XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 04, 2003 9:00 AM |
frankdtito |
I created a thread on this board on April 1, 2003 (what day is that, boys and girls?) entitled: XPostFacto 3.0 released! which no longer can be found in this lovely discussion forum. (Go ahead, click "Next" about a dozen times. It not be there. Or is it? I couldn't find my own post!) In that message, I mentioned that there had not been a log entry for two months. I registered this software March 2, 2003. In the three months since, there has been exactly one log entry. Also, this forum software blows. Is it a sample board application that comes with ColdFusion? IMHO, everyone who is looking to this unsupported software to support a beige production machine should look around for one of the semi-opaque products that Apple has made in the last four years. Refurb B&W machines can be found for under $400. (Where? That is left for an exercise for the reader.) If you must keep your existing machine, for the sake of your sanity, keep it as stock as possible. Debugging five-year-old SCSI PCI card installations? Better have a six- pack handy. The exception to this rule is recent USB and FireWire cards, which seem quite happy in their beige homes. Why, then, am I still here? I think it would be neat to see Mac OS X 10.1.5 working on my TAM with the backlight on. In short, having either a better board or more responsive developer would make the XPostFacto experience a little more tolerable. But these conditions do not exist, which makes for a bummer of a time. Comments, anyone? Peace, Frank |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 10, 2003 9:37 AM |
tippingj |
. |
I told you- OSX runs on just about anything..... Granted its the same way. WinXP runs on 16mb RAM, but its slow. |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 09, 2003 9:12 PM |
voxxdigital |
. |
Oh, my goodness... I just made OSX 10.1.5 boot (and don't crash!) in a Power Mac 7300/200 with 32MB of RAM!!! It was miserably slow, but it worked! Hehe... funny to see, anyway... |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 06, 2003 9:25 PM |
tippingj |
. |
The present incarnation of MacOS X requires a minimum of 121-MB of ram, and storage must exceed 2.6-GB. I've been dealing with computers for more than 30- years, and I have never seen a more bloated Frankenstein-esque monstrosity like MacOS X. I couldn't stand NOT replying to this gem. Okay. First, let me point this out. Windows XP requires 128mb recomended minimum. 256 Recommended, and 512+mb all the better. MOSX runs just fine on 64mb. I've tried it before. Its no big deal that MOSX needs 128mb+ to run. Second. 2.6gb, your joking, right? have you TRIED to install ANY OS on 2gb of disk space and its applications???! Windows XP on the other hand needs around 3gb, plus App space. Anyone with real knowledge of computers knows you can hardly run ANYTHING on ANY platform under 10gb. Linux, Unix, BSD, Windows. They all get crammed on anything under 10gb regardless. Are you saying that you want a OS that fits under 2.6gb AND all your pretty 500mb games too? Third. MOSX isn't bloated. Although I garentee that your system if using XPF is making it feel bloated. Anything without a 100mhz bus at LEAST is gonna make MOSX feel sluggish. And Aqua is wonderful. If you want NO BLOATING, there is a nifty key command called Single User Mode at startup. Go ahead, press it. See? No more GUI! Isn't that COOL? No more bloating. Have fun while you are GUI'less! I can't believe all you people. You act like XPostFacto is thousands of dollars. If the $10 is REALLY THAT IMPORTANT, go beg for it in the streets and you'll have it back in no time. I just sit here shacking my head. You people, except the ones who are HAPPY with their systems, keep pouring in the gallons of cash into your rustbucket Mac. Sonnet this, Dual that, "I have 1gb of RAM and a 45mhz Bus to slow it all down!". Most of you continually think this-sucks-cause-my-old-mac-doesn't-preform-like-a-dual-G4. And you pester this forum with rocks and stones because of that above thought-patturn. Its unbelievable. I'm happy with my mac, I have "seen the light" and I RELISE that my Mac will NEVER get any faster. No matter how much more money I put into it. If you want freakin' preformace, drop the 6 Grand and get a nice new G4 Dual system from Apple. I did, and they ARE the best systems out there. But I still run MOSX on my oldy because I can and I am happy with that. I don't NEED a 800mhz Processor, cause it isn't gonna make ANY difference on a 45-60mhz Bus'd mac. I mean.. Come on. Apple intends MOSX to be used on their NEW MACS, that actually WORK WITH SPEED. "Its bloated. Its slow. Waaaaa!" my ass. Apple never intended this OS to be used on such old machines. It was never designed with that in mind. Even Rhapsody called for more powerful machines then what was at the time. So apple designed more powerful machines. I CHALLENGE you. Install Windows 2000 Advanced Server on a 486 with 32mb RAM (DX4). Go right ahead. Then, when it hardly boots, Phone Microsoft 6 years later from when you actually got this machine and complain cause their software doesn't work on YOUR slow hardware. Its not XPF's fault, NOR IS IT APPLES. As soon as you installed and used XPF, it was YOUR RESPONSABILITY and indeed on YOUR HARDWARE. Don't expect a guy in a tux to show up as soon as you pop in the OS X CD, and give you a new Apple. An't gonna happen. So be happy that the unsupported un-intended installation of MOSX works if it does on your unsupported hardware. If it doesn't, DON'T COMPLAIN. It is YOUR hardware and YOUR responsability, and also YOUR problem when you do stuff like this. I myself had serious problems with my Openfirmware. But, gosh all mighty, I did something UNEXPECTED. I "Researched" the problem. And I found my OWN solution. Wow, how'd you like that for a change? A user helping himself.. What has the world come to! "If it don't work, TAKE IT BACK" ???!. I leave you with this. 4 years from now, Kiss MOSX on your OLDWORLD machine goodbye. 10.5 will probobly have smarts to prevent us from doing this, its just not the way Apple intended their wonderful OS to be used- on a old machine making it look sluggish and unusable. Stop complaining about this forum. Stop complaining about your $10. Stop complaining about XPF. Its good enough for me that XPF is Free. I paid the $10 because XPF worked, and I thought the dev earned it. If you don't like it, and you've got a problem..... Welcome to the Unsupported world of Hardware. Please take a ticket and stand in line. You should be called upon for a problem solution to your outdated hardware in about 2 centuries. Have a nice day! |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 06, 2003 9:39 AM |
voxxdigital |
. |
Tempest: Yes, I got your point, but what I said is that the current G4 CPUs are unimaginably faster than the old 60040 CPUs, even with dedicated graphics hardware - which the graphic accelerator cards included with the G4's actually do a similar job. So that's why I say that NxTStep was way more optimized than Mac OS X. |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 06, 2003 2:33 AM |
tempest |
. |
voxxdigital: Well, things aren't so clear-cut. Black (NeXT) hardware had things like the Dimension which was basically like another computer to do 32-bit color rendering; Color workstations 12-bit color that are dithered to appear 16-bit; B&W was, of course, 2-bit. OS X is also hampered by things like OpenGL, which NeXTSTEP/OpenSTEP did not have. There was no real-time alpha compositing used by the GUI. The eyecandy that's turned on by default under OS X sucks up a lot of the perceived performance. Nowadays, I think a lot of CPU/GPU power will be used for eyecandy because we have those cycles to spare. |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 05, 2003 11:11 PM |
alan |
. |
here is my RANT for the complainers: Not to re-hash the same old stuff, but my God people - it is $10. Some of you act like XPF should be supported like a $500 application from Adobe. The software is FREE, and forum is $10 - one time. In my opinion if it helps with even ONE problem it was worth it. Those of us who have been sucessful with XPF have shared our experiences, and help countless people through the ATI Radeon 7000 boot up issues, "how do I format an OWC SCSI drive" issues, the bad memory issues, the here today gone tomorrow support for SCSI Optical drives, the 800Mhz G4 upgrade issues, the choice of L2 cache enablers, etc. I could go on and on. Ryan has done an AMAZING thing getting OS X to run on our hardware. I have been running OS X for 18 months now from 10.1.3 all thr way up to 10.2.6. I purchase songs from the Apple itunes music store, I run Office OS X, Photoshop 7, GoLive 6, VPC 6, etc - all on a machine the Apple says should be running OS 9.1 (I run OS 9.22 also thank you very much). I could probably keep going for at least another year, assuming Ryan can get Panther to run. Tell me where else I can get a piece of software for FREE, and a message board for $10 that could do all of this for me? Anyone ever e-mail Ryan? He actually answers you back! I thought that was amazing BEFORE I found out that he had another full time job. Now I think it is PHENOMENAL. Some people are complaining that there have been no updates or no log notes for months. Besides the fact that Ryan has a full time job as a lawyer, this is because XPF is basically a COMPLETE PRODUCT. The issues what people are waiting for are mostly icing on the cake. People want to run 10.2 on PPC 603 chips, they want fire wire booting, etc. These are all going to be great features, but for the most part, XPF does what it is supposed to do. It allows you to run OS X (of some flavor) on almost every PPC 603/604 CPU. For the 604 CPU's like my 8600 is runs OS X better than some of the fully supported machines. At this point, I would probably pay the $10 again just to keep up to date, even though I haven't downloaded a version of XPF since 2.2, and haven't needed anything since the 10.2 fix. I would certainly pay to get Panther support. People need to keep in mind that working with XPF is really a gamble. Most of the people have great success. But some people (like that poor guy with the 9600) end up with a machine that won't even boot into OS 9 from the CD! If you aren't comfortable with the internals of your Mac OS, than you probably need some help to get XPF working, unless it just goes on the first try. But the beauty of this forum is that we are here to help you. How about all the people who wanted to save a few bucks by buying a PC ATI card, and following instructions on a web site to get it to work on their Mac. First hurdle seemed to be dealing with the fact that the site was in German. Then you needed a PC to do the actual flashing, and then you have all of the OS X issues. Some of the people doing this couldn't find the site, others didn't know how to make a PC bootable floppy, others COMPLAINED that the guy who posted the initial link wouldn't help them. Give me a break! You shouldn't even attempt that hack if you don't know what you are doing. I spent the extra $50 and got the real Mac card. My point through all of this is the people need to keep in mind that XPF is FREE, Ryan is basically DONE with this, and spends little time on it when he is working on his real job, and finally the forum software stinks. But you know what - for $10 it works fine for me. I am getting a little sick of the XPF NEWBEs posting tons of messages that are mostly NEGATIVE. I check this forum DAILY to see if I can help people, and post messages from time to time. After a while you recognize the people who post regularly and who really know their stuff. Some of you have an AMAZING amount of knowledge on the internals of OS X and offer a wonderful service to the people who are REASONABLE and ask questions instead of complaining (anyone remember the DETAILED discussion of the OSX boot process, and how the boot resolution was handed with the ATI 7000 - I don't know how these guys figure some of that out). I for one amd VERY SATISFIED with the XPF community we have created here, and want to thank Ryan and the rest of you for your help. The complainers can swtch to WinXP and leave us alone. Thanks for letting me rant... Alan |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 05, 2003 6:58 PM |
powderhaus |
. |
i don't get the subject of this thread at all. OWC is a great co, i accidentaly ordered 4 128 DIMMs when i wanted 2 128mb EDO DIMMs and 2 128MB normal DIMMs (i for got the name of them) and all i had to do was take the 2 i wanted out of the box, then send the other 2 back and they gave me the 2 EDO DIMMs. I liked that. I don't think Ryan gets paid much, if anything at all for doing this so his job should take priority so they he can live a decent life. I am a high school student, there is no way i can afford a new system, getting a used G3 would be a wast of money, they are supported but won't be much faster then my Umax J700 because they did not bring much more to the table. i am not going to buy a G4 because they are about to be replaced with a G5 and i am not impressed with the G4. If the G5 turns out to be the IBM 970 PPC then i will be saving because i think that is a nice chip that will be worth the 2 to 3 grand i will have to pay. But i don't NEED any of that, i would like it (who would not???) be a G4 is not enouph for me to pay 2 to 3 grand on. when i get a computer i will only get the top of the line so you can go with out upgrading for longer and you can upgrade the PowerMacs, you can't do that with the iMac. if you are going to complain about free software you are ungreatful. if you did not get the results you wanted (i did not see any questions about a computer not working here) then either pay for this or be happy with what you have, or go spend the 2000$ on a new computer. But is $10 not worth knowing that you need a new computer? you now know that your old computer just can't do it (in your opinion). but what if it could? you just saved 1990$. then you can use that when you need to upgrade. |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 05, 2003 5:51 PM |
voxxdigital |
. |
tempest, I believe your description of the NeXT system is very acurate, but what if the same NeXTStep system coud run in, say, a PPC 604e at 300MHz (read Power Mac 9600)? Would'n it be unbelievably fast? Furthermore, what if the same NeXTStep, let's just suppose, of course, could run in a Dual 1.4 GHZ G4? Wouldn't it be at light speed? These examples are surreal, but the point is that, IMHO, the NeXTStep code were way more optimized than Mac OS X. I believe developers are not stimulated anymore to optimize programming code, since computers are becoming fast and with more storage capacity in a geometric progression. |
. |
RE: Give this some thought ! |
June, 05, 2003 3:25 PM |
tempest |
. |
Well, I have 3 NeXT boxes at home (Cube w/ Dimension, NeXTstation Color Turbo, and NeXTstation). The original hardware configuration were powered by 68030s at 25MHz. Turbos ran at 33MHz. 40MHz hardware were made but never released to the public. 8MB was the minimum required for NeXTStep 1.x. You could probably run it with less than that, but it would probably mean not having any sort of a GUI. I currently have an NeXTSTEP 3.3 installation and it takes a little over 1GB and I only have 2-3 3rd-party NS applications like Lotus Improv. As far as speed and response, it is true that GUI response is very, very good and is amazing considering the CPU's speed; but let's not kid ourselves here, NeXTime is very sluggish on black hardware. OmniWeb is also sluggish but passable. The only GUI response that is bad is window resizing on OS X, in my opinion. However, there is no direct analogy in NeXTSTEP 3.x or OpenSTEP 4.x because all Workspace window resizes do not have their contents updated continuously like under OS X and Microsoft Windows. Window resizes are superior under Microsoft here. NeXT at that time was notoriously bad for not updating their C library and UNIX tools. There were many old tools with bugs and they did not update them even though bug reports have been filed for years. Apple is a lot better in that sense. |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 05, 2003 2:30 PM |
gabb |
. |
pbell, again ur comments are informative but openended (no conclusions). I like ur comments a lot, but r u saying OS X is not what its cracked up to be? Well could be; almost everything from Apple is a little too hyped up and sugar coated, but still its a decent OS. I use Windows XP Professional at work doing graphic stuff and let me tell you i look forward to going back home to my wife and my PTP (w/ sonnet 800 Mhz G4), it still works great, maybe a little slower with the GUI and over all video but solid as a rock. Frank, I am sorry XPF is not working for u, but u know what when I decided to stick with my PTP and not get a new MAC, a year and a half ago, I approached with a little negative thought, that it WILL NOT WORK!!!! But again and again I have proved myself wrong. I have just upgraded to SOnnet 800 Mhz G4 after many serious considerations and thoughts and I have pushed buying a new Mac for another 6 months at least. Not that I cannot afford it, so I can get the best new stuff that is coming out this Fall, and maybe drag that machine for another 6 years. I have probably spent double or triple the amount of money on my machine in the last 6 years, but never regereted it, its great and a lot of fun. Free softwares like XPFs gives us that edge to go where very few dare to go...remeber the apple commercial after Steve Job's made a come back..."here is to the crazy ones........blah blah blah..." Thanks Ryan for XPF. Gabby |
. |
Give this some thought ! |
June, 05, 2003 1:12 PM |
pbell3 |
. |
MacOS X is based on the now defunct NextStep operating system. NextStep was built upon a BSD-UNIX core (sounds familiar doesn't it?). It originally ran on 68030 at 50- MHZ, required less than 8-MB to load and run, and the standard hard drive was 105- MB!!!!! I actually saw one of these Next computers in a store and used it. I still have the brochures for it (both the Cube and the Workstation). The cube could use a whopping 64-MB of ram total. The Workstation maxed out at 32-MB of ram. Nobody ever complained about this system being slow. It was even faster with the 68040/40. Fully painted in polygons rotated in a window smoothly while a disk backup was in progress and internet software was running. The present incarnation of MacOS X requires a minimum of 121-MB of ram, and storage must exceed 2.6-GB. I've been dealing with computers for more than 30- years, and I have never seen a more bloated Frankenstein-esque monstrosity like MacOS X. While I like the system in the main, practical criticisms are ligitimate discussion.Any modern system must do the following things: have decent I/O with all standard ports in the standard hardware, video must be managed well, keyboard and mouse activity has to be efficient, hard drive space must be allocated with intelligence, sound is an extra but if it's in the system do it well. Both the Next (under NextStep) and the Macintosh (Under MOSX) do all the same tasks. These include audio/video, hard drive operations, input functions, networking (including all the same server features), printer specific management, and many other things. All the same, all present and accounted for. So, why does MOSX hide more than two-thirds of all its' 90,000 (approx) files, while NextStep does not and doesn't need to? This is not to say that I like NextStep (I don't), but it seems to me that Apple has given over way too much attention to Next authors trying to be all things to all people by delivering nothing, but filling up a drive and hogging and bogging down the system for little definable purpose. I used-to write UNIX apps, and system utilities, and to this day (I've used MOSX for over a year now) the system still doesn't gel well with the requirements of common sense or decency. If I didn't know better, it would be reasonable to suggest that Tevanian was trying to dazzle us with bullshit while delivering the bacon wrapped in cobalt steel (heaven forbid we should see the Emperor without his nice new suit)!. Anyhow, that's my rant. DIscuss it or not ! But the bottom line is we get what we pay for. |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 05, 2003 11:45 AM |
rpertierra |
. |
I have to disagree about OWC being "a bad company". Sounds like you wanted your money back for the memory and not another sample that would work. I can just imagine buying memory from MacConnection that did not work with OS X on my 7300. Their first words would be, "...that memory is only supported in OS 9. See ya...". The fact is I got a bad memory chip. I diagnozed the problem and exchanged it for a new one. I also bought a MacAlly USB/Firewire card that is not compatible with my machine. They exchanged it for a Sonnet. I also bought a 36 MB SCSI IBM hard drive from them that I thought was defective until I delved into the magic world of SCSI with OS X. I know of no other company that will support the XPF environment and for that I am greatful. I do wish the forum software was better! |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 05, 2003 9:46 AM |
earlyd416 |
. |
I haven't seen the need to upgrade as long as I can still do what I want to do with the 7600/8600/9600 I own. Abit, I've upgraded these 3 Macs over the years with G3 & G4 CPU cards, USB, Firewire, and loads of memory & SCSI drives. My next Mac will be a TI 1GHz+ laptop over the next year since I now have both my children out of college. (YES!) So, until then, the Best Value business case for me is XPF. I'm sure I'm not alone. With respect to the forum...I too want a search, but that's fallen on death ears. So, I just print out the topics that have interest to me, such as the fine topic discussion on burning PeeCee ATI cards to work on a Mac. I got over it (this forum's drawbacks) and so should the rest of users of this forum. Bitchin' hasn't worked in the past, so... Back to work.... --Dwight http://dwight.dnsalias.org/ |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 04, 2003 5:22 PM |
willschou1 |
. |
First off XPFacto is great software! No if's ends or buts about it! It does take a bit more work and or knowledge to get it going. Not everyone has the ability to do more then stick a cd in the drive. Sorry you can't get it to work and or have a machine that doesn't yet work with it. There are a lot of people running OSX using XPF on an older machines and most of them are happy with it ;-) It isn't possible to hold eveyones hand throught the process and or come to their house etc. Some people are better off buying a newer machine with OSX installed. So be it. |
. |
RE: XPostFacto 3.1 released! (not really) |
June, 04, 2003 11:51 AM |
tippingj |
. |
Well Well. First let me say that XPF is free. Nobody wanted you to pay for it. ------------------ >I created a thread on this board on April 1, 2003 (what day is that, >boys and girls?) entitled: >XPostFacto 3.0 released! I almost fell off my chair. I will admit to hoping, everytime I visit the forum for a update. >which no longer can be found in this lovely discussion forum. (Go >ahead, click "Next" about a dozen times. It not be there. Or is it? >I couldn't find my own post!) True. The forum is somewhat hard to navigate. Better then no forum though. >In that message, I mentioned that there had not been a log entry for >two months. The developer has a life too. And a job. You don't spend 24/7 on the computer ether, do you? (but I do :-)). >I registered this software March 2, 2003. You mean you signed up for the forum. XPF is free. >In the three months since, there has been exactly one log entry. Aye. At least we know he still kicks. >Also, this forum software blows. Is it a sample board application >that comes with ColdFusion? Probobly. OWC is a really bad company. I bought from them and paid $45 US for overnight shipping. And the RAM didn't even work, couldn't return it ether. BS that Overnight is the only way to go. I think XPF should find a new home. OWC isn't the best roof for XPF. >IMHO, everyone who is looking to this unsupported software to >support a beige production machine should look around for one of the >semi-opaque products that Apple has made in the last four years. I already own a new iMac. Works just fine, however, it is nice to run new apps on my Clone. Whats not to loose then a beer and half a day? (alright, maybe more beer if you hit a snag). >Refurb B&W machines can be found for under $400. (Where? That is >left for an exercise for the reader.) I know where. But regardless, the BW machines can use XPF's help anyways. Unless its a true new Mac, you basically need to use XPF due to some glitch or bug from Apple. I often wonder why there is a bite out of the apple. >If you must keep your existing machine, for the sake of your sanity, >keep it as stock as possible. Debugging five-year-old SCSI PCI card >installations? Better have a six- pack handy. Why five-year-old? Go get a new Mac PCI SCSI card. No more problems. If your running a 5 year old PCI Card, chances are that it will have problems anyways. I mean, come on. Anything that is PCI and is five years old is probobly pre-PCI 2.0. I remember running USB on a Pentium system. It had severe limitations and bugs, chances are that a 5 year old SCSI card would suffer the same. There is no problem with non-stock. I run a Powerbase 200, with 467mhz G3, 144mb RAM, 40gb HD, Radeon 7000 Flashed PC PCI Video, Entrega USB, and Kingston 100TX Network. Most of the peripherals aren't stock. I even run a 5 CD Changer Nakamichi half-height CDRom SCSI drive, boots and works just fine. I've almost maxed the system out, and it still runs wonderfully. My SCSI chain has a DLT2000XT Tape drive. And my USB>SCSI Converter has my SCSI Scanner on it. Works just fine. The key is not "stick with stock", but "stick with proper non-stock". If you spend the extra $15 for a Mac compatible, it will pay off. >The exception to this rule is recent USB and FireWire cards, which >seem quite happy in their beige homes. With the exception of lack-of-Openfirmware support. But no biggy. My PCI Video runs QE just fine, and my Network card also. >Why, then, am I still here? Even I can't answer that. If you don't like what you see, just forget the $10. Think of it as a donation to Apple. Nobody is chaining you to this forum. >I think it would be neat to see Mac OS X 10.1.5 working on my TAM >with the backlight on. So would I. But Mac OS 9.1 works just fine for me. Whats wrong with OS 9? There are still plenty of applications around. Its not like the TAM is 68k or anything. >In short, having either a better board or more responsive developer >would make the XPostFacto experience a little more tolerable. The developer has other things to do. I don't expect him to drop his life for XPF. Nor should you. He has a busy job. Its nice that he can at least work on XPF when he has free time. And yes, this board is crappy, but Apple an't gonna do anything about oldworld machines, so it is up to us. >But these conditions do not exist, which makes for a bummer of a >time. Yes. But at least someone has taken into consideration of Apple's ignorance. But then again, MOSX doesn't really run all that well even on the most supped' up oldworlds. MOSX was meant for New World macs, so I can't blame apple for wanting their OS to run as flawless as possible. We created our own bugs and glitches by running MOSX on oldworld. Not apple. Its just like the PC, nobody intended Hard Drives would go past 504mb. Hence the infamous LBA limit. Apple never intended the PPC (nonG3) series to run MOSX. >Comments, anyone? Yes. See above. >Peace, Frank Thanks, Keven Tipping |
|
|