[no subject]

[Devin Stafford]

Hi,

I have come over to humid Gosford for X'mas and I am trying to up date 
my home page for the rels back in the West but when I try to copy 
anything to my iDisk I get am

error code -38

I am using a New iBook 600 Combo and OSX.1.1

any one with any ideas ?

Any help would be very much appreciated

Thanks

Importing IE favourites into Opera?

[Brian Scott]

Help!

I can't find Internet Explorer's favourites file to import it into
Opera - where is it?

I'm using a power pc 7600 with mac os 9.1 and Opera 5.

Thanks
Brian

Problem with Launch!

[Malcolm McCallum]

Hi Wamuggers. Like Houston I have a problem :-).
I am running a G3 300/256 and I upgraded to Mac OS 10.1.2. Fine except 
that when I open Launch! 1.4 and launch it it says:- Can Not Determine 
IP Address ,however I still go on-line as you can see.Is this something 
to do with 10.1.2 or is it just a coincidence? I am connected to Telstra 
BigPond by Cable.


Malcolm J McCallum
16 Alyth Road
Floreat
Perth 6014

Ok here we go again

[Murdoch Allen]

ok another rip off scheme going around
Thought I'd drop a line to let everyone know

Dear Sir,

I humbly wish to seek your assistance in a matter that
is very important and needs utmost trust and
confidence. I am Chief Murphy Ikenna a business
consultant and a close confidant of one of Nigeria's
most powerful families. The wife of top government
official and an oil royalist who served in the past
military regime in Nigeria wishes to move out of the
country the sum of US$26 MILLION (twenty six Million
United States Dollars).

She wishes to invest the aforementioned sum in viable
businesses overseas.

For obvious reasons, my client does not wish to place
this fund with established financial institution in
the family's name for security reasons. It is her
desire that the deal be handled as quietly as possible
without possibility of any leakage to the public or
government. She has therefore instructed and empowered

me to look for a reliable foreigner who can arrange
and recieve this money in his account overseas and
assist to invest the fund properly for the family.

If you agree to act as a fund manager for my client
and her family, I shall release the sum of
US$twenty six MILLION to you if you meet my
requirements. The
money is available in cash in a safe trunk, and upon a
favourable response from you, I shall let you know how
you will receive it.

Your commission shall be down payment of 10% of the
total sum, and an annual 10% of the after tax returns
on investment for the first five years. Thereafter,
the terms shall be varied.

Sir, if you are capable and willing to participate in
this transaction, reach me by EMAIL soonest with
enclosed private phone/fax numbers.

Best regards,
MURPHY IKENNA.

Re: OS-X Speed (a car metaphor) Afterthought

[Rob Findlay]

Perhaps it's because it doesn't really get MUCH faster on a twin G4 with a
Gig of Ram than it does on my G3 400 that all you gearheads are
disappointed.
I've setup a few G4's with it & didn't find it much different.

On 23/12/01 11:55 PM, "Rob Findlay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Maybe OSX doesn't have the zippy acceleration of a sports car but the torque
> is like a diesel 4 wheel drive.
> Using a Blue G3 400 with 400 Meg Ram I am currently listening to itunes,
> burning a CD (using itunes to burn at the same time as playing!!!), printing
> a PDF, AND writing this email. Try that in Mac OS9.
> Awesome!
> Rob
> 
> 
> Got a Question? Try searching the WAMUG list archives first at
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the WAMUG e-mail list, send e-mail from this account to
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 

Re: OS-X Speed (a car metaphor)

[Rob Findlay]

Maybe OSX doesn't have the zippy acceleration of a sports car but the torque
is like a diesel 4 wheel drive.
Using a Blue G3 400 with 400 Meg Ram I am currently listening to itunes,
burning a CD (using itunes to burn at the same time as playing!!!), printing
a PDF, AND writing this email. Try that in Mac OS9.
Awesome!
Rob

Re: OS-X Backups (using built in Linux commands)

[Larry Pohl]

On 23/12/01 7:04 PM, "Andrew Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> At 18:53 +0800 23/12/2001, Larry Pohl wrote:
>> What about Disk Copy 6.4 ? What will it do ? Would it overcome this ASR 4 GB
>> limit ?
> 
> If Disk Copy 6.4 is an unreleased product, any person with legitimate
> access to it would be unable to answer that question.

Not to worry. I found a good description on a public forum at MacFixit.

Re: OS-X Backups (using built in Linux commands)

[Andrew Nielsen]

At 18:53 +0800 23/12/2001, Larry Pohl wrote:

What about Disk Copy 6.4 ? What will it do ? Would it overcome this ASR 4 GB
limit ?


If Disk Copy 6.4 is an unreleased product, any person with legitimate 
access to it would be unable to answer that question.

--

Andrew Nielsen 
Starfish Technologies Pty Ltd 
ACN 076 426 714 / ABN 49 426 849 601 Tel: 0500 555 677
Consultants in Unix, Mac OS, Windows & networking technologies

Re: OS-X Backups (using built in Linux commands)

[Larry Pohl]

On 23/12/01 6:49 PM, "Andrew Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> At 18:17 +0800 23/12/2001, Rob Findlay wrote:
>> You can backup a whole volume intact using Apple Software Restore
>> http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20011220103756557
>> And you can backup using Tar to get all the permissions & resources
>> http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20010626144436220
>> 
>> Somewhere in that lot you can do something useful:)))
> 
> Blat. My point exactly. This aspect is not ready for prime time.
> 
> Also, as far as I know, Disk Copy 6.4 has not been publicly released.
> The latest public version is 6.3.3.
> 
>> However you are right about the Tape Drive situation. Until that is resolved
>> (no doubt by Dantz as you say) it is will not be satisfactory for most of my
>> clients.
> 
> Yep, completely useless.

Rob,

What about Disk Copy 6.4 ? What will it do ? Would it overcome this ASR 4 GB
limit ?

Re: OS-X Backups (using built in Linux commands)

[Andrew Nielsen]

At 18:17 +0800 23/12/2001, Rob Findlay wrote:

You can backup a whole volume intact using Apple Software Restore
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20011220103756557
And you can backup using Tar to get all the permissions & resources
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20010626144436220

Somewhere in that lot you can do something useful:)))


Blat. My point exactly. This aspect is not ready for prime time.

Also, as far as I know, Disk Copy 6.4 has not been publicly released. 
The latest public version is 6.3.3.



However you are right about the Tape Drive situation. Until that is resolved
(no doubt by Dantz as you say) it is will not be satisfactory for most of my
clients.


Yep, completely useless.
--

Andrew Nielsen 
Starfish Technologies Pty Ltd 
ACN 076 426 714 / ABN 49 426 849 601 Tel: 0500 555 677
Consultants in Unix, Mac OS, Windows & networking technologies

Re: OS-X Backups (using built in Linux commands)

[Larry Pohl]

On 23/12/01 6:17 PM, "Rob Findlay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You can backup a whole volume intact using Apple Software Restore
> http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20011220103756557
> And you can backup using Tar to get all the permissions & resources
> http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20010626144436220
> 
> Somewhere in that lot you can do something useful:)))
> However you are right about the Tape Drive situation. Until that is resolved
> (no doubt by Dantz as you say) it is will not be satisfactory for most of my
> clients.
> 
> The top link is particularly useful though as it leads to a PDF explaining
> how you can backup and restore a whole disk if you need to reinstall for
> whatever reason. You'll need another disk as big as yours though.
> 

That ASR backup method works (I've used it) but the volume can't be any
bigger than 4 GB. Mine, unfortunately has just gone over that figure.

Saving Software Update updates

[Troy May]

Can you tell I've been left alone in front of Mac OS X for nice big long
child free stretches today :-)

Here's a useful tip to save some download bandwidth as posted to...



> ...Choose "Save As..." from the "Update" menu in Software Update. That's *far*
> easier. :p 
> 
> It will be greyed out until after the install has completed, and you must
> exercise the option to save it *before* you quit Software Update- the file
> gets deleted when you quit. If there are multiple updates in the window, you
> just need to click on the one you want prior to choosing "Save As..."
> 
> To be fair, this feature didn't arrive until somewhere around 10.1.

Cheers
Troy.

Re: OS-X Backups (using built in Linux commands)

[Rob Findlay]

You can backup a whole volume intact using Apple Software Restore
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20011220103756557
And you can backup using Tar to get all the permissions & resources
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20010626144436220

Somewhere in that lot you can do something useful:)))
However you are right about the Tape Drive situation. Until that is resolved
(no doubt by Dantz as you say) it is will not be satisfactory for most of my
clients.

The top link is particularly useful though as it leads to a PDF explaining
how you can backup and restore a whole disk if you need to reinstall for
whatever reason. You'll need another disk as big as yours though.

On 23/12/01 6:06 PM, "Andrew Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> At 17:57 +0800 23/12/2001, Rob Findlay wrote:
>> This is traditional & complicated but free.
>> http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20010206232018498
> 
> Lots of debate has taken place about various Unix ways of doing
> backups in Mac OS X. There are several issues still:
> 
> - No support for tape drives
> - Saving/restoring directory permissions
> - Saving/restoring resource forks
> 
> Anything other than Retrospect currently would appear to be a partial
> solution (and potentially tremendously clunky too).

Re: OS-X Backups

[Troy May]

Andrew Nielsen on 23/12/01 8:43 PM, wrote:

> At 19:40 +1100 23/12/2001, Troy May wrote:
>> I'm confused as to why it's so hard to get the backup app's working? What
>> exactly is it that prevents one from just dragging and dropping the contents
>> of one disk onto another?
> 
> That ain't a backup strategy :-)

Doesn't seem to work with System folders i.e. I can't just drag an entire
working volume and drop it onto another volume, which was why I was
wondering where the difficulties arose in the drag and drop method?

Cheers
Troy.

Re: OS-X Backups (using built in Linux commands)

[Andrew Nielsen]

At 17:57 +0800 23/12/2001, Rob Findlay wrote:

This is traditional & complicated but free.
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20010206232018498


Lots of debate has taken place about various Unix ways of doing 
backups in Mac OS X. There are several issues still:


- No support for tape drives
- Saving/restoring directory permissions
- Saving/restoring resource forks

Anything other than Retrospect currently would appear to be a partial 
solution (and potentially tremendously clunky too).

--

Andrew Nielsen 
Starfish Technologies Pty Ltd 
ACN 076 426 714 / ABN 49 426 849 601 Tel: 0500 555 677
Consultants in Unix, Mac OS, Windows & networking technologies

Re: OS-X Backups (using built in Linux commands)

[Rob Findlay]

This is traditional & complicated but free.
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20010206232018498

On 23/12/01 5:43 PM, "Andrew Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> At 19:40 +1100 23/12/2001, Troy May wrote:
>> I'm confused as to why it's so hard to get the backup app's working? What
>> exactly is it that prevents one from just dragging and dropping the contents
>> of one disk onto another?
> 
> That ain't a backup strategy :-)
> 
>> Is it some kind of dependency on pathnames tied to a volume/partition name
>> or what?
> 
> Basically Apple had to make some changes to Mac OS X for Retrospect
> to be able to get the right information to be able to do its thing.
> That's done now, and Dantz is working on getting Retrospect 5
> finished.
> 
>> How do traditional Unix's (Unices?) handle backups?
> 
> With traditional, complicated and sometimes expensive software.

Re: OS-X Backups

[Andrew Nielsen]

At 19:40 +1100 23/12/2001, Troy May wrote:

I'm confused as to why it's so hard to get the backup app's working? What
exactly is it that prevents one from just dragging and dropping the contents
of one disk onto another?


That ain't a backup strategy :-)


Is it some kind of dependency on pathnames tied to a volume/partition name
or what?


Basically Apple had to make some changes to Mac OS X for Retrospect 
to be able to get the right information to be able to do its thing. 
That's done now, and Dantz is working on getting Retrospect 5 
finished.



How do traditional Unix's (Unices?) handle backups?


With traditional, complicated and sometimes expensive software.
--

Andrew Nielsen 
Starfish Technologies Pty Ltd 
ACN 076 426 714 / ABN 49 426 849 601 Tel: 0500 555 677
Consultants in Unix, Mac OS, Windows & networking technologies

Re: OS-X Speed

[Paul S]

Yeah, that¹s a concern. Retrospect have been hard at work, and I'm sure
their new release is not too far away.

Backups are the only thing that I can't do at work in X.

Cheers, Paul
--
 
Paul S
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> From: Andrew Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 14:53:32 +0800
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: OS-X Speed
> 
> To me, Mac OS X 10.1.2 running on a G4 at 400 MHz, and an iBook (dual
> USB) with G3 at 500 MHz, seems fairly snappy now. No doubt there are
> many more improvements that will be made in performance, but it's
> certainly useable now.
> 
> If only we had a backup program that worked. That's the main thing
> I'm hanging out for now.
> -- 
> 
> Andrew Nielsen 
> Starfish Technologies Pty Ltd 
> ACN 076 426 714 / ABN 49 426 849 601 Tel: 0500 555 677
> Consultants in Unix, Mac OS, Windows & networking technologies
> 
> Got a Question? Try searching the WAMUG list archives first at
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the WAMUG e-mail list, send e-mail from this account to
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> 

Re: OS-X Backups

[Troy May]

Andrew Nielsen on 23/12/01 5:53 PM, wrote:

> To me, Mac OS X 10.1.2 running on a G4 at 400 MHz, and an iBook (dual
> USB) with G3 at 500 MHz, seems fairly snappy now. No doubt there are
> many more improvements that will be made in performance, but it's
> certainly useable now.

Agreed it is useable, it's my primary platform now and about the only thing
I use in classic any more is MYOB but every time I come across something
that's slow or not quite right I file it as a bug report...



... for improvements sake ;-)



> If only we had a backup program that worked. That's the main thing
> I'm hanging out for now.

I'm confused as to why it's so hard to get the backup app's working? What
exactly is it that prevents one from just dragging and dropping the contents
of one disk onto another?

Is it some kind of dependency on pathnames tied to a volume/partition name
or what?

How do traditional Unix's (Unices?) handle backups?

Cheers
Troy.

Re: OS-X Speed

[Andrew Nielsen]

To me, Mac OS X 10.1.2 running on a G4 at 400 MHz, and an iBook (dual 
USB) with G3 at 500 MHz, seems fairly snappy now. No doubt there are 
many more improvements that will be made in performance, but it's 
certainly useable now.


If only we had a backup program that worked. That's the main thing 
I'm hanging out for now.

--

Andrew Nielsen 
Starfish Technologies Pty Ltd 
ACN 076 426 714 / ABN 49 426 849 601 Tel: 0500 555 677
Consultants in Unix, Mac OS, Windows & networking technologies

Re: OS-X Speed

[Paul S]

So it would go something like this.

Mac OS X --> OS 9 (classic) --> Virtual PC --> BEOS

That OS better be fast, I'd be wasting a lot of cycles just to get to it!!

Cheers, Paul
--

Paul S
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> From: Rod Lavington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:49:56 +0800
> To: Paul S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, WAMUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: OS-X Speed
> 
> On 22/12/01 6:06 PM, "Paul S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Wasn't BEoS just a (draws breath) hobbyist OS, were there any drivers, apps,
>> was it able to be used commercially (other than linux type servers) please
>> excuse my ignorance, I've never seen it run, although I've heard a lot about
>> it.
>> 
>> Cheers, Paul
> 
> I think you hit the nail on the head with the last sentence! Yep, we heard
> a lot about it, but never saw it running. The last personal version they
> released was a freebie (the personal version), but for PCs only. I guess if
> you fired up VirtualPC you might be able to get it to work.
> 
> Seeya
> 
> Rod!
> 
> 
> Got a Question? Try searching the WAMUG list archives first at
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the WAMUG e-mail list, send e-mail from this account to
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> 

Re: OS-X Speed

[Paul S]

I've heard from other lists that the main concern about OS X (from
developers) is the speed.

So it seems that you're not alone Troy.

Thanks for the chat!!

Cheers, Paul
--

Paul S
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> From: Troy May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 13:41:36 +1100
> To: Rod Lavington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, WAMUG
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: OS-X Speed
> 
> Rod Lavington on 23/12/01 11:49 AM, wrote:
> 
>> On 22/12/01 6:06 PM, "Paul S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Wasn't BEoS just a (draws breath) hobbyist OS, were there any drivers, apps,
>>> was it able to be used commercially (other than linux type servers) please
>>> excuse my ignorance, I've never seen it run, although I've heard a lot about
>>> it.
>>> 
>>> Cheers, Paul
>> 
>> I think you hit the nail on the head with the last sentence! Yep, we heard
>> a lot about it, but never saw it running. The last personal version they
>> released was a freebie (the personal version), but for PCs only. I guess if
>> you fired up VirtualPC you might be able to get it to work.
> 
> I think the point is being missed. Be OS didn't carry too much in the way of
> driver overheads, etc but consider it was running on a first generation
> Power PC chip with the huge sum of 34 megabytes of RAM.
> 
> Others have said that it was stunningly fast on Pentium 233's.
> 
> Compare that to Mac OS X running on fourth generation processors that have
> between 4-8x faster clock speeds, 3x the bus bandwidths and a measly 1,000
> megabytes RAM.
> 
> Sure Mac OS X carries some compatibility baggage as well as hits from
> drivers, a supposed printing architecture and plenty of UI candy but can
> that really account for the huge discrepancy in efficiency?
> 
> Is it really just a perception thing? Gee the finder always took a while to
> update, I just never noticed it before.
> 
> Am I the only one to think it could be faster given the state of current
> hardware?
> 
> Cheers
> Troy.
> 
> PS: I think the UWA Computing club might still have an original Be Box for
> those interested.
> 
> 
> 
> Got a Question? Try searching the WAMUG list archives first at
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the WAMUG e-mail list, send e-mail from this account to
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> 

Re: OS-X Speed

[Troy May]

Rod Lavington on 23/12/01 11:49 AM, wrote:

> On 22/12/01 6:06 PM, "Paul S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Wasn't BEoS just a (draws breath) hobbyist OS, were there any drivers, apps,
>> was it able to be used commercially (other than linux type servers) please
>> excuse my ignorance, I've never seen it run, although I've heard a lot about
>> it.
>> 
>> Cheers, Paul
> 
> I think you hit the nail on the head with the last sentence! Yep, we heard
> a lot about it, but never saw it running. The last personal version they
> released was a freebie (the personal version), but for PCs only. I guess if
> you fired up VirtualPC you might be able to get it to work.

I think the point is being missed. Be OS didn't carry too much in the way of
driver overheads, etc but consider it was running on a first generation
Power PC chip with the huge sum of 34 megabytes of RAM.

Others have said that it was stunningly fast on Pentium 233's.

Compare that to Mac OS X running on fourth generation processors that have
between 4-8x faster clock speeds, 3x the bus bandwidths and a measly 1,000
megabytes RAM.

Sure Mac OS X carries some compatibility baggage as well as hits from
drivers, a supposed printing architecture and plenty of UI candy but can
that really account for the huge discrepancy in efficiency?

Is it really just a perception thing? Gee the finder always took a while to
update, I just never noticed it before.

Am I the only one to think it could be faster given the state of current
hardware?

Cheers
Troy.

PS: I think the UWA Computing club might still have an original Be Box for
those interested.

Re: Merry Christmas

[Daniel]

Hi Matt, WAMUG Committee, and all list members

Thank you for the well wishes, your excellent effort over this last 
year in regards to organising the meetings, the behind the scenes 
work you do, the ROM, the BBQ (Yum!!), and this list which has 
dispensed more insight/knowledge than I think I could count!


Without all the hard work and knowledge we would have had one very hard year!

Have a very Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year and keep up the good 
work! Stay safe!


Thanks again for everyone's effort!

Kind Regards
Daniel Kerr
--
Daniel Kerr
MacWizardry
Phone: 0414 795 960

**For everything Macintosh**




From all the Committee, have a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.



Matthew Healey
WAMUG President
http://www.wamug.asn.au


--

Re: OS-X Speed

[Rod Lavington]

On 22/12/01 6:06 PM, "Paul S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> 
> Wasn't BEoS just a (draws breath) hobbyist OS, were there any drivers, apps,
> was it able to be used commercially (other than linux type servers) please
> excuse my ignorance, I've never seen it run, although I've heard a lot about
> it.
> 
> Cheers, Paul

I think you hit the nail on the head with the last sentence! Yep, we heard
a lot about it, but never saw it running. The last personal version they
released was a freebie (the personal version), but for PCs only. I guess if
you fired up VirtualPC you might be able to get it to work.

Seeya

Rod!

Re: Quicktake 200 software

[Reg Whitely]

But how gentle is a gentleman?

Reg



>

Hi All!

Does anyone have the software for the Quicktake 200 Camera. A

gentleman

from GMUG has been given the camera but doesn't have the software to

take

the pictures off.

He can be contacted via email at:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or to me!

Seeya

Rod!
--
AppleCentre Joondalup
10/7 Delage St
Joondalup WA 6027
Ph (08) 9301 5333

** iPod - 1000 songs in your pocket! **


Got a Question? Try searching the WAMUG list archives first at


To unsubscribe from the WAMUG e-mail list, send e-mail from this

account to


[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






--
Actually the gentleman's Email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] if
anyone is interested to know or can help in anyway.

From the Gentleman from GMUG


Got a Question? Try searching the WAMUG list archives first at


To unsubscribe from the WAMUG e-mail list, send e-mail from this account to

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/