UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (27) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: dswt Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 66104  
Subject: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/13/2001 12:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
FWIW, I changed back to 9.1 tonight. iBook DV, 128MB, 10G. It was fun up to a point, and I am encouraged by the potential. I was especially pleased at how they tightened up the Classic integration. Nice work. I do wish there was a "classic UI" mode to use OSX in though. That is still a 'classic' (scuse the pun!) Jobsian mistake (a la floppy, USB, no ethernet in the early days, et al.). The dock is ok, but only as an *addition* to the old Apple and apps menus IMO. But that debate is over.

But, it was just too slow (I mostly use the Classic environment); I found the system font (wot no system pref for this? yes yes, bound to be buried in some XML somewhere, but...) just too clunky on the fixed 800x600 screen; and I had crashes -- particularly irritating was constant freezing when clamshell-shutting it to sleep, something I do all the time, requiring a (long, especially with Classic to come up) reboot.

I shall look forward to the refinements to come. And I feel good that I did my "bit" by buying both the beta and 10.0. But as a day-to-day OS on the iBook: no. No need. No need, today anyway.

Stewart. <who has no time to read the AAPL board any more, so may as well camp out here :-)>
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SkateFool Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3320 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/13/2001 1:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Still striving along with X here.

I found that half of my problems with Classic went away on Wednesday when I installed the Carbonized version of Eudora. It does mean that I have to live with an ad in the corner of my screen until the office ponies up for real upgrade copies, but the machine isn't bogging down as much.

The real trouble spot I'm running into now is in web browsers. I find myself cycling between NN 4.77, MSIE 5.5, MSIE 5.1 for X, OmniWeb, and iCab for X depending on what has not irritated me recently. I'm looking forward to a web browser that is complete *and* quick *and* made for X. Although NN 4.77 is old and slow, I still find myself using it a lot because I know exactly how it will behave.

The only other area that could be troublesome is Photoshop, which I normally use a lot but haven't had to use much in the last month. It's been acceptable when I have had to use it.

I've added a new bunch of websites to my daily reading, with Max OS X Hints (http://www.macosxhints.com/) being near the top of the list.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hy7ujhy7 One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3321 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/13/2001 3:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The real trouble spot I'm running into now is in web browsers. I find myself cycling between NN 4.77, MSIE 5.5, MSIE 5.1 for X, OmniWeb, and iCab for X depending on what has not irritated me recently.

Yeah, me too. I haven't tried icab yet, and I've been using Netscape 6, but otherwise I also keep going from browser to browser. I'll definitely try icab, and going back to a more stable version of netscape is an option I hadn't considered.

My IE 5.1 has decided not to let me paste anything into a text box. It also dies every now and then. Omni dies less often, but if I post something to yahoo (I don't know if I tried it here) it removes all of the blank lines, even though they show up in the preview, and posts everything as one solid paragraph. Neither one runs any of the few java things I use correctly. Netscape is extremely slow. And lots of other minor problems with all of them.

If this is a plot to get me to be willing to pay for a good browser, it worked. My credit card is ready to go.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LSEdwards Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3322 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/13/2001 8:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The OmniWeb removal of blank lines occurs in FOOL posting as well. ...Lee

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hy7ujhy7 One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3324 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/13/2001 11:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Thanks to SkateFool for reminding me about icab. I've tried it out now on most of the sites I regularly visit, and so far no problems at all. And the image filters are great. It usually only takes a new filter or two to prevent all of the banner ads from loading at a site. Just click on the image and hold until a menu pops up, scroll to "image", scroll to "filter" on the sub-menu, and it gives you options for adding new filters. You can also turn off pop-up windows. Those things alone do away with enough annoyance to make up for a multitude of other flaws, but so far, I haven't found any major flaws.

It doesn't run java correctly (if you perversely define "correctly" to mean "like the Windows version of Internet Explorer") on some sites, but none of the other browsers seemed to, either, including IE5.1.

So far I'm quite happy with icab. Definitely happy enough to send them the money for it when the official release comes out.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GregTitus Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3325 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/13/2001 12:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
The OmniWeb removal of blank lines occurs in FOOL posting as well. ...Lee

Sigh. :-) According to the SGML standard, newlines in attribute values should be converted into whitespace by the browser. If the HTML writer wants a true newline, it needs to be encoded as a character entity.

The preview has your post text in a hidden form field value, and the Fool's code isn't encoding the newlines, so OmniWeb is acting according to the standard when it screws up the post. (I posted about this the last time it came up on this board in more detail, with references to the standards documents involved if anyone is interested enough to go back and look for it.)

Anyway, no current browser except OmniWeb actually acts this way now. (The last time it came up a couple months ago, iCab did the same thing, but evidently they've changed their handling in the meanwhile to fit the now de facto "standard" behavior.)

So just now I've finally changed this in OmniWeb, and you'll no longer run into this problem if you download the next release. (Should be sometime next week.) In the meanwhile, the issue is with the "Preview Reply" functionality. If you hit the back button from the preview to get back to the page where you edited the post, and hit "Submit Reply" from there, this issue doesn't arise.

--Greg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BeenFooled Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3326 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/13/2001 12:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Re: non-standard-following "bug' already "fixed" in next OmniWeb release.... it's like having Marc Andreesen put features in Netscape at our request. Although I can't exaclty imagine that happening..... so in fact, it's better than that.
;-)
BF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LSEdwards Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3327 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/13/2001 12:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks, Greg. I fully expect each release of OmniWeb over the next 6 months to get better and better, and yet remain so wonderfully clean.

Any thought about enabling an import of IE or other favorite sites? It is an HTML file (Favorites.html)? Maybe in your spare time? TeeHeeLee

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SkateFool Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3328 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/13/2001 1:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Thanks to SkateFool for reminding me about icab.

I'd recommend it more highly except for its current lack of support of style sheets. SInce I do websites to may for food and mortgage, I make extensive use of stylesheets to simplify a lot of what I do. Using iCab to view one of my own sites can sometimes be distressing.


The Java issue with most/all of the Carbonized browsers bugs me, too, but that is something I expect to see taken care of over the next few months. Style sheets have been on iCab's to-do list since I first used it two years ago, and still nada. Personally, I would have much, much happier if the developer(s) had built in the style sheet support before they started on Javascript.

And as for someone else's mention of FIzzila: I haven't been able to get any version of Netscape 6, Mozilla, or Fizzila to work properly in months. The biggest problem has been clicking on links, only to find that the browser has somehow detached the filepath from the server name and is querying the wrong server for the page that I requested. Amazingly, I've never encountered anyone else who has the same problem.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: hy7ujhy7 One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3329 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/13/2001 1:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
After I wrote that about icab, I found a site (www.level3.com) that didn't display properly -- I don't know if that's a style sheet issue or what -- and then ... a kernel panic Can't blame a kernel panic on icab, though. And I had to go to Netscape to get a sound file to play -- or actually to get it just to attempt to play, because RealPlayer just gave me a bunch of clicking noises.

The joys of being an early adopter, eh?

Another browser to watch for is opera (www.opera.com). They have a version for the Mac that they say doesn't run under OS X yet, but say they'll have it working in classic mode "in April". I've used it under Windows, and it was pretty decent. Maybe they'll do a real OSX version eventually.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: SkateFool Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3330 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/13/2001 1:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And I had to go to Netscape to get a sound file to play

Well, I have to admit that now that they're charging for you to listen to baseball broadcasts over the Internet, I haven't been as concerned about with my troubles with RealAudio as I was a couple weeks ago.

Another browser to watch for is opera (www.opera.com). They have a version for the Mac that they say doesn't run under OS X yet,

Yep. If you try to launch, it fails pretty quickly.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dsheehy Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3331 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/13/2001 8:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'd recommend it more highly except for its current lack of support of style sheets. SInce I do websites to may for food and mortgage, I make extensive use of stylesheets to simplify a lot of what I do. Using iCab to view one of my own sites can sometimes be distressing.

I second that. Stylesheets are much more important to me than java or javascript. Disappointing that iCab is taking so long to get there. Stylesheets will be very important as the web makes a transition from HTML to XML via XHTML.

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: crassfool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3349 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/15/2001 12:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
SkateFool says

I found that half of my problems with Classic went away on Wednesday when I installed the Carbonized version of Eudora. It does mean that I have to live with an ad in the corner of my screen until the office ponies up for real upgrade copies, but the machine isn't bogging down as much.

I put Eudora behind me and switched over completely to the Mail that comes with OS X. I've never regretted it.

crassfool

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SkateFool Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3351 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/15/2001 4:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I put Eudora behind me and switched over completely to the Mail that comes with OS X.

WHat did you do about your old Eudora e-mail folders?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Steinmr Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3356 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/15/2001 7:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I put Eudora behind me and switched over completely to the Mail that comes with OS X.

WHat did you do about your old Eudora e-mail folders?


the OS X mail program has an IMPORT MAILBOXES under the FILE menu. It goes and gets all of your mail from your other email programs. And yes, if you have a back up of your stuff, it finds that and imports it too. Maybe a little too efficient, but I certainly can live with too good as opposed to not good enough :-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: crassfool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3357 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/15/2001 9:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
SkateFool says

What did you do about your old Eudora e-mail folders?

I left them behind, along with my address book. For lots of people this would be unacceptable, but it's OK for me. If I really need to find a piece of old email I can still fire up Eudora for that purpose.

As for the address book, it is 90% junk anyway. Mail remembers every address it sees, so the working address book comes up to speed pretty quickly.

For both things, I'm pretty confident that there will soon be scripts around to do the conversions. In fact I bet the scripts exist already and I just haven't run across them.

crassfool

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 4aapl Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3358 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/15/2001 10:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In fact I bet the scripts exist already and I just haven't run across them.

You might want to check the TIL's. I'm 99% sure that a script that does this is amoung them. I think macintouch listed them.

Yep, here's a link

http://asu.info.apple.com/swupdates.nsf/artnum/n12038

I haven't personally played around with them, but know that they've been tested quite a bit.

4aapl

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BeenFooled Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3364 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/16/2001 12:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I put Eudora behind me and switched over completely to the Mail that comes with OS X. I've never regretted it."

Did you have to do anything special to the Eudora mailboxes to have them be seen and used by the Mail program?

One beauty of Eudora is that the mailboxes are ASCII text, so anything can pretty much open and read them. Is that the case for the new Mail program (does it have a better name than "new Mail program"?)

Does it have filtering functions as powerful as Eudora?

Can I possibly ask more questions? :-)

BF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 4aapl Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3367 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/16/2001 2:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
does it have a better name than "new Mail program"?

Mail

or Mail.app if via the commant line.

4aapl

(simple and sweet, just like a Mac should be. (along with tons of power if you're ready for it) Glad it didn't get named iMail or myMail)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hy7ujhy7 One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3383 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/17/2001 2:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
or Mail.app if via the commant line.

Do you mean from the Terminal command line? It doesn't work for me there. I can execute:
/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail
from the command line, but I'd have to put each application directory in the $path variable, or use the full path each time.

In general I'm not terribly impressed with the way the unix side and the mac side interact, at least when I'm trying to do stuff in unix. It's fine if I'm doing *just* unix, or *just* mac applications, but the intersection of the two is kind of kludgy. If I want to, say, write a python script or shell script that runs a browser pointed at a certain URL, I haven't figured out how to do it. Constructing the path, and knowing to look in something.app/Contents/MacOS is awkward, but even that doesn't work with Classic apps -- is there any way to run them from the command line? -- and a lot of GUI-fied programs just don't seem to want to run from the command line either. The mac adaptation of gnuplot, for example, may follow all the standards for being a mac application, but it apparently lost the ability to run it from the command line. So scripts that generate data and then fire up gnuplot to display it don't work. I even thought about going through applescript, since some applications are scriptable in that sense, but I couldn't find a way to run the applescript runner from a shell script or whatever -- not that going from a shell script to applescript just to run an application would be very desirable.

Don't get me wrong. I like a lot of things about OS X. I only wish I'd gone with Linux a few times a day, and I expect that over time more and more stuff will be made to work on OS X, so that in the long run I'll be happier with OS X. I chose to be an early adopter, and knew there would be some teething pain to go with it.

But if anyone has some pointers on what I'm doing wrong in trying to put together some simple python scripts and shell scripts to run various applications, or could point me to a site that has people trying to do unix-like things with OSX, I'd sure appreciate it.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 4aapl Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3384 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/17/2001 3:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I said in part or Mail.app if via the commant <sp> line.

Do you mean from the Terminal command line? It doesn't work for me there.

Sorry for the confusion. I just meant that some people would refer to it as mail.app, and was giving a reason why. AFAIK, you can't run Apple's mail app from the command line. I don't think you can do this for most things.....just like how back in Win95 land you couldn't run most apps in dos if they were made to be in a GUI in Win95.

Is it common in Linux to have one app be accessible from both the GUI and a command line?

As far as checking your mail, you might be more successful in finding a mail app that you can run via command line that can use the same files as Apple's Mail app. Or, you can set up your GUI mail app to leave messages on the server.

I only wish I'd gone with Linux a few times a day

If Linux can do what you want better, use it! Hopefully you can do the stuff in one of the versions of Linux that runs on Apple's hardware. Let's see, there's LinuxPPC and YellowDog. I think there might be one or two others. I'm sure you know this, but just make another partition on your drive and boot into it when you want to do stuff in there.

That way you can claim your early adopter status, get the things done that another OS works better for you, and still hopefully find more and more ways that you can do those things in X instead of your secondary OS.

4aapl

(sorry for the confusion on the GUI vs command line thing. I'm still used to doing most everything in the GUI, though I have found a lot of things that for me work faster in the command line (copying/moving files, changing privledges, getting some info, getting to files invisible to the GUI....and more and more each day))

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hy7ujhy7 One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3385 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/17/2001 4:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks for clarifying. I have thought about using a linux that would run on my g4, but the last time I checked, the ones I knew about (suse, linuxppc) didn't support dual processors yet. It wasn't clear whether they would run on a dual processor machine, but only use one processor, or wouldn't run at all. And the database I wanted to use wasn't supported. In any case, I'm using the mac Mail program, and other mac applications I wouldn't want to have to switch back and forth to run. I want to get this working under OSX, and have time to do it -- no deadlines, this is just personal stuff.

The kind of stuff I want to do generally works fine on Linux, or (I hate to say it) Windows. You can run executables from the "system" command in Perl, for example. I had a Perl script I ran in Windows NT that would launch a bunch of browser windows, so I could read the sites I read daily and have all the pages loading in the background. I can launch some mac apps from the command line, but not others. Some aren't written to take command line arguments -- none of the browsers I have seem to -- and I haven't found a way to run any Classic apps from the command line.

I expect this to get better. I doubt I'm the only person trying to use scripting languages for small projects like this. Everything I'm doing so far is portable, so moving to some flavor of linux would be fairly simple, but I'm still holding that out as my last resort.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: GregTitus Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3391 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/17/2001 5:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Do you mean from the Terminal command line? It doesn't work for me there. I can execute:
/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail
from the command line, but I'd have to put each application directory in the $path variable, or use the full path each time.


Do "open -a Mail". See "man open". The open command will solve most of the problems you are asking about because "open <filename>" does exactly the same thing that double-clicking from the finder does. (For instance you can run classic applications this way by passing in the path to the app. Classic itself will get started automatically if it isn't already running, et cetera.)

In general I'm not terribly impressed with the way the unix side and the mac side interact, at least when I'm trying to do stuff in unix. It's fine if I'm doing *just* unix, or *just* mac applications, but the intersection of the two is kind of kludgy. If I want to, say, write a python script or shell script that runs a browser pointed at a certain URL, I haven't figured out how to do it.

Unfortunately the "open" command won't help you there because it expects to deal with files instead of URLs. OmniWeb comes with a command line tool called (surprisingly...) "openURL". You can move that from inside the app to /usr/local/bin, or wherever convenient, and then do "openURL http://wwww.apple.com" and it'll open a new browser window at that URL. That only works if OmniWeb is your preferred browser though, obviously.

I even thought about going through applescript, since some applications are scriptable in that sense, but I couldn't find a way to run the applescript runner from a shell script or whatever -- not that going from a shell script to applescript just to run an application would be very desirable.

"man osascript" and "man osacompile". For instance if you prefer another browser to OmniWeb (perish the thought!) then you probably need to use AppleScript to tell it to open a URL. You can just pipe an AppleScript as stdin to the osascript command. Like so:

echo 'tell application "Internet Explorer"\nGetURL "http://www.apple.com"\nend tell' | /usr/bin/osascript

(Note in the man page for osascript it mentions that there is a bug where you have to use the full path to osascript.)

But if anyone has some pointers on what I'm doing wrong in trying to put together some simple python scripts and shell scripts to run various applications, or could point me to a site that has people trying to do unix-like things with OSX, I'd sure appreciate it.

Hope this helps!
-Greg

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hy7ujhy7 One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3394 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/17/2001 6:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Just the sort of stuff I was looking for. Thanks!

When I tried to use "open -a" to open iCab, it still wanted a filename argument as you said, so I just used "touch /tmp/foo.html" to create an empty document. But then open used the preferred browser to open it, not iCab. But it's a start.

The "openURL" command could make OmniWeb my preferred browser for the scripting stuff, though the ability to filter banners in iCab would keep me using it for everything else probably. (hint hint :-) But I don't seem to have it. I installed OmniWeb fairly recently. In fact, just to be sure, I downloaded it again and did a "find" in the disk image directory it created. Any ideas?

Thanks also for the pointer to osascript. If I can get the openURL command for OmniWeb that's probably the best solution, but it's nice to have other options.

Thanks again for the help!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GregTitus Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3395 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/17/2001 7:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The "openURL" command could make OmniWeb my preferred browser for the scripting stuff, though the ability to filter banners in iCab would keep me using it for everything else probably.

Check out the 'Privacy' preferences, and check one or both of the "Don't automatically load images whose sizes match the standard sizes for ads" and "... that aren't from the site they're shown on".

But I don't seem to have it. I installed OmniWeb fairly recently. In fact, just to be sure, I downloaded it again and did a "find" in the disk image directory it created. Any ideas?

Oops! Guess we haven't been including it. It really isn't much more inefficient to use AppleScript. Opening a window and loading the URL in whichever browser is going to be much more expensive than just interpreting a quick little AppleScript. So really you could write your own openURL as a shell script that looked like:

#!/bin/sh -f
/usr/bin/osascript << .
tell application "OmniWeb"
GetURL "$*"
end
.

(And even use other browsers that way, if you must.) :-)

--Greg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dswt Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3421 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/20/2001 10:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Let me reclaim my thread back :-) -- Back on Date: 4/13/01 12:37 AM Number: 3319, I posted I was returning to 9.1 having tried OS X since the 24th. I wasn't unhappy; it was just a premature release for my needs.

Well, last w/e the update came out so I gave it a shot. I also tweaked a couple of things thanks to tips at various OS X sites, such as turning off the Finder sounds in classic to enhance performance. (Don't have time to read all those sites though!!)

I am now back on OS X. Though I still remain in Classic 90% of the time, the reliability is better and my performance tweaks have made it just that bit more usuable. Nice!

I *still* want my classic UI mode in OS X, but I know I won't get it. Meanwhile, I just wanted to report that I was now back on OS X -- for those that thought I'd copped out. :-)

Now, I too am searching for a backup solution and have read the other thread eagerly. I do wish people would stop recommending Firewire though because so many of us with legacy machines (e.g. original iMacs) are stuck without it. Yes yes, buy a new machine... :)

Stewart.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Amphian Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 3422 of 66104
Subject: Re: OS X: back to 9.1 for now Date: 4/21/2001 11:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Now, I too am searching for a backup solution and have read the other thread eagerly. I do wish people would stop recommending Firewire though because so many of us with legacy machines (e.g. original iMacs) are stuck without it. Yes yes, buy a new machine... :)

On my beige G3, I used a SCSI SyJet drive with 1.5 GB disks. I don't think you can get them new anymore, but Jaz is a more expensive alternative. If you don't mind used, I am selling my old SyJet, since my new machine doesn't have a SCSI card. Email me if you are interested.

Hope this helps,

Amphian


Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (27) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement