iBook G4 Developer Note: About This Developer Note
Far better than the usual marketing materials.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
DeLocalizer: make room for Panther
Bombich Software: DeLocalizerIt's said to free up about 1GB of room. I'll need to free some space before I try Panther (after the first set of fixes are out!)
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Hyatt on XUL and Mozilla
Surfin' Safari
Hyatt's 1-2 page description of Mozilla's XUL implementation is by far the best concise description I've seen anywhere. He understands this material, and he can communicate it. Quite a neat little artifact that he seems to have tossed out fairly quickly.
So what is XUL anyway? It is an XML language whose tags consist of:
(1) layout primitives (tags like hbox, vbox, grid and stack)
(2) widgets (tags like menulist, menubar, toolbar, and button)
(3) commands, keyboard accelerators (tags like command and keyset)
(4) xul templates (for UI binding to back-end data, represented as RDF)
Hyatt's 1-2 page description of Mozilla's XUL implementation is by far the best concise description I've seen anywhere. He understands this material, and he can communicate it. Quite a neat little artifact that he seems to have tossed out fairly quickly.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Updating Classic with Panther install
Panther: Mac OS X 10.3: Part III: "Updating Classic
Don Hurter
With the Big Day upon us, I offer the following tip for people upgrading to 10.3 who still use Classic on an occasional basis. You can create a disk image (using Disk Copy) and install OS 9 and all support files there, including Classic apps if you so desire. This way, all your OS 9 material will be contained inside the image when you're not using it, yet fully accessible when the image is mounted. There are more instructions for how to do this on any of these pages:
http://www.osxfaq.com/Tips/thomas/index.ws
http://www.macosxhints.comarticle.php?story=20020901083220804
http://www.bombich.com/software/shadowclassic.html
I need only minimal Classic support, so I weeded the system folder down to the bare minimum by hand (why does the Apple Video extension still get installed these days?) For this I only needed a 300MB disk image, although others might choose 500MB just to be safe. I then put the image inside ~/Library/Classic Support (which is a folder I created just for this), but the image can reside anywhere. One neat trick with all this is that the disk image will mount automatically if you ever try to launch a Classic app. Another benefit with keeping the image size down is that you can burn it onto a CD for backup (although you'll need Toast if you want to make it bootable, as I did). And when you upgrade to 10.3, you only need to copy the disk image to your new installation and everything will still work fine... "
Don Hurter
With the Big Day upon us, I offer the following tip for people upgrading to 10.3 who still use Classic on an occasional basis. You can create a disk image (using Disk Copy) and install OS 9 and all support files there, including Classic apps if you so desire. This way, all your OS 9 material will be contained inside the image when you're not using it, yet fully accessible when the image is mounted. There are more instructions for how to do this on any of these pages:
http://www.osxfaq.com/Tips/thomas/index.ws
http://www.macosxhints.comarticle.php?story=20020901083220804
http://www.bombich.com/software/shadowclassic.html
I need only minimal Classic support, so I weeded the system folder down to the bare minimum by hand (why does the Apple Video extension still get installed these days?) For this I only needed a 300MB disk image, although others might choose 500MB just to be safe. I then put the image inside ~/Library/Classic Support (which is a folder I created just for this), but the image can reside anywhere. One neat trick with all this is that the disk image will mount automatically if you ever try to launch a Classic app. Another benefit with keeping the image size down is that you can burn it onto a CD for backup (although you'll need Toast if you want to make it bootable, as I did). And when you upgrade to 10.3, you only need to copy the disk image to your new installation and everything will still work fine... "
Friday, October 24, 2003
Altec Lansing inMotion Portable iPod Speakers
The Apple Store (U.S.): "This tiny, ultra-portable, battery-operated stereo system is the first powered audio system designed exclusively for the iPod. A highly efficient amplifier powers four full-range micro drivers to deliver a full spectrum of pure, distinct sound, while the revolutionary MaxxBass technology allows listeners to enjoy deep bass without lugging large speakers around. Best of all, connectivity is as easy as placing your iPod into the built-in dock or connecting it through the auxiliary port."
Em -- I want these for Christmas :-)!
Em -- I want these for Christmas :-)!
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Apple - Discussions - SMB shared iTunes Lib: Dual Mac/Win Client
Editing a single SMB share iTunes repository from Mac and Windows iTunes clients.
I have iTunes 4.1 installed on a Win2K and WinXP box and on an iBook. The tunes all sit on a single SMB share. As a fairly expert OS X and Windows user who's been using iTunes for about 6 months, I feel it's blown away the entire PC music management world. Hence this question.
Has anyone tried the terrifying experiment of pointing every version of iTunes at the same iTunes library? Does the whole thing explode?
Thus far I've one machine (the iBook) that manges the main library and does the burning. I dropped the library folder on the other machines to build their view, so they each have their own repository.
For various reasons, depending on compatibiilty with the photo Vault feature of my iPod, I may switch the library management to the WinXP machine, redo my iPod with FAT32[1], and also sync my iPod there.
If I do that, I have two options for library management:
a. Point iTunes 4.1 on the other machines to the main machine and manage the respository from any machine.
b. Use Microsoft Remote Desktop from the other machines to control iTunes on the XP machine and share the library to the other machines.
Anyone experiment with option a? It seems by far the riskiest.
john
meta: jfaughnan, jgfaughnan, iPod, iTunes, LAN, mixed LAN, wireless LAN, shares, server, music server, 802.11b, ethernet, configuration, mixed architecture
[1] I'll put an HPFS+ image on the iPod drive for mounting on a Mac, but be able to use the iPod with a USB cable as a very large "thumb drive". An iPod that's a PC mountable USB drive, a firewire mountable HPFS share, a music box, a Photo Vault, a recording tool and a lightweight PIM is an intriguing proposition.
I have iTunes 4.1 installed on a Win2K and WinXP box and on an iBook. The tunes all sit on a single SMB share. As a fairly expert OS X and Windows user who's been using iTunes for about 6 months, I feel it's blown away the entire PC music management world. Hence this question.
Has anyone tried the terrifying experiment of pointing every version of iTunes at the same iTunes library? Does the whole thing explode?
Thus far I've one machine (the iBook) that manges the main library and does the burning. I dropped the library folder on the other machines to build their view, so they each have their own repository.
For various reasons, depending on compatibiilty with the photo Vault feature of my iPod, I may switch the library management to the WinXP machine, redo my iPod with FAT32[1], and also sync my iPod there.
If I do that, I have two options for library management:
a. Point iTunes 4.1 on the other machines to the main machine and manage the respository from any machine.
b. Use Microsoft Remote Desktop from the other machines to control iTunes on the XP machine and share the library to the other machines.
Anyone experiment with option a? It seems by far the riskiest.
john
meta: jfaughnan, jgfaughnan, iPod, iTunes, LAN, mixed LAN, wireless LAN, shares, server, music server, 802.11b, ethernet, configuration, mixed architecture
[1] I'll put an HPFS+ image on the iPod drive for mounting on a Mac, but be able to use the iPod with a USB cable as a very large "thumb drive". An iPod that's a PC mountable USB drive, a firewire mountable HPFS share, a music box, a Photo Vault, a recording tool and a lightweight PIM is an intriguing proposition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)