More on External SCSI Backup
Responding to my comments in Backing
Up to SCSI, Peter da Silva writes:
My next project is to do an unsupported installation of OS X
on my SuperMac J700 backup machine
so I can set up two of these drives as a 160 MB RAID array, since
Retrospect backups are limited to a single volume. Just need to make
sure I have enough RAM and a big enough hard drive before I get
started....
Man, I looked at the price tag for Retrospect and just about puked.
What does it do that "ditto" or "hfspax" doesn't? Or rsync. Shouldn't
be too hard to modify rsync to handle resource forks and types....
Dantz must have cut a deal with Apple to disable the native support
for tape drives in Darwin. Because who the hell is going to spend
hundreds of bucks for Retrospect when they can integrate Macs with
cheap Unix backup software for free?
Somewhere there's gotta be the necessary stuff that'll let me build
my own Darwin kernel for OS X, so I can hook my SDT7000 up to my
7600. In the meantime
patching the Amanda client to use hfspax instead of tar is at the top
of my list.
On the other hand, for those with older Macs that still use SCSI,
there are some phenomenal deals out there - like the current link on
dealmac for a refurbished 23 GB Seagate drive for US$9.95!
Heh. I bought the 47 GB SCSI from them for $40. They must be having
trouble shifting these big old 5.25" drives. That FireWire adapter?
It'll plug right into that drive, and a PC power supply for it is gonna
be close to $10....
I've been using Retrospect to back up networked Macs since the
System 7.1 era. I have no idea what ditto, hfspax, or rsync are, but
none of them sound like Mac applications.
Retrospect is able to fully back up and restore Mac volumes for both
Mac OS X and the classic Mac OS. It works over a network. It's
fast, powerful, and just works. It's probably as dominant in the Mac
world as Microsoft Word is in
word processing.
I have no idea about "native support for tape drives in Darwin." If
it's there, I can't imagine that Apple would have deliberately
disabled, but of such comments are conspiracy theories built. There is
still a heck of a lot of hardware without Mac drivers; I'd guess any
lack of OS X support for tape drives would be because the vendors
haven't created drivers for OS X.
But it's really a moot point, since I need software that can back up
both OS X and classic Mac OS machines. Retrospect does the job, I
know how it works, and I already own it. The only question is whether I
want to do an unsupported install of OS X on my backup
machine.
Drivers for USB PCI Cards
After reading Ben Gravely's question in No USB Card Support in Mac OS 9.2?, Peter da
Silva sent this:
I had the same problem installing a USB card under vanilla 9.1 (not
9.2 even) on my 7200. The driver that did it for me was this USB PCI
card driver... from Apple!
http://download.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Apple_Software_Updates/
English-North_American/Macintosh/USB_Updates/USB_Card_Support_1.4.1.smi.bin
Thanks for the link. Apple has so much stuff on their site that's
difficult to locate....
More on Clocking a G3 All-in-One
Following up on comments in Clocking
the G3 All-in-One, Boltzero writes:
Another weird combination is 1, 5, & 7 on yielded 270 MHz. I
don't know if these jumper combinations are unique to the G3 AIO or not. Some of the
clocking combinations for other G3's do not produce the same results.
I'm sure there are some variances and different chipsets but there is a
definite baseline to work with.
You're right about the bus speed running at 70 MHz; 80 MHz will not
run at any jumper configuration.
Another interesting note is this G3 AIO came out of Roswell, New
Mexico. Scan tag on the right reads City of Roswell. Probably came from
a school in Roswell. I asked the seller who I purchased it from. and he
stated that he believed it came out of Area 51 (?).
As far as I know, the jumper settings are the same for all versions
of the beige G3 motherboard, whether used in the desktop, minitower, or
All-in-One enclosure. I've still got to find the time to work on my
G3/266, which has already been upgraded with a 333 MHz CPU.
A Backup Computer System
Responding to my thoughts in Low End
Mac Religion, Peter Wagner writes:
I originally wrote regarding your article How to Survive While
Your Mac Is Gone for Repair. You wrote back last week and posted
the letter and response shortly thereafter.
I read enough of Low End Mac to be
familiar with your (and the site's) financial problems. I can see,
though, that I didn't make myself clear. My point was that any serious
computer user needs to have a spare in the budget. If the budget can't
afford a spare at the desired level, you might need to go down a
peg.
You wrote that you rely on OS X Mail for your work. That might be
your problem, and you might not be financially ready for OS X if
you want to have any kind of disaster preparedness. If I remember
correctly from other articles, the reason you moved to OS X was
the rules and spam filtering. Rules per se are not that unique to
OS X Mail. While OS X Mail was the first with Bayesian spam
filtering, it is not the only one. SpamSieve ($20
shareware) works great with Entourage and a number of other email
clients under OS X. I also read of an open source competitor to
SpamSieve, but I can't find it at the moment to see if it also works
under OS 9. If so, that might be your solution. The bully pulpit
of Low End Mac might be enough to find or inspire an OS 9 port of
Bayesian mail filtering.
P.S. eMacs w/regular CD-ROM drives and no modem have been popping on
and off the Apple Refurb Store at $599 with no shipping. While the RAM
is inadequate at 128 meg, that's quite the machine at the price. The
ability to run Quartz Extreme is a wonderful boost to the 700 MHz
speed. On the other hand, they are not portable, either to take to the
office or across the room. Worse than the fact that they weight 50 lbs,
there is no place to pick them up. Would it have ruined the aesthetics
to give us some handles?
I'm a long term Mac user, and I expect my hardware to work reliably
for a long time and not need hardware support. I've never had to make
contingency plans for being without a Mac for more than a couple days -
the joy of a good service department at my local Apple dealer.
But having to part with my TiBook for up to a week means I need
something to replace it. At this point I'm leaning toward a Rev. 2
300-350 MHz blue &
white Power Mac G3 as the most practical solution. I've seen
deals as low as $300
- and I have a credit with MacResQ
that would further reduce my out of pocket expense. Add another $65-70
for 512 MB of RAM, drop in one of the spare IDE hard drives, add a
decent 17" monitor, and I should be able to come in somewhere around
the $500 mark.
On the other hand, I have seen refurbished CD-ROM eMacs from the Apple Store for
$649. Add $70-75 for 512 MB of RAM (shipped), and you've got a $725
system. Over twice the MHz speed, the G4 velocity engine, Quartz
Extreme, more drive space than I'd know what to do with, a one year
warranty, and an integrated 17" display. It's tempting, especially
since Apple has already hand tested the refurb machine before offering
it for sale.
You're winning me over to the idea of buying an eMac, which would
relegate my 400 MHz TiBook to use in the field or when I need a backup.
It's tempting, especially since that would postpone the day I decide
that I need a faster PowerBook.
Thinking through another step, the Combo Drive eMac is only $749. That
would let me sell my external FireWire CD burner and watch the
occasional DVD. It may not be Apple's prettiest computer ever (okay, I
think the eMac is ugly), but when you look at the whole picture, it
seems to be one of the most practical solutions to my problem.
Hard Drive Advice
Jack Long writes:
I have been reading LEM regularly for nearly 4 years and have found
it to be very thorough and useful - I am thankful to have it as a
resource. I do have a question about something you may be able to help
me with - I thought I saw this topic addressed once on LEM, but if so I
can't seem to find it anymore.
I have a Performa 636 as
well as a Performa 6360. I would
like to replace the stock IDE hard drives (250 MB and 1.2 GB
respectively) with considerably larger ones. However, I thought there
was some limitation on how large of a HD could go into these machines.
I can't remember if this constraint was the result of certain versions
of the OS not being able to address a HD over a certain size, or
because the HD had to be formatted a certain way, or some other reason.
Is there any physical or system limitation as to how large a HD can be
used on either machine? Or can I just put in the largest IDE HD I can
find?
I am running 7.5.5 on the 636 and 9.1 (somewhat sluggishly) on the
6360, if it matters. (On a similar subject, I'd also like to upgrade
the stock CD-ROM drive on the 6360 to a CD-R drive - I found an
internal SCSI one, but it says it requires a 50-pin SCSI connection -
is that the right SCSI for me?)
Anything you know about this would be a big help, if you have the
time. Thanks.
As far as I know, there is a 128 GB maximum drive size for IDE/ATA
standards slower than Ultra/133. However, there's no practical reason
to go anywhere near that large on your Performa 636. I believe the
maximum partition size supported by System 7.5.5 is 4 GB, and up
to 8 partitions are supported, so it wouldn't make any sense at all to
buy a drive larger than 30 GB for that computer.
With Mac OS 8.1 and later, partitions of in the terabyte range are
supported, although the IDE bus on your computers is incapable of
working with more than 128 MB of drive space no matter how you partiton
things.
All things considered, I'd suggest you put the 1.2 GB drive from the
6360 in the 636. That's nearly five times the storage - and it won't
cost you a cent. Then pick a nice big hard drive for the 6360. I've
been very impressed with the 7200 RPM 80 GB Western Digital with an 8
MB buffer, and it's often available for about US$80 after
rebates.
I'm no expert on SCSI CD burners. Your best bet there is to check out
the reader reports at Accelerate Your Mac! These
will help you determine which drives are compatible, reliable, and
economically sensible.
The Impact of Aqua
Responding to A More Positive
Tone, Peter da Silva says:
I don't think dropping Aqua's look and feel would have a significant
impact on Aqua's performance. The architecture is extremely aggressive,
based on a typeset-quality Raster Image Processor, and just switching
to a Platinum look and feel isn't going to make that go away.
That aside, I agree they should allow you to change some of the more
processor-intensive aspects of the UI. The details of the look and feel
seem to be as well isolated from the app as they were in Classic - the
fact that you can switch Safari's appearance from Metal back to Aqua
demonstrates that (if only I could do that for iTunes). You can already
turn off the drop shadows with programs like TinkerTool, so
it's quite possible that more of the UI can be customized once people
find the right knobs.
I've turned off drop shadows. It speeds things up, but sometimes
the edges of your windows become invisible. Although it improves
performance, it's a visual mess. I'd like to see Apple offer maybe a 1
pixel gray shadow as an alternative to the nice soft edges in Aqua or
no shadows at all (which requires a third-party utility).
Then again, if ever there was an Interface Nazi, it's Steve Jobs. He
did his best to kill alternate appearances in the classic Mac OS and
now seems to be caught between the original Aqua appearance and the
newer brushed metal look as the OS X interface. I doubt Jobs will
ever let the user choose on or the other, let alone pick from a range
of alternatives.
I like the Aqua look and feel, I never did get into Kaleidoscope, but
it sure would be nice if Apple made it easy for the end user to have a
bit more control over the computer for nonconformists....
I Use Macs and PCs
Responding to Vampire Video on the
Dark Side, Eric McCann speaks up:
I've got to play devil's advocate with a few things in the
article:
"I have several friends who have bought cheap PCs. At the time,
they thought they were getting a great deal. Eventually, though, I'll
get a call because something is irrevocably screwed up. Faulty
hardware, viruses, spyware, you name it. And, because I like to help
people out, I'll truck on out there and help fix the problem at no
charge."
Okay, true. Macs have fewer virusses (virii?) and spyware problems.
However, that's like blaming Pioneer because you bought a CD player for
your car and someone stepped on and cracked the CD you wanted to listen
to.
I'm writing this from a PC. I have no virus problems - but I also am
careful as to what I download, don't open unexpected email attachments,
and have a virus scanner (updated weekly) running constantly in the
background.
As for faulty hardware, that's both a plus and minus - if you change
it to "cheap" hardware. Sure, PC users can get the latest-and-greatest
from multiple vendors. Don't want to pay $200 for a GeForce 4? Find
another vendor selling it for $150. You just have to watch the cheaper
vendors - there's a reason, after all, that they're cheap. The hardware
may be fine, but support is nonexistent (for instance). Very much a
double edged sword.
"If I did charge them for the time I spent on their PCs, their
'cheap machines' would suddenly cost a few hundred dollars more."
No argument there.
"In addition to the repairs to their machines, my friends seem to
buy new ones every 18-24 months. That adds up, especially considering
that I have a seven-year-old Mac that's still good for basic email and
word processing."
Great first part. Second line trips you up, though. I can wander
down to my mother-in-law's 486 and do word processing and email. It's
more than 7 years old as well. The point isn't that a 7 year old PC
can't do these things, it's that PC users don't keep them around
long enough.
It's not because of parts - the same 30 or 72 pin SIMMs my Quadras
and Performas use can be used in 386-486-early Pentiums.
It's not reliability - as I've mentioned, the 486 downstairs is
still usable. No reliability issues (despite it being, of all things, a
Packard Bell).
It's not a matter of speed - you can't really surf the 'net
effectively on a Power Mac
7100 (one of the networked machines here) - it works, but it's
sluggish, though, again, email is fine. It just "feels" slow or has
problems processing "modern" (read: often gimmicky or "feature" laden)
websites.
This, I think, is a matter of culture. The PC "culture" is one of
disposability, fed by ever increasing "feature sets" (read: bloat) in
applications and operating systems.
The Mac "culture" is one that sees the machines less as "a computer"
and really tends to personalize the beasts - the best thing I can think
of is that old, comfy pair of jeans. Sure, they might be a little worn
now, but they fit "just right."
"And don't forget the warranty! If you don't buy a chop shop PC and
get one with a decent warranty, you're covered, right? Maybe. How much
is your time worth? How much is your data worth? The time you're on the
line getting something fixed under warranty is time that could be spent
generating money or doing something pleasurable."
Can you really use this as an argument? Time is time, whether it's
calling Apple or Dell (or emailing, searching for updates, etc.)
"And I won't even mention lost data. It goes without saying that
lost data can be major expense."
Again - same argument as virii and spyware. It's the user's
responsibility to back up their data. With CD-Rs as cheap as they are -
and standard in most PCs and Macs - anyone who doesn't copy
their important data over is just asking for trouble. You can't really
use this as an argument for Macs or PCs. Data is data, and
losing it is just as frustrating regardless of platform.
I use both.
I won't pretend to be platform agnostic. I recognize that people
are productive using Windows computers, that they are not the
unreliable monstrosities some of us remember from 1990s versions of
Windows, and that they're simply more affordable up front than
Macs.
I have a lot of reasons for choosing the Mac OS over Windows, and the
price of hardware, the availability of unimaginable amounts of
software, and the general reliability of the machines are not factors
that sway me. It's culture: I'm not a conformist, I don't like
monopolies, I do like underdogs, I don't like Microsoft's business
practices, I like the way Apple handles copy protection (mostly by
ignoring it), I don't like draconian digital rights management, I like
the tighter hardware/software integration of the Mac, and I don't like
the idea of disposable computers.
You've really hit the nail on the head. Old Macs retain value as
personal computers, but old Windows PCs, for the most part, are simply
cast aside. It's very much a matter of culture, and Apple is at odds
with the dominant American consumer culture.
Declining Power Mac Sales
Responding to Why Power Mac Sales Are
Down, Travis Grundke muses:
Interesting take on the second hand market affecting the sales of
new Power Macs - you make a very salient argument. I believe that the
majority of the reason for poor sales is the absolutely terribly
price/performance ratio of these machines as compared to the overall
market at the moment. While Apple has made great strides in rectifying
this situation in recent months, a PM Tower is still well overpriced
for the comparable performance, particularly in light of good ole'
Moore's Law, which as we all should know - governs the expectations of
the marketplace.
The good is the enemy of the best, and the good enough is the enemy
of the upgrade - especially in tough economic times. Although the
price/performance ratio improves with every speed bump, the economy is
in the dumpster, and until that changes, people and businesses are
going to postpone new equipment purchases as much as possible.
I see that as a much bigger factor in the low level of Power Mac sales
than the used market.
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
