[WinMac] RE: WinMac Digest #263 - 03/24/99
s.takasugi(f952068[at]e.tmw.mhi.co.jp)
Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:37:37 +0700
Pls inform me operation commands.
(ex. getting index,backnumbers,etc)
Regards,
----------
差出人 : The Windows-MacOS cooperation list <winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
宛先 : The Windows-MacOS cooperation list <winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
件名 : WinMac Digest #263 - 03/24/99
送信日時 : 1999年3月25日 8:00
WinMac Digest #263 - Wednesday, March 24, 1999
Re: [WinMac] Email Choices and Re: Hardware & software
by "Dan Frakes" <Dan@InformINIT.com>
Re: DTP and HTML files [WAS:Re: Desktop Publishing Tools]
by "Alex Dearden" <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
USB-serial
by "John D. Muccigrosso" <jmuccigr@drew.edu>
Re: [WinMac] Re: DTP and HTML files [WAS:Re: Desktop Publishing Tools]
by "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Re: NetProfessonal Magazine
by "Alex Dearden" <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
Re: Email Choices
by "Alex Dearden" <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
RE: [WinMac] How can I "reset" ports & TCP/IP on DOS card
by "Richard Laycock" <rlaycock@home.com>
Re: Email Choices
by "Alex Dearden" <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
Needs/abilities analysis, ASIP, Exchange
by "Thomas A. Kase" <tkase@us-style.com>
Re: Email Choices
by "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Re: Mac servers
by "Alex Dearden" <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
Re: NT workstations & Apple LW IIg
by "Alex Dearden" <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
Re: Macs and crossover cables
by "Alex Dearden" <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
Re: [WinMac] Re: NT workstations & Apple LW IIg
by "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Re: [WinMac] Re: Hardware & software
by "John C. Welch" <jwelch@aer.com>
Re: [WinMac] Win95 TCP/IP on PM6100/DOS
by "thorstadj" <thorstadj@macconnect.com>
Re: [WinMac] Re: Email Choices (Linux)
by "Jason Sellers" <jasonds@extremezone.com>
Re: [WinMac] mouse delays
by "thorstadj" <thorstadj@macconnect.com>
Re: [WinMac] Re: Email Choices
by "Bruce Johnson" <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
[WinMac] Re: Email Choices
by "Tim Scoff" <casper@nb.net>
Peace on Earth to Men of Good Will.
by "John W. McCarthy" <jwmcmac@flash.net>
NetBios problem?
by "M
ﾂns Langert" <mlangert@hotmail.com>
NetBios problem?
by "Mﾂns Langert" <mlangert@hotmail.com>
Re: [WinMac] Re: DTP and HTML files [WAS:Re: Desktop Publishing Tools]
by "Leonard Rosenthol" <leonardr@lazerware.com>
Re: [WinMac] Peace on Earth to Men of Good Will.
by "Darron Spohn" <dspohn@clicknet.com>
Re: [WinMac] NetBios problem?
by "Curtis Wilcox" <cwcx@uhura.cc.rochester.edu>
Re: USB-serial
by "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Email Choices and Re: Hardware & software
From: Dan Frakes <Dan@InformINIT.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:05:27 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Many people are throwing around suggestions/criticisms of various
platforms and their appropriateness as "server" platforms. Unfortunately,
most of the posts on these issues have been blanket statements that fail
to consider the purposes for those servers. When you are considering a
server, you need to ask:
1) What will the server be used for? Email? Mailing lists? File server?
Web server?
2) What is the expected load on the server?
3) Who will be maintaining/administering it?
etc., etc.
If you are setting up a mail server for a small office (100 people or so)
EIMS running on an older PowerMac is going to be JUST as effective as a
top of the line UNIX or NT machine. If you are going to be setting up a
high traffic web server, there are VALID arguments to be made for UNIX,
Mac OS or NT, depending upon the services you intend to integrate with
the basic web server capabilities, the support staff available, etc. File
servers? Depends upon the clients accessing the file servers, the type
and degree of security desired, etc. etc. All of these factors are
mitigated by the $$$ you have to spend.
So for people to get into shouting matches about which
platform/OS/hardware is better is a bit silly unless we're talking about
a very specific application of that platform/OS/hardware.
On a different point, several people have expressed reservations about
the stability of the Mac OS as a server platform. I have found that for
the _most_ part (but not always -- don't anyone get defensive) such
assertions come from a) no experience; and b) bad experience. I've also
found that many of the people who support Mac and NT servers will go to
weeks of MSCE training classes to learn how to properly configure NT
machines, but have never been to a single training class, or ever done
any research, on how to best configure a Mac for a server environment.
To give an example, at my old job we had a PowerMac 6100 running Mac OS
8.5.1 that we used as a mailing list server. It was running Fog City
Software's LetterRip Pro, supporting approximately 80 mailing lists. The
various lists had anywhere from 20 to 6,000 members, with traffic from 2
or three messages per day to 150 messages per day. It was also running a
low-to-moderate traffic ftp server. It was fast, efficient, and crashed
once in 18 months. Why? Because it was properly configured. It had the
proper extensions and control panels, enough RAM, and was given a
thorough hard drive and hardware inspection before it started serving. We
had 10-15 Mac servers from an SE/30 running MacDNS to a G3/300, two UNIX
servers, and two NT servers. Most of the Mac servers had similar
performance histories to the 6100. The UNIX machines were rock-solid, as
expected. The NT machines required the vast majority of administration
time, and crashed the most (including the Exchange server, which proved
to be the most support-intensive machine we had ever had).
None of this is to sing the praises of any platform, or to put down
NT/Exchange. Exchange is a good high-traffic email server -- it just
requires a lot of attention. The point is that these blanket statements
that are being thrown around aren't contributing to solving people's
problems as much as careful analyses would.
Subject: Re: DTP and HTML files [WAS:Re: Desktop Publishing Tools]
From: Alex Dearden <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:23:20 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Well, Alex: I've hand-coded both PostScript (in 1983, before not only
>PageMaker but also the Mac was introduced), along with HTML. [BTW, I
>actually had PCL4 working on a Mac.] I suggest you start with the basics,
>before jumping to conclusions... Remember, you need to crawl before you
>walk; and walk before you run.
>
> You can have a fancy car (like a Jaguar); but if it's broken down by
the
>side of the highway then the Buick will get you there.
I don't understand your point... You might have handcoded the Mac OS...
but from a DESIGN point of view Postscript (DTP) and HTML have very
little in common. O.k., more than people might think but not as much as
they think.
Anyway, I have no interest in continuing this discussion, it's very banal
and doesn't help anyone.
Alex Dearden
pata@doglover.com
Subject: USB-serial
From: "John D. Muccigrosso" <jmuccigr@drew.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:24:52 -0500
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Dan wrote, quoting Curtis:
>>I'm sorry but it's not apparent to me what the problem is with a non-iMac
>>G3 as a 24/7 server. The only thing I can think of that you can't easily
>>add is redundant power supplies. And since it's possible through 3rd
>>parties to get a G3 motherboard in a rack mount case even that omission
can
>>be remedied.
>
> The problem is with both the iMac and the blue & white G3's: There's
no
> graceful shutdown available from the UPS, because there's no serial
input.
> There's a pair of small UPS' from APC that have a USB interface; but only
> windoze 98 software.
I'm not sure about compatibility with UPS's, but check out
<http://www1.macintouch.com/imacusb.html>
for USB-serial (as well as other) converters for iMacs and new G3s. Today's
Macintouch also reports:
<http://www.macintouch.com/>
"MacInTouch sources report that a new serial adapter for blue G3 Power Mac
models is due for release within a few weeks. Like Griffin Technology's
upcoming gPort adapter, the new device fits into the modem slot of a blue
G3 Power Mac and offers both MIDI and LocalTalk compatibility, plus support
of other serial devices. Pricing reportedly will be about $50."
(BTW, I agree with the expressed sentiments (by Carl and Dan?) about
appropriate quotation. My complaint was with excessive and (apparently)
mindless quotation of large and irrelevant chunks of previous messages,
including long signatures. It takes a moment or two, but selective editing
is a big help.)
John D. Muccigrosso Classics Department
jmuccigr@drew.edu Drew University
Voice (973) 408-3029 Madison, NJ 07940
FAX (973) 408-3150 http://www.depts.drew.edu/~classics/
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man."
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: DTP and HTML files [WAS:Re: Desktop Publishing
Tools]
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:28:08 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Alex,
HTML = Hyper Text Markup Language
PostScript
ｮ = Page description language
PCL = Page Control Language
-> All three describe where elements are placed on a page; and
POstScriptｮ
& HTML are text - based, which means they can be altered with BBEdit or
Notepad.
When you look at actual HTML and PostScriptョ files, you'll see the
*uncanny* similarities... Take a look and you'll see what I mean! :)
Cheers!
Dan
At 09:23 AM 3/23/99 -0500, Alex replied to me:
>> Well, Alex: I've hand-coded both PostScript (in 1983, before not only
>>PageMaker but also the Mac was introduced), along with HTML. [BTW, I
>>actually had PCL4 working on a Mac.] I suggest you start with the basics,
>>before jumping to conclusions... Remember, you need to crawl before you
>>walk; and walk before you run.
>>
>> You can have a fancy car (like a Jaguar); but if it's broken down by
the
>>side of the highway then the Buick will get you there.
>
>I don't understand your point... You might have handcoded the Mac OS...
>but from a DESIGN point of view Postscript (DTP) and HTML have very
>little in common. O.k., more than people might think but not as much as
>they think.
>
>Anyway, I have no interest in continuing this discussion, it's very banal
>and doesn't help anyone.
>
>Alex Dearden
>pata@doglover.com
Subject: Re: NetProfessonal Magazine
From: Alex Dearden <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:33:14 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>Some of you most knowledgeable network heads on the winmac list may be
>interested in this magazine (hey, it might just be on the web too) . .
>. then after you guys read up, the rest of us can ask more questions . .
I susbscribe to it and like it. A lot of the articles are a bit on the
short side and they seem to have a love for WebTen software (shows up a
lot).
All in all I think it's quite useful and don't think there's anything
quite like it out there in the printed world. Macworld used to be similar
in technical ability but since they fused with MacUser has become a
little more pedestrian (I still read it though).
Alex Dearden
pata@doglover.com
Subject: Re: Email Choices
From: Alex Dearden <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:34:52 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Exchange Server is not for the faint of heart. It has a ton
>of features and requires a ton of support also. If you install it
>you will be spending a lot of time administering it.
To second Tim's warning, take a look at some of the Exchange books for
the MCSE test. They're like Don Quijote de La Mancha, only nowhere near
as entertaining ;) but 1200 pages or so...
Alex Dearden
pata@doglover.com
Subject: RE: [WinMac] How can I "reset" ports & TCP/IP on DOS card
From: Richard Laycock <rlaycock@home.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:35:14 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Quoting Rosemary Hagen...
>
> I have not "mapped" either of the com ports available to the PC.
>They are both empty. I am not using AppleTalk at all - in fact the Mac
>has nothing to do with the connection directly. As far as I can tell,
>the Mac doesn't even "know" there's a connection.
>
> All we did was plug in a cross-over cable and configure my Pentium
>100 card with his PC - AMD 90. Windows 95 is doing the connection and
>it's not via TCP/IP - in fact I think it's using IPX/SPX and NetBEUI.
>We're running "Client for Microsoft Networks".
>
>
Rosemary & Dennis,
There is no way with an Apple PC Card that the Mac has nothing to do with
it. It may work but if you're not doing it by the book you may have
trouble. Carl Ketterling touched on it a few emails back in reply to Dennis
K...
The network protocols including the Microsoft Client should be installed
with the help of the NDIS driver on the Apple PC Compatibility Card floppy
or CD. Then as Carl remembered you have to run SETNET off the Apple CD both
after install and after ANY subsequent changes to the Win95 protocols.
Personally I only run TCP/IP off the PC side and do all my LAN access
w/Dave off the Mac but I've seen many network problems on the MacDos Card
list and most come down to not following the Manual to the letter. If
you've setup the MS Client using SETNET then perhaps your port problem is
unavoidable.
Good Luck,
Richard L.
Subject: Re: Email Choices
From: Alex Dearden <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:39:39 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>If you had some UNIX experience or some money to
>spend I might suggest going that route.
don't forget Linux. It'll run on virtually any modern Pentium machine and
all PowerPCs. I don't know of any particular email servers for it but I'm
sure they're out there. It's amazing how fast Linux is gaining popularity
(they even have a magazine: Linux Magazine www.linux-mag.com) and there
are tons of software out there for free.
Samba for example is an SMB suite for LInux so that it can communicate
natively with PCs running Windows.
Recently, work was completed on Gnome, a GUI for Linux that has received
rave reviews.
I have yet to install it and try it (as soon as I find some time) but
what I've been reading is very promising and comforting.
Find out more at www.linux.org
Alex Dearden
pata@doglover.com
Subject: Needs/abilities analysis, ASIP, Exchange
From: "Thomas A. Kase" <tkase@us-style.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:44:45 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
{To save space I haven't quoted Tim's and Grant's posts.}
I liked Tim Scoff's comments about getting the right server for the right
job.
I.e. getting your needs *and* abilities down before you buy a system. The
word 'budget' might be important for some as well.
Tim lost me though when he went from describing a way-serious server in
one breath, and in the next saying that a server should also be able to
function
as a workstation. Are we talking servers or workstations?
I think that one of the reasons we see the outright dismissals of one
solution
over another on this list (no names) is the fact that one size does *not*
fit
all and many of us are in a state of denial regarding this.
Some of us appear able to afford servers in the $100K+ range and have no
qualms about massive staff overhead needs, $$$ service contracts etc.
Others have far smaller budgets and other run-time requirements. What's
right for a bank is obviously not the right solution for us.
So what do we use? We use a *combination* of (in alphabetical order) Mac,
Unix (FreeBSD) and WinNT for our business needs. We are fortunate
enough to have competent staff in-house to be able to handle more than one
flavor and realistic enough not to force one soultion on all problems.
Our high-end mail server (for our clients only) runs Qmail on FreeBSD.
A *much* more stable solution (and lots faster) than what can be done on
NT - with a similar budget, possible even at all. With all the security
holes
inherent in both UNIX and NT based systems, we only allow LAN access
to retrieve email. Look into Qmail - a great product at a great price.
UNIX
only though.
With the inherent security advantages of Mac ASIP email servers (impossible
to hack), we are now considering one of those for our internal email - with
dialup ability.
Unlike Grant, I am pretty convinced that I've seen, if not Digiboards, so
at
least multiple modem PCI cards for Macs as well - can't remember where
off-hand, will look into it. Come to think of it, maybe a bunch of USB
modems would work? BTW, when can I get USB for NT? Dan?
Grant, I have heard nothing but *glowing* praise and rave reviews from
*actual* users of the latest version of ASIP - 6.1. Since you are going
for an
MCSE you might want to secure your future livelihood, and to make sure
your employer needs more IT staff every year, I can assure you that going
with Exchange as an end-all be-all system will not let you down. Go get
another pager right away. ;-)
Seriously, using Exchange in Intranet-only mode is fine, once you start to
use it for everything but the kitchen sink (including external email) you
*will* have trouble. Not to mention that MS ties all its components
together to the point that you are very vulnerable to any holes in the
system - since all is tied together so tightly. See this URL:
http://www.currents.net/magazine/national/1706/cov41706.html
Great story!
BTW, several combos of IIS and several versions of IE do NOT work happily
together. Just another example of why a mixed environment is better.
We use NT mostly for accounting, generic programming workstations and for
group file servers - for the time being. We're hiring more UNIX staff and
designers so NT is getting squeezed from both sides. We'll see.
Our creative workstations are largely Macs, for one thing Windows cannot
handle multiple languages under one OS - unless you have a wonderful
memory for ALT+4-digit key combos, and languages is our forte - especially
double-byte ones like Japanese. (We run a mix of Japanese and English OSs
and applications.)
We are also looking at adding Macs as internal file servers thanks to
NT's weak
Services For Mac "feature".
Frankly, most of our problems revolve around double-byte issues in printing
and cross-language situations. On top of that we have cross-platform as
well
but those are typically easier to resolve. If anyone else on the list
has a setup
or situation similar to ours - feel free to contact me any time.
Well, I've rambled on long enough, thanks for your time!
Thomas Kase
COO
US-Style.com Inc.
50 Washington Street, mailbox #13
South Norwalk, CT 06854
phone 203.866.4454
Subject: Re: Email Choices
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:49:43 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Alex is right... But please see my posts from earlier today about when
Exchange Server *actually is* worthwhile... And with the 3-way combination
of 200 users .AND. full time MIS staff .AND. your schooling for your
MCSE...
.THEN. Exchange is for you. :)
At 09:34 AM 3/23/99 -0500, Alex wrote:
>> Exchange Server is not for the faint of heart. It has a ton
>>of features and requires a ton of support also. If you install it
>>you will be spending a lot of time administering it.
>
>To second Tim's warning, take a look at some of the Exchange books for
>the MCSE test. They're like Don Quijote de La Mancha, only nowhere near
>as entertaining ;) but 1200 pages or so...
>
>Alex Dearden
>pata@doglover.com
Subject: Re: Mac servers
From: Alex Dearden <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:54:12 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> My point isn't that the Mac isn't a great computer with an even
>better OS. My point is that the Mac OS is not designed as a server and
>neither is Apple's hardware. They are designed as desktop workstations
and
>are great workstations. They aren't designed as servers, so there are
some
>weaknesses.
I (the biggest mac fan on this list) have to agree with you. Macs are not
great servers, especially because of the mouse thing you mentioned. This
will never be taken care of until Mac OS X when we have REAL multitasking
and protected memory. I'd love to get my hands on Mac OS X server to see
how it performs, but the hardware remains an issue, the lack of PCI slots
is a pain in the buttocks as well as the internal scalability. As
desktops I don't have too many complaints (less complaints compared to
the other choices: 95 and NT) but as servers they're not quite up there
yet. Oh, and by the way, neither is NT when compared to Unix or even
Novell.
Alex Dearden
pata@doglover.com
Subject: Re: NT workstations & Apple LW IIg
From: Alex Dearden <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:02:34 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>2) I've given the student login "print" access only to the printer. Works
>fine. I change this to "manage documents" access, and student logins can
>no longer print. Why is this?
The manage documents right do NOT include print rights. They were
designed for people who only manage print jobs but shouldn't be printing.
Kind of silly if you ask me, but I'm sure someone on this list will find
a justification for it, and I won't mention Dan by name ;)
>1) When I set up the printer on an NT, it automatically sets the "Capture
>printer" option on the port, which is a pain, because then nothing else
can
>see the printer. What's the use of this option, and why is it on by
>default?
This is to capture the Appletalk broadcast and stop it from showing up on
the Mac's chooser so that everything will print through the NT server,
using it as a print server rather then printing directly to the Appletalk
printer. In my experience it causes a lot of problems and I would
strongly advise against it.
>Naively, I thought that "manage documents" includes the "print" access
>permissions, but perhaps that's not the case. If so, how do I go about
>allowing students to print as well as manage documents (pause/cancel
>printing) without giving them "Full control"? ("Full control" is no good,
>as it would allow them to change the printer settings.)
Just make a group (or 2, I don't have NT here in front of me and you
might need to make 2) called printers/managers that icludes both the
print rights and the manage documents right, then add the students to
this (these) groups.
Alex Dearden
pata@doglover.com
Subject: Re: Macs and crossover cables
From: Alex Dearden <pata@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:07:53 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>I am not as familiar with the direct connection between pcs and macs as
>this, however I remember previously on this list somebody tried connecting
>two macs via crossover and couldn't get it to work. I believe the
solution
>was that both macs had to have their file sharing stacks started very
close
>to the same time since no hub was in use. Those that know more about this
>type of setup, think that it is possible somehow this is happening with
the
>mac? Just throwing out an idea.
I've connected 2 macs via a crossover cable hundreds of times and never
experienced the problem you describe with file sharing???
different Macs, different OSs, no problems.
Alex Dearden
pata@doglover.com
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: NT workstations & Apple LW IIg
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:11:44 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 10:02 AM 3/23/99 -0500, Alex
wrote:
>>2) I've given the student login "print" access only to the printer.
Works
>>fine. I change this to "manage documents" access, and student logins can
>>no longer print. Why is this?
>
>The manage documents right do NOT include print rights. They were
>designed for people who only manage print jobs but shouldn't be printing.
>Kind of silly if you ask me, but I'm sure someone on this list will find
>a justification for it, and I won't mention Dan by name ;)
Yuck Fou! :)
>
>>1) When I set up the printer on an NT, it automatically sets the "Capture
>>printer" option on the port, which is a pain, because then nothing else
can
>>see the printer. What's the use of this option, and why is it on by
>>default?
>
>This is to capture the Appletalk broadcast and stop it from showing up on
>the Mac's chooser so that everything will print through the NT server,
>using it as a print server rather then printing directly to the Appletalk
>printer. In my experience it causes a lot of problems and I would
>strongly advise against it.
Hooray... We agree!
>>Naively, I thought that "manage documents" includes the "print" access
>>permissions, but perhaps that's not the case. If so, how do I go about
>>allowing students to print as well as manage documents (pause/cancel
>>printing) without giving them "Full control"? ("Full control" is no
good,
>>as it would allow them to change the printer settings.)
>
>Just make a group (or 2, I don't have NT here in front of me and you
>might need to make 2) called printers/managers that icludes both the
>print rights and the manage documents right, then add the students to
>this (these) groups.
>
>Alex Dearden
>pata@doglover.com
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: Hardware & software
From: "John C. Welch" <jwelch@aer.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:19:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I'll reply as best I can...
"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I'll reply to this intelligent response from John inline...
> Two years ago, I would agree with you. But today, Dell, and
especially
> Gateway, has drastically improved their phone and onsite service; while
> Apple has gone the other way. And Whoa be the business that owns a
Performa...
>
I'm not saying Apple is perfect, but they are far better than most.
Having had too many friends doing Gateway tech support keeps me from
buying one in this millennium, and far into the next. Dells have been
iffy for me, they are either perfect, or junk, and it happens by lot,
not by number
> > I have a Compaq ProLiant 1600R that we still haven't been able to
> >install the hotswap power supplies because Compaq hasn't sent us one
> >that functions yet, (waiting on try #3).
>
> I use the ProLiant only as an example because it is the most
common.
> Personally, I prefer the DEC Prioris or the IBM PC Server 325 for
midrange
> servers... And I stress the word "midrange" as you'll see below...
>
> > I have a G3/300 server that has only had one fault, and that is
one
> >drive in a mirrored set went bad once. Since it was in a hotswap drive
> >tower, I swapped, rebuilt the mirror, no harm done. It's average uptime
> >has been 3 to 4 months.
>
> A failed hard drive in a G3 (beige?) server?! Hmmm... This goes
back to
> what FWB recommended years ago about installing a 7200 RPM drive in
nothing
> smaller than a Quadra 950 case, due to cooling issues. And the 8600 case
> still lacks the airflow around the hard drives that plagued the Quadra
800
> - through - 9500 series cases. This was BAD design in 1992; and it
remained
> all the way through the 8600...
>
Actually, it was a bad snap resistor on the drive firmware...you never
forget that smell...
> APS addressed this issue with their sideflow coolers. Please see:
> <>
>
> >I worked on an AS/400 that to date, hasn't crashed once since 1992.
> >
> > Reliability is not a function of doo-dads in the construction of
the
> >case, but of the care the vendor takes in building their stuff.
>
> I agree 100% on both counts:
>
> A) The AS/400 is a VERY robust platform, with about 30,000 in
circulation
> (as of last year). And with the premium IBM charged for this solid
> platform, they can afford to support it well... If my customers had the
> $$$, then I would recommend AS/400's by the truckload;
>
> B) Care in construction? Can you say PowerBook 5300? AppleVision
1705?!
>
So out of how many models, they had two stinkers...not bad. Also,
Apple
responded *very* well to the 5300 situation, less so to the 1705.
> > That is also why you see Mac Pluses circa 1986 still running like
mad.
> >Slow, but well-built and reliable. Although nothing can eliminate
> >Murphy's law, you can make it happen few and far between.
>
> Bullshit!
>
> If the Mac Plus were so reliable, then the Kensington coolers
wouldn't be
> needed... And a teenage prodigy wouldn't be a millionaire!
>
Not bullshit, I know the guy doing it. I didn't mean the Mac Plus was
a
tank, but rather Apple is better than most at avoiding designed
obsolescence, although there are glaring exceptions, ie. the IIvx. But,
considering the hardware is almost too old the day it hits the shelf, by
going to firewire, and USB, Apple is helping make sure it is somewhat
less painful.
> Now you stepped in it... The Mac Plus still lacked a fan. Perhaps
you're
> thinking of "Green Jade," the SE/30?!
>
> [See, I used to be a Mac evangelist for many years!]
>
> > Anyone who talks about NT being exceptionally stable is not
facing
> >reality.
>
> Reality is in the eye of the beholder: NT4 is a LOT more stable
than MacOS
> 8.5.1... But I grant that it still has a way to go. When I need
stability,
> scaleability and security, I recommend OpenVMS or sVMS (military grade
> secureVMS). But the AS/400 is also a good choice.
>
NT4 is only more stable in carefully controlled circumstances, and one
HELL of a lot harder to repair once it breaks! Unfortunately, NT is a
workstation playing server, and idiotic decisions, like moving the video
drivers into the kernel in NT4 don't make it any better.
> >Compared to Unix and AS/400s, NT is a joke and a half. I have
> >OS/2 running a voicemail server that hasn't crashed in over 3 years of
> >24x7 usage, and this is without hotswappable or redundant anything.
>
> The fact that your call system hasn't failed is due not only to
OS/2 but
> also due to the robustness of the hardware it's running on...
The OS/2 box in question is running on the cheapest piece of sh.. you
have ever seen. (It was purchased a year and a half before I was hired,
but, since it never crashes, and isn't broke...back it up, and party on)
>
> >I have yet to see a 24x7 NT box approaching that level of reliability. I
> >also have seen well - configured Macs be as reliable as any other OS.
>
> Here, we disagree. The MacOS, **as it configures itself during a
default
> install** puts too many gewgaws in the Control Panels and Extensions
> Folders. What does Speech have to do with the efficient operation of a
> server?! Does the AS/400 have speech recognition, or even speech
playback?!
True, but I haven't done a default install since 1992
>
> >COnversely, I have seen poorly configured AS/400s crashes monthly.
> >Stability and reliability are tenuous things, and cannot be reduced to
> >on item, like the OS. It takes care, and perseverance and planning to
> >achieve real reliability, and this is the SYSAdmin's job much more than
> >the hardware/software's.
>
> Here, I respectfully disagree: You have to have a robust hardware
platform
> to execute the OS .AND. you need a robust OS to not crash 2 or 3 times
per
> day. Yes, you can "Steve" an AS/400 to crash often; and you can equip a
Mac
> Plus with a Kensington cooler - And both will run.
>
> BUT: A System Administrator (or consultant to a business too
small to have
> a System Admin on staff) needs to balance cost, performance, and
> reliability; and present these options... After all, the business owner
> needs to make an informed decision...
Unfortunately, it is very hard to show a business type why that cheap
sticker price is going to be a LOT more expensive than it looks. It is
also a shame that problems are made to fit toolsets instead of the other
way around. You need a shovel to dig holes, and a hammer to drive nails.
They don't cross-train well.
>
> > One thing to be wary of with Exchange is that if you use the
native Mac
> >client, instead of the Web Access client, the ONLY mail that your Mac
> >clients will get is Exchange mail only, no IMAP or POP.
>
> Not true: Eudora works fine as long as you turn ON "". But you
lose
> anything but clear text authentication (at least with Eudora 3.x Mac &
win
> clients).
>
I was speaking of the Exchange Mac client, and even with that, you
still don't have full capabilities
> >Also, for a lot
> >of it's functionality, Exchange requires IIS.
>
> NO! Only if you want browser-based eMail retrieval...
Or you want Unix users to connect, or you want your Mac users to have
forms and full calendaring...
>
> >It also requires an NT domain structure.
>
> Yes and no... Earlier versions do, but Exchange 5.5 doesn't.
>
I just installed 5.5, and it flat out refused to install until I found
it a domain.
> ... But I (implicitly) agree that the NT domain structure STINKS
here, here, especially compared to my happy Unix domains...
>
> >Now Microsoft, if prodded admits that the Domain
> >controller should be standalone, as should the Exchange server, and the
> >IIS server.
>
> It all depends on the size of the domain: For under 200 users,
Exchange
> can easily coexist with a Domain Controller... Your mileage may vary,
> depending on RAM, CPU, and disk speed...
NT supporting 200 people on a single server is an accident that is
going to happen, and soon
>
> >So now it's 3 boxes. If you want reliability, you have to
> >set up failovers, so now it's 6 boxes. Oh, we need a backup domain
> >controller, so now it's 8 boxes, if you want high
> >access/speed/availability.
>
> No, you're exponentially propagating your error...
No, this is the advice I get from MCSEs when I talk about Unix - level
reliability
>
> >Not so economical, is it? On the other hand,
> >2 Netware 5 servers could handle this, or a single AS/400 running Domino
> >server.
>
> One AS/400? How do you go from 8 machines to 1 (physical)
machine??
IBM Rochester went from 75 NT - based Domino servers to 12 AS/400s
>
> >NT is only cheap in the shrink-wrap in the box. Once you use it,
> >it gets very expensive, very quickly. Also, compared to someone like
> >IBM, Microsoft's tech support is so sad as to be humorous.
>
> I don't fully disagree; but then again most of the hardware
vendors have
> already traded off (NT) license purchase price for supporting NT
itself...
> Remember, DIGITAL has (had?) more MCSE's than M$ itself!
Yeah, but CALs and Tech support is expensive, and in the end, NT has
only three reliable repair modes: reboot, reload, (the OS), and
reformat/restore
>
> > Yes, a 'pro' level case with redundancy built in is very
desirable, BUT
> >with a little planning, you can get the same redundancy for almost every
> >component in a Mac as you can in a high - end Intel box, the notable
> >exception being the power supply, and I *dearly* wish either Apple or
> >someone else would take care of that.
>
> I respectfully disagree, this time using the data you just
provided. I
> also disagree based on a "graceful shutdown" of a given server... And
here
> is where Apple fell down on two disparate -- but equally important --
points:
>
> 1) There is NO USB-based shutdown software;
True, although this is hardly Apple's fault. USB was being installed
on
motherboards for almost 2(?) years before the iMac. Where the heck was APC?
>
> 2) HFS Extended (let alone HFS) is *not* a transactional based
file
> system... If a cache buffer is full .AND. the power goes off without a
> graceful shutdown, the HFS & HFS+ file systems WILL fail... And this sets
> the MacOS into a downward spiral, where the more corrupt the file system,
> the more prone it will be to crashing...
I guess...although I have yet to see it since HFS+ came out...and
DiskWarrior fixes the 'spiraling' issues. Also, HFS has never been
marketed as that. I guess my big problem with NT is the marketing of it.
It is a *very* good small, (<100 users/server) NOS. But it get's
marketed as a Mainframe replacement, which is almost a blatant lie. At
least Apple has the sense to admit that OS X Server is the first thing
that is anything remotely close to a full-blown server OS. When Bill
stops peeing on my head and telling me it's rain, I'll give NT a break.
>
> [Please compare this to BeOS' file system, or even NTFS (Native
> Transactional File System). Need I say more?]
I can't speak about Be, but NTFS doesn't' support simple things like
disk quotas, and I have yet to see it come close to the JFS that IBM
provides for AIX
John
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Win95 TCP/IP on PM6100/DOS
From: thorstadj <thorstadj@macconnect.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:32:32 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>>I just installed Windows 95 on a PowerMac 6100/66/DOS system. I gave the
>>Network Control Panel under Win95 a valid TCP/IP address, and filled in
the
>>Gateway, WINs & DNS settings that we always use on our Win95 PCs.
However,
>>it won't connect to the network. Can anyone help?
I think your first problem was trying Win95 on this setup. If that was
the stock DOS Compatibility Card from Reply/Apple, it never worked well
with Win95.
There was a patch from Reply called the Network Pac. This made networking
possible, whereas before it was similar to repeatedly banging your head
on concrete. They charged almost as much for this upgrade as for the card.
Jeff T
thorstadj@macconnect.com
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: Email Choices (Linux)
From: Jason Sellers <jasonds@extremezone.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:57:47 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I've had Linux installed for a couple months now and have been playing with
it in free time. As I understand it you should be able to get a good
enterprise mail solution set up with the free programs (sendmail,
fetchmail, procmail, etc). Although (given no prior experience with
Unix/Linux) it probably has about the stiffest learning curve. In my
couple months I've barely managed to get a GUI up and running correctly,
although it wasn't my priority (yep, all command line before that!).
BTW... I haven't tried it yet, but KDE is supposed to be more robust and
user-friendly (especially for newbies) than GNOME. Other GUI's are
available, but KDE and GNOME are the leaders. (Tip: many Linux programs
have websites with the .org extension <http://www.KDE.org>)
For mail system info, or to subscribe to the Mail Help mailing list, check
out:
<http://www.moongroup.com/mailhelp.html>
Also check out:
<http://www.linuxworld.com/>
<http://linuxtoday.com/>
<http://www.redhat.com/>
<http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/linux/>
Jason
>>If you had some UNIX experience or some money to
>>spend I might suggest going that route.
>
>don't forget Linux. It'll run on virtually any modern Pentium machine and
>all PowerPCs. I don't know of any particular email servers for it but I'm
>sure they're out there. It's amazing how fast Linux is gaining popularity
>(they even have a magazine: Linux Magazine www.linux-mag.com) and there
>are tons of software out there for free.
>
>Samba for example is an SMB suite for LInux so that it can communicate
>natively with PCs running Windows.
>
>Recently, work was completed on Gnome, a GUI for Linux that has received
>rave reviews.
>
>I have yet to install it and try it (as soon as I find some time) but
>what I've been reading is very promising and comforting.
>
>Find out more at www.linux.org
>
>Alex Dearden
>pata@doglover.com
>
>
>* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
Subject: Re: [WinMac] mouse delays
From: thorstadj <thorstadj@macconnect.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:52:50 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Try accessing a Mac Server
>> when someone is sitting at the server with the mouse button held down.
It
>> can not be done because the OS sits there and waits for the mouse button
to
>> be released before processing any other command. On NT this results in
>> dialog boxes and messages (I administer a network) popping up when
you're
>> using the mouse and popping to the front of the screen, disrupting your
>> work. For a workstation that is terrible, but for a server where
everyone
>> needs equal access at the same time it gives ever process access to the
CPU.
>>
>
> good point and well stated, although the mouse-down issue has yet to
>hurt my ASIP 6.1.1 server. That is less of an OS and more of an
>application issue anymore.
Maybe I'm missing something, but are you gurus actually sitting at your
server, whatever hard/software, and holding the mouse button down? I
mean, all my computers cannot survive a fall from 100 feet onto a cement
floor, but it hasn't come up so I don't include that in my list of
requirements for purchase/use.
Jeff T
thorstadj@macconnect.com
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: Email Choices
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:56:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Alex Dearden wrote:
>
> >If you had some UNIX experience or some money to
> >spend I might suggest going that route.
>
> don't forget Linux. It'll run on virtually any modern Pentium machine and
> all PowerPCs. I don't know of any particular email servers for it but I'm
> sure they're out there.
Uhhh.... does sendmail count? ;-) If you need list management, try listserv
or
majordomo.
>It's amazing how fast Linux is gaining popularity
> (they even have a magazine: Linux Magazine www.linux-mag.com) and there
> are tons of software out there for free.
>
> Samba for example is an SMB suite for LInux so that it can communicate
> natively with PCs running Windows.
A Un*x box running Samba was, in fact, one of the first clients tested with
NT...
Linux <more or less> is unix, with all the attendant strengths and
weaknesses.
An improperly configured Linux box is a network managers nightmare (there
are
a LOT of security holes that are open on the typical install) but properly
done they're wonderful machines.
IF you are willing to risk alcoholism, a well-made linux box with a
sizeable
disk or disk array and sendmail is a wonderful choice as an
enterprise-level
e-mail server, and costs you nothing more than the cost of the machinery
and a
lot of liver cells. Get an alpha, and run it even faster ;-) (for those of
you
not getting the sysadmin in-joke sendmail is notoriously and justifiably
known
as a gigantic PITA to get working right)
Use Qmail, and you can keep your liver ;-)
Our network servers are a mix of NT, Digital Unix and Linux boxen...the NT
boxes are doing file and application service, for our e-mail, web service
and
other connectivity we're sticking with Unix...but we were using Unix long
before we were using NT. There are _still_ days when I think we should wipe
the NT boxes except for the two apps we need NT to serve, and redo our main
servers as Linux + Samba...the unix boxes certainly give us fewer problems.
Also, most of the 'internet appliances' I've seen advertised (another good
solution for e-mail, BTW) are such properly configured Linux boxes...
And no, we're not touching Exchange with a fifty foot bargepole...
Subject: [WinMac] Re: Email Choices
From: Tim Scoff <casper@nb.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:23:56 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
At 9:34 AM -0500 3/23/99, Alex Dearden wrote:
>> Exchange Server is not for the faint of heart. It has a ton
>>of features and requires a ton of support also. If you install it
>>you will be spending a lot of time administering it.
>
> To second Tim's warning, take a look at some of the Exchange books for
> the MCSE test. They're like Don Quijote de La Mancha, only nowhere near
> as entertaining ;) but 1200 pages or so...
I'm an MCSE. At work my boss and I support a few NT servers.
The decision to not go with an Exchange Server was made by the two
of us when she asked me if I wanted to support it. We are united
that we do not want to have a departmental e-mail server and that
everyone can use the one provided by the university. :-)
Tim Scoff, MCSE
casper@nb.net
<http://www.nb.net/~casper/>
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0. The world's only fully buzzword compliant
Operating System.
Subject: Peace on Earth to Men of Good Will.
From: "John W. McCarthy" <jwmcmac@flash.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:46:40 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Listers:
This is somewhat off topic but may be apropos (appropriate) to the
discussions.
The expression in the Subject field of this post was written for a good
reason.
Without "Good Will" there can be no Peace. If we want Peace, we must
have "Good Will". It is the Truth.
The requirement of "Good Will" is that we proactively look for something
good in what the other person is saying or doing . . . or we try to.
Without "Good Will", we tend to see things the way we feel rather than
the way they are or could be. "Good Will" colors everything to the good
as "Bad Will" colors everything to the dark side.
Ever had your wife or girlfriend go off on you . . . for no apparent
reason?
Well, she obviously had very little "Good Will" for you or your opinions
at that moment. She was angry and anything you said (or didn't say)
could and would be used against you. Seems like a woman thing, but . . .
This is not just a problem of women against men. We all have this
problem when we don't have good will toward the other person, place or
thing.
It is clear that Dan was hurt very deeply by Apple, because he probably
believed in or hoped for Apple very deeply at some time in the past.
Can't say for sure but it appears to be a classic Love/Hate thing.
Looks like it got pretty bitter.
I also was very distressed by the kill-the-clones thing. I wanted those
guys to succeed. But they really were draining Apple's pocket. We
still have cloners, sort of, . . . though they make processor Upgrades now.
?why? Dan feels the way he does about Apple/Jobs. I certainly don't
agree with him on some of it, but . . . I can see where he is coming
from once he has explained it . . . and I still may not agree, but I may
then be able to empathize a bit. And we listers just about always learn
some interesting facts about computing in the exchange between Dan and
others on the list.
Jobs is not the savior nor the goat that Dan or others might make him
out to be. It is more in your perspective of Jobs and in your "Good
Will" or lack thereof. Jobs is the man that had to make very hard and
difficult decisions that perhaps no other would have been willing or
able to make.
Jobs has done better than anyone thought he possibly could. I think the
guy before Jobs (forgot his name, darn it) did an excellent job getting
the company through the absolutely most fragile time in Apple's history.
Perhaps this is what Dan is unable to see about Steve Jobs, because Dan
has lost his "Good Will" toward Jobs. Without "Good Will", Dan can't
put himself in Steve's shoes, can't empathize, and can't resist to
denigrate the man . . . similarly to the analogy mentioned above about
an angry wife.
. . . see what I mean about humor and "Good Will"?
Everything I said above, if taken wrongly, could be a source of extreme
aggravation, especially to Dan . . . ,or, if you look for it, you could
probably find some humor in there somewhere . . . in the analogy.
GodBless
Patrick Kelly McCarthy
PS
This is a great list. There are many smart people on it . . . who are
very helpful and very gracious.
IMO, the arguments have been restrained and with some humor . . . which
sometimes masquerades as a diatribe instead of humor.
Who wants a completely bland list? Strong feelings can add some spice
to the mix. Can you have strong feelings and "Good Will"? It is even
more necessary to have "Good Will" under that circumstance.
Subject: NetBios problem?
From: "Mns Langert" <mlangert@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:09:36 PST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Hi,
I have problems launching VirtualPC/Win95 (VPC ver 2.1.1) if I have
DAVE 2.0 installed. VPC launches, starts Win95 but after a while it
freezes and I can't force VPC to quit, I have to restart the Mac the
hard way. If I restart without DAVE it's no problem. Could it be a
NetBios conflict?
I'm runnning on a PB1400c/166 with MacOS 8.5.1.
Any suggestions any one?
TIA
Mans Langert
mlangert@hotmail
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Subject: NetBios problem?
From: "Mns Langert" <mlangert@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:15:06 PST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Hi,
I have problems launching VirtualPC/Win95 (VPC ver 2.1.1) if I have
DAVE 2.0 installed. VPC launches, starts Win95 but after a while it
freezes and I can't force VPC to quit, I have to restart the Mac the
hard way. If I restart without DAVE it's no problem. Could it be a
NetBios conflict?
I'm runnning on a PB1400c/166 with MacOS 8.5.1.
Any suggestions any one?
TIA
Mans Langert
mlangert@hotmail
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: DTP and HTML files [WAS:Re: Desktop Publishing
Tools]
From: Leonard Rosenthol <leonardr@lazerware.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:18:55 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 9:28 PM -0500 3/23/99, Daniel L. Schwartz wrote:
> HTML = Hyper Text Markup Language
>
> PostScript
ｮ = Page description language
>
> PCL = Page Control Language
PDF - Portable Document Format (and a page description language).
> -> All three describe where elements are placed on a page; and
POstScriptｮ
> & HTML are text - based, which means they can be altered with BBEdit or
> Notepad.
Same with PDF, though both Postscript and PDF (unlike the
other two) can contain binary data.
> When you look at actual HTML and PostScriptｮ files, you'll see the
> *uncanny* similarities... Take a look and you'll see what I mean! :)
>
Postscript is MUCH more complex than HTML - but it's a
programming language and should be.
LDR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
You've got a SmartFriend?in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Leonard Rosenthol Internet: leonardr@lazerware.com
America Online: MACgician
Web Site: <http://www.lazerware.com/>
FTP Site: <ftp://ftp.lazerware.com/>
PGP Fingerprint: C76E 0497 C459 182D 0C6B AB6B CA10 B4DF 8067 5E65
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Peace on Earth to Men of Good Will.
From: "Darron Spohn" <dspohn@clicknet.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:18:20 -0800
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----------
>
> Jobs has done better than anyone thought he possibly could. I think the
> guy before Jobs (forgot his name, darn it) did an excellent job getting
> the company through the absolutely most fragile time in Apple's history.
That would be Gil Amelio. Looking at it from the outside it may appear
Amelio did a good job. However, I worked at Apple through the Spindler and
Amelio years, and can truthfully say Apple would be out of business by now
if Jobs had not pulled off his palace coup and kicked Amelio's
self-righteous ass out the door.
The worst part of it is that Amelio did a hell of a lot better job as CEO
than did Spindler. Don't even get me started on that Pepsi guy.
Given Apple's incompetence at the top spot for so many years it is a
miracle
the company survived long enough for Jobs to come back and rescue his baby.
--
Darron Spohn
Publications Manager
ClickNet Software Corporation
http://www.clicknet.com
408.576.5952
Subject: Re: [WinMac] NetBios problem?
From: Curtis Wilcox <cwcx@uhura.cc.rochester.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:25:22 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 02:09 AM 3/24/99 -0800, M
蚣s Langert wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have problems launching VirtualPC/Win95 (VPC ver 2.1.1) if I have
>DAVE 2.0 installed. VPC launches, starts Win95 but after a while it
>freezes and I can't force VPC to quit, I have to restart the Mac the
>hard way. If I restart without DAVE it's no problem. Could it be a
>NetBios conflict?
>I'm runnning on a PB1400c/166 with MacOS 8.5.1.
>Any suggestions any one?
It probably is related to Windows networking. Try booting Win95 in safe
mode. On a normal machine I'd hold down F8 as it boots, but I'm not sure if
that works in VPC. If it works and you can do without it, remove everything
in the Network control panel.
Are you using the same computername for DAVE as VPC? Win95 should handle
computername conflicts pretty gracefully ("Your computername is already in
use, pick a new one.") but your config could be weird enough to mess it up.
In that case the solution is to boot in safe mode and give VPC a different
computername.
Also try running VPC with DAVE off, use Save State in VPC, turn DAVE on,
then restore the VPC state. It should get messy ;-)
If you're running VPC on that machine you must really need it! I tried it
on a 180Mhz 603e Performa w/ 48MB RAM. It ran but I wouldn't use it for
more than a few Win-only utilities.
--
Curtis Wilcox cwcx@ats.rochester.edu
Desktop Systems Consultant 716/274-1160
Eastman School of Music Pager: x12-3290
Subject: Re: USB-serial
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:25:29 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear John,
Yes, there are USB <--> serial converters. Unfortunately, they still
fall
into the same pitfall that the APC BackUPS Pro twins fall into... No driver
software.
To put together a nonstop server, i.e a server with both a constant
connection to the Internet as well as having the "A" and "MX" records
pointed to it, it *has* to stay up 100% of the time. Period. Or else you
start getting retries when other SMTP hosts try to connect to send it
mail... IF they are configured to retry! :)
That means failover capability with redundant hardware, crash-proof
software, uninterruptible power supplies (generator or battery), yada yada
yada...
Also, another BIG part of the equation is the file system...
What happens when the machine crashes due to external influences, i.e.
a
power failure that causes an ungraceful shutdown? HFS+ just isn't there
yet. My pet feature of NT is its Native Transactional File System (NTFS).
As long as you don't use SuperCache in Write-Back mode, all data is safe,
even if you hit the reset button on the front panel!
Cheers!
Dan
At 09:24 PM 3/23/99 -0500, John D. Muccigrosso wrote:
>Dan wrote, quoting Curtis:
>
>>>I'm sorry but it's not apparent to me what the problem is with a
non-iMac
>>>G3 as a 24/7 server. The only thing I can think of that you can't easily
>>>add is redundant power supplies. And since it's possible through 3rd
>>>parties to get a G3 motherboard in a rack mount case even that omission
>can
>>>be remedied.
>>
>> The problem is with both the iMac and the blue & white G3's: There's
no
>> graceful shutdown available from the UPS, because there's no serial
>input.
>> There's a pair of small UPS' from APC that have a USB interface; but
only
>> windoze 98 software.
>
>I'm not sure about compatibility with UPS's, but check out
>
><http://www1.macintouch.com/imacusb.html>
>
>for USB-serial (as well as other) converters for iMacs and new G3s.
Today's
>Macintouch also reports:
>
><http://www.macintouch.com/>
>
>"MacInTouch sources report that a new serial adapter for blue G3 Power Mac
>models is due for release within a few weeks. Like Griffin Technology's
>upcoming gPort adapter, the new device fits into the modem slot of a blue
>G3 Power Mac and offers both MIDI and LocalTalk compatibility, plus
support
>of other serial devices. Pricing reportedly will be about $50."
>
>(BTW, I agree with the expressed sentiments (by Carl and Dan?) about
>appropriate quotation. My complaint was with excessive and (apparently)
>mindless quotation of large and irrelevant chunks of previous messages,
>including long signatures. It takes a moment or two, but selective editing
>is a big help.)
>
>John D. Muccigrosso Classics Department
>jmuccigr@drew.edu Drew University
++++++++++++++++++++
----------
* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2
on Thu Mar 25 1999 - 07:05:33 PST
|