Hi all,
I recently updated to 10.2.8 (2 years late, but I tend to be cautious
:-/ ) on my dual 1GHz G4 tower with a 23" Apple display.
Now I cant get the machine to waken from sleep mode. The CPU fires up
but the screen remains blank and I have to restart the Mac.
Any fixes/patches out there?

Trusting my caution, I failed to make a backup of the OS before I
upgraded from 10.2.3. If no fixes are available, how can I downgrade
again? I have the original 10.2.1 CDs. Start again and upgrade to
10.2.3? Is it still available?

Thanks

Ray

Ray Laughton wrote:
> Hi all,
> I recently updated to 10.2.8 (2 years late, but I tend to be cautious
> :-/ ) on my dual 1GHz G4 tower with a 23" Apple display.
> Now I cant get the machine to waken from sleep mode. The CPU fires up
> but the screen remains blank and I have to restart the Mac.
> Any fixes/patches out there?

It's called Tiger :)

At least upgrade to Panther. I had the same problem on my rig - went
away with Panther.

There's caution, and then there's caution...

=:~)

--
chuenginsberg at mac dot com

Ray Laughton wrote:
> Hi all,
> I recently updated to 10.2.8 (2 years late, but I tend to be cautious
> :-/ ) on my dual 1GHz G4 tower with a 23" Apple display.
> Now I cant get the machine to waken from sleep mode. The CPU fires up
> but the screen remains blank and I have to restart the Mac.
> Any fixes/patches out there?


It's called Tiger :)

At least upgrade to Panther. I had the same problem on my rig - went
away with Panther.

There's caution, and then there's caution...

Chu

--
chuenginsberg at mac dot com

Chu-en Ginsberg <nospamhere[at]nospamhere.comINVALID> wrote:

> Ray Laughton wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I recently updated to 10.2.8 (2 years late, but I tend to be cautious
> > :-/ ) on my dual 1GHz G4 tower with a 23" Apple display.
> > Now I cant get the machine to waken from sleep mode. The CPU fires up
> > but the screen remains blank and I have to restart the Mac.
> > Any fixes/patches out there?
>
>
> It's called Tiger :)
NO WAY! Thats due on my machine in 2007 at the earliest!
Is the Classic OS still available with Tiger?

> At least upgrade to Panther. I had the same problem on my rig - went
> away with Panther.
Why? 10.2.3 didnt have this problem.
I was bold to upgrade so soon! :-/

> There's caution, and then there's caution...
Right, and I wasn't cautious enough, it seems.... <sniff>

Ray

In article <1h3q3i8.1v03g6712ngqf4N%rlaughton[at]invalid.com>,
rlaughton[at]invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Chu-en Ginsberg <nospamhere[at]nospamhere.comINVALID> wrote:
> > It's called Tiger :)
> NO WAY! Thats due on my machine in 2007 at the earliest!
> Is the Classic OS still available with Tiger?

Yes, though I didn't install Classic on my Mini and don't plan to, so I
can't actually say first-hand. It is alleged to be an option.

Isn't 2007 a bit soon for Tiger? It will probably still be supported
then. For best stability, you want to make sure never to install an OS
until after it is no longer supported. :-) I could dig up a copy of
Apple Dos 3.2 if you'd like, but you can't have my 2e to run it on. :-)

> > At least upgrade to Panther. I had the same problem on my rig - went
> > away with Panther.
> Why? 10.2.3 didnt have this problem.

Are you really asking why software sometimes has bugs? And why sometimes
new bugs that weren't in an older version appear in a new release of
software and are squashed in a yet later release? If that's really what
you are asking, it is a larger question than can be well addressed here.
:-(

I'll assume this was more in the nature of a rhetorical sigh than an
actual question. Perhaps the smiley on the next line was also supposed
to apply here. That would make sense.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain

In article <1h3punu.q98xbctwal84N%rlaughton[at]invalid.com>,
rlaughton[at]invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Hi all,
> I recently updated to 10.2.8 (2 years late, but I tend to be cautious
> :-/ ) on my dual 1GHz G4 tower with a 23" Apple display.
> Now I cant get the machine to waken from sleep mode. The CPU fires up
> but the screen remains blank and I have to restart the Mac.
> Any fixes/patches out there?
>
> Trusting my caution, I failed to make a backup of the OS before I
> upgraded from 10.2.3. If no fixes are available, how can I downgrade
> again? I have the original 10.2.1 CDs. Start again and upgrade to
> 10.2.3? Is it still available?
>
Take a look at http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/default.html
There are a number of excellent ebooks on this and other Mac subjects.

Richard E Maine <nospam[at]see.signature> wrote:

> > > At least upgrade to Panther. I had the same problem on my rig - went
> > > away with Panther.
> > Why? 10.2.3 didnt have this problem.
>
> Are you really asking why software sometimes has bugs? And why sometimes
> new bugs that weren't in an older version appear in a new release of
> software and are squashed in a yet later release? If that's really what
> you are asking, it is a larger question than can be well addressed here.
> :-(

I just meant why bother with Panther if I can go back to 10.2.3 which
was stable and had no sleep mode problems. I'll do Panther in 2006,
after carefully checking the relevant newsgroups for such bugs
beforehand. :-/ I don't know if you've noticed, but the Mac OS
upgrades nowdays are more hype and animal skins than substantial
improvements in the OS. (Tiger has brought back macros - wow!) It may be
cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into OS-updates just
before a major (meaning $$) version change. I'll never forget the way OS
9 was slowed and unstabilised compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the
"jump" to OS X.

Ray

Ray Laughton <rlaughton[at]invalid.com> wrote:

> Richard E Maine <nospam[at]see.signature> wrote:
>
> > > > At least upgrade to Panther. I had the same problem on my rig - went
> > > > away with Panther.
> > > Why? 10.2.3 didnt have this problem.
> >
> > Are you really asking why software sometimes has bugs? And why sometimes
> > new bugs that weren't in an older version appear in a new release of
> > software and are squashed in a yet later release? If that's really what
> > you are asking, it is a larger question than can be well addressed here.
> > :-(
>
> I just meant why bother with Panther if I can go back to 10.2.3 which
> was stable and had no sleep mode problems. I'll do Panther in 2006,
> after carefully checking the relevant newsgroups for such bugs
> beforehand. :-/ I don't know if you've noticed, but the Mac OS
> upgrades nowdays are more hype and animal skins than substantial
> improvements in the OS. (Tiger has brought back macros - wow!) It may be
> cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into OS-updates just
> before a major (meaning $$) version change. I'll never forget the way OS
> 9 was slowed and unstabilised compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the
> "jump" to OS X.
>
> Ray

FWIW, I noticed a significant improvement in capability and stability on
moving from 10.2.8 to 10.3.9. I wouldn't care to go back!

This is on a 733MHz G4.

John.
--
My old address has been swamped by spam and abandoned.
Please reply to john at yclept dot wanadoo dot co dot uk.

In article <1h3rczp.9j1iup18uihz4N%nemo[at]erewhon.invalid>,
nemo[at]erewhon.invalid (John Hill) wrote:

> Ray Laughton <rlaughton[at]invalid.com> wrote:
> > I just meant why bother with Panther if I can go back to 10.2.3 which
> > was stable and had no sleep mode problems....

Ah. That makes more sense than what I thought you were asking.

> > I don't know if you've noticed, but the Mac OS
> > upgrades nowdays are more hype and animal skins than substantial
> > improvements in the OS.

Yes, I've noticed. I don't much care one way o another (yet, anyway)
about 10.3 vs 10.4. This machine is 10.4, while my one at work is 10.3.
Not much difference that I care about (yet - though I'm suspicious that
the app that wouldn't run for me a few weeks ago at work was built for
10.4 only - haven't checked that hypothesis).

But 10.2 to 10.3 was huge and fundamental for me. Namely the addition of
a supported X11 in 10.3. Using 10.2 just is not viable at all in my
case. Yes, I know about the other options for X11; none of them are
viable for my purposes. I have many apps that won't work with them. And
the old Apple beta X11 distribution license has expired so I couldn't
legally run it at work anyway (and yes, it matters at work).

> > I'll never forget the way OS
> > 9 was slowed and unstabilised compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the
> > "jump" to OS X.

No, I didn't notice that, because... OS 9 was simply of zero interest to
me. Make it less than zero, because Mac users kept pestering me for Mac
versions of my programs and I had to explain to them why it wasn't going
to happen. I (like quite a few other engineers) come to Macs from a Unix
background (which is why X11 was so critical for me). To me, the Mac is
a better done Unix box than the Linux and Sun ones I was using before.
WIthout OS X, I wouldn't have a Mac at all.

John Hill <nemo[at]erewhon.invalid> wrote:

> FWIW, I noticed a significant improvement in capability and stability on
> moving from 10.2.8 to 10.3.9. I wouldn't care to go back!
>
> This is on a 733MHz G4.

Right, but we've decided that 10.2.8 is a bummer anyway. How did 10.3.9
compare with 10.2.3 or 10.2.6?

ray

Richard Maine <nospam[at]see.signature> wrote:

> But 10.2 to 10.3 was huge and fundamental for me. Namely the addition of
> a supported X11 in 10.3. Using 10.2 just is not viable at all in my
> case. Yes, I know about the other options for X11; none of them are
> viable for my purposes. I have many apps that won't work with them. And
> the old Apple beta X11 distribution license has expired so I couldn't
> legally run it at work anyway (and yes, it matters at work).
OK, so it was vital for your work. But what uniquely useful stuff can
you do with X11 programs? Guide satellites, drive ICBMs? Fiddling with
Unix doesn't count. I don't need it, so I could stay with OS 10.2. In
fact it was the peversity of using Unix for text processing that drove
me into the arms of that first little Mac back in 1984.

> > > I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised compared to
> > > 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
>
> No, I didn't notice that, because... OS 9 was simply of zero interest to
> me. Make it less than zero, because Mac users kept pestering me for Mac
> versions of my programs and I had to explain to them why it wasn't going
> to happen.
Why not? The Mac world pre-OS10 was a dedicated bunch, they would have
worshipped if you had deigned to help. Now that you're familiar with our
GUI (or do you only work in terminal mode?) you might appreciate the
reason for their enthusiasm in the 80's and 90's..

ray

Ray Laughton <rlaughton[at]invalid.com> wrote:

> John Hill <nemo[at]erewhon.invalid> wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I noticed a significant improvement in capability and stability on
> > moving from 10.2.8 to 10.3.9. I wouldn't care to go back!
> >
> > This is on a 733MHz G4.
>
> Right, but we've decided that 10.2.8 is a bummer anyway. How did 10.3.9
> compare with 10.2.3 or 10.2.6?
>
> ray

Just to add a PS to this story:
I seem to have found the cause of my G4's display not waking from sleep
mode: Looks like there's a bug or incompatibility between OS 10.2.8 and
that stunning desktop image software "OSXplanet 2" which shows an image
of earth (or planet of your choice) with regular updates of the weather
incl. cloud & storm movements, earthquakes, etc via satellite). I'll
contact the author.

ray

Ray Laughton <rlaughton[at]invalid.com> wrote:

> John Hill <nemo[at]erewhon.invalid> wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I noticed a significant improvement in capability and stability on
> > moving from 10.2.8 to 10.3.9. I wouldn't care to go back!
> >
> > This is on a 733MHz G4.
>
> Right, but we've decided that 10.2.8 is a bummer anyway. How did 10.3.9
> compare with 10.2.3 or 10.2.6?
>
> ray

Well, I worked up update by update from about 10.2.2 to 10.2.8 and by
and large every one saw an improvement. Certainly 10.2.8 seemed to me to
be better than its predecessors.

OTOH, 10.3.9 seems much better than ANYTHING 10.2.x had to offer; the
Find is more effective (and Sherlock can be disregarded, because it only
looks for things I'm not interested in); the irritating Favourites
system (which broke at one point altogether, the only time I've had to
reinstall 10.x) has been discarded.

Mail and Safari are both more potent and more stable than those that go
with 10.2.x; and applications in general (and Office 2004 in particular)
seem happier.

This may be because I use a minimum of gadgetry; Default Folder and ASM
are pretty well the only "extras" I use. It's possible that if you like
a lot of haxies the answer would be different :-)

I don't have a DVD drive, so it looks as though I'll never be able to
compare 10.3 with 10.4; but reading the blurbs and the newsgroups, it
seems to me that 10.4 offers a lot of features that I wouldn't want and
might get in the way.

John.
--
My old address has been swamped by spam and abandoned.
Please reply to john at yclept dot wanadoo dot co dot uk.

John Hill <nemo[at]erewhon.invalid> wrote:

> Ray Laughton <rlaughton[at]invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > John Hill <nemo[at]erewhon.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > FWIW, I noticed a significant improvement in capability and stability on
> > > moving from 10.2.8 to 10.3.9. I wouldn't care to go back!
> > >
> > > This is on a 733MHz G4.
> >
> > Right, but we've decided that 10.2.8 is a bummer anyway. How did 10.3.9
> > compare with 10.2.3 or 10.2.6?
> >
> > ray
>
> Well, I worked up update by update from about 10.2.2 to 10.2.8 and by
> and large every one saw an improvement. Certainly 10.2.8 seemed to me to
> be better than its predecessors.
I take it all back, seems to be a bug in my desktop image software thats
causing my problems.

> OTOH, 10.3.9 seems much better than ANYTHING 10.2.x had to offer; the
> Find is more effective (and Sherlock can be disregarded, because it only
> looks for things I'm not interested in); the irritating Favourites
> system (which broke at one point altogether, the only time I've had to
> reinstall 10.x) has been discarded.
I don't use Sherlock either.
Favourites? I only know it from Explorer, don't see it in 10.2.8.
Is the OS getting bigger, how does your 733Mhz G4 cope speed-wise?

> Mail and Safari are both more potent and more stable than those that go
> with 10.2.x; and applications in general (and Office 2004 in particular)
> seem happier.
Sounds good.
Must confess I'm still using Office 98, to which I reluctantly upgraded
when Classic refused to run Word 5.1 (IMHO still the best MS product
around).

> This may be because I use a minimum of gadgetry; Default Folder and ASM
> are pretty well the only "extras" I use. It's possible that if you like
> a lot of haxies the answer would be different :-)
I'm rather minimalist myself. No more desktop stuff. I have rather taken
to iPhoto though, wonderful in this age of digital cameras.

> I don't have a DVD drive, so it looks as though I'll never be able to
> compare 10.3 with 10.4; but reading the blurbs and the newsgroups, it
> seems to me that 10.4 offers a lot of features that I wouldn't want and
> might get in the way.

> John.

My G4 dual 1Ghz has a DVD drive, almost never use it. Could be useful
for the update it seems. So 10.3.9 is the last of the Panther series and
is recommended, as I understand.
Thanks for your helpful post John.

ray

Ray Laughton <rlaughton[at]invalid.com> wrote:

> Favourites? I only know it from Explorer, don't see it in 10.2.8.

It's a heart-shaped icon in the finder windows. Qiuite iliely you've
never bothered with it - I didn't find it very useful and went right off
it when it went wrong.

> Is the OS getting bigger, how does your 733Mhz G4 cope speed-wise?

It is probably getting bigger - the System folder on my machine is 1.03
GB (as distinct from the Classic System Folder, which is only 268 MB).
The Library at Root level is another 1. 29 GB (though this will of
course depend on what is installed - I've made no attempt to exclude
unwanted languages, for example). The Library at User level is 583 MB -
this includes all my Mail files and uncleared caches. So we are takling
almost 3 GB in total here.

But 10.3.9 is certainly no slower that was 10.2.8 as far as I can
remember. It may even be faster here and there.

John.


--
My old address has been swamped by spam and abandoned.
Please reply to john at yclept dot wanadoo dot co dot uk.

John Hill <nemo[at]erewhon.invalid> wrote:

> Ray Laughton <rlaughton[at]invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > Favourites? I only know it from Explorer, don't see it in 10.2.8.
>
> It's a heart-shaped icon in the finder windows. Qiuite iliely you've
> never bothered with it - I didn't find it very useful and went right off
> it when it went wrong.
>
Oh, right. Haven't used it for years.

In article <1h3sr9i.6jp39zlktbmpN%nemo[at]erewhon.invalid>,
nemo[at]erewhon.invalid (John Hill) wrote:

> looks for things I'm not interested in); the irritating Favourites
> system (which broke at one point altogether, the only time I've had to
> reinstall 10.x) has been discarded.

Favourites is still there in 10.4.x, but it is now optional. To use it,
just make a folder named "Favourites" ("Favorites" for Americans) in
your /Users/<You>/Library/ folder, then drag that folder to the bottom
of the Finder's side bar (Make sure the drop target is a blue horizontal
line, not a blue lozenge.) You'll get the familiar heart icon. Put any
aliases you like in it, and they'll be there when you want them.

--
David Phillip Oster

In article <1h3rn54.1mxbycb1wps1j4N%rlaughton[at]invalid.com>,
rlaughton[at]invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Richard Maine <nospam[at]see.signature> wrote:
>
> OK, so it (X11) was vital for your work. But what uniquely useful stuff can
> you do with X11 programs? Guide satellites, drive ICBMs? Fiddling with
> Unix doesn't count.

Write reasonably portable code that uses graphics. And use many such
programs that other people have written that work just fine as is on OS
X with X11. Portability is absolutely key to me. I will not waste my
time writing Mac-specific code. And I need to use other code that wasn't
written to be Mac-specific. If you don't think all the apps in question
count, then... well I guess I don't really care; I don't need the
approval.

What brought me to the Mac was the combination of a standards-oriented
Unix base plus a nicely integrated GUI (along with the fact that Apple
does most of the system integration work for me). The GUI alone is
worthless to me. I had heard that OS X had a Unix underpinning, so I
decided to try it. What sold me was when I compiled the first of my
programs and it just worked essentially as is, with no more
customization than the typical kind of stuff to get the right options on
the compilation commands. Without that, I wouldn't have even looked at
the GUI. I don't care how nice it looks if it doesn't run my programs
(and the apps that I use from other people). Without that, it might as
well be...oh... a nice work of art to hang on my wall. I can appreciate
things like that - have several on my walls, but they don't do what I
need in a computer.

> I don't need it, so I could stay with OS 10.2.

Then that's fine for you. It isn't for me.

> > OS 9 was simply of zero interest to
> > me. Make it less than zero, because Mac users kept pestering me for Mac
> > versions of my programs and I had to explain to them why it wasn't going
> > to happen.
> Why not? The Mac world pre-OS10 was a dedicated bunch, they would have
> worshipped if you had deigned to help. Now that you're familiar with our
> GUI (or do you only work in terminal mode?) you might appreciate the
> reason for their enthusiasm in the 80's and 90's..

No, I don't. And I don't particularly need "worship". I need
standards-oriented computing platforms. OS X reasonably fits that need.
I won't say perfectly, nothing being perfect, but it fits reasonably.
And maybe in 10 years or so, something else will fit it better. If so,
I'll move on (well, if I'm still programming then), and it won't be hard
because I won't have tied myself overly to a single platform. I've been
in the computing business for 35 years. In that time, I've been through
several changes of my favored platform. If there is one lesson that I've
learned, it is that things will change. I have no reason to suspect that
I am now using the one-and-only, ultimate, perfect system, never to
change again. I see people with that attitude. I even see a few people
over in my most usual "hangout" on usenet (comp.lang.fortran) who seem
to have gone through that same attitude for about 4 or so different
systems (well, compilers in that case). Those people seem a bit slow at
learning.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain

In article <1h3r4u6.wb7k641yazsowN%rlaughton[at]invalid.com>,
rlaughton[at]invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into
> OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change.
> I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised
> compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.

I suspect that is a bit paranoid. Given that slipping bugs into the
code base is still engineering work, I would be really surprised if they
bothered.

More likely, to me, is testing and focus. I was running Tiger full time
as of last November, as were many developers I knew. Any bugs in
releases of 10.3 that came up during that period would not be spotted by
me. I know other developers who were in the same state.

Scott

--
Scott Ellsworth
scott[at]alodar.nospam.com
Java and database consulting for the life sciences

In article <1h3rn54.1mxbycb1wps1j4N%rlaughton[at]invalid.com>,
rlaughton[at]invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Richard Maine <nospam[at]see.signature> wrote:
>
> > No, I didn't notice that, because... OS 9 was simply of zero interest to
> > me. Make it less than zero, because Mac users kept pestering me for Mac
> > versions of my programs and I had to explain to them why it wasn't going
> > to happen.
> Why not? The Mac world pre-OS10 was a dedicated bunch, they would have
> worshipped if you had deigned to help. Now that you're familiar with our
> GUI (or do you only work in terminal mode?) you might appreciate the
> reason for their enthusiasm in the 80's and 90's..

I think 'deigned' is not the proper word. Porting some of those apps
would have been a heck of a lot of work, and it is not clear whether the
payoff would have been worth it. Not just money, but time - if I write
a second platform version of an app, I cannot write a different one.

I worked on porting a major econometrics app over about ten years ago,
and while I liked the OS 9 coding environment better, it was not a fatro
of three or four better, which would have been needed to justify the
work. The amazing pain of near, far, and huge pointers did not make me
happy, but I got by.

Cocoa, on the other hand, appears to have some legs. I now can see
productivity boosts of the three and four range, which can justify the
work. Similarly, if I instead use Java, I get GUIs, network stacks,
threads, and so on, that are very similar between any platform I use,
and thus can justify a small amount of additional work to get a new
platform. Finally, if the upcoming Web 2.0 stuff takes off, then I can
write server side, and serve people on whatever platform they want. All
three of these make the 'support the mac' equation much better than it
was ten years ago, despite the lower market share nowadays.

Worship is not required, but a decent payoff to the work is. I think
Apple has a pretty compelling package nowadays, and I hope they keep
running with it - we have not seen the perfect platform as yet.

Scott

--
Scott Ellsworth
scott[at]alodar.nospam.com
Java and database consulting for the life sciences

Scott Ellsworth <scott[at]alodar.com> wrote:

> In article <1h3r4u6.wb7k641yazsowN%rlaughton[at]invalid.com>,
> rlaughton[at]invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
>
> > It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into
> > OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change.
> > I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised
> > compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
>
> I suspect that is a bit paranoid. Given that slipping bugs into the
> code base is still engineering work, I would be really surprised if they
> bothered.
Not paranoid, just cynical. Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6
to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than
OS X. In OS X I'm not sure because as a user without Unix I have less
control over the OS. It seems to make programming easier for you guys
but for users apart from the eye candy its become like Windows (well,
almost :-). Files of unknown origin all over the place. Only slightly
more stable than pre OS X too.

ray

> More likely, to me, is testing and focus. I was running Tiger full time
> as of last November, as were many developers I knew. Any bugs in
> releases of 10.3 that came up during that period would not be spotted by
> me. I know other developers who were in the same state.
Hmm... I hear 10.3.9 was a good version.

In article <1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton[at]invalid.com>,
rlaughton[at]invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Not paranoid, just cynical.

No, you're paranoid. I'm cynical and can see no merit to your argument.

> Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6
> to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than
> OS X.

Are you suggesting that OS 8.6 was faster than the current versions of
OSX? You're almost certainly right on transitional 8/9/X machines. Not
on new ones.

> Files of unknown origin all over the place. Only slightly
> more stable than pre OS X too.

The files you should concern yourself with are pretty much in the same
place with one layer over them and start with Library. You shouldn't
concern yourself with /Library and it isn't trivial to change it. All
your personal preferences like in System/Preferences in pre OSX versions
are in Library/Preferences( no / in front of Library). Everything to
enhance or destroy your system is accessible via the terminal.
The terminal just sits there until you learn some UNIX commands. I'm
still learning the file system after knowing it in RedHat Linux. There
are new commands, but the old important ones work fine.
Current versions of OSX are far more stable than OS9 and earlier.
Period. You crash applications, not the entire OS.
Geeze, I jumped on my soapbox and perhaps missed the point.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

In article <1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton[at]invalid.com>,
rlaughton[at]invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Scott Ellsworth <scott[at]alodar.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1h3r4u6.wb7k641yazsowN%rlaughton[at]invalid.com>,
> > rlaughton[at]invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> >
> > > It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into
> > > OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change.
> > > I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised
> > > compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
> >
> > I suspect that is a bit paranoid. Given that slipping bugs into the
> > code base is still engineering work, I would be really surprised if they
> > bothered.
> Not paranoid, just cynical. Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6
> to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than
> OS X.

A simpler explanation is that most of the programmers had been
redeployed to OS 10 by then, so OS 9 got only the bare essentials of
support, as befitted its soon-to-be legacy status.

Joe Gwinn

Leonard Blaisdell <leo[at]greatbasin.com> wrote:

> In article <1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton[at]invalid.com>,
> rlaughton[at]invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
>
> > Not paranoid, just cynical.
>
> No, you're paranoid. I'm cynical and can see no merit to your argument.
Fine, I can.

> > Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6
> > to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than
> > OS X.
>
> Are you suggesting that OS 8.6 was faster than the current versions of
> OSX? You're almost certainly right on transitional 8/9/X machines. Not
> on new ones.
Hardware speeds have quadrupled, OS speeds? -hardly. Haven't done
serious number crunching since OS X arrived, and I don't use Tiger so I
can't tell.

> > Files of unknown origin all over the place. Only slightly
> > more stable than pre OS X too.
>
> The files you should concern yourself with are pretty much in the same
> place with one layer over them and start with Library. You shouldn't
> concern yourself with /Library and it isn't trivial to change it. All
> your personal preferences like in System/Preferences in pre OSX versions
> are in Library/Preferences( no / in front of Library). Everything to
> enhance or destroy your system is accessible via the terminal.
> The terminal just sits there until you learn some UNIX commands. I'm
> still learning the file system after knowing it in RedHat Linux. There
> are new commands, but the old important ones work fine.
I haven't touched the command line. I'm a Mac user, not a geek :-/

> Current versions of OSX are far more stable than OS9 and earlier.
> Period. You crash applications, not the entire OS.
> Geeze, I jumped on my soapbox and perhaps missed the point.
Only slightly. I meant these kernel panics, which require a restart.
They occur slightly less frequently than the earlier crashes.
Now that I've removed my desktop weather map of the world <sob> neither
of my CPU kernels have paniced (touch wood) but its early days..

Joseph Gwinn <JoeGwinn[at]comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton[at]invalid.com>,
> rlaughton[at]invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
>
> > Scott Ellsworth <scott[at]alodar.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1h3r4u6.wb7k641yazsowN%rlaughton[at]invalid.com>,
> > > rlaughton[at]invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> > >
> > > > It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into
> > > > OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change.
> > > > I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised
> > > > compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
> > >
> > > I suspect that is a bit paranoid. Given that slipping bugs into the
> > > code base is still engineering work, I would be really surprised if they
> > > bothered.
> > Not paranoid, just cynical. Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6
> > to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than
> > OS X.
>
> A simpler explanation is that most of the programmers had been
> redeployed to OS 10 by then, so OS 9 got only the bare essentials of
> support, as befitted its soon-to-be legacy status.
>
That would be the benign interpretation of those events..
Dunno, maybe Jobs will come out with the truth in his biography some
day.

ray