>The suggestion
>to remove or at least temporarily and partially disable something which
>can do things with directories, file structures and whatnot _systemwide_
>is a very logical suggestion. - Why? - Because just because program "A"
>crashes it's not necessary its fault.
True, but pointing the finger at a piece of software that I don't have
other problems with is not logical. I also don't use any sort of
automated, background Norton features. I only manually use it when I
have a problem or suspect a problem. Therefore, there is nothing to
"disable". The only way to "disable" anything that Norton might have
done is to reformat my harddrive. In the 15 years I've had a Mac with a
harddrive I think I have only done this perhaps 2 times, and I've been
using Norton since it first came out. Reformatting is a drastic step
that should be reserved for unexplainable, systematic problems. Macs
don't usually have this problem, unlike PCs. It is why I don't own a PC
for general work :-)
>Badly written program "B" might be
>the culprit by not following programming guidelines etc. Ideally program
>"A" should be immune of this and should be make more robust, but accusing
>it for crashing in this context would be like blaming a 90-year old lady
>with crashing a shop window when a reckless skater bumps into her.
>Now what is logical and the best approach in this case - blaming the lady
>or removing the skater from the street, especially as he is known for
>bumping into people?
Bad logic. You have already made the assumption that Program "A" is not
the problem. The logical thing is to examine the "prime suspect", and
just like a murder investigation it is the one which is most closely
associated with the problem. You don't look for grand conspiracies right
off the bat. Well, not unless you are OJ's defense lawyers.
If you were a criminal investigator, and found someone standing around a
crime scene you were called to... would you release that person without
asking so much as a single question and instead send your entire police
force out looking for some kid who might have done something similar to
someone else? I hope not! Ask the person standing there questions,
figure out if they can be rulled out, THEN look for some other
explanation if your prime suspect appears to be innocent.
>Since Norton has been suspected for several years (not just since 10.3.x)
>for messing up databases -
Every program has its problems along the road. To blindly, and without
any evidence, blame something based on unrelated charges or sins of
previous versions or unrelated systems is something that should only be
done when more logical and direct possibilities have been eliminated. As
far as I can see, there are no known problems with the current version of
Norton Utilities and 10.2.8. There are problems with it and 10.3.x, but
that is completely and utterly irrelevant. And I still don't see how
Norton could single out ONE file, which is constantly rebuilt from
scratch, and not cause any other problems. Software is not narrowly
vindictive.
>Those who've been using Macs from the earlier days, know the classical
>approach when crashes occur: look for compatibility problems. Remember
>old Extension Manager?
I've been using a Mac since 1987 so yeah... I remember those days. I
also remember many software developers blaming their own bugs on phantom
extension problems. And thankfully they are largely gone.
>Quite egoistically I'm glad you insist on limiting to scrutinize
>PowerMail, because this might lead to its improvement, either it solves
>your problem with another conflicting software - if there is one - or not.
I just want to say again... you guys are getting on my back for
disregarding some advice. Advice I rationally chose to put aside until I
checked things out in a more direct, and in my opinion, logical manner.
I explained my rational and logical reasons for disregarding the
suggestions as my first line of inquiry. And as it turned out my methods
produced results in a fraction of the time and with a fraction of the
effort. Yet for some reason you and a few others continue to think my
methodology is flawed. Very odd. If I had followed the Norton and drive
reformatting "shotgun" approaches to my problems, I would have spent 1/2
a day tearing apart my otherwise well running system and rebuilt it only
to find that I had the same exact problems as I did before. So I'm at a
complete, baffled, loss as to why I am being criticized for using logic
that solved my problems in about 10 minutes. Or are new guys to this
list supposed to be bound to following advice of the regulars without
questioning them?
Steve
