the G4's I replaced all the
RAM thinking exactly what you suggest could be the problem, but it made no
difference. OS X (Finder, anyway) is slower than OS 9 even on a G5, and for
me, that's a bit of a problem. I like to drive fast! :)

I will admit that it seems to reboot much faster, and applications open
screamingly fast on the G5. Exporting PDFs from InDesign, and printing PS
from Quark is super fast on the G5. The G4s, not so much, but what would you
expect, right?

> The things you describe not even happend for me on a beige G3 @ 300 Mhz with
> only 512 Mb of RAM. No problems on my G4 and at work a dual G5 @ 1,8 Ghz. no
> problemo. Did you check what's going on with the Activity Monitor under
> Utilities?

No, I haven't done that. That's a great idea. I'll check it out tomorrow.

Tim

0
tmonk1 (342)
2/18/2005 12:47:24 AM
In article <jdoherty-1702051319370001@192.168.2.31>,
 jdoherty@nowhere.null.not (John Doherty) wrote:

> > > mouse clicks have even registered, because it can take two or three 
> > > seconds between clicking things and anything visible happening.
> > 
> > I also use OS X on a G4/400, and have never seen anything like what you 
> > describe.
> > 
> > You have other issues.
> 
> No, I think not. It's been that way on every G4-based system I've ever
> used, including immediately after installing the system.

No, trust me.  I've been using the same G4/400 Sawtooth as you (mine has 
1.1GB of RAM) for over a year with 10.3, and while I have complaints, 
nothing even remotely like what you describe has ever happened to me.

0
elmop (1209)
2/18/2005 12:50:59 AM
> Same thing with me, I blame W2K server, when I have things local it's as
> fast as I want.
>
Yes, it is the W2K server.

Ted


0
tjpolite (192)
2/18/2005 2:06:38 AM
> I've noticed that in some cases we have to disconnect from the mounted
> server volume (Win2K) and reconnect to see an update.

OSX is slower hooked up to a Win2K server that an OSX server by a lot. If
you must use a Windows server, don't know why Rampage works fine on Xserve,
use extreme-Z IP. That will also fix the long file name problem.
>
> The OSX finder is slow. Apple is banking on G6's to catch up to it.
>
Nah, I have a dual 2.5ghz. It's extremely fast. In fact I never seen a beach
ball yet.

Ted


0
tjpolite (192)
2/18/2005 2:24:16 AM
In article <elmop-E37CC0.19505917022005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo 
P. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>> mouse clicks have even registered, because it can take two or
>>>> three seconds between clicking things and anything visible
>>>> happening.

>>> I also use OS X on a G4/400, and have never seen anything like
>>> what you describe.

>> > You have other issues.

>> No, I think not. It's been that way on every G4-based system I've
>> ever used, including immediately after installing the system.

> No, trust me.

Well, I don't trust you.

> I've been using the same G4/400 Sawtooth as you (mine
> has 1.1GB of RAM) for over a year with 10.3, and while I have
> complaints, nothing even remotely like what you describe has ever
> happened to me.

As I said, it's mostly a matter of user expectations. I think that if 
I were to stand behind you and watch over your shoulder as you work, 
I would find your G4 to perform very much the same as mine does. 
Apparently, you find it satisfactory, which is fine -- as I said, a 
lot of people think the interface is responsive enough for them.

I find it unresponsive enough to be a little irritating, and I'm not 
alone in that. For me, working on MacOS/X on G3 (I use it regularly 
on a 600 MHz G3 laptop) and G4 machines has a halting, stop-and-go 
feel to it.

It's less like click-click-type-click-type-type-click and more like 
click-wait-click-wait-type-wait-click-type-wait-type-wait-click, and 
even if the waits are each short, but still more than a few tenths of 
a second, it's noticeable.

And since I've used the OS on a bunch of different machines over a 
period of years by now, and continue to use it every day, you're 
hardly going to convince me that it's not like that.

There is no evidence and no reason to think that there's anything 
wrong with the machines, especially not all of the various machines 
I've used. They work fine, it's just that the Aqua interface is sort 
of sluggish, as it always has been.

On G5s, I find it responsive enough that it's not much of an issue and 
the stop-and-go feel mostly goes away. And G5s are nice for other 
reasons, too, especially if you use the current version of Adobe 
apps. Distiller on a G5 runs like a freakin bat out of hell.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/18/2005 3:08:50 AM
In article <1797189.MtWmpk1yTa@dupree.null.not>,
 John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> > I've been using the same G4/400 Sawtooth as you (mine
> > has 1.1GB of RAM) for over a year with 10.3, and while I have
> > complaints, nothing even remotely like what you describe has ever
> > happened to me.
> 
> As I said, it's mostly a matter of user expectations.

no, it's plain black and white, John.  You said, and I quote:

>>>> mouse clicks have even registered, because it can take two or
>>>> three seconds between clicking things and anything visible
>>>> happening.

I click things and it is NOT two or three seconds before anything 
visible happens.  It's not even ONE second.

You made the claim, and you worded it very explicitly.  It is not my 
expectation that what you experience is OK for me but not for you; it's 
a plain and simple fact that on my G4/400 Sawtooth with 1.1GB of RAM, it 
has never, ever behaved as you so explicitly described.

If it behaved as you described, I'd agree with you that it's 
unacceptable.  But you're trying to tell the world that what you're 
experiencing is just "how it is" with OS 10--but it's not.  Slower than 
the OS 9 finder?  Yes.  2 to 3 seconds between click and anything 
visible happening?  Nowhere near that bad.

Yours is an isolated case.

Thank you for being so explicit in your description of the problem, 
John.  But don't just sit there and bitch and moan; do something about 
it.  Wipe it clean and start fresh.  Use RAM that meets OS 10's tight 
specs.  Or don't use the machine.  But fact:  YOUR machine is broken.

Don't make global generalizations based on your experience with a broken 
machine.



> I think that if 
> I were to stand behind you and watch over your shoulder as you work, 
> I would find your G4 to perform very much the same as mine does.

I guarantee you 100% that's not the case.  If it were, given that this 
is my personal machine, I would have replaced it LONG ago.



> There is no evidence and no reason to think that there's anything 
> wrong with the machines, especially not all of the various machines 
> I've used. 

Yes there is:  your description of their behavior.

0
elmop (1209)
2/18/2005 3:44:51 AM
In article <1gs46jb.7tkj39nkoxc2N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
 leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:

> If you find OSX on a single CPU G4 acceptable for doing production work
> then you have far different standards than I do.

Not everyone does the same thing you do.
0
junkie46 (134)
2/18/2005 4:07:41 AM
In article <jdoherty-1702051319370001@192.168.2.31>,
 jdoherty@nowhere.null.not (John Doherty) wrote:

> So unless you have some suggestion as to what these "other issues" might
> be, I'm going to assume that you're just one of the people who don't mind
> that MacOS/X is less responsive than MacOS9. As I said, some people don't
> seem to mind.

I usually use a 400mhz G4 with 1 gig of ram and ATi 9800 card for daily 
design work.

Occasionally I have to use the beige G3 at 300mhz and I'm always struck 
by how much faster it feels and how much quicker photoshop 6 loads on 
it. Until it crashes or I want to more a few things at a time.
0
junkie46 (134)
2/18/2005 4:11:18 AM
In article <dcKdnYSkptlSzIjfRVn-sA@comcast.com>, Ted wrote:

> OSX is slower hooked up to a Win2K server that an OSX server by a
> lot.

I don't know about that, but my experience is that any Mac hooked up 
to a MacOS/X server is a lot slower than one hooked up to a machine 
running FreeBSD and netatalk.

I've never used Win2K as a file server for Macs, but I wasn't 
impressed with MacOS/X Server on an Xserve at all. (That was with a 
G4-based Xserve -- I've never tried to use a G5 Mac as a file 
server.)

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/18/2005 4:32:55 AM
In article <elmop-A8E0EF.22445117022005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo 
P. Shagnasty wrote:

> I click things and it is NOT two or three seconds before anything
> visible happens.  It's not even ONE second.

Which things are you clicking, specifically?

> Thank you for being so explicit in your description of the problem,
> John.  But don't just sit there and bitch and moan; do something
> about it.  Wipe it clean and start fresh.

Why, when there's no reason to think that would change anything? I've 
already told you that I've seen machines running nice shiny new 
straight off the CDs installations and they aren't any different than 
what I see on the machines I use every day.

I have seen a bunch of G4 machines with MacOS/X, including ones 
straight out of the box from the factory, but I have never seen one 
that runs MacOS/X what I would call well.

> But fact:  YOUR machine is broken.

No, it's not, and you have absolutely no evidence for this so-called 
"fact." And not only do you have to claim that MY machine is broken, 
you have to claim that every G4-based Mac I've ever seen running 
MacOS/X was "broken" as well. I don't suppose you have any evidence 
for this claim, do you?

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/18/2005 4:39:53 AM
In article <37lb0lF4t6g3qU1@individual.net>, Robotman wrote:

> I think osx should have a command like f5 on the pc which forces a
> refresh.

I think that would be a good idea, too.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/18/2005 5:22:39 AM
In article <2778979.KQxv7khhKn@dupree.null.not>,
 John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> > I click things and it is NOT two or three seconds before anything
> > visible happens.  It's not even ONE second.
> 
> Which things are you clicking, specifically?

Files in the Finder, for example.  Or folders.  Or disks.



> > Thank you for being so explicit in your description of the problem,
> > John.  But don't just sit there and bitch and moan; do something
> > about it.  Wipe it clean and start fresh.
> 
> Why, when there's no reason to think that would change anything?

Ummmmm....do you KNOW it wouldn't change anything?

I know it would--or it should.  Because mine doesn't behave a bit like 
what you describe.  And there's no way I have an "exceptional" machine 
or anything.




> > But fact:  YOUR machine is broken.
> 
> No, it's not, and you have absolutely no evidence for this so-called 
> "fact."

OK, well, then, fact:  MY machine is an exceptional one, the magic 
golden child brought out of the factory many years ago and surviving to 
this day with me, the second owner.

Do you honestly believe that?  No, of course you don't.

Yours is broken.  Fact.

0
elmop (1209)
2/18/2005 5:30:42 AM
In article <elmop-402020.00304218022005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo 
P. Shagnasty wrote:

>> Why, when there's no reason to think that would change anything?

> I know it would

Well, actually, you don't know anything remotely like that. All you 
have is your opinion that I should find MacOS/X on a G4 acceptably 
responsive because you do.

>> No, it's not, and you have absolutely no evidence for this
>> so-called "fact."

> OK, well, then, fact:  MY machine is an exceptional one, the magic
> golden child brought out of the factory many years ago and surviving
> to this day with me, the second owner.

No, as I have repeatedly said by now, it's just that you find MacOS/X 
to be fast enough for you, which is fine by me. I don't find it that 
way, which doesn't seem to be fine by you for some reason. Any idea 
what that reason might be?

> Yours is broken.  Fact.

Evidence for this so-called "fact"?

--


0
jdoherty (1055)
2/18/2005 5:47:53 AM
Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> Yours is an isolated case.

Wrong.

I have a G4 with over a gig of ram and it's slow. To slow to use in
production. In fact, I have 4 G4's that I've tried it on. All perfermed
the same.

Correction. Make that 6 G4's that I've put it on.

All performed the same.

Even after a format and clean install of the OS and NO third party
utilities. I installed nothing but Quark 6 and Adobe's Creative Suite.

Too slow.

Just watching the GetFile dialogue pause as it encounters a directory
full of files is an annoyance I can't live with.

It's almost bearable on a Dual 867 G4, but still much slower than OS9.

I can live with it on the 1GHZ G4 laptop I'm using.

Other than that I'm going to purchase G5's for my workstations.
0
leeb (1197)
2/18/2005 11:20:07 AM
Brandons of mass destruction <junkie46@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <1gs46jb.7tkj39nkoxc2N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
>  leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
> 
> > If you find OSX on a single CPU G4 acceptable for doing production work
> > then you have far different standards than I do.
> 
> Not everyone does the same thing you do.

Wow, and I thought brilliant observations had left usenet.
0
leeb (1197)
2/18/2005 11:20:07 AM
John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> In article <dcKdnYSkptlSzIjfRVn-sA@comcast.com>, Ted wrote:
> 
> > OSX is slower hooked up to a Win2K server that an OSX server by a
> > lot.
> 
> I don't know about that, but my experience is that any Mac hooked up 
> to a MacOS/X server is a lot slower than one hooked up to a machine 
> running FreeBSD and netatalk.
> 
> I've never used Win2K as a file server for Macs, but I wasn't 
> impressed with MacOS/X Server on an Xserve at all. (That was with a 
> G4-based Xserve -- I've never tried to use a G5 Mac as a file 
> server.)
> 
> --

I would love to use Netatalk/FreeBSD but Rampage doesn't support it.

Fortunatley I'm looking forward to the day I make my last piece of film
and boot Rampage into oblivion.

Rampage sucks. They need a better interpreter that can accept postscript
and not limit themselves to EPS.

I am tired of having to create font locations and tell the rip where the
fonts are.

I'm tired of Rampage choking on files that an 8 year old Scitex PS/M
won't choke on. 

I'm tired of this wrapper PDF system of having Acrobat installed on a
rip and all rampage does is start acrobat and export a ps file to rip. 

Especially when you consider they charge for that as a PDF option and
limited it to one of my two rips.

Now we just export EPS from Acrobat and don't even bother giving Rampage
PDF's.

Some years ago I tried using FreeBSD and Samba with Rampage, The Rampage
rips crashed if Samba was running on the network. NOTHING else had a
problem with SAMBA. NOTHING.

I suspect it was on purpose by the Rampage engineers to prevent them
from having to support SAMBA servers. The reason I suspect foul play on
the part of Rampage is that the SAMBA server wasn't even connect to the
Rampage. It was just on the same network. The Rips would start and
immediately go down if Samba was running.

I don't think I'll be making film 12 months from now. It's now a minor
part of our business.

I for one will be glad to see it go and with it printers as customers.
0
leeb (1197)
2/18/2005 11:20:08 AM
In article <1gs618h.623d721biczl4N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
 leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:

> Fortunatley I'm looking forward to the day I make my last piece of film
> and boot Rampage into oblivion.

You'll still make plates.  And Rampage will be there.

Or will you go pure digital?

0
elmop (1209)
2/18/2005 11:41:57 AM
In article <1gs60w6.i7pbxk4iym0kN%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
 leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:

> > Yours is an isolated case.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> I have a G4 with over a gig of ram and it's slow. To slow to use in
> production.

But that's not what we were talking about.

We were talking about John's problem that when he clicks the mouse, it 
takes 3 seconds before anything happens.

That doesn't happen on your system.  Doesn't happen on mine.  Doesn't 
happen on any G4 system.

Don't confuse the issues.  I never said a G4/400 wasn't too slow for 
production work.  I simply refuted John's assertion that "on a G4/400, 
OS X takes 3 seconds to react to a click."  Maybe on HIS machine, but 
only becuase HIS machine is broken.

0
elmop (1209)
2/18/2005 11:44:05 AM
In article <7491532.E7Ze0Olyiz@dupree.null.not>,
 John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> > Yours is broken.  Fact.
> 
> Evidence for this so-called "fact"?

You've given it, by your assertion that it takes 3 seconds for the 
machine to react to a click.

0
elmop (1209)
2/18/2005 11:44:50 AM
In article <7491532.E7Ze0Olyiz@dupree.null.not>,
 John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> >> No, it's not, and you have absolutely no evidence for this
> >> so-called "fact."
> 
> > OK, well, then, fact:  MY machine is an exceptional one, the magic
> > golden child brought out of the factory many years ago and surviving
> > to this day with me, the second owner.
> 
> No, as I have repeatedly said by now, it's just that you find MacOS/X 
> to be fast enough for you,

You didn't hear a word I said, did you.  That's not what I said.  In 
fact, I expressly refuted that.  We were never, ever talking about vague 
things like "fast enough for you".  I was EXPLICITLY addressing your 
assertion that "with a G4/400 running OS X, you click the mouse and it 
takes 3 seconds to react."

Let me repeat what you asserted:  "with a G4/400 running OS X, you click 
the mouse and it takes 3 seconds to react."

And that is a completely false assertion.

I also said that didn't mean I didn't have my complaints with OS X 
running on a G4/400.  I do.  But what you describe simply doesn't happen 
on my machine. I don't even wait anywhere near a second for a reaction 
to a click.

So either admit that my machine is some golden child machine that way 
outperforms every other G4/400 in the world, or admit that something 
must be wrong with your machine.

And start responding to what's asserted, not to what you're thinking at 
the time.  I specifically avoided the vague "good enough for you" 
because you can't measure that.

But waiting 3 seconds after a click to get a response?  That's a HARD 
NUMBER that anyone can talk about.  I did.

0
elmop (1209)
2/18/2005 11:48:49 AM
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:

>>> Yours is broken.  Fact.
>> 
>> Evidence for this so-called "fact"?
> 
> You've given it, by your assertion that it takes 3 seconds for the
> machine to react to a click.

Okay. So I'm in the same boat as John. My machine/s take AT LEAST 3 seconds
to refresh/react. Other than formatting the hard drive, reinstalling the OS,
and replacing all the RAM, what do you suggest could be the problem. Been
there, done that. What next?

Saying something is broken based on assumption does no one any good. What
can John and I do to make our computers perform as fast as yours?

What is the difference between fact and fiction?

Tim

0
tmonk1 (342)
2/18/2005 12:51:39 PM
In article <37lb0lF4t6g3qU1@individual.net>, Robotman
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I think osx should have a command like f5 on the pc which forces a refresh.

--------
   tell application "Finder"
      set TheWindows to count of Finder windows
      repeat with x from 1 to TheWindows
         set theFolder to target of Finder window x as text
         try
            update folder theFolder
         end try
      end repeat
   end tell
--------

-- 
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows
0
dave14 (1200)
2/18/2005 3:18:15 PM
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:06:38 -0500, "Ted"
<tjpolite@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>> Same thing with me, I blame W2K server, when I have things local it's as
>> fast as I want.
>>
>Yes, it is the W2K server.
>
>Ted
>
>
Maybe not. We have the same thing using an SGI
Origen server. I have found though that if I make
a new folder and then delete it that will force an
update. Would be nice if there was something like
the F5 key for windows that forces an update.

Ron in SE Kansas
0
ron7337 (13)
2/18/2005 4:06:49 PM
In article <elmop-92FA41.06440518022005@text.usenetserver.com>, "Elmo P.
Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>>> Yours is an isolated case.

> > Wrong.

>> I have a G4 with over a gig of ram and it's slow. To slow to use in
>> production.

> But that's not what we were talking about.

> We were talking about John's problem that when he clicks the mouse, it 
> takes 3 seconds before anything happens.

Not every mouse click, you moron. But enough of them to be an irritation.

Look, one of the knocks against the Aqua interface since the day it was
introduced is that although a lot of people think it's pretty, no one
would claim it's especially responsive as these things go. That was
true then and it's still true now.

Of all the GUIs I use -- MacOS9, MacOS/X, Windows, KDE, Gnome, and others on
FreeBSD, whatever the hell Sun calls whatever's on Solaris 2.6 or so, Motif on
DG/UX years ago, on a range of various hardware from various Intel and AMD x86s,
various Sparcs, and G3s, G4s, and G5s, and even old M88Ks, one GUI stands out
as being noticeably sluggish to use, and it's Aqua.

Your claim that every machine on which I've used MacOS/X is somehow
mysteriously "broken" is just so much bullshit.

> but only becuase HIS machine is broken.

You know, saying this over and over again isn't going to make it true.
The machines aren't "broken," they work fine, but they just don't have
the zippiest GUI in the world. No surprise there -- Aqua's not zippy.

Just out of curiosity, what is it that you do in the printing biz,
anyway?

--
0
jdoherty (1055)
2/18/2005 8:12:27 PM
I have say I agree with John, Lee, and Tim here.

    We tried OSX on Three G4's and while it may not be unusable it is 
painful to use and very irritating. I completely understand what John says 
about the feel of the machine and in my experience of doing things within 
the finder the Finder on a G3 350 with OS9 feels faster than the finder on a 
G5 dual 1800 with OSX and when we put OSX on one of our G4's it felt like I 
was working on a Quadra.
    Unless you just have very low expectations of a computer OSX is unfit 
for anything less than a G5.

Joe

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message 
news:elmop-92FA41.06440518022005@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <1gs60w6.i7pbxk4iym0kN%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
> leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
>
>> > Yours is an isolated case.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> I have a G4 with over a gig of ram and it's slow. To slow to use in
>> production.
>
> But that's not what we were talking about.
>
> We were talking about John's problem that when he clicks the mouse, it
> takes 3 seconds before anything happens.
>
> That doesn't happen on your system.  Doesn't happen on mine.  Doesn't
> happen on any G4 system.
>
> Don't confuse the issues.  I never said a G4/400 wasn't too slow for
> production work.  I simply refuted John's assertion that "on a G4/400,
> OS X takes 3 seconds to react to a click."  Maybe on HIS machine, but
> only becuase HIS machine is broken.
> 


0
2/18/2005 11:20:07 PM
"Robert Farr" wrote

> I prefer stability over responsiveness any day. I haven't had to zap PRAM 
> once a month, rebuild my desktop several times a week, or reboot every 
> couple hours, since I got the OS X religion.

Are you saying this was common under OS9. While I will admit I have only had 
my G5 which I have had about 9 months totaly freeze up once single programs 
have crashed almost daily. I do not find OSX any more stable than OS9. And 
dont even get me started on font issues within OSX.

Joe 


0
2/18/2005 11:30:02 PM
In article <180220050918150437%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> > I think osx should have a command like f5 on the pc which forces a refresh.
> 
> --------
>    tell application "Finder"
>       set TheWindows to count of Finder windows
>       repeat with x from 1 to TheWindows
>          set theFolder to target of Finder window x as text
>          try
>             update folder theFolder
>          end try
>       end repeat
>    end tell
> --------

There are actually little compiled AppleScripts out there' Finder 
'Fresher is one.

0
elmop (1209)
2/19/2005 12:13:13 AM
In article <BE3B40FB.1923D%tmonk@austin.rr.com>,
 Tim Monk <tmonk@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> > You've given it, by your assertion that it takes 3 seconds for the
> > machine to react to a click.
> 
> Okay. So I'm in the same boat as John. My machine/s take AT LEAST 3 seconds
> to refresh/react. Other than formatting the hard drive, reinstalling the OS,
> and replacing all the RAM, what do you suggest could be the problem. Been
> there, done that. What next?

Since I never experienced it, I have no idea.  I never had to track 
anything like this down.

But I'm at home.  You're at work?  There's one major difference.

0
elmop (1209)
2/19/2005 12:14:27 AM
In article <jdoherty-1802051412270001@192.168.2.136>,
 jdoherty@nowhere.null.not (John Doherty) wrote:

> > We were talking about John's problem that when he clicks the mouse, it 
> > takes 3 seconds before anything happens.
> 
> Not every mouse click, you moron.

Wait a minute.  You made a blanket statement, now you're coming back 
here to change that statement, and you're calling everyone else names?

0
elmop (1209)
2/19/2005 12:15:30 AM
In article <elmop-CF0062.19131318022005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo P.
Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> There are actually little compiled AppleScripts out there' Finder 
> 'Fresher is one.

Feel free to use them rather than the one I posted. You won't hurt my
feelings.

-- 
"I'm a man, but I can change... If I have to... I guess." -- Red Green
0
dave14 (1200)
2/19/2005 12:19:45 AM
Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> We were talking about John's problem that when he clicks the mouse, it
> takes 3 seconds before anything happens.

I think you're taking a statement out of context to try to make a point.

I know that John didn't mean every mouse click takes 3 seconds to
respond and I think even you know he didn't say that.
0
leeb (1197)
2/19/2005 12:35:27 AM
Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <1gs618h.623d721biczl4N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
>  leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
> 
> > Fortunatley I'm looking forward to the day I make my last piece of film
> > and boot Rampage into oblivion.
> 
> You'll still make plates.  And Rampage will be there.
> 
> Or will you go pure digital?

Pure digital is what I'm thinking. That smell of blanket wash and ink
just is too damn nasty for me.


0
leeb (1197)
2/19/2005 12:35:27 AM
In article <elmop-030206.19153018022005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo 
P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <jdoherty-1802051412270001@192.168.2.136>,
>  jdoherty@nowhere.null.not (John Doherty) wrote:
> 
>> > We were talking about John's problem that when he clicks the
>> > mouse, it takes 3 seconds before anything happens.
>> 
>> Not every mouse click, you moron.
> 
> Wait a minute.  You made a blanket statement

No, I didn't. Here is what I said:

  I frequently find myself wondering whether my mouse clicks have even
  registered, because it can take two or three seconds between
  clicking things and anything visible happening.

Which you somehow misread as meaning that every single mouse click 
took that long.

> now you're coming back here to change that statement, and you're
> calling everyone else names?

Not everyone, "Elmo," just you.

--


0
jdoherty (1055)
2/19/2005 12:54:36 AM
>
> I think osx should have a command like f5 on the pc which forces a
refresh.


Doing a Get Info on the folder you're looking at (not something in it,
though) always does a complete refresh.

--Toby

> 
> Robotman.

0
toby23 (1177)
2/19/2005 12:55:14 AM
In article <1gs72bk.gwa69m1hft3eoN%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
 leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:

> > > Fortunatley I'm looking forward to the day I make my last piece of film
> > > and boot Rampage into oblivion.
> > 
> > You'll still make plates.  And Rampage will be there.
> > 
> > Or will you go pure digital?
> 
> Pure digital is what I'm thinking. That smell of blanket wash and ink
> just is too damn nasty for me.

In that case, Rampage would be toast indeed.

One wonders if they see the future and are planning for it.

0
elmop (1209)
2/19/2005 1:30:02 AM
In article <1gs727w.2wkpp6128ustcN%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
 leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:

> > We were talking about John's problem that when he clicks the mouse, it
> > takes 3 seconds before anything happens.
> 
> I think you're taking a statement out of context to try to make a point.
> 
> I know that John didn't mean every mouse click takes 3 seconds to
> respond and I think even you know he didn't say that.

Quite frankly, no, I didn't know that.  I've gone back over his posts, 
and he gave no indication that he didn't mean that--and some indications 
that he did.

0
elmop (1209)
2/19/2005 1:30:51 AM
In article <elmop-7A62AA.20305118022005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo 
P. Shagnasty wrote:

>>> We were talking about John's problem that when he clicks the
>>> mouse, it takes 3 seconds before anything happens.

>> I think you're taking a statement out of context to try to make a
>> point.

>> I know that John didn't mean every mouse click takes 3 seconds to
>> respond and I think even you know he didn't say that.

> Quite frankly, no, I didn't know that.

Well, you could have guessed it. If every single mouse click took 
three seconds to have any effect, I wouldn't be using the machine, 
I'd have pitched the stupid thing down the stairs.

> he gave no indication that he didn't mean that--and some
> indications that he did.

For instance?

--


0
jdoherty (1055)
2/19/2005 1:39:13 AM
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:

> Tim Monk wrote:

>> Okay. So I'm in the same boat as John. My machine/s take AT LEAST 3 seconds
>> to refresh/react. Other than formatting the hard drive, reinstalling the OS,
>> and replacing all the RAM, what do you suggest could be the problem. Been
>> there, done that. What next?
> 
> Since I never experienced it, I have no idea.  I never had to track
> anything like this down.

I think this statement validates John's point that the speed issue is based
on user expectations. If you didn't drive fast before you upgraded to OS X,
you're not likely to notice the loss in horse power.
 
> But I'm at home.  You're at work?  There's one major difference.

I'm running OS X at home on a blue and white G3. For home use, even on this
obsolete box, it's fine. No major complaints--except that iTunes slows
EVERYTHING down. :(

At work, on the other hand, it's a big deal. And it's a big deal for a lot
of people, not just me. As our old iMacs are dropping like flies, we're
upgrading CSRs and others to eMacs (price) with OS X, and it's pissing
people off. We're a fast-paced print shop, and some people are being forced
to drive the speed limit. Road rage abounds. :)

If this issue hasn't effected the way you work with OS X, consider yourself
lucky. But rest assured that this is a valid issue for some people, and it
can't just be dismissed. Others claim that it is faulty hardware or OS
installations, but in my experience we're dealing with computers straight
from Apple--not hacked installs running on questionable hardware. Also
consider the fact that you're debating with experienced users who can more
than likely run circles around you or me. John knows what he's talking
about, as do some of the others involved in this discussion. They're
experiencing the same lag that my coworkers and I are experiencing, so it
must be fact rather than fiction.

Happy weekend everyone!!

Tim

BTW: Lee, you might be interested in this little tid-bit. We're switching
from Apogee Series3 to Rampage JVX. Got any helpful hints? Words of advice?
Things to look out for? It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea of
moving backwards from a PDF workflow, so I'm scared to death. Can you set me
at ease?


0
tmonk1 (342)
2/19/2005 2:46:14 AM
In article <1gs614y.1cdxb6wrfob28N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
 leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:

> Brandons of mass destruction <junkie46@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gs46jb.7tkj39nkoxc2N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
> >  leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
> > 
> > > If you find OSX on a single CPU G4 acceptable for doing production work
> > > then you have far different standards than I do.
> > 
> > Not everyone does the same thing you do.
> 
> Wow, and I thought brilliant observations had left usenet.

How did I EVER survive on that Quarda 700?
0
junkie46 (134)
2/19/2005 2:51:06 AM
Joe wrote:
> I have say I agree with John, Lee, and Tim here.
>
>     We tried OSX on Three G4's ....
>     Unless you just have very low expectations of a computer OSX is
unfit
> for anything less than a G5.

Used it long term on 20 or 30 machines all the way down to B&W G3, and
10.3 is quite usable on all of them. Don't know what's up at your site,
unless your machines have too little RAM. You'll find it unsatisfying
with 128MB. It needs 256MB as a light working minimum; 512MB for a
moderate workload.

Current machine is dual 1.25 G4, 10.3.7, nothing wrong with it at all.
Works like a dream. As did a G4/350 (576MB RAM) which was my main home
machine for a couple of years prior.

--Toby

>
> Joe
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-92FA41.06440518022005@text.usenetserver.com...
> > In article <1gs60w6.i7pbxk4iym0kN%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
> > leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
> >
> >> > Yours is an isolated case.
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >>
> >> I have a G4 with over a gig of ram and it's slow. To slow to use
in
> >> production.
> >
> > But that's not what we were talking about.
> >
> > We were talking about John's problem that when he clicks the mouse,
it
> > takes 3 seconds before anything happens.
> >
> > That doesn't happen on your system.  Doesn't happen on mine.
Doesn't
> > happen on any G4 system.
> >
> > Don't confuse the issues.  I never said a G4/400 wasn't too slow
for
> > production work.  I simply refuted John's assertion that "on a
G4/400,
> > OS X takes 3 seconds to react to a click."  Maybe on HIS machine,
but
> > only becuase HIS machine is broken.
> >

0
toby23 (1177)
2/19/2005 3:17:42 AM
In article <BE3C0496.1927C%tmonk@austin.rr.com>, Tim Monk wrote:

> I think this statement validates John's point that the speed issue
> is based on user expectations. If you didn't drive fast before you
> upgraded to OS X, you're not likely to notice the loss in horse
> power.

First, thanks for backing me up. And I tend to agree with your point 
here -- one thing I've noticed about the people in our shop who say 
they don't find MacOS/X to be unresponsive is that they just don't 
use their computers very quickly in the first place.

There are others all along the spectrum: some who say that yeah, it's 
a little sluggish, but they don't mind it that much and they like 
other things about it enough to make up the difference and some who 
have made it pretty clear that based on what they've seen, they have 
no intention of using it until we get them new computers capable of 
running it as well as what they're used to.

And that's fine: the largest part of our work is still produced with 
QXP 4.11 on MacOS9, which works just fine. We're making a switch to 
InDesign, but we just don't see G4s as a viable platform for that, so 
the switch will have to go hand in hand with acquiring new G5-based 
machines (or possibly, a switch to Windows, which is not an idea I 
especially relish, but that might be the best thing in the long run).

We are acquiring G5s, as we have been pretty much since they were 
introduced. One hasn't landed on my desk yet, but that's mostly 
because they're better used elsewhere. They do run MacOS/X and the 
current Adobe apps pretty nicely, though.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/19/2005 3:47:47 AM
In article <1gs618h.623d721biczl4N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>, Lee 
Blevins wrote:

> I would love to use Netatalk/FreeBSD but Rampage doesn't support it.

All I really know about Rampage is what I've heard from you over the 
years, so I don't know what's up with them.

But FreeBSD/netatalk/samba has been working very well for me for 
several years, and it does so with very modest hardware requirements. 
My servers aren't anything fancy, but mostly they work really well.

I do have one pretty serious problem to solve with netatalk and 
MacOS/X, though. For some reason, it's impossible for a MacOS/X 
client to copy large amounts of stuff from one server volume to 
another.

What happens is that the copy stalls and then fails and then the 
client is unceremoniously disconnected from all volumes mounted from 
that server. But the same machine, or any other machine for that 
matter, booted into MacOS9, will be able to copy the same stuff just 
fine.

It's a pain in the neck and I'm not sure what to make of it. I am 
using a sort of old version of netatalk, so I guess I'll have to 
update to a newer one and see if that fixes things.

> Fortunatley I'm looking forward to the day I make my last piece of
> film

We quit making film a few years back and it had been dwindling for 
years for before that. In our little part of the printing world, film 
just doesn't exist anymore. Everything we make goes straight to 
plate.

I get nostalgic about the good old days once in a while, but overall, 
I can't really say I miss making film one little bit. I could 
probably still find a jar of opaque but I bet it's pretty dried up 
and I probably can't still find a brush anyway.

> Rampage sucks. They need a better interpreter that can accept
> postscript and not limit themselves to EPS.

I think it's getting on ten years since I first mentioned that about 
your Rampage system. :-)

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/19/2005 4:14:10 AM
"John Doherty" escribi� en el mensaje
news:5572247.0H0e0Rntbt@dupree.null.not...

> And that's fine: the largest part of our work is still produced with
> QXP 4.11 on MacOS9, which works just fine. We're making a switch to
> InDesign, but we just don't see G4s as a viable platform for that, so
> the switch will have to go hand in hand with acquiring new G5-based
> machines (or possibly, a switch to Windows, which is not an idea I
> especially relish, but that might be the best thing in the long run).

I used to be a Mac fanatic, but when Jobs killed the
MacOS and replaced it with "MacOS" X (which I had to
reboot at least once a day and with a lot of work
lost because of applications closing unexpectedly),
I was so frustrated that I finally switched, with
tears in my eyes, to Windows XP. It has to be seen
to be believed, but the only blue screen I've ever
seen was on the OS X!

Despite the huge investment (hardware and software),
the switching is now paying off and I'm not regretful
at all. I never thought Apple would persuade me to
switch to Windows, and that I would happy with the
change! :-(.

Javier
____________________________________________________________
Javier Bezos                | TeX y tipograf�a
jbezos at wanadoo dot es    | http://perso.wanadoo.es/jbezos
.............................|...............................
CervanTeX (Spanish TUG)     | http://www.cervantex.org





0
2/19/2005 9:36:54 AM
"Ted" <tjpolite@comcast.net> wrote in news:H--dnWLE8Ocw0IjfRVn-
iA@comcast.com:

> 
>> Same thing with me, I blame W2K server, when I have things local it's 
as
>> fast as I want.
>>
> Yes, it is the W2K server.
> 
> Ted
> 
> 

We use a Windows 2000 server and have recently added a G5 dual 1.8Gb 
because we decided we needed a dedicated OSX machine, we were previously 
dual booting one of our G4-450s with OS9 on one drive and OSX on another.

We never had any problems like those discussed in this thread with the G4 
and still don't with the G5, which is used for processing customer files 
and also runs Brisque client, so is always connected to both the Win2K 
server and the Brisque.

Perhaps the answer lies in the RAM, I have never skimped on this, we have 
1GB in all the G4's, 2GB in the G5 and the Brisque and 4GB in the Win2K 
server.

Or maybe it's down to network efficiency, I've seen slowdowns on Macs, 
including refreshing local folders, due to Appletalk being very chatty on 
the network, we connect everything via TCP-IP or NFS.

A good quality switch can also make a substantial difference, we have an 
HP Procurve, which manages packets very efficiantly.

But, most likely, it's a combination of a number of factors, all of which 
interact to create this frustrating situation.

The first thing I would do is take the offending machine off the network, 
and then pump up the Ram.

As several others have noted, both in this and other threads, the primary 
frustration with OSX is font handling. We've tried both Suitcase and Font 
Reserve with little success and have now switched to Font Agent Pro which 
seems to have cured most of our font woes.

Regards

Mike
0
2/19/2005 11:34:45 AM
In article <BE3C0496.1927C%tmonk@austin.rr.com>,
 Tim Monk <tmonk@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> If this issue hasn't effected the way you work with OS X, consider yourself
> lucky. But rest assured that this is a valid issue for some people, and it
> can't just be dismissed.

I never said to dismiss anything.

What I DID do is dispute John's blanket statement:  that "on a G4/400 
with OS X, it takes 3 seconds between clicking and seeing anything 
happen."

That's not how a G4/400 behaves.

That his behaves that way means something's wrong.  But as a blanket 
statement, that's wrong.

Should anyone be using G4/400 units in production?  Um, NO.  Anyone 
who's trying to risks being tagged as a SFUP.

0
elmop (1209)
2/19/2005 11:47:27 AM
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-AABE52.06472719022005@text.usenetserver.com: 

>
> 
> Should anyone be using G4/400 units in production?  Um, NO.  Anyone 
> who's trying to risks being tagged as a SFUP.
> 

We still have 2 G4/400s and 2 G4/450s in production (all running OS 9.2)  
and they still earn their keep.

Why would you need anything faster for creating Postscript from Quark 4.1 
or running Preps ?


Regards

Mike
0
2/19/2005 11:58:27 AM
Tim Monk <tmonk@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> BTW: Lee, you might be interested in this little tid-bit. We're switching
> from Apogee Series3 to Rampage JVX. Got any helpful hints? Words of advice?
> Things to look out for? It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea of
> moving backwards from a PDF workflow, so I'm scared to death. Can you set me
> at ease?

What's your main reason for switching?
0
leeb (1197)
2/19/2005 12:52:27 PM
Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <1gs72bk.gwa69m1hft3eoN%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
>  leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
> 
> > > > Fortunatley I'm looking forward to the day I make my last piece of film
> > > > and boot Rampage into oblivion.
> > > 
> > > You'll still make plates.  And Rampage will be there.
> > > 
> > > Or will you go pure digital?
> > 
> > Pure digital is what I'm thinking. That smell of blanket wash and ink
> > just is too damn nasty for me.
> 
> In that case, Rampage would be toast indeed.
> 
> One wonders if they see the future and are planning for it.

I'm having a hard time seeing a future for them with me.

It's way overpriced, slow and has issues about fonts.

My PS/M is (no exageration) 10x faster.
0
leeb (1197)
2/19/2005 12:52:28 PM

>
> > If this issue hasn't effected the way you work with OS X, consider
yourself
> > lucky. But rest assured that this is a valid issue for some people, and
it
> > can't just be dismissed.
>
> I never said to dismiss anything.
>
> What I DID do is dispute John's blanket statement:  that "on a G4/400
> with OS X, it takes 3 seconds between clicking and seeing anything
> happen."
>
> That's not how a G4/400 behaves.
>
> That his behaves that way means something's wrong.  But as a blanket
> statement, that's wrong.
>
> Should anyone be using G4/400 units in production?  Um, NO.  Anyone
> who's trying to risks being tagged as a SFUP.

I agree, there outdated with the new bloat loaded software we have to use. I
have a dual 2.5 ghz G5. Love it do death, Worth every penny.

Ted
>


0
tjpolite (192)
2/19/2005 2:15:45 PM

>
> > And that's fine: the largest part of our work is still produced with
> > QXP 4.11 on MacOS9, which works just fine. We're making a switch to
> > InDesign, but we just don't see G4s as a viable platform for that, so
> > the switch will have to go hand in hand with acquiring new G5-based
> > machines (or possibly, a switch to Windows, which is not an idea I
> > especially relish, but that might be the best thing in the long run).
>
> I used to be a Mac fanatic, but when Jobs killed the
> MacOS and replaced it with "MacOS" X (which I had to
> reboot at least once a day and with a lot of work
> lost because of applications closing unexpectedly),
> I was so frustrated that I finally switched, with
> tears in my eyes, to Windows XP. It has to be seen
> to be believed, but the only blue screen I've ever
> seen was on the OS X!
>
> Despite the huge investment (hardware and software),
> the switching is now paying off and I'm not regretful
> at all. I never thought Apple would persuade me to
> switch to Windows, and that I would happy with the
> change! :-(.
>
That is OK, The cpmpany that I work for has both since we are ouputting
film. For me OSX rocks and Windows is a pain because of constant security
updates and I have to install additional virus protection and spyware
protection. I just have to babysit the windows machines a hell of a lot more
than the G5s. I have some experience on Unix mainframes so I wasn't
uncomfortable going to OSX from 9.

Ted
>
>
>
>


0
tjpolite (192)
2/19/2005 2:20:12 PM

>
> > I think this statement validates John's point that the speed issue
> > is based on user expectations. If you didn't drive fast before you
> > upgraded to OS X, you're not likely to notice the loss in horse
> > power.
>
> First, thanks for backing me up. And I tend to agree with your point
> here -- one thing I've noticed about the people in our shop who say
> they don't find MacOS/X to be unresponsive is that they just don't
> use their computers very quickly in the first place.
>
> There are others all along the spectrum: some who say that yeah, it's
> a little sluggish, but they don't mind it that much and they like
> other things about it enough to make up the difference and some who
> have made it pretty clear that based on what they've seen, they have
> no intention of using it until we get them new computers capable of
> running it as well as what they're used to.
>
> And that's fine: the largest part of our work is still produced with
> QXP 4.11 on MacOS9, which works just fine. We're making a switch to
> InDesign, but we just don't see G4s as a viable platform for that, so
> the switch will have to go hand in hand with acquiring new G5-based
> machines (or possibly, a switch to Windows, which is not an idea I
> especially relish, but that might be the best thing in the long run).
>
> We are acquiring G5s, as we have been pretty much since they were
> introduced. One hasn't landed on my desk yet, but that's mostly
> because they're better used elsewhere. They do run MacOS/X and the
> current Adobe apps pretty nicely, though.

It is going to be suprising what Longhorn brings if it ever comes out. It
probably be so bloated by the time it does anyway. I will put my money on
Tiger, it will be heare a lot quicker and the bugs ironed out a lot faster.

Ted
> --
>


0
tjpolite (192)
2/19/2005 2:23:02 PM
 "Lee Blevins" wrote:

> Tim Monk wrote:
> 
>> BTW: Lee, you might be interested in this little tid-bit. We're switching
>> from Apogee Series3 to Rampage JVX. Got any helpful hints? Words of advice?
>> Things to look out for? It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea of
>> moving backwards from a PDF workflow, so I'm scared to death. Can you set me
>> at ease?
> 
> What's your main reason for switching?

Well, it's pretty complicated, and I don't know how much of it I'm allowed
to talk about here, but it boils down to two main reasons:

1. Agfa is a horrible company to do business with. Their customer service is
pathetic.

2. Money. We'll be saving lots of money on consumables if we switch to
Rampage. And the support we've been getting from the vender that will soon
support us with Rampage has been phenomenal!

So, you wanna' touch on some of my questions?

Tim

0
tmonk1 (342)
2/19/2005 4:33:04 PM
Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <BE3C0496.1927C%tmonk@austin.rr.com>,
>  Tim Monk <tmonk@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > If this issue hasn't effected the way you work with OS X, consider yourself
> > lucky. But rest assured that this is a valid issue for some people, and it
> > can't just be dismissed.
> 
> I never said to dismiss anything.
> 
> What I DID do is dispute John's blanket statement:  that "on a G4/400
> with OS X, it takes 3 seconds between clicking and seeing anything 
> happen."
> 
> That's not how a G4/400 behaves.
> 
> That his behaves that way means something's wrong.  But as a blanket 
> statement, that's wrong.

> Should anyone be using G4/400 units in production?  Um, NO.  Anyone 
> who's trying to risks being tagged as a SFUP.

Why?

Depends on what you are doing with them.

When I'm not dealing with customers who generate unreasonably bloated
files, my G4/400s running Q4/OS9.2 go through stuff like shit through a
goose.  

The only reason to buy new computers is to run the much slower new
software.  Which has to happen soon.  I swear that a sizable portion of
my work was as fast or faster back on a IIci running system 6 14 years
ago.  If apple and adobe would stop being so "helpful", all this iron we
have on our desks might eventually actually make our work faster.

Somebody needs to write a production finder, that throws away all the
bells and whistles, offers simple scripting and works *fast*.

BTW, AFIACT, windows is not a significant improvement in this regard.


Michael
0
michael296 (152)
2/19/2005 8:05:35 PM
Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <jdoherty-1802051412270001@192.168.2.136>,
>  jdoherty@nowhere.null.not (John Doherty) wrote:
> 
> > > We were talking about John's problem that when he clicks the mouse, it
> > > takes 3 seconds before anything happens.
> > 
> > Not every mouse click, you moron.
> 
> Wait a minute.  You made a blanket statement, now you're coming back 
> here to change that statement, and you're calling everyone else names?

No, he said that it is sluggish in general and that *sometimes* it takes
as long as 3 seconds before anything happens.  He never claimed that
every mouseclick (or even most) took 3 seconds. 

I can tell you that using a machine in production, having the computer
take more than 1/10 of a second to respond to a click or key really puts
a gash in my productivity because it breaks my rhythm.  A computer with
a well designed interface won't take more than 2-3 ticks (tick==1/60th
of a second) or so to respond unless you've asked it do something you
might *expect* to take a while.  Anything over a tenth of a second is
long enough to break rhythm.  Having that happen often is really
obnoxious.

It's also true that 3 seconds is a *really* long time.  It wouldn't
shock me if John is exaggerating, because it feels like 3 seconds.
That's it's actually 1.4 or whatever if you timed it is somewhat
irrelevant.  Anything over 1 second in a real-time interface is
*atrociously* slow.

I really wish that apple and others had more people like John on their
testing staff.  Since I've been in this industry, the only time I've
ever been remotely close to satisfied with the speed of my software is
when I've been able to make a significant hardware upgrade *without*
having to also make a software upgrade.  the hardware giveth, and the
software taketh away.


Michael
0
michael296 (152)
2/19/2005 8:05:36 PM
Joe <notgiven@bogus.com> wrote:

> I have say I agree with John, Lee, and Tim here.
> 
>     We tried OSX on Three G4's and while it may not be unusable it is
> painful to use and very irritating. I completely understand what John says
> about the feel of the machine and in my experience of doing things within
> the finder the Finder on a G3 350 with OS9 feels faster than the finder on a
> G5 dual 1800 with OSX and when we put OSX on one of our G4's it felt like I
> was working on a Quadra.
>     Unless you just have very low expectations of a computer OSX is unfit
> for anything less than a G5.
> 

I have to disagree with this.  What version of X are you running?

I just installed 10.3.8 on a G4 with a 1.25G accelerator.  The finder in
that is on the whole somewhat zippier than our OS9 finders running on
G4/350 or 400.

Some things do seem to take longer, and I'm pretty sure that if I boot
in 9 on this thing, it would be faster yet, but I'm definitely not
seeing the dramatic difference you describe here.  X on a G4/1.25GHz is
faster than 9 on a G4/400 for me, not slower.

I notice that finder windows pretty much don't update until you do
something on the computer with them.  So if I have a FS window open,
other people can make all kinds of changes to that folder, and I won't
see any of them until I try to do something in that window.

Personally, I've always found the OS9 finder to be extremely sluggish.
The absolute worst is those nav services dialog boxes.  I actually have
some third party software installed on my OS9 production macs to force
using the old style open/save dialogs wherever possible because they
come up *so* much faster.



Michael
0
michael296 (152)
2/19/2005 8:05:36 PM
Brandons of mass destruction <junkie46@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <1gs614y.1cdxb6wrfob28N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
>  leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
> 
> > Brandons of mass destruction <junkie46@comcast.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1gs46jb.7tkj39nkoxc2N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
> > >  leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If you find OSX on a single CPU G4 acceptable for doing production work
> > > > then you have far different standards than I do.
> > > 
> > > Not everyone does the same thing you do.
> > 
> > Wow, and I thought brilliant observations had left usenet.
> 
> How did I EVER survive on that Quarda 700?

You weren't running today's bloated software?



Michael
0
michael296 (152)
2/19/2005 8:05:37 PM
Mike Powell <nospamthankyou@optimapprreess.com.au> wrote:

> We use a Windows 2000 server and have recently added a G5 dual 1.8Gb 
> because we decided we needed a dedicated OSX machine, we were previously
> dual booting one of our G4-450s with OS9 on one drive and OSX on another.
> 
> We never had any problems like those discussed in this thread with the G4
> and still don't with the G5, which is used for processing customer files
> and also runs Brisque client, so is always connected to both the Win2K
> server and the Brisque.
> 
> Perhaps the answer lies in the RAM, I have never skimped on this, we have
> 1GB in all the G4's, 2GB in the G5 and the Brisque and 4GB in the Win2K
> server.

> Or maybe it's down to network efficiency, I've seen slowdowns on Macs,
> including refreshing local folders, due to Appletalk being very chatty on
> the network, we connect everything via TCP-IP or NFS.

Do you mean you've removed appletalk from the network completely, even
as a negotiation tool? Or that you are using IP for main transfer?

> As several others have noted, both in this and other threads, the primary
> frustration with OSX is font handling. We've tried both Suitcase and Font
> Reserve with little success and have now switched to Font Agent Pro which
> seems to have cured most of our font woes.

What kind of issues.  I'm in the process of creating X builds for our
production machines, and we have a serious need to deal with fonts.
I've been planning to move to a font server, and suitcase looked
reasonable.  Does Font Agent Pro offer server operation?  What probably
did you experience with Suitcase and FR?

 
Michael
0
michael296 (152)
2/19/2005 8:05:37 PM
In article <1gs83ww.g2y8gzb52w1eN%michael@bcect.com>, Michael Sullivan 
wrote:

> Personally, I've always found the OS9 finder to be extremely
> sluggish. The absolute worst is those nav services dialog boxes.

Agreed, although not too many applications I use use them. They're 
annoying, though.

> I actually have some third party software installed on my OS9
> production macs to force using the old style open/save dialogs
> wherever possible because they come up *so* much faster.

What is that? I'd like to try it out.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/19/2005 8:33:17 PM
In article <1gs83ep.kt4yzk1nuvc01N%michael@bcect.com>, Michael 
Sullivan wrote:

> It's also true that 3 seconds is a *really* long time.  It wouldn't
> shock me if John is exaggerating, because it feels like 3 seconds.

I actually stopwatched the time that elapses when opening a new, empty 
InDesign document yesterday. It was something like 4.6 seconds from 
the last click to having an open window.

I also checked the time from hitting command-S to having a "Save 
As..." dialog in an editor called TextForge. That was also over 4 
seconds, but only the first time I did it after launching the app. 
After that, it was down to about 0.7 or so.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/19/2005 8:38:08 PM
In article <1gs83ep.kt4yzk1nuvc01N%michael@bcect.com>,
 michael@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) wrote:

> I can tell you that using a machine in production, having the computer
> take more than 1/10 of a second to respond to a click or key really puts
> a gash in my productivity because it breaks my rhythm.

Using a machine at home, same thing.

And the G4/400 doesn't behave like that normally under OS X.

0
elmop (1209)
2/19/2005 9:00:30 PM
In article <elmop-923F61.16003019022005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo 
P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <1gs83ep.kt4yzk1nuvc01N%michael@bcect.com>,
>  michael@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) wrote:

>> I can tell you that using a machine in production, having the
>> computer take more than 1/10 of a second to respond to a click or
>> key really puts a gash in my productivity because it breaks my
>> rhythm.

> Using a machine at home, same thing.

> And the G4/400 doesn't behave like that normally under OS X.

Why is it important to you to claim that people who find MacOS/X less 
responsive than they'd like are somehow wrong? Let's say that you 
succeeded: what purpose would have been served?

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/19/2005 9:50:18 PM
Tim Monk <tmonk@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>  "Lee Blevins" wrote:
> 
> > Tim Monk wrote:
> > 
> >> BTW: Lee, you might be interested in this little tid-bit. We're
> >> switching from Apogee Series3 to Rampage JVX. Got any helpful hints?
> >> Words of advice? Things to look out for? It's hard for me to wrap my
> >> mind around the idea of moving backwards from a PDF workflow, so I'm
> >> scared to death. Can you set me at ease?
> > 
> > What's your main reason for switching?
> 
> Well, it's pretty complicated, and I don't know how much of it I'm allowed
> to talk about here, but it boils down to two main reasons:
> 
> 1. Agfa is a horrible company to do business with. Their customer service is
> pathetic.

Been that way for a long long time.

> 
> 2. Money. We'll be saving lots of money on consumables if we switch to
> Rampage. And the support we've been getting from the vender that will soon
> support us with Rampage has been phenomenal!
> 
> So, you wanna' touch on some of my questions?
> 
> Tim

Rampage is great to do business with.

I dropped the service contract because they never seem to be able to
solve any of the real issues we face. Like why Rampage says fonts aren't
there that are or why Acrobat on the rip keeps erroring out and we have
to re-submit pdfs. We just don't submit pdf's to Rampage anymore because
all it's doing it starting Acrobat and exporting postscript. We just do
that before we send it to Rampage now.

Clockspeed for clockspeed it's the slowest rip I've ever seen. I guess
if you put it on a super comptuter it is faster. I'm still running it on
a dual 700 so my opinion here is tainted but PS/M on a G4 400 blows it's
doors off.

The OPI workflow is great. They create a PC style EPS of their ripped
data so you can put it in any pagination or page layout program. 

How much are Rampage rips these days?
0
leeb (1197)
2/20/2005 12:45:52 AM
In article <2205017.9hfaaV4Aij@dupree.null.not>,
 John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> >> I can tell you that using a machine in production, having the
> >> computer take more than 1/10 of a second to respond to a click or
> >> key really puts a gash in my productivity because it breaks my
> >> rhythm.
> 
> > Using a machine at home, same thing.
> 
> > And the G4/400 doesn't behave like that normally under OS X.
> 
> Why is it important to you to claim that people who find MacOS/X less 
> responsive than they'd like are somehow wrong?

I'm not claiming that at all, John.

In fact, I agreed--as you see above--that if the computer takes more 
than 1/10 of a second to respond to a click, it really hurts--even at 
home.

I even said before that if my machine behaved like yours, I would have 
ditched it long ago.

Fact:  it doesn't behave like yours.  Fact:  yours is misbehaving.

It's not an issue of some vague "not as responsive as you'd like" thing.  
One can't quantify that.  However, things like "taking longer than 1/10 
of a second to respond to a click" and "I click and it takes 2-3 seconds 
to respond" are hard numbers, and that's what I've been discussing all 
along.

Why is it important to you to ignore your claim of "it takes 2-3 seconds 
to respond to a click" and keep going back to the vagaue "it's just 
slower than I'd like"?

Could it be, John, that you, um, misspoke yourself--exaggerated a bit, 
hey boy?--when you started out with that 2-3 second response time claim?  
Were you trying to make it worse than it is?  Why?  Just to give 
yourself more griping rights?

0
elmop (1209)
2/20/2005 12:57:15 AM
In article <2205017.9hfaaV4Aij@dupree.null.not>,
 John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> Let's say that you 
> succeeded: what purpose would have been served?

I'm simply providing real world counterpoint to your voice as you make 
wild claims about how a G4/400 running OS X behaves.

No, it doesn't behave that way.  YOURS does (and again, I'm going back 
to the hard numbers, not your sudden inspiration of the vague "well, 
it's slower than *I* like" thing).  But it's not at all that "they 
behave that way."

If you spread rumors like that, people will believe them.  I'm just 
providing a counterpoint.

0
elmop (1209)
2/20/2005 1:07:46 AM
In article <elmop-815C0E.20074619022005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo 
P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <2205017.9hfaaV4Aij@dupree.null.not>,
>  John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:
> 
>> Let's say that you
>> succeeded: what purpose would have been served?
> 
> I'm simply providing real world counterpoint to your voice as you
> make wild claims about how a G4/400 running OS X behaves.

The "wildness" of these claims was more in your head than my words.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/20/2005 1:17:50 AM
In article <elmop-C7491F.19571319022005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo 
P. Shagnasty wrote:

> started out with that 2-3 second response time claim

There are things you can click on a machine running MacOS/X that will 
take two or three seconds before there is any visible reponse from 
the interface. Get a stopwatch and start clicking.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/20/2005 1:19:28 AM
"Lee Blevins" wrote:

> Been that way for a long long time.

Not surprising. 
 
> Rampage is great to do business with.

That sounds promising.
 
> I dropped the service contract because they never seem to be able to
> solve any of the real issues we face. Like why Rampage says fonts aren't
> there that are or why Acrobat on the rip keeps erroring out and we have
> to re-submit pdfs. We just don't submit pdf's to Rampage anymore because
> all it's doing it starting Acrobat and exporting postscript. We just do
> that before we send it to Rampage now.

That sounds discouraging.
 
> Clockspeed for clockspeed it's the slowest rip I've ever seen. I guess
> if you put it on a super comptuter it is faster. I'm still running it on
> a dual 700 so my opinion here is tainted but PS/M on a G4 400 blows it's
> doors off.

Oh great. The Apogee PDFRip is FAST! That's what I'm used to...<shaking in
my boots>
 
> The OPI workflow is great. They create a PC style EPS of their ripped
> data so you can put it in any pagination or page layout program.

I'd have to see how this works to understand exactly what you're saying.
Guess I'll get to see soon enough. I'll let you know what I think. :)
 
> How much are Rampage rips these days?

I have no idea. I'd say they must be a lot cheaper than Apogee, though, and
I've seen the prices for an upgrade to ApogeeX. Ridiculous considering the
fact that ApogeeX is nothing more than Series3 with a Transparency Flattener
and a GUI copied from Artwork Systems' GUI.

I appreciate your kind response,

Tim


0
tmonk1 (342)
2/20/2005 2:09:15 AM
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:

> 
> I'm simply providing real world counterpoint to your voice as you make
> wild claims about how a G4/400 running OS X behaves.
> 
> No, it doesn't behave that way.  YOURS does (and again, I'm going back
> to the hard numbers, not your sudden inspiration of the vague "well,
> it's slower than *I* like" thing).  But it's not at all that "they
> behave that way."
> 
> If you spread rumors like that, people will believe them.  I'm just
> providing a counterpoint.

John hasn't made any wild claims about anything. Reread his words and tell
me otherwise, please.

John is reporting his experience with OS X, and it just so happens to be
very similar to my own. OS X (Finder) is slow, even on a G5. Period. You
can't argue that away. It is A FACT! Of course the word "fact" is something
you seem to have a problem understanding. <G>

Tim


0
tmonk1 (342)
2/20/2005 2:23:50 AM
michael@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) wrote in
news:1gs84ek.vmh1wl1o4xvz7N%michael@bcect.com: 

> Mike Powell <nospamthankyou@optimapprreess.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> We use a Windows 2000 server and have recently added a G5 dual 1.8Gb 
>> because we decided we needed a dedicated OSX machine, we were
>> previously dual booting one of our G4-450s with OS9 on one drive and
>> OSX on another. 
>> 
>> We never had any problems like those discussed in this thread with
>> the G4 and still don't with the G5, which is used for processing
>> customer files and also runs Brisque client, so is always connected
>> to both the Win2K server and the Brisque.
>> 
>> Perhaps the answer lies in the RAM, I have never skimped on this, we
>> have 1GB in all the G4's, 2GB in the G5 and the Brisque and 4GB in
>> the Win2K server.
> 
>> Or maybe it's down to network efficiency, I've seen slowdowns on
>> Macs, including refreshing local folders, due to Appletalk being very
>> chatty on the network, we connect everything via TCP-IP or NFS.
> 
> Do you mean you've removed appletalk from the network completely, even
> as a negotiation tool? Or that you are using IP for main transfer?

Appletalk is still used for negotiation, but nothing else.

> 
>> As several others have noted, both in this and other threads, the
>> primary frustration with OSX is font handling. We've tried both
>> Suitcase and Font Reserve with little success and have now switched
>> to Font Agent Pro which seems to have cured most of our font woes.
> 
> What kind of issues.  I'm in the process of creating X builds for our
> production machines, and we have a serious need to deal with fonts.
> I've been planning to move to a font server, and suitcase looked
> reasonable.  Does Font Agent Pro offer server operation?  What
> probably did you experience with Suitcase and FR?
> 
>  

We don't use a server based library for fonts, all of our jobs are 
supplied by customers and we keep the customers fonts with the job and 
activate locally. So I haven't investigated a server option.

Font Reserve works reasonably well with Indesign, but caused instability 
with Quark 6.x 

Suitcase caused us major system instability, failed to activate fonts 
when requested and Quark 6.x refused to launch at all when Suitcase was 
active.

Font Agent Pro appears to be stable, doesn't cause any instability in 
other programs, but we often have to close Indesign and re-open after 
activating fonts for them to be recognised by ID.

F.A.P. is frustratingly slow if you drag & drop customer supplied fonts 
onto it to create a new set and allow it to add then to its main database 
(this is default behaviour). We now create a new font library for each 
set.

I've also seen MasterJuggler mentioned, but haven't experimented with 
this.

I haven't found any solution that's as simple and unfettered as ATM Pro - 
it's a shame Adobe decided to abandon us on this one.

Regards

Mike

0
2/20/2005 11:44:59 AM
K P wrote:

> Has anybody else noticed that, if you keep a window open on
> your desktop under 0S X, it takes forever to update when a new
> file is dropped in? 

Yes and in my opinion it's one of the most annoying things in OS X. 
I also hate that I have to click on the desktop in order to see 
newly added files (an attached file in an e-mail, saved on the 
desktop for instance). 

-- 
Regards 
Madsen
0
nospam195 (28)
2/20/2005 12:27:49 PM
Mike Powell <nospamthankyou@optimapprreess.com.au> wrote:

> We don't use a server based library for fonts, all of our jobs are 
> supplied by customers and we keep the customers fonts with the job and
> activate locally. So I haven't investigated a server option.
> 
> Font Reserve works reasonably well with Indesign, but caused instability
> with Quark 6.x 
> 
> Suitcase caused us major system instability, failed to activate fonts
> when requested and Quark 6.x refused to launch at all when Suitcase was
> active.
> 
> Font Agent Pro appears to be stable, doesn't cause any instability in
> other programs, but we often have to close Indesign and re-open after
> activating fonts for them to be recognised by ID.
> 
> F.A.P. is frustratingly slow if you drag & drop customer supplied fonts
> onto it to create a new set and allow it to add then to its main database
> (this is default behaviour). We now create a new font library for each
> set.
> 
> I've also seen MasterJuggler mentioned, but haven't experimented with
> this.
> 
> I haven't found any solution that's as simple and unfettered as ATM Pro -
> it's a shame Adobe decided to abandon us on this one.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mike

We scrapped them all and use FontBook. It's slow and annoying at times
but it's free and does the job.

The less third party software I have to add to a computer the better.
0
leeb (1197)
2/20/2005 1:10:12 PM
In article <1922719.YRTmEaGbjp@dupree.null.not>,
 John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> > started out with that 2-3 second response time claim
> 
> There are things you can click on a machine running MacOS/X that will 
> take two or three seconds before there is any visible reponse from 
> the interface. Get a stopwatch and start clicking.

I did.  I have yet to find any.

So, please tell me what they are.  I'd be happy to test it out here.

0
elmop (1209)
2/20/2005 1:47:55 PM
In article <Xns9603C8E921CD5Aussieprepressguy@203.59.27.131>, Mike 
Powell wrote:

> I've also seen MasterJuggler mentioned, but haven't experimented
> with this.

I like the old, "classic" version a lot. It's really simple and easy 
to use and works just fine. The MacOS/X version, I'm not so crazy 
about, but it seems to work fine from the little I've used it.

Like you, we typically have set of fonts stored with each job, so on 
MacOS/X, I've taken to just dropping that in ~/Library/Fonts and not 
bothering with a font manager at all.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/20/2005 5:38:19 PM
In article <elmop-FE6CB7.08475520022005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo 
P. Shagnasty wrote:

> So, please tell me what they are.  I'd be happy to test it out here.

I'm not arguing with you about this anymore. I'm frankly uninterested 
in your opinion.

--


0
jdoherty (1055)
2/20/2005 5:39:24 PM
In article <1660373.fA30CS1Ayz@dupree.null.not>,
 John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> In article <elmop-FE6CB7.08475520022005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo 
> P. Shagnasty wrote:
> 
> > So, please tell me what they are.  I'd be happy to test it out here.
> 
> I'm not arguing with you about this anymore. I'm frankly uninterested 
> in your opinion.
> 
> --

So you'd rather spread vicious lies like "this is how it behaves on a 
G4/400".

Good show, John.

0
elmop (1209)
2/20/2005 6:20:43 PM
In article <elmop-A0A2F6.13204320022005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo 
P. Shagnasty wrote:

> So you'd rather spread vicious lies

"Vicious lies"? Wow.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask again: what exactly is that you 
do in the printing biz, anyway?

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/20/2005 7:11:17 PM
Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <1922719.YRTmEaGbjp@dupree.null.not>,
>  John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:
> 
> > > started out with that 2-3 second response time claim
> > 
> > There are things you can click on a machine running MacOS/X that will
> > take two or three seconds before there is any visible reponse from 
> > the interface. Get a stopwatch and start clicking.
> 
> I did.  I have yet to find any.
> 
> So, please tell me what they are.  I'd be happy to test it out here.

One of the interesting things I've observed over the few years I've been
using macs is the claims that "it doesn't happen on my box" when it
happens on every box I own.

Your claims seem to be based on what you do at home.

That isn't really relevant to a prepress environment. How many prepress
departments are just a single mac sitting all by it's lonsome?

Right now I'm testing launching apps from the doc and just about any
Adobe app takes three seconds before I see it appear.

Quark does the same.

Even starting a classic app takes 3 seconds before I see the classic
environment start.

The list goes on an on.

This is a G4 laptop with 500 megs of ram.

My G4 400's take longer.

Now if you want to see slow, try having quark or any other app open a
directory on a Win2K server and try to scroll down.

I work with a lot of customers who use macs and they all tell me they
think OS X is slower than OS 9.

In fact, I don't see anybody but you saying it's not.

You are the only person I've ran into anywhere that is preaching the
gospel of how happy they are with the speed of os x.
0
leeb (1197)
2/21/2005 12:47:29 AM
In article <1gsarm0.1gc52juan9gaoN%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
 leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:

> I work with a lot of customers who use macs and they all tell me they
> think OS X is slower than OS 9.
> 
> In fact, I don't see anybody but you saying it's not.
> 
> You are the only person I've ran into anywhere that is preaching the
> gospel of how happy they are with the speed of os x.

Ah, where's William Adams when you need him.

0
elmop (1209)
2/21/2005 1:14:18 AM
BTW, Elmo...

What is it you do in the printing/prepress industry?

Just thought I'd ask...

djb

-- 
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows
0
dave14 (1200)
2/21/2005 4:06:54 AM
In article <200220052206540528%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, 
Dave Balderstone wrote:

> BTW, Elmo...

> What is it you do in the printing/prepress industry?

> Just thought I'd ask...

Hi Dave. :-)

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/21/2005 5:10:15 AM
John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> In article <Xns9603C8E921CD5Aussieprepressguy@203.59.27.131>, Mike 
> Powell wrote:
> 
> > I've also seen MasterJuggler mentioned, but haven't experimented
> > with this.
> 
> I like the old, "classic" version a lot. It's really simple and easy 
> to use and works just fine. The MacOS/X version, I'm not so crazy 
> about, but it seems to work fine from the little I've used it.

> Like you, we typically have set of fonts stored with each job, so on 
> MacOS/X, I've taken to just dropping that in ~/Library/Fonts and not 
> bothering with a font manager at all.

I'd really like a font server, because in my set up it's useful to be
able to do different things on different machines.  For instance, I'd
like to be able to drop a copy of a file I've been working on in a
folder and have some other machine that's watching the folder open it
and send postscript accoriding to a script that's named in a special
non-printing box in my file.  Or have a distiller server so I can drop
postscript in a watched folder.   Distiller will gag on embedding fonts
if they aren't open on the machine running distiller, and obviously
quark/ID will have a problem opening a doc without the fonts.

If I have a font server that everybody is pulling from, then I know that
every machine in the shop is running the same set of fonts.  Yeah, there
may be some jobs that conflict with enough stuff that I have to run them
separately and manage the fonts by hand, but I can do that if I have to.

Anyway, a font server is *really* handy if you want a heavily scripted
distributed workflow, and I do -- the advantages of doing that are
really clear.  So far Suitcase (with Suitcase Server has worked for me
pretty well under OS9.  

I'm loathe to abandon a font server when I go to X, but ultimately I
have to go to X, because my customers are starting to send me too many
Q6 and Adobe CS files and saving down on a separate workstation is
getting to be a hassle.


Michael
0
michael296 (152)
2/21/2005 6:24:22 PM
> 
> I work with a lot of customers who use macs and they all tell me they
> think OS X is slower than OS 9.
> 
> In fact, I don't see anybody but you saying it's not.
> 
> You are the only person I've ran into anywhere that is preaching the
> gospel of how happy they are with the speed of os x.

You do mean on machines older than G5s, right?

Kicking and screaming to get me to osx but I absolutely love it now. 
Dual 2 Ghz G5 2.5 gig ram. I have no complaints on the speed. It takes 
Illustrator 3 secs to launch. Takes Quark 4 secs to launch. PS 4 secs. 
Indesign was 6 secs. Freehand was 20 secs. To launch, I mean from the 
time I double click the app in the finder to when it's running.

Darin

0
sorryIm (28)
2/21/2005 9:57:58 PM
Michael Sullivan <michael@bcect.com> wrote:

> John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:
> 
> > In article <Xns9603C8E921CD5Aussieprepressguy@203.59.27.131>, Mike 
> > Powell wrote:
> > 
> > > I've also seen MasterJuggler mentioned, but haven't experimented
> > > with this.
> > 
> > I like the old, "classic" version a lot. It's really simple and easy
> > to use and works just fine. The MacOS/X version, I'm not so crazy 
> > about, but it seems to work fine from the little I've used it.
> 
> > Like you, we typically have set of fonts stored with each job, so on
> > MacOS/X, I've taken to just dropping that in ~/Library/Fonts and not
> > bothering with a font manager at all.
> 
> I'd really like a font server, because in my set up it's useful to be
> able to do different things on different machines.  For instance, I'd
> like to be able to drop a copy of a file I've been working on in a
> folder and have some other machine that's watching the folder open it
> and send postscript accoriding to a script that's named in a special
> non-printing box in my file.  Or have a distiller server so I can drop
> postscript in a watched folder.   Distiller will gag on embedding fonts
> if they aren't open on the machine running distiller, and obviously
> quark/ID will have a problem opening a doc without the fonts.

We have distiller running on a machine that watches a folder on the
server. It doesn't have any fonts loaded on that machine and it doesn't
"gag."

> 
> If I have a font server that everybody is pulling from, then I know that
> every machine in the shop is running the same set of fonts.  Yeah, there
> may be some jobs that conflict with enough stuff that I have to run them
> separately and manage the fonts by hand, but I can do that if I have to.
> 
> Anyway, a font server is *really* handy if you want a heavily scripted
> distributed workflow, and I do -- the advantages of doing that are
> really clear.  So far Suitcase (with Suitcase Server has worked for me
> pretty well under OS9.  
> 
> I'm loathe to abandon a font server when I go to X, but ultimately I
> have to go to X, because my customers are starting to send me too many
> Q6 and Adobe CS files and saving down on a separate workstation is
> getting to be a hassle.
> 
> 
> Michael

I don't understand the concept of a font server.

I have all our jobs on a server. Each job has a fonts folder in it and
the fonts relative to that job.

How is that different than a font server?
0
leeb (1197)
2/22/2005 12:11:30 AM
In article <1gsc4p1.l8l3qn1j9rps2N%michael@bcect.com>, Michael 
Sullivan wrote:

>> Like you, we typically have set of fonts stored with each job, so
>> on MacOS/X, I've taken to just dropping that in ~/Library/Fonts and
>> not bothering with a font manager at all.
> 
> I'd really like a font server, because in my set up it's useful to
> be able to do different things on different machines.  For instance,
> I'd like to be able to drop a copy of a file I've been working on in
> a folder and have some other machine that's watching the folder open
> it and send postscript accoriding to a script that's named in a
> special non-printing box in my file.  Or have a distiller server so
> I can drop postscript in a watched folder.

Well, you can do that, although there are licensing issues that you're 
probably aware of and that a real "Distiller Server" licesnse is an 
expensive proposition.

> Distiller will gag on embedding fonts if they aren't open on the
> machine running distiller

Hmm. I have not found that to be true, unless I misunderstand you. My 
perfectly routine process is to make PS on a Mac and then distill the 
PS files with Distiller on Windows, since Distiller on a run of the 
mill PC is tremendously faster than on any of the Macs I usually have 
available.

The fonts used by the PS files are essentially never available on the 
PC and this works just fine.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/22/2005 1:08:50 AM
In article <37v42dF54bidgU1@individual.net>, Darin wrote:

> Kicking and screaming to get me to osx but I absolutely love it now.
> Dual 2 Ghz G5 2.5 gig ram. I have no complaints on the speed.

With a machine like that, I wouldn't expect that you would. For the 
record, my position throughout this thread is that MacOS/X on a G5 is 
fine, on a G4... not so fine.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/22/2005 1:10:21 AM
"John Doherty" wrote:

>> Distiller will gag on embedding fonts if they aren't open on the
>> machine running distiller
> 
> Hmm. I have not found that to be true, unless I misunderstand you. My
> perfectly routine process is to make PS on a Mac and then distill the
> PS files with Distiller on Windows, since Distiller on a run of the
> mill PC is tremendously faster than on any of the Macs I usually have
> available.

Isn't that the truth!? Distiller (and Acrobat) are dreadfully slow on a Mac.

My workflow is similar, but I use Apogee Normalizer to create the PDFs. It's
better than Distiller for several reasons, but the main one is that it runs
Enfocus PitStop Server automatically after creating the PDF. And since
Normalizer is a server application, you don't have to worry about the
license. It's designed to be used in a network environment. I'm sure it cost
more than Distiller, probably even more than Distiller Server, but it's a
nice little app to have.
 
> The fonts used by the PS files are essentially never available on the
> PC and this works just fine.

As long as the font is included in the PostScript everything should be fine.
But then I'm not sure how Rampage handles fonts, so I wouldn't really know.
It seems the preferred file format for Rampage is EPS exported from Quark
using an Xtension that supposedly embeds the fonts. I don't know anything
more from first-hand experience. Guess I'll get to find out one way or the
other, huh?

I'm also curious as to how well Rampage actually handles PDF. Would it be
feasible to use Normalizer as a front-end for Rampage? Any takers?

Tim

0
tmonk1 (342)
2/22/2005 1:59:09 AM
"John Doherty" wrote:

> With a machine like that, I wouldn't expect that you would. For the
> record, my position throughout this thread is that MacOS/X on a G5 is
> fine, on a G4... not so fine.

I can't completely agree with this. OS X's Finder, even on a G5, is much
slower than OS 9's Finder. Mounting network volumes on OS X is a joke.
Waiting for your desktop to refresh on OS X is annoying whether you're on a
G5 or a G4. OS X is slower than OS 9. Fact, not fiction. :)

Maybe it's my damn network. Guess I'll get to see if that makes a difference
soon, too. <private joke>

Tim


0
tmonk1 (342)
2/22/2005 2:05:14 AM
In article <BE3FEE0D.193E5%tmonk@austin.rr.com>, Tim Monk wrote:

> Isn't that the truth!? Distiller (and Acrobat) are dreadfully slow
> on a Mac.

Yup. Except that Distiller 6 on a dual-processor G5 machine runs like 
a freakin bat out of hell.

> My workflow is similar, but I use Apogee Normalizer to create the
> PDFs. It's better than Distiller for several reasons, but the main
> one is that it runs Enfocus PitStop Server automatically after
> creating the PDF. And since Normalizer is a server application, you
> don't have to worry about the license. It's designed to be used in a
> network environment. I'm sure it cost more than Distiller, probably
> even more than Distiller Server, but it's a nice little app to have.

I have this vague recollection that once upon a time, you could by 
their Normalizer as a separate product for about $895, which is not 
bad at all. A 100 user license for Distiller Server is currently 
$5,000.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/22/2005 2:35:30 AM
"Tim Monk"  wrote

>
> Maybe it's my damn network. Guess I'll get to see if that makes a 
> difference
> soon, too. <private joke>

Please make it unprivate! We are fighting something at work and I do not 
know what.

Example:
A folder has 200 images in it on a Win 2000 Server.

Open the folder on a AMD Athlon Xp1800 Win 2000 professional workstation and 
you can instantly scroll top to bottom of the folder.
Open the folder on a OS 9 G3 350 and you can scroll that folder top to 
bottom in 10-15 seconds.
Open the folder on a OSX G5 Dual 1800 and it takes 30-45 seconds.
Disconnect the G5 from the server and open a folder with 200 images local 
and it is instantaneous.

What is the fix? How do I get my G5 to instantly scroll a folder with 200 
files in it on a Win 2000 server like it will locally or like a windows box 
will over the network?

Joe


0
2/22/2005 3:44:14 AM
In article <BE3FEE0D.193E5%tmonk@austin.rr.com>, Tim Monk wrote:

> My workflow is similar, but I use Apogee Normalizer to create the
> PDFs. It's better than Distiller for several reasons, but the main
> one is that it runs Enfocus PitStop Server automatically after
> creating the PDF.

How does that work, exactly? I have a bunch of different PitStop 
queues: for one-color jobs, two-color jobs done in black and a 
process color, two-color jobs done in black and a spot, four-color 
jobs, five-color jobs...

I haven't been able to find a way to make a one-size-fits-all PitStop 
queue, since different jobs need to be checked against different 
profiles.

How does Normalizer know which PitStop queue to use? I mean, it has to 
put its output into one PitStop hot folder or another. How does it 
know which one?

> I'm also curious as to how well Rampage actually handles PDF.

From what Lee says, all they do is run Acrobat on the same machine as 
the RIP and use that to export the PDF pages to EPS, which are then 
fed to the RIP itself just like any other EPS files.

> Would it be feasible to use Normalizer as a front-end for Rampage?

As far as I can tell, there shouldn't be any reason that it wouldn't.
As long as the PDF files can be opened with Acrobat and exported to 
EPS, it should work fine.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/22/2005 5:14:36 AM
"John Doherty" wrote:

> In article, Tim Monk wrote:
> 
>> Isn't that the truth!? Distiller (and Acrobat) are dreadfully slow
>> on a Mac.
> 
> Yup. Except that Distiller 6 on a dual-processor G5 machine runs like
> a freakin bat out of hell.

Of course, waiting for the PDF to show up in the folder (or Desktop) is
frustrating in OS X. Refresh. C'mon, refresh!  :)
 
>> My workflow is similar, but I use Apogee Normalizer to create the
>> PDFs. It's better than Distiller for several reasons, but the main
>> one is that it runs Enfocus PitStop Server automatically after
>> creating the PDF. And since Normalizer is a server application, you
>> don't have to worry about the license. It's designed to be used in a
>> network environment. I'm sure it cost more than Distiller, probably
>> even more than Distiller Server, but it's a nice little app to have.
> 
> I have this vague recollection that once upon a time, you could by
> their Normalizer as a separate product for about $895, which is not
> bad at all. A 100 user license for Distiller Server is currently
> $5,000.

I think it's still available as Apogee Create, but I'm not sure. You're
right, though. The price isn't bad if it's still for sale.

Tim

0
tmonk1 (342)
2/22/2005 10:35:54 AM
"John Doherty" wrote:

>> My workflow is similar, but I use Apogee Normalizer to create the
>> PDFs. It's better than Distiller for several reasons, but the main
>> one is that it runs Enfocus PitStop Server automatically after
>> creating the PDF.
> 
> How does that work, exactly? I have a bunch of different PitStop
> queues: for one-color jobs, two-color jobs done in black and a
> process color, two-color jobs done in black and a spot, four-color
> jobs, five-color jobs...
> 
> I haven't been able to find a way to make a one-size-fits-all PitStop
> queue, since different jobs need to be checked against different
> profiles.
> 
> How does Normalizer know which PitStop queue to use? I mean, it has to
> put its output into one PitStop hot folder or another. How does it
> know which one?

You set up the hot folders however you like. So you can use the separate
folders the way you're currently using them, if you wish.

We chose to use separate folders for each operator. There is a network
volume on our Normalizer Server named PageStore. Each operator has his/her
own folder within the PageStore. All PDFs are placed into their respective
PageStore folder attached with a PitStop report. This report reveals any
problems PitStop encountered during its preflight depending upon the
settings used in the hot folder the PostScript was printed to. The report is
interactive; if it reports a low-rez image, for example, you just click a
link and it takes you to the low-rez image in the PDF where you can gather
more information, or decide to do nothing. I assume these folders can be
setup the same way with stand-alone PitStop.

So, you could have a folder intended for Black only jobs. If you print to
that folder PitStop could run a preflight to check for objects that are not
black. If there are colored objects you could set PitStop/Normalizer to fail
the job and move it to a "Failed" folder, or you could simply have
PitStop/Normalizer alert you that there is color used, but deliver the job
to your normal PageStore folder. Or you could have PitStop/Normalizer
convert the color to gray and deliver it to your normal PageStore folder--of
course it will warn you of this as well.

The options are many, and workflow requirements will determine how they are
set. It's nice to have this much flexibility.
 
>> I'm also curious as to how well Rampage actually handles PDF.
> 
> From what Lee says, all they do is run Acrobat on the same machine as
> the RIP and use that to export the PDF pages to EPS, which are then
> fed to the RIP itself just like any other EPS files.

That's what it sounds like to me, too. Seems inefficient. Especially if this
is a manual step. Surely it's not. Lee, please tell me this is automatic.
 
>> Would it be feasible to use Normalizer as a front-end for Rampage?
> 
> As far as I can tell, there shouldn't be any reason that it wouldn't.
> As long as the PDF files can be opened with Acrobat and exported to
> EPS, it should work fine.

Too bad Rampage doesn't handle the PDF natively. That's what I've gotten
used to. The Apogee PDFRip is damn good, and FAST. I hate to see it go...

:( <frowning these days>
Tim





0
tmonk1 (342)
2/22/2005 10:59:40 AM
"Joe" wrote:

> Please make it unprivate! We are fighting something at work and I do not
> know what.
> 
> Example:
> A folder has 200 images in it on a Win 2000 Server.
> 
> Open the folder on a AMD Athlon Xp1800 Win 2000 professional workstation and
> you can instantly scroll top to bottom of the folder.
> Open the folder on a OS 9 G3 350 and you can scroll that folder top to
> bottom in 10-15 seconds.
> Open the folder on a OSX G5 Dual 1800 and it takes 30-45 seconds.
> Disconnect the G5 from the server and open a folder with 200 images local
> and it is instantaneous.
> 
> What is the fix? How do I get my G5 to instantly scroll a folder with 200
> files in it on a Win 2000 server like it will locally or like a windows box
> will over the network?

I'll have to get back to you on this. We're in the process of putting the
entire prepress department (workstations and all) on a gigabit network
connection. If this helps I'll report back here. It might just be that OS X
(AFP) is that slow, though. We'll see.

Tim


0
tmonk1 (342)
2/22/2005 11:04:28 AM

Tim Monk wrote:

> I'm not the OP of this discussion, but I've just got to respond to this
> question.
> 
> On 2/17/05 6:47 AM, "Olaf" wrote:
> 
> 
>>So what are you doing exactly on your Mac that makes it crawl to it's
>>knees???
> 
> 
> Navigating through the Finder, connecting to network volumes, switching
> applications, checking email, opening applications, quitting applications,
> typing a message in a text editor, etc. Even on our G5 with 2 gigs of RAM
> running OS X 10.3.7 all of the above (as well as many other activities) is
> incredibly slow. The OS just lags along while it displays the beach ball of
> death. How much system resources do you think that damn beach ball actually
> hogs up? Why not just display the little wrist watch?
> 
> Tim
> 

Tim,

Is that a dual or single G5? My dual screams. I'm getting ready to order 
another G5. I wasn't going to get another dual but you may change my 
mind if yours is a single.

Thanks
Darin

0
sorryIm (28)
2/22/2005 4:50:24 PM
John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> In article <1gsc4p1.l8l3qn1j9rps2N%michael@bcect.com>, Michael 
> Sullivan wrote:
> 
> >> Like you, we typically have set of fonts stored with each job, so
> >> on MacOS/X, I've taken to just dropping that in ~/Library/Fonts and
> >> not bothering with a font manager at all.
> > 
> > I'd really like a font server, because in my set up it's useful to
> > be able to do different things on different machines.  For instance,
> > I'd like to be able to drop a copy of a file I've been working on in
> > a folder and have some other machine that's watching the folder open
> > it and send postscript accoriding to a script that's named in a
> > special non-printing box in my file.  Or have a distiller server so
> > I can drop postscript in a watched folder.

> Well, you can do that, although there are licensing issues that you're
> probably aware of and that a real "Distiller Server" licesnse is an 
> expensive proposition.

I'm not sure I understand you.  Are you saying that running a normal
one-user copy of distiller on some random machine that watches a network
folder (in which many users on different machines place files) is a
violation of my user agreement?  I was using "distiller server" loosely,
as I didn't realize there was such a product.

> > Distiller will gag on embedding fonts if they aren't open on the
> > machine running distiller

> Hmm. I have not found that to be true, unless I misunderstand you. My
> perfectly routine process is to make PS on a Mac and then distill the
> PS files with Distiller on Windows, since Distiller on a run of the 
> mill PC is tremendously faster than on any of the Macs I usually have
> available.

> The fonts used by the PS files are essentially never available on the
> PC and this works just fine.

That's too weird. 

I'm still on Distiller 4, and when I've tried to run it on a random
machine, it gives me errors that went away when I loaded the fonts for
the job on said random machine.

Maybe there's a setting I'm missing?  Or maybe a version difference?

Even if this works, I still want a font server.  Installing a
de-installing fonts for a job on two or three different machines is a
real drag (figuratively *and* literally) when that job is a single
business card.  

I suppose I could script something, but it would essentially be writing
a homegrown font server.

It's complicated to explain why the standard hand font management idea
is extraordinarily unappealing in my workflow, but take it for granted.


Michael
0
michael296 (152)
2/22/2005 8:11:32 PM
In article <1gsdr1j.1f18en49tp7zwN%michael@bcect.com>, Michael 
Sullivan wrote:

>> Well, you can do that, although there are licensing issues that
>> you're probably aware of and that a real "Distiller Server"
>> licesnse is an expensive proposition.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand you.  Are you saying that running a normal
> one-user copy of distiller on some random machine that watches a
> network folder (in which many users on different machines place
> files) is a violation of my user agreement?

Yup, I think you'll find that it is. I don't recall the exact wording 
in the license agreement, but I'm nearly certain there's something 
there about it.

> I was using "distiller server" loosely, as I didn't realize there
> was such a product.

There is, but it's pricey: $5K for 100 users, $15K for unlimited. The 
Jaws folks have a similar, but less expensive server version of their 
stuff.

>> > Distiller will gag on embedding fonts if they aren't open on the
>> > machine running distiller

>> Hmm. I have not found that to be true, unless I misunderstand you.
>> My perfectly routine process is to make PS on a Mac and then
>> distill the PS files with Distiller on Windows, since Distiller on
>> a run of the mill PC is tremendously faster than on any of the Macs
>> I usually have available.

>> The fonts used by the PS files are essentially never available on
>> the PC and this works just fine.

> That's too weird.

> I'm still on Distiller 4, and when I've tried to run it on a random
> machine, it gives me errors that went away when I loaded the fonts
> for the job on said random machine.

> Maybe there's a setting I'm missing?  Or maybe a version difference?

Not sure what to say -- I've just never had any problems like that, as 
long as the PS files really do include the fonts they require. And 
even if they don't, I've never noticed that Distiller takes any 
notice of fonts that are open with Suitcase or another font manager. 
It will look for fonts in the PS file it's distilling and the places 
listed in its "Font Locations," as as far as I've ever seen, that's 
that.

> It's complicated to explain why the standard hand font management
> idea is extraordinarily unappealing in my workflow, but take it for
> granted.

I'm perfectly happy to take your word for it. Font management is just 
a pain.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/23/2005 12:15:53 AM
In article <3466320.ofh1C0rfOa@dupree.null.not>, John Doherty
<jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> Yup, I think you'll find that it is. I don't recall the exact wording 
> in the license agreement, but I'm nearly certain there's something 
> there about it.

The way I deal with it is to ensure everyone in the shop who's using
the network version has a full licence to Acro Pro (which includes
Distiller).

We ended up just going with a VOL licence for the whole CS package, we
have enough seats that it's economical.

But having one central copy of Distiller (on a G4 running OS X 10.3.x,
just to stay on topic) with a whack of watched folders is critical to
my automated workflows.

djb

-- 
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows
0
dave14 (1200)
2/23/2005 1:28:30 AM
In article <220220051928304827%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, 
Dave Balderstone wrote:

>> Yup, I think you'll find that it is. I don't recall the exact
>> wording in the license agreement, but I'm nearly certain there's
>> something there about it.

> The way I deal with it is to ensure everyone in the shop who's using
> the network version has a full licence to Acro Pro (which includes
> Distiller).

I think a lot of people do that.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
2/23/2005 2:33:05 AM
"Darin" wrote:

> Is that a dual or single G5? My dual screams. I'm getting ready to order
> another G5. I wasn't going to get another dual but you may change my
> mind if yours is a single.

It's a dual 2ghz with only a gig of RAM. It's much faster than the G4s, but
the Finder is still sluggish.  Additional RAM may help, but I don't know.
I've certainly tried replacement RAM without success.

Tim

0
tmonk1 (342)
2/23/2005 3:17:13 AM
John Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> In article <220220051928304827%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, 
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> 
> >> Yup, I think you'll find that it is. I don't recall the exact
> >> wording in the license agreement, but I'm nearly certain there's
> >> something there about it.

> > The way I deal with it is to ensure everyone in the shop who's using
> > the network version has a full licence to Acro Pro (which includes
> > Distiller).

> I think a lot of people do that.

Ah.  Well, I guess I'm already doing that, since I've got as many
acrobat licenses as production users and don't see that changing.

Now I get the issue, which would be somebody trying to avoid buying N
copies of acrobat by running distiller only on one machine.  That's not
what I'm doing at all, I'm merely trying to avoid having distiller and
associated scripts take up cycles on my production machines, and avoid
maintaining a bunch of separate installations of it.


Michael
0
michael296 (152)
2/23/2005 9:02:55 PM
In article <1gsfkdf.1fqqg51yc1g9xN%michael@bcect.com>, Michael Sullivan
<michael@bcect.com> wrote:

> That's not
> what I'm doing at all, I'm merely trying to avoid having distiller and
> associated scripts take up cycles on my production machines, and avoid
> maintaining a bunch of separate installations of it.

Precisely.

I also have an Applescript running on the one box that checks the "Out"
folders of Distiller's watched folders and emails PDF proofs out
automatically to our regional reps.

-- 
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows
0
dave14 (1200)
2/23/2005 9:41:05 PM
John Doherty wrote:
>
> 
>>I actually have some third party software installed on my OS9
>>production macs to force using the old style open/save dialogs
>>wherever possible because they come up *so* much faster.
> 
> 
> What is that? I'd like to try it out.

I believe he's talking about Default Folder
http://www.stclairsoft.com/DefaultFolder/
--
Bob
0
2/24/2005 9:26:25 PM
Joe wrote:
> "Robert Farr" wrote
> 
> 
>>I prefer stability over responsiveness any day. I haven't had to zap PRAM 
>>once a month, rebuild my desktop several times a week, or reboot every 
>>couple hours, since I got the OS X religion.
> 
> 
> Are you saying this was common under OS9. While I will admit I have only had 
> my G5 which I have had about 9 months totaly freeze up once single programs 
> have crashed almost daily. I do not find OSX any more stable than OS9. And 
> dont even get me started on font issues within OSX.
> 
> Joe 

The aggravations I described occured in OS 9 and earlier. (I don't think 
it's possible to rebuild an OS X desktop. ??)

But your problems in OS X don't surprise me either. I should add that in 
my experience, OS X is somewhat problematic if I'm launching and running 
classic apps. Haven't done that for a long time though.

BTW: I'm pretty sure my G4 dual was the last configuration Apple sold 
that was able to boot into either OS 9 or X right out of the box. I 
didn't adopt OS X until Panther rolled out a year or two later.

I experienced plenty of panic screens until Panther rolled out. Could 
have been the iMate ADB adapter driver (the number 1 suspect) or any 
number of other system extensions.

But since I installed Panther -- along with disk reformats (two HDs) and 
clean installs (both HDs, just in case) -- it's run better than it did 
right out of the box and brand new. Faster too.

--
Bob (OS X and not looking back)
Austin, Texas
0
2/24/2005 10:24:39 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Run OS X on OS X
I have a new G5 with 4GB of RAM. I have a G3 running WebStar and the machine is showing signs of age. I would like to move it to this new machine but also use this machine for development. I was thinking I could run the webstar and related in a seperate instance of OS X and have that running while I develop in the main OS X instance. Thoughts? -Jason jason.slack@gmail.com (Slack) writes: >I was thinking I could run the webstar and related in a seperate >instance of OS X and have that running while I develop in the main OS >X instance. Sorry, I'm not familiar with webstar, ...

Install OS X from OS 9.2 and OS X .dmg files
Hi, I have : * the 3 disk images .dmg "Mac OS X 10.3 Panther final install disk 1", 2 and 3 retrieved from the 'chocolate' network (Gnutella), * an iMac with Mac OS 9.2, * a CD-RW drive with HotBurn (Iomega). What would you suggest me to do now to boot my iMac with Panther? Which pieces of the puzzle do I miss? TIA Fr�d�ric tomcat <noone@nodomain.int> wrote: > What would you suggest me to do now to boot my iMac with Panther? Buy the CDs. > Which pieces of the puzzle do I miss? Integrity. -- Mike Rosenberg <http://www.macconsult.co...

Diablo 2 runs slow in OS 9 but fine under OS X
Okay, this is something that's going to seem silly to some people, but it's been pretty annoying to me. I've always had a problem with getting ANY version of D2 to run under any settings on a non-OS X Mac without its exhibiting a bizarre sort of stuttering in its FPS rate, this goes all the way from running the D2 demo on a 6500 through running the full version on an 8600, several G3s & three G4s (the D1 demo did not exhibit this behavior.) The only thing similiar about these machines is that none of them were/are booting anything earlier than 9.0.4. The stutte...

Oracle on OS X (not OS X server)
Hi. I've downloaded the Oracle developer edition for OS X, but the requirements state OS X server. Is this really the case - has anyone successfully got it running on just a standard OS X install? I'm sure this must have been asked before, but I can't seem to find the right Google strings. Tried in comp.sys.mac.databases, but the group seems to be dead apart from the odd 4D question. Cheers, Ian I've installed it on vanilla standard Mac OS X 10.2.6 on my iBook and it works fine. (Apologies if duplicate message) Ian McCall wrote: > Hi. > > I've downloaded the Oracle developer edition for OS X, but the requirements > state OS X server. Is this really the case - has anyone successfully got it > running on just a standard OS X install? > > I'm sure this must have been asked before, but I can't seem to find the > right Google strings. Tried in comp.sys.mac.databases, but the group seems > to be dead apart from the odd 4D question. > > Cheers, > Ian > > ...

OS X on OS X virtual machines
Do any know if any of the current range of virtualisation software for OS X support running OS X within a virtual machine? It would seem that parallels only supports Windows in a virtual machine. I want to run virtual OS X machine to do tests on various things, and be able to ditch that virtual machine, create a new one, and run more tests, without screwing up my new lappy. Olly In article <1160567082.431180.11610@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Oliver Marshall" <oliver.marshall@gmail.com> wrote: > Do any know if any of the current range of virtualisation softwa...

OS X slowness
A while ago, I complained here about OS X being slow on my 800 MHz iBook. When I grab a window frame to move it or resize it I have to pause a fraction of a second or it won't "snag" it and I'll have to do it again. I just noticed that on my daughters iBook, the exact same machine, it doesn't do that. Weird. I'm using a Kensington mouse and she's using a Microsoft mouse. I wonder if it's just the mouse driver that is the problem? Anyone else ever notice that their Kensington mouse driver is slow? I'll swap mice with her and see what happens. On Thu, 13 ...

OS X and OS 8-9 -> Appletalk access veeeery slow
Hi all, I've no clue whats happening here... I used to connect my G4 powerbook running 10.3 to an older 3400 powerbook running MacOS 8.1 via Airport. The 3400 has been hooked to the airport via Ethernet cable. That used to work quite well, but since then I updated to 10.3.4 on the G4 and to OS9 on the powerbook. Now everything got so slow that its close to standstill. When trying to connect, I see the spinning ball for about a minute, then it takes again minutes until the selected volumes on the 3400 appear on the OSX finder, and if I dare to select them I do not have the patience to w...

Thoth
I'm pretty unhappy with the performance of Thoth in Mac OS 8.6 which I've been using for binaries for a couple of years. After using MT Newswatcher, Thoth is pretty aggravating. In particular, transfering messages into the download queue takes way too long and prevents you from doing anything else in the program while the transfer is taking place. Likewise, the entire computer is nearly unusable while this transfer is taking place. And while downloading files, the computer slows down, unlike what we see with MT Newswatcher. The program just seems like it is not properly progra...

[ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.13 (v13) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8)
Dear All, I've just released the newest version of Mac Graphviz, featuring shapefile support and enhanced zoom. http://www.pixelglow.com/graphviz/ Shapefiles supported include PDF, EPS, PS, JPEG, PNG and all Quicktime formats. Either specify an absolute or relative (to working directory) file path, or a URL using the shapefile attribute. Developers can now also use the graphviz.framework directly with #include headers in C e.g. using Xcode "Add Frameworks..."; documentation is available from the main Graphviz site -- http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/libguide.pdf Changes ------- Added drawer and zoom menu commands [DWa, NRi]. Added intelligent window zooming [NRi]. Added shapefile support. Added UTF-8 support [RSc]. Added cvtgxl, gvpack and gvpr tools [BSw]. Fixed page setup then close unexpectedly invoking save dialog [PRo]. HTML-like labels now work on 10.2 (use embedded expat instead of libxml2). Improved internal frameworks (added headers, consolidated dylibs). Tracked main build of 23 June. Graphviz is still free, but I'm now accepting donations for it. Enjoy! Cheers, Glen Low --- pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff www.pixelglow.com ...

[ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8)
Hi all, It's been a busy week or two at Pixelglow Software. Here's a brand new version of Graphviz, all spit and polish now. You'll enjoy the integrated color and font panel support, hand cursor panning and remembered settings. And everyone's most asked for -- a single click on the Edit tool will now bring up the DOT code for you to edit, and of course when you save it the graph automatically re-renders. http://www.pixelglow.com/graphviz/download/ Here's the lowdown: Added edit, render and stop toolbar items [PCh]. Added integrated font and color fields and panels. Added hand cursor panning [AM]. Added autocomplete for most fields [NRi]. Added support for user defaults ("Remember Settings" menu command, command line arguments to GUI) [JSc, RPa]. Fixed click on popup menu unexpectedly selecting "..." [AM]. Fixed small zooms sometimes preventing full scrolling [DJu]. Fixed allowing fonts starting with "." to be selected [NRi]. Fixed transparent backgrounds rendering opaque in bitmap output. Fixed width or height > 32767 pixels unexpectedly cropping bitmap output [AM]. Improved toolbar interaction. Improved settings descriptions and tooltips. Cheers, Glen Low --- pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff www.pixelglow.com ...

[ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v12) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8)
Dear All: Them pesky bugs. A few more squashed courtesy of the sleepy pixel. http://www.pixelglow.com/graphviz/ What's new in v11 ------------ Fixed some comprehensive help [NRi]. Fixed scale option placeholder [NRi]. Improved application and document icons. Example files now double-click to open in application. What's new in v12 ------------ Added layout option tooltips [NRi]. Fixed layout popup button changing wrong graph [MKe]. Clicking on warning icon now opens Activity window [NRi, AM]. Revert menu item now disabled. Cheers, Glen Low --- pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff www.pixelglow.com ...

[ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v10) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8)
Hi all, Yet another Graphviz version. The old application icon had been voted off the island, and brand new application and document icons flown in for the task. Comprehensive help features in this version too. http://www.pixelglow.com/graphviz/ What's new: ------------ Added new application and document icons. Added comprehensive help. Fixed changes not affecting graph size displaying incorrectly [BTr]. Fixed export then close crashing the export of an open window. Improved shadowed frame for graph [NRi]. Improved status display [NRi]. Changed sources to pure BSD license. Cheers, Glen Low --- pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff www.pixelglow.com ...

OS 9 to OS X(10.3 and 10.4) slow on windows 2k shares
Hello, Go easy, I'm a newbie with mac but know a lot about unix/linux. Recently upgraded four mac workstations. One is a G5 and the others are G4's They all have GB nics and are plugged into GB switches. All of these systems are used by the art department. There loaded up with quark, filemaker, adobe etc... Network drive is a windows 2000 server. Shares are setup for both windows and mac. The shares are mapped using chooser(I think). The mapped drives have lots of jpeg, gif, postscript etc.. And lots of subdirectores. Sometimes drilling down into the directores the response ...

Are Mac OS X 10.5.8's iLife programs safe to use in Mac OS X 10.7.x and 10.8.x?
Hi. Someone told me that Mac OS X 10.7.x and 10.8.x do not come with iLife like the older Mac OS X versions (e.g., 10.5.x). I did not know this! Since my client uses iPhoto that came preinstalled on his old 2008 MacBook Pro's Mac OS X 10.5.x (10.5.8 right now), can he use the old one from 10.5.8? Or will he need a third party replacement (needs to import/copy the old image files) or buy a new iPhoto version for his photo(graph)s? I recalled he did not like iPhoto and wonder if the new one is any better. Thank you in advance. :) -- Quote of the Week: "Every ruler...

PDF to EPS workarounds for Mac OS X Attention TeXy, TeXy peoples: PDF to EPS workarounds for Mac OS X Attention TeXy, TeXy peoples: PDF to EPS workarounds for Mac OS X Attention TeXy, TeXy
Attention TeXy, TeXy peoples: (excuse the mispronunciation; punny licence) It seems that Mac OS X has partially documented issues (http://altair.ific.uv.es/~JaxoDraw/Bugparade/bugparade.htm, http://developer.apple.com/java/faq/issues.html#anchor6) with the generation of EPS, and I'm trying to find a workaround. The Preview application cannot export to eps, but it can read it (converting it to PDF). If I use Adobe Acrobat to read the PDF generated by Preview, the EPS it generates sometimes (inconsistently) causes dvips to make an unreadable file. What I'm trying to do is the followi...

ParseTree and OS X/other newbie OS X questions
Couple of questions from a newbie on OS X (intel PB Pro)... First, ParseTree doesn't want to install do to compilation issues... mbp:/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/ParseTree-1.6.0 Ken$ sudo rake install Password: (in /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/ParseTree-1.6.0) sh: line 1: RC_CFLAGS: command not found /usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols: _rb_cObject _rb_const_get_at _rb_define_singleton_method _rb_intern collect2: ld returned 1 exit status rake aborted! error executing cc $(RC_CFLAGS) -bundle -g -Os -pipe -fno-common -pipe -fno-common -pipe -fno-common -I /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/universal-darwin8.0 -o "/Users/Ken/.ruby_inline/Inline_ParseTree_dc10.bundle" "/Users/Ken/.ruby_inline/Inline_ParseTree_dc10.c" : 256 Renamed /Users/Ken/.ruby_inline/Inline_ParseTree_dc10.c to /Users/Ken/.ruby_inline/Inline_ParseTree_dc10.c.bad /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/ParseTree-1.6.0/rakefile:7 (See full trace by running task with --trace) ...perhaps I need to do further ruby setup? Also, I first installed ParseTree using 'sudo gem install ParseTree' but I didn't get any messages to the effect that that had even tried a compile--certainly not any error message. Is gem install supposed to compile C extensions when it install something? Finally, given that OS X is a bit of an odd bird, is there anything else I need to do to make sure installs work smoothly in the future? Thanks, Ken On Oct 15, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Kenneth McDonald wrote: > Couple of questio...

OS X 10.2.8 and OS 9.x
After a crash I did a clean install of OS X 10.2.0 on a new hard disk, and then updated it to OS X 10.2.8. Well, I just realized that OS 9.x did not get installed. QUESTION. How do I install OS 9.x? What disk should I use? My Jaguar installation set consists of 2 CDs. Did I miss something? [obviously I did, but what] BTW, it says something about my usage that it took 2 months for me to realize that OS 9.x was missing. Thanks! Best regards, Paul Paul Nevai <2me@PaulComputing.com> wrote: > After a crash I did a clean install of OS X 10.2.0 on a new hard disk, and > then updated it to OS X 10.2.8. Well, I just realized that OS 9.x did not get > installed. > > QUESTION. How do I install OS 9.x? What disk should I use? My Jaguar > installation set consists of 2 CDs. > > Did I miss something? [obviously I did, but what] > > BTW, it says something about my usage that it took 2 months for me to realize > that OS 9.x was missing. :) You didn't miss anything. Mac OS 9 is not part of the Mac OS X install. If you have software restore disks for your computer, it may be part of that; if not, it has to be obtained separately. It can be obtained cheaply if you have Panther: http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/ m. -- matt neuburg, phd = matt@tidbits.com, http://www.tidbits.com/matt/ AppleScript: The Definitive Guide http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0596005571/somethingsbymatt Read TidBITS! It's free and smart. http://www.t...

Mac OS X & Mac OS X Server
Hi, I'm currently using a 9i developer release on Mac OS X (10.3) which has proved very stable so far. My understanding of the various Oracle press releases is that 10G will be released for Mac OS X, are there any beta testers out there wiling to comment on availabilitu/quality/performance issues for 10G on Mac OS X? Another question is whether tools such as the OEM will be available in 10G for Mac OS X, does anybody know? Yours in anticipation! Steve Steve <steve@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2004013008345616807%steve@nospamcom>... > releases is that 10G wil...

Slow performance on OS X?
I haven't used Mathematica in a year or two, so I have not bothered to upgrade my 4.1.3 license. When I start it up now, however, it runs like molasses (on a 2.5 GHz, dual-processor G5 with 2 GB of RAM and OS X 10.3.9). I don't recall any similar problems the last time I used it (on a G4). I thought it might be issues with the old version, but MathReader 5.0.1 also runs *very* slowly. Are there any known issues that cause this behavior? (And any solutions?) I don't want to spring for a new license and find that it does not resolve the problem. Thanks, Ken B...

Mac OS 9.x included in Mac OS X?
Hi, I read that Mac OS X has a so-called classic mode which emulates Mac OS 9.x so that older applications can still be run. Provided one is not an upgrader from Mac OS 9.x, does Mac OS X include Mac OS 9.x required for the classic mode or does it have to be bought separately? Peter >Provided one is not an upgrader from Mac OS 9.x, does Mac OS X include >Mac OS 9.x required for the classic mode or does it have to be bought >separately? If you buy the installer for OS X it *does not* include OS 9. You generally use the copy of OS 9 that came with your computer in order to install C...

Does Oracle 9i for OS X require OS X Server ?
Does Oracle (either 9 or 10 i) run on Tiger, or is OS X Server required? Thanks. In article <1127795452.653050.147170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, gimme_this_gimme_that@yahoo.com wrote: > Does Oracle (either 9 or 10 i) run on Tiger, or is OS X Server > required? > > Thanks. VersionTracker has this: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/15931 -- DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... In article <1127795452.653050.147170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, gimme_this_gimme_that@yahoo.com wrote: > Does Oracle (either 9 or 10 ...

VNC and OS X
I have OSXVNC and "Chicken of the VNC" In the past, I have tried other VNC clients, but I don't remember the names except "VNCThing." The two Macs are on the same subnet, separated only by a switch (not router or hub, SWITCH). Long ago, it was a Windows 98SE with "QuickVNC" and a crossover cable (no switch) to the Mac. In all of those cases, remote ops were/are EXCRUCIATINGLY slow. (Click menu, wait ten-twenty seconds, drop-down appears, etc.) Now I hear VNC mentioned often enough here that I figure the problem must be configuration and not the tools the...

traceroute *very* slow on OS X
Mac OS X 10.4.10, PowerMac G4 (Yikes PCI). traceroutes are very slow from both a terminal session and the Network Utility. Ping works fine and also traceroutes rom WinXP and Win2K PC's on the same network and my router (Linksys WRT54G) work fine also. I've also tried installing traceroute from macports.org, same results. Any ideas? Thanks, Jim On 2007-07-07 09:33:41 -0500, Jim Holcomb <Jim@h0lc0mb.c0m> said: > Mac OS X 10.4.10, PowerMac G4 (Yikes PCI). traceroutes are very slow from > both a terminal session and the Network Utility. Ping works fine and also > tr...

Mac OS X is Slow
Can anyone explain why Mac OS X is sooo much less snappy than the good old OS 9 vintage. In the old system there was no delay between a keystroke and the action on the screen�even on my old 350 MHz slotloading iMac. Now, with Panther and then Tiger on my 1GHz PowerBook there is almost always a delay, sometimes a loooong delay with spinning beach balls etc., for screen action to take place. Even Classic mode is faster running than either Panther or Tiger. This doesn't make sense. I have tried with TechTool Pro, DiskWarrior, Cocktail, you name it, and nothing makes any difference. Rebooting...

Web resources about - OS X Slow refresh. - comp.publish.prepress

Memory refresh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As time passes, the charges in the memory cells leak away, so without being refreshed the stored data would eventually be lost. To prevent this, ...

Facebook Allowing Page Admins To ‘Refresh Share Attachment?’
Facebook appears to have given page administrators the option of refreshing links that they share in posts on their pages . continued... New ...

The article requested cannot be found! Please refresh your browser or go back. (CP,20120705,,-1,AR).
postandcourier.com delivers the latest breaking news and information on the latest top stories, weather, business, entertainment, politics, and ...

Refresh Analytics Provides Developers with Demographics
Toronto-based Refresh Partners has been providing demographic analytics tools for its clients to analyze their Facebook apps’ users for months. ...

Twitter.com gets a refresh
Every month, hundreds of millions of people come to Twitter to see what’s happening in the world. After all, it’s often the best place to turn ...

Refresh - Insight on People You Meet on the App Store on iTunes
Get Refresh - Insight on People You Meet on the App Store. See screenshots and ratings, and read customer reviews.

Maine's First Ship Pepsi Refresh Video.m4v - YouTube
Maine's First Ship Pepsi Refresh Video.

IN PICTURES: Fujitsu's 2012 notebook refresh - Slideshow - ARN
New addition consists of a new Ultrabook in the Lifebook U series

Refresh your tiles to refresh your bathroom
Refresh your tiles to refresh your bathroom

Aldi supermarket refresh: Will fancier stores make Aldi more expensive?
ALDI has finally decided to invest a bit of money and refresh its supermarkets. Someone at the famously frugal German retailer has decided looking ...

Resources last updated: 3/10/2016 12:32:57 AM