|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Computer Help II | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Do I remember correctly that your system is an older one? If it's a recent enough Windows system to be using FAT (Windows XP or Vista, plus some of the lesser old versions of pre-XP operating systems), the limit is a total of 268,435,437 files for the entire disk, see File Allocation Table in Wikipedia.
The article isn't specific about the limit on the number of files per directory, but my interpretation is that it's 65535. If you have an older system then I don't know, but I'd be cautious if I were you. And backups are always a good idea. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
My wife's laptop PC's video card died a couple weeks ago, and the diagnosis was that it wasn't long for this world, so we went down to Best Buy to buy a replacement. Having had bad luck with laptops we decided to buy a desktop, longevity being more important than portability.
Several among my wife's friends and co-workers strongly suggested that she should buy a Mac, but I never gave this serious consideration. Back when we bought our first PC in the mid 1990's I researched Mac's versus PC's and discovered that application software for the Mac was anywhere from 6 months to never behind availability on the PC, plus the greater popularity of the PC meant that it would be much easier to find a friend or co-worker who could answer questions, and so we bought a PC. But with so many applications now browser based, and with the growing availability of sufficiently capable application software on the Mac (even if some is still nearly a year behind release on the PC), and with the growing popularity of the Mac, and with so many saying good things about the Mac on a range of topics from reliability to freedom from viruses, when we were at Best Buy we took a look at the Mac. I was impressed. I do all my software development work on Unix and Linux (they're virtually identical at an application level these days), and I was surprised to learn that Mac is based upon Unix (which is what Linux is modeled after). The salesperson brought up a Unix window, and I played in it for about a minute and it seemed fine. grep, ls, awk, piping, they all worked. To get a Unix shell on a windows PC requires buying expensive software or using somewhat klugey freeware like Cygwin. Our other concerns about how my wife would get along without Word and Outlook were answered with short demos of Mac equivalent software. We could have bought a $100 gizmo that would have automatically transferred and translated my wife's email lists and folders and iTunes music from her PC to the Mac, but we demurred and over the course of the next couple days we were able to accomplish this ourselves. In other words, yes, we bought a Mac. And after a couple days I'm still impressed. Very impressed. For one thing, it was setup and working and on the Internet in 15 minutes, and most of that time was spent referring to the little booklet that comes with it just to make sure we didn't do anything wrong, and that in retrospect was unnecessary. I was blown away. So I have several Mac related questions, one of them complex. On windows you can set the taskbar to scroll down to a one pixel line at the bottom of the screen, and it only scrolls up when you hover your mouse over it. I like to use all the real estate on the screen and want to do the same thing on the Mac. So how do you make the menu bar at the top and the task bar at the bottom disappear in some equivalent or similar way? Is there an equivalent on the Mac to alt-tab? Now the complex question. While at Best Buy I checked the websites of all the software this website is dependent upon (Perl, MySQL, Subversion, Apache), and they're all available on the Mac. Apache is even built into Mac OS X. One potential problem I see is verifying cross-browser capability. On my PC I can verify changes I make to our website software on IE, Firefox, Chrome and Safari, but do all those browsers also run on Mac? But it would appear that Mac is potentially a capable software development platform, but does anyone out there have any experience doing website development on a Mac? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Progress! I got the Dock to disappear, and I found the equivalent of alt-tab.
But I've also found the mother of all gotchas for Linux programmers: Focus Follows Mouse (FFM). Mac can't do FFM. Most Mac people believe that FFM includes autoraise, but it doesn't. I found a wonderfully clear description of the difference at Settling the OS X focus-follows-mouse debate, and since I couldn't possibly put it any better I quote it here:
Stevey's Blog Rants writes: The Big Focus IssueEver since the Dawn of Time (Jan 1, 1970), people have been bitching about the lack of focus-follows-mouse on Mac computers. They started complaining about it fourteen years before the first Mac was even released, that's how bad it was. Every time they bring it up on Mac forums, the Mac users with non-Unix backgrounds ask "what's that?" And then a bunch of wrong answers start flying around, with a few right answers interspersed but drowned out in the noise. So let me tell you what it is first, in case you're not from a Unix background. Focus-follows-mouse means that when you move the mouse cursor, the window under the cursor gets the keyboard focus. But saying that confuses Mac people who all assume that "focused" is synonymous with "foreground", because that's the way it works on the Mac. The confusion stems from the fact that focus-follows-mouse comes in not one, but two, yes that's right, two yummy flavors. Flavor #1: autofocus — in this flavor, reminiscent perhaps of a sweet juicy mandarin orange, the window under the mouse gets the keyboard focus but does not come to the front. This allows you to interact with a partially-obscured window. It's especially useful when you have a terminal or shell window open, and it's running a background process that you want to observe... you guessed it, in the background! You leave a little bit of the bottom and/or side of the window uncovered so you can keep an eye on the output. Real-life use case: let's say you're a programmer who writes in C++. You will, of course, spend most of your working day playing Solitaire and reading reddit, because C++ is too goddamned stupid to do anything but gigantic, slow batch compiles of the entire dependency universe. So you have at least four windows open at any given time: your editor, your compile shell, your browser, and your Solitaire game. You've spent a lot of time adjusting your window configuration to be "just right", and unless you have a 30-inch screen (for instance, because you work for Google), your windows overlap. Watching your compile status is like checking your rear-view mirror; you do it every 7 seconds or so, even though you know the compiler will take a minimum of 15 minutes. It's like a slow-motion train wreck that you just can't tear your eyes from, even while playing Solitaire and reading reddit. And every once in a while you'll need to enter a command (e.g. "make", after you've fixed the umpteenth compiler warning about doing a perfectly valid type conversion). The last thing you want is to have to click the window to bring it to the front just so you can type "make", because then you'll need to go futz around with your window configuration again to get the window to go to back to whatever Z-location it used to be in the window stack. I know it doesn't sound like a big effort, but programmers are really, really lazy, and they like to minimize motion. They'd use feeder tubes if the Health Department would let them. So in the autofocus flavor, it's important that the window that gets the focus does not automatically come to the front. Flavor #2: autoraise — in this pungent flavor, somewhat evocative of a slightly overripe Durian fruit left in the tropical sun for about nine hours, moving the mouse into a new window automatically brings that window to the front. In the especially horrible default configuration, it comes to the front instantly, so the act of moving your mouse across the screen makes it look like that old "rectangles" screen saver, and your window configuration is utterly obliterated in under a second. Many programmers feel that autofocus is delicate butterfly and autoraise is a big, stinky buffalo. That's just how they feel about it. No accounting for taste. I, for one, think of autoraise as a big, stinky, deceased buffalo carcass that someone thoughtfully dragged into my living room while I was on vacation, probably towards the beginning of the vacation, and then they turned up my thermostat to 110°F, closed the windows and tossed a Durian fruit at the wall for good measure. But maybe it's just me. So one of the most annoying aspects of the whole "how do I get focus-follows-mouse behavior on my Mac" debate is that everyone assumes you mean autoraise. There are a number of packages out there, most of them commercial, that offer autoraise as a feature, and Mac users point you to these products and then get all smugly about how they've solved your problem and how Macs still rule the universe, when in fact the problem is still festering away. It's no wonder people still use Linux as their UI. That one feature alone keeps hordes of programmers from switching. (And yes, you can get the behavior on Windows using their TweakUI power tools, so some programmers use Windows as a Linux shell with a decent media player.) ... It's amazing how so many people choose to rationalize stuff they're forced to live with. Why not just admit it sucks? Sometimes stuff sucks! C'mon, admit it! Jeez! Sorry for the long cut-n-paste, but this precisely describes the feature and captures how Linux programmers feel about its absence on Mac. FFM is not a nice-to-have feature, it's a killer feature, killer in that its absence kills about any chance of me (and many other Linux programmers) ever switching to Mac. The story I heard repeated over and over again on the web was that most Mac people don't at first comprehend that it is autofocus without autoraise that is needed, and so they suggest the apparently very popular MondoMouse app. But MondoMouse includes both autofocus and autoraise. I just downloaded it and gave it a try to make certain, and it does include autoraise. Separating autofocus from autoraise is not an option. I suspect this might be a deficiency inherent in Mac OS X. Oh well. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add another juicy comment from Stevey's Blog Rants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
If "free" is synonymous with "I don't have the instruction guide," this link is slow but it might tell you what you need to know:
Deletion notice | Scribd --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Suggest downloading and running SUPERAntiSpyware. I think you get 30 free days.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Google analytics should be okay, I'm not sure about the others, but Moose is having trouble loading pages from this website, too. Don't you think running anti-malware/spyware tools should be the first step?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
So if Moose's computer is accessing websites he's not actually visiting, then if it's just because he's visiting webpages that access those other sites then blocking them in some way is the best approach, but if we're going to assume Moose lives a clean lifestyle then isn't that unlikely?
I once had a problem similar to Moose's, and it happened because my son visited a website on his computer that visited lots of websites on its own and slowed it way down, so he went to my computer and visited the same website, and the same thing happened there, too. It took a day to deinstall the garbage that got installed. It was something like Zupiter - that might not be it, though, can't quite be certain of the name. I've never heard of regional Internet bottlenecks, hope I never get one. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I was mainly curious why you felt it was an internet problem. The Minnesota internet problem was back in 1995. This is the first I've heard that the internet is experiencing declining redundancy.
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024