Re: [WinMac] Disk Copy for PC?
Peter Mannheim(pm-fosco[at]dircon.co.uk)
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:44:25 +0000
WinMac Digest #354 - Tuesday, June 29, 1999
Re: [WinMac] OS-X Server: Not ready for prime time yet
by "John C. Welch" <jwelch@aer.com>
Re: OS-X Server: Not ready for prime time yet
by "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
[WinMac] Re: OS-X Server: Not ready for prime time yet
by "Michael bartosh" <bartosh@tamu.edu>
Re: OS-X Server: Not ready for prime time yet
by "Marc Bizer" <mlbizer@mail.utexas.edu>
Re: [WinMac] Re: OS-X Server: Not ready for prime time yet
by "John C. Welch" <jwelch@aer.com>
Re: WinMac Digest #350 - 06/25/99
by "Lcrain" <lcrain@hcnews.com>
connect to nt
by "Tim McCabe" <tim.mccabe@gaston.se>
Re: [WinMac] connect to nt
by "Tom Roth" <tomroth@wfubmc.edu>
Re: WinMac Digest #350 - 06/25/99
by "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Re: connect to nt
by "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Re: [WinMac] G3 Copying Files to NT
by "Darron Spohn" <dspohn@clicknet.com>
Re: [WinMac] Re: connect to nt
by "Curtis Wilcox" <cwcx@mail.rochester.edu>
Re: WinMac Digest List viewing; stopping eMail virii
by "Peter Mannheim" <pm-fosco@dircon.co.uk>
Re: Mac won't boot from CD ROM
by "Peter Mannheim" <pm-fosco@dircon.co.uk>
Re: [WinMac] Disk Copy for PC?
by "Peter Mannheim" <pm-fosco@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [WinMac] OS-X Server: Not ready for prime time yet
From: "John C. Welch" <jwelch@aer.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:21:26 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In that case, neither is NT, as one person running Word on an NT
Terminal Server /Citrix Metaframe box can eat 99.9% of the CPU, and it's
only about a 3 page document. Oh, the server in question has ~580MB of
RAM, one 8GB mirror for a system disk, and a 26GB RAID 5 array for user
home directories. All that story proves is that it is easily possible to
crash OSX server. The same is true of NT, Solaris, and if you know what
you are doing, an AS/400. Big poofing deal. What I want to see is a test
between single processor boxes running, Linux, NT, OSX Server and
Solaris, BUT, instead of the usual 50-60 clients, which plays into NT's
sweet spot, I want to see results with loads from 100 to 500 clients on
one box. Somehow, I see IIS' vaunted performance curve doing a
precipitous drop, while the *nixen stay relatively flat.
John
"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
>
> Good afternoon!
>
> While researching NT vs linux "shootouts" by the likes of MindCraft, Ziff-Davis, and c't (German magazine), I stumbled across, as a footnote to the c't article, the following...
>
> From <http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/>:
>
> MacOS X (re)served
>
> With MacOS X, Apple is targeting the server market. The Unix-based operating system with integrated Apache is especially intended for performance web server use. We were curious and put our test setup against a server of this kind. However, the results can only convey a first impression since we optimized neither MacOS X nor the integrated Apache for this task. The entire system ran with its default settings.
> In addition, although the G3 Mac with its PowerPC 750e (400 MHz) we used does compare to a Pentium II Xeon (450 MHz), its memory of 128 MBytes RAM is rather on the small side. This alone is enough reason to run this server 'out of competition' here.
>
> Installing the server is the simplest task: Insert MacOS X Server 'Core OS', boot from CD, doubleclick on installer. This causes the computer to re-start, boot MacOS X Server and load an assistant to help you select the required components. Apache is selected by default. Ten or fifteen minutes later you enter IP address and name - ready.
>
> Despite the handicaps we mentioned earlier, MacOS X Server produced remarkable results which were only marginally below the Linux and NT results. Some manual adjustment should produce at least comparable results. The drop towards the end of the graph on page 187 is probably due to the smaller scale memory. The values for randomly selected pages suffered even more from this handicap and were, therefore, omitted.
>
> However, testing CGI scripts resulted in a fatal error which puts a question mark on the suitability of MacOS X as a web server in its present state. If 32 or more processes within a loop called a URL pointing at a script, it took about 30 seconds until the server grinded to a halt: 'system panic', and nothing can be done.
>
> We assume this is due to faulty task administration within the MacOS X kernel. Find a small script in [5] which allowed to reproduce the crash locally.
>
> And, reference [5], which is in the middle of the page:
>
> [5] CGI-MacPanic: <http://www.heise.de/ct/99/13/186/CGI-MacPanic>, see also CGI Causes MacOS X Server To Panic <http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/13/186/>
>
> It's worth noting that unlike MindCraft, the folks at c't can hardly be called Microsoft sycophants.
>
> Cheers!
> Dan
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> GRAMMATICAL NOTE: Due to confusion when spelling a URL or file name
> inside quotes " " or ' ,' extraneous punctuation is moved to the
> outside of the closing quotation.
>
> While you're spamming me, don't forget to include these guys:
> Chairman Reed Hundt: rhundt@fcc.gov Comm. James Quello: jquello@fcc.gov
> Comm. Susan Ness: sness@fcc.gov Comm. Rachelle Chong: rchong@fcc.gov
> US Postal Service: customer@email.usps.gov Fraud Watch: fraudinfo@psinet.com
> Federal Trade Commission: consumerline@ftc.gov
>
> Oh, and while you're at it, pound some sand too!
> admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost
> $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> * Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
Subject: Re: OS-X Server: Not ready for prime time yet
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 23:30:46 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sigh...
Why not actually take a look at the c't article? Here's the URL again:
<http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/>.
Also, I find it hard to believe that TSE would peg out at 99.9% CPU usage,
unless there's a configuration problem or IDE drives being used... Oops! It
also has Citrix MetaFrame loaded... Ugh. Try W2k with built-in Terminal
Server instead.
Cheers!
Dan
At 10:21 PM 6/28/99 -0400, John Welch wrote:
>In that case, neither is NT, as one person running Word on an NT
>Terminal Server /Citrix Metaframe box can eat 99.9% of the CPU, and it's
>only about a 3 page document. Oh, the server in question has ~580MB of
>RAM, one 8GB mirror for a system disk, and a 26GB RAID 5 array for user
>home directories. All that story proves is that it is easily possible to
>crash OSX server. The same is true of NT, Solaris, and if you know what
>you are doing, an AS/400. Big poofing deal. What I want to see is a test
>between single processor boxes running, Linux, NT, OSX Server and
>Solaris, BUT, instead of the usual 50-60 clients, which plays into NT's
>sweet spot, I want to see results with loads from 100 to 500 clients on
>one box. Somehow, I see IIS' vaunted performance curve doing a
>precipitous drop, while the *nixen stay relatively flat.
>
>John
>
>"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
>>
>> Good afternoon!
>>
>> While researching NT vs linux "shootouts" by the likes of MindCraft,
Ziff-Davis, and c't (German magazine), I stumbled across, as a footnote to
the c't article, the following...
>>
>> From <http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/>:
>>
>> MacOS X (re)served
>>
>> With MacOS X, Apple is targeting the server market. The Unix-based
operating system with integrated Apache is especially intended for
performance web server use. We were curious and put our test setup against
a server of this kind. However, the results can only convey a first
impression since we optimized neither MacOS X nor the integrated Apache for
this task. The entire system ran with its default settings.
>> In addition, although the G3 Mac with its PowerPC 750e (400 MHz) we used
does compare to a Pentium II Xeon (450 MHz), its memory of 128 MBytes RAM
is rather on the small side. This alone is enough reason to run this server
'out of competition' here.
[cut]
>>
>> And, reference [5], which is in the middle of the page:
>>
>> [5] CGI-MacPanic: <http://www.heise.de/ct/99/13/186/CGI-MacPanic>, see
also CGI Causes MacOS X Server To Panic
<http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/13/186/>
>>
>> It's worth noting that unlike MindCraft, the folks at c't can hardly be
called Microsoft sycophants.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Dan
Subject: [WinMac] Re: OS-X Server: Not ready for prime time yet
From: Michael bartosh <bartosh@tamu.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:57:59 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> Sigh...
>
> Why not actually take a look at the c't article? Here's the URL again:
><http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/>.
>
> Also, I find it hard to believe that TSE would peg out at
>99.9% CPU usage,
>unless there's a configuration problem or IDE drives being used... Oops! It
>also has Citrix MetaFrame loaded... Ugh. Try W2k with built-in Terminal
>Server instead.
I was not able to reproduce c'st's results.
The OS seemed to freeze for 30 sec, but recovered.
-mab
> Cheers!
> Dan
>
>At 10:21 PM 6/28/99 -0400, John Welch wrote:
> >In that case, neither is NT, as one person running Word on an NT
> >Terminal Server /Citrix Metaframe box can eat 99.9% of the CPU, and it's
> >only about a 3 page document. Oh, the server in question has ~580MB of
> >RAM, one 8GB mirror for a system disk, and a 26GB RAID 5 array for user
> >home directories. All that story proves is that it is easily possible to
> >crash OSX server. The same is true of NT, Solaris, and if you know what
> >you are doing, an AS/400. Big poofing deal. What I want to see is a test
> >between single processor boxes running, Linux, NT, OSX Server and
> >Solaris, BUT, instead of the usual 50-60 clients, which plays into NT's
> >sweet spot, I want to see results with loads from 100 to 500 clients on
> >one box. Somehow, I see IIS' vaunted performance curve doing a
> >precipitous drop, while the *nixen stay relatively flat.
> >
> >John
> >
> >"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
> >>
> >> Good afternoon!
> >>
> >> While researching NT vs linux "shootouts" by the likes of MindCraft,
>Ziff-Davis, and c't (German magazine), I stumbled across, as a footnote to
>the c't article, the following...
> >>
> >> From <http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/>:
> >>
> >> MacOS X (re)served
> >>
> >> With MacOS X, Apple is targeting the server market. The Unix-based
>operating system with integrated Apache is especially intended for
>performance web server use. We were curious and put our test setup against
>a server of this kind. However, the results can only convey a first
>impression since we optimized neither MacOS X nor the integrated Apache for
>this task. The entire system ran with its default settings.
> >> In addition, although the G3 Mac with its PowerPC 750e (400 MHz) we used
>does compare to a Pentium II Xeon (450 MHz), its memory of 128 MBytes RAM
>is rather on the small side. This alone is enough reason to run this server
>'out of competition' here.
>
> [cut]
>
> >>
> >> And, reference [5], which is in the middle of the page:
> >>
> >> [5] CGI-MacPanic: <http://www.heise.de/ct/99/13/186/CGI-MacPanic>, see
>also CGI Causes MacOS X Server To Panic
><http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/13/186/>
> >>
> >> It's worth noting that unlike MindCraft, the folks at c't can hardly be
>called Microsoft sycophants.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> Dan
>
>
>* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
Subject: Re: OS-X Server: Not ready for prime time yet
From: Marc Bizer <mlbizer@mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:15:07 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
On 6/28/99 at 4:07 PM -0400, Daniel L. Schwartz wrote:
>However, testing CGI scripts resulted in a fatal error which puts a
>question mark on the suitability of MacOS X as a web server in its
>present state. If 32 or more processes within a loop called a URL
>pointing at a script, it took about 30 seconds until the server
>grinded to a halt: 'system panic', and nothing can be done.
This bug received quite a bit of press a couple of weeks ago. Apple
is apparently working on a fix. I doubt that this makes Mac OS X
server "Not ready for prime time".
--Marc Bizer
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: OS-X Server: Not ready for prime time yet
From: "John C. Welch" <jwelch@aer.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:09:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Since I only need WTS for my Unix users, Citrix is a requirement. I'll
*think* about W2k terminal server ONLY after six months and the first
STABLE service pack. Sorry Microsoft, but you've burned me once too
often for trust to be anything but a joke.
BTW...NO IDE drives, very stock config, (per my requirements), All
hardware is Compaq and MS approved, as a matter of fact, each half of
the boot mirror has it's own SCSI controller, and the RAID 5 is on it's
own controller. But the fact is, NT's task scheduler allows tasks to
reset their own priorities, leading to things like Word eating all the
CPU. (Compaq 1600R, 450 PII)
john
I have seen the article, and I stand by my comments.
"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
>
> Sigh...
>
> Why not actually take a look at the c't article? Here's the URL again:
> <http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/>.
>
> Also, I find it hard to believe that TSE would peg out at 99.9% CPU usage,
> unless there's a configuration problem or IDE drives being used... Oops! It
> also has Citrix MetaFrame loaded... Ugh. Try W2k with built-in Terminal
> Server instead.
>
> Cheers!
> Dan
>
> At 10:21 PM 6/28/99 -0400, John Welch wrote:
> >In that case, neither is NT, as one person running Word on an NT
> >Terminal Server /Citrix Metaframe box can eat 99.9% of the CPU, and it's
> >only about a 3 page document. Oh, the server in question has ~580MB of
> >RAM, one 8GB mirror for a system disk, and a 26GB RAID 5 array for user
> >home directories. All that story proves is that it is easily possible to
> >crash OSX server. The same is true of NT, Solaris, and if you know what
> >you are doing, an AS/400. Big poofing deal. What I want to see is a test
> >between single processor boxes running, Linux, NT, OSX Server and
> >Solaris, BUT, instead of the usual 50-60 clients, which plays into NT's
> >sweet spot, I want to see results with loads from 100 to 500 clients on
> >one box. Somehow, I see IIS' vaunted performance curve doing a
> >precipitous drop, while the *nixen stay relatively flat.
> >
> >John
> >
> >"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
> >>
> >> Good afternoon!
> >>
> >> While researching NT vs linux "shootouts" by the likes of MindCraft,
> Ziff-Davis, and c't (German magazine), I stumbled across, as a footnote to
> the c't article, the following...
> >>
> >> From <http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/>:
> >>
> >> MacOS X (re)served
> >>
> >> With MacOS X, Apple is targeting the server market. The Unix-based
> operating system with integrated Apache is especially intended for
> performance web server use. We were curious and put our test setup against
> a server of this kind. However, the results can only convey a first
> impression since we optimized neither MacOS X nor the integrated Apache for
> this task. The entire system ran with its default settings.
> >> In addition, although the G3 Mac with its PowerPC 750e (400 MHz) we used
> does compare to a Pentium II Xeon (450 MHz), its memory of 128 MBytes RAM
> is rather on the small side. This alone is enough reason to run this server
> 'out of competition' here.
>
> [cut]
>
> >>
> >> And, reference [5], which is in the middle of the page:
> >>
> >> [5] CGI-MacPanic: <http://www.heise.de/ct/99/13/186/CGI-MacPanic>, see
> also CGI Causes MacOS X Server To Panic
> <http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/13/186/>
> >>
> >> It's worth noting that unlike MindCraft, the folks at c't can hardly be
> called Microsoft sycophants.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> Dan
>
> * Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
Subject: Re: WinMac Digest #350 - 06/25/99
From: "Lcrain" <lcrain@hcnews.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:23:33 +0000
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Question regarding Mac 8.6 and NT
Ethernet networking with variety of Mac stations runnning OS 7.6 to 8.6
talking to a WinNT 4.0 server.
All has been working well since recently upgrading the G3/266 to OS 8.6
Among other problems...the problem regarding the NT server is that the G3
can connect to the NT but cannot copy files from it. all the other machines
can copy just fine. it starts copy sequence but the scroll bar never moves
and the machines locks up, with mouse movement but nothing happens.
Any suggestions why the G3 running 8.6 cannot copy?
Subject: connect to nt
From: Tim McCabe <tim.mccabe@gaston.se>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:16:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi
I am trying to connect my Mac to a Nt server on a differant subnet. The
two subnets are sett up with routers between them. I just don=B4t seem to
get any connection from the Mac. (with a pc i works alright, thanks to
wins).
Does anyone know if it is possible ?
Tim McCabe
tim@gaston.se
Subject: Re: [WinMac] connect to nt
From: Tom Roth <tomroth@wfubmc.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:25:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Tim McCabe wrote:
> I am trying to connect my Mac to a Nt server on a differant subnet. The
> two subnets are sett up with routers between them. I just don´t seem to
> get any connection from the Mac. (with a pc i works alright, thanks to
> wins).
>
> Does anyone know if it is possible ?
Is your router routing AppleTalk? Do you see more then one zone in the
Chooser? All this assuming the first step of installing Services for
Macintosh on the NT server.
______________________________________________________________________
Tom Roth Wake Forest University School of Medicine
tomroth@wfubmc.edu Dept of Biomedical Communications
http://www.wfubmc.edu/biomed/ Medical Center Blvd
Tel 336.716.4493 Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1011
______________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: WinMac Digest #350 - 06/25/99
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:23:44 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hmmm, Have you reinstalled the 8.6 patcher? Also, which Service Pack level
are you running the NT4 Server at? SP3? SP3 with Post-SP3 HotFixes? SP4?
SP5? SP4 fixed a lot of "jumping Icon" bugs for the Mac clients; but that
same fix could be screwing things up in MacOS 8.6...
Also, try disabling a bunch of non-network extensions to see if the
problem goes away...
Just some random musings...
Cheers!
Dan
At 12:23 PM 6/29/99 +0000, you wrote:
>Question regarding Mac 8.6 and NT
>Ethernet networking with variety of Mac stations runnning OS 7.6 to 8.6
>talking to a WinNT 4.0 server.
>All has been working well since recently upgrading the G3/266 to OS 8.6
>Among other problems...the problem regarding the NT server is that the G3
>can connect to the NT but cannot copy files from it. all the other machines
>can copy just fine. it starts copy sequence but the scroll bar never moves
>and the machines locks up, with mouse movement but nothing happens.
>Any suggestions why the G3 running 8.6 cannot copy?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS TO THIS MESSAGE, SO IF ONE
APPEARS WITH IT, DO NOT OPEN OR DOWNLOAD IT!
GRAMMATICAL NOTE: Due to confusion when spelling a URL or file name
inside quotes " " or ' ,' extraneous punctuation is moved to the
outside of the closing quotation.=20
<mailto:expresso@snip.net>=20
Webmaster for <http://www.Faulknerstudios.com>,
<http://www.BrakeAndGo.com>
This message is =A9Copyright 1999 by Daniel L. Schwartz, and
may not be reproduced except in its entirety.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: connect to nt
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:23:01 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Actually, subnets don't come into play if you are connecting to an NT
Server with Services for Macintosh enabled. Chances are, the routers are
set to block AppleTalk and pass only IP (and possibly IPX) packets.
Hope this helps!
Dan
At 09:16 PM 6/29/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi
>
>I am trying to connect my Mac to a Nt server on a differant subnet. The
>two subnets are sett up with routers between them. I just don´t seem to
>get any connection from the Mac. (with a pc i works alright, thanks to
>wins).
>
>Does anyone know if it is possible ?
>
>Tim McCabe
>tim@gaston.se
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS TO THIS MESSAGE, SO IF ONE
APPEARS WITH IT, DO NOT OPEN OR DOWNLOAD IT!
GRAMMATICAL NOTE: Due to confusion when spelling a URL or file name
inside quotes " " or ' ,' extraneous punctuation is moved to the
outside of the closing quotation.
<mailto:expresso@snip.net>
Webmaster for <http://www.Faulknerstudios.com>,
<http://www.BrakeAndGo.com>
This message is ©Copyright 1999 by Daniel L. Schwartz, and
may not be reproduced except in its entirety.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [WinMac] G3 Copying Files to NT
From: "Darron Spohn" <dspohn@clicknet.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:04:46 -0700
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Do you have Norton Antivirus installed? I had the same problem until I
disabled NAV Autoprotect.
--
Darron Spohn
ClickNet Software Corp.
San Jose, CA 95131
408.576.5952
dspohn@clicknet.com
"For every action there is an equal and moronic overreaction."
Peter Egan
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: connect to nt
From: Curtis Wilcox <cwcx@mail.rochester.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:15:26 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 03:23 PM 6/29/99 -0400, Daniel L. Schwartz wrote:
>
> Actually, subnets don't come into play if you are connecting to an NT
>Server with Services for Macintosh enabled. Chances are, the routers are
>set to block AppleTalk and pass only IP (and possibly IPX) packets.
>
> Hope this helps!
> Dan
>
>At 09:16 PM 6/29/99 +0200, you wrote:
>>Hi
>>
>>I am trying to connect my Mac to a Nt server on a differant subnet. The
>>two subnets are sett up with routers between them. I just don=B4t seem to
>>get any connection from the Mac. (with a pc i works alright, thanks to
>>wins).
>>
>>Does anyone know if it is possible ?
What happens if you put the server's IP address in from Chooser (I don't
know where to do it in Network Browser, I've only worked with it a little)?
--=20
Curtis Wilcox cwcx@ats.rochester.edu
Desktop Systems Consultant 716/274-1160
Eastman School of Music Pager: x12-3290
Subject: Re: WinMac Digest List viewing; stopping eMail virii
From: Peter Mannheim <pm-fosco@dircon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:37:55 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
"Daniel L. Schwartz" <<expresso@snip.net> said
<<snip
> Also, I recommend receiving all of your list mail in individual form,
as
>opposed to digest form; then using the Filter feature of Eudora Pro
to
>route the traffic into individual mailboxes. This way, it's a LOT
easier to
>follow given threads.
No No No ! - I don't think I could <bold>possibly endure</bold>
continually setting up and deleting individual mailboxes for chosen
threads, even with Eudora Pro's Filters.
I would recommend ChunkJoiner however - use Save As... to plonk
successive mailings into the same folder, then drag and drop up to a
dozen at a time so they get automatically shovelled into 1 continuous
file. I used to do this when I was not just receiving over 100 posts a
day but also trying to <bold>read</bold> them in real-time (nowadays I
just receive them and visit my less-crucial mailboxes fortnightly, say,
when I do the separating.
BBEdit 5.0 is pretty good too - you can point it at a Eudora mailbox
full of posts and Digests and it happily finds successive instances of
the search string, i.e. thread, of interest - and so I can catch up on
the latest info PDQ.
.............
>
> Receiving eMail in individual form also makes it easier to track
down
>rogue files that slip through the cracks. Marc set LetterRip up to
strip
>attachments; and it DID bounce various attachments I threw at it as a
test
>(after another listserv sent me HAPPY99.EXE as an attachment).
S'pose so... - I wouldn't open any attachments from a mailing list that
weren't Digests in the first place.
Peter Mannheim
pm-fosco@dircon.co.uk
<<just another data sheriff>
Subject: Re: Mac won't boot from CD ROM
From: Peter Mannheim <pm-fosco@dircon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:38:06 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Subject: Mac won't boot from CD ROM
>From: "jstahl" <jstahl@stifirestop.com>
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:46:59 -0400
>Mime-version: 1.0
>
>I've posted this question before and I didn't receive any responses... So
>I'll try it again. We have a Mac 9600-200 on our network that will not
>consistently force boot from the CD. The unit was serviced and the CD ROM
>was replaced. The problem is still there. It will play some CD's just
>fine. Others simply do not work. Unfortunately this includes system disks.
> An example is Mac Addict CD's. You can run the CD when you have booted
>from the hard drive, but it will not boot from the CD when system updates
>are included on the disk. The Apple system software disk will not boot the
>computer at all. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.
If the Cd-ROM drive is an Apple brand CD-ROM, start it up holding down the
"c" key.
In certain rare cases where the System folder on the hard disk is too
screwed up to "release" the capability to switch the Startup Disk you *may*
have to unplug the SCSI connector from the boot disk and then hot-plug the
HD back in, then restart, having previously open the Startup disk control
Panel , clicked on the CD-ROM icon, then closed it again. The reason you
have to do this even though there is, at the time, only ONE disk to choose
from, is because the Satartup disk setting is stored in the parameter RAM
(PRAM) so it is no use "zapping" it because that just sets it back to the
default , viz. booting from the HD again. Once booted from the CD and
having rebooted so your hard disk appears, you can wipe the disk, put on a
clean system, etc...
Peter Mannheim
pm-fosco@dircon.co.uk
<just another data sheriff>
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Disk Copy for PC?
From: Peter Mannheim <pm-fosco@dircon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:44:25 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Romeyn Prescott wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Is there a PC utility that does the equivalent of Apple's Disk Copy
>> for PCs? I'm looking specifically to make an exact copy of a Hard
>> Drive that is stored in a single file. Being able to mount it as a
>> virtual disk would be a nice feature, but not required.
>>
>> I suppose WinZip could be used, but will it catch files that Windows
You could try Retrospect (Server) for Windows - I use the Mac version for
this quite often and can "clone" any type of disk and store them as files
too. Alternatively, if you have only got a Macintosh Retrospect Server but
you have a Windows Retrospect Client, you could do it that way too, over
the network. I know there are many other solutions around, but I like the
Retrospect interface - Retrospect can even copy "key disk" floppies in case
your original gets damaged..... ( and this exercise, incidentally, showed
me that the normally "uncopiable" data does not reside in the disk's name -
if you Back Up a floppy to a Retrospect file, then Restore using the
"replace entire disk" option, the target floppy doesn't get its name
changed, but it DOES hold whatever normally invisible "signature" data is
written to disk that utilities such as Disk copy fail to duplicate...
HTH - or is interesting at least...
Peter Mannheim
pm-fosco@dircon.co.uk
<just another data sheriff>
* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2
on Tue Jun 29 1999 - 17:05:48 PDT
|