Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58216 > unrolled thread

Upgrading to Mavericks

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Upgrading to Mavericks Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2014-03-29 16:09 -0700
    Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-29 19:37 -0400
    Re: Upgrading to Mavericks billy@MIX.COM - 2014-03-30 01:45 +0000
    Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-03-29 21:20 -0700
      Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-03-30 01:19 -0400
        Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-03-30 10:51 -0700
          Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-30 19:10 +0000
            Re: Upgrading to Mavericks dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-03-31 07:18 +1100
              Re: Upgrading to Mavericks JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-31 00:02 -0400
                Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-31 17:39 +0000
            Re: Upgrading to Mavericks JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-30 23:56 -0400
              Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-31 17:38 +0000
              Re: Upgrading to Mavericks John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-03-31 20:41 -0700
                Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-01 17:00 -0400
            Re: Upgrading to Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-31 12:01 -0400
          Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-31 17:56 -0400
            Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-31 22:47 +0000
              Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-31 19:39 -0400
                Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-04-01 03:22 +0000
                  Re: Upgrading to Mavericks nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-31 23:30 -0400
                  Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-01 17:01 -0400
                    Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-04-01 23:41 +0000
                      Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-04-01 23:51 +0000
                        Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-02 18:16 -0400
              Re: Upgrading to Mavericks JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-31 23:59 -0400
                Re: Upgrading to Mavericks Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-04-01 15:49 +0000
      Re: Upgrading to Mavericks billy@MIX.COM - 2014-03-31 11:48 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#58216 — Upgrading to Mavericks

What should I know? MacBook Air (mid-2011) running 10.7.5. I've already
used CCC to clone to a WD 500GB MyBook (USB2.0) given to me and I can
boot just fine from it. Other than not being able to completely sync my
iPhone 5 via USB ( I understand that Calendar and Contacts can only be
done via the cloud now) anything else I should know?

-- 
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before. Please respond to: scasse@invalid.net
replacing invalid with sonic.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#58217

On 2014.03.29, 19:09 , Otto Pylot wrote:
> What should I know? MacBook Air (mid-2011) running 10.7.5. I've already
> used CCC to clone to a WD 500GB MyBook (USB2.0) given to me and I can
> boot just fine from it. Other than not being able to completely sync my
> iPhone 5 via USB ( I understand that Calendar and Contacts can only be
> done via the cloud now) anything else I should know?

My SO's MBA is running Mavericks on a 2009 (2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo) MBA 
with 2 GB of 1066 MHz RAM.

It's marginal in some cases, esp. when running on battery alone.  I'm 
considering rolling it back to 10.8.x.

Per Mactracker, if your MBA is a 13" it has 4 GB of 1333 MHz RAM, so it 
should have breathing room compared to my SO's MBA whether it is an i5 
or i7.

If you have the 11" and only 2 GB of RAM It would be better than my SO's 
MBA.  But not much.  If 4 GB, then no big issue.

-- 
   Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
   or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58220

Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> writes:

> What should I know? MacBook Air (mid-2011) running 10.7.5. I've already
> used CCC to clone to a WD 500GB MyBook (USB2.0) given to me and I can
> boot just fine from it. Other than not being able to completely sync my
> iPhone 5 via USB ( I understand that Calendar and Contacts can only be
> done via the cloud now) anything else I should know?

You should know Baïkal http://baikal-server.com/ can sync your stuff
locally, and privately.  See https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-6311
for more info.  It's a free, open source CalDAV and CardDAV server done
in PHP that installs into the Apache server supplied with Mavericks.

Or, you can buy the "Server" tools for US$20 from the App Store, which
includes CalDAV and CardDAV servers.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58223

In article <290320141609111761%otto@bogus.address.com>,
 Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> wrote:

> What should I know? MacBook Air (mid-2011) running 10.7.5. I've already
> used CCC to clone to a WD 500GB MyBook (USB2.0) given to me and I can
> boot just fine from it. Other than not being able to completely sync my
> iPhone 5 via USB ( I understand that Calendar and Contacts can only be
> done via the cloud now) anything else I should know?

Anything is better than 10.7.

I put 10.9 on two laptops and they run much better than 10.7 and 10.8.  
The virtual memory problems introduced in 10.7 are mostly fixed.  In 
most cases, 10.9 virtual memory will outperform 10.6.  I'm only seeing 
lingering problems with processes using extremely large amounts of 
memory.

On the downside, they're still prone to momentary stalling and video 
glitches that never happened with 10.6.  Native support for large TIFF 
is totally broken.  QuickTime is still incomplete.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58224

Kevin McMurtrie:

> On the downside...
> Native support for large TIFF is totally broken...

What does that mean? What is a large TIFF? I routinely work with TIFFs
up to about 400MB in Lightroom and Photoshop CS 6 and Photoshop CC and
I have experienced no problems.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58232

In article <300320140119284013%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Kevin McMurtrie:
> 
> > On the downside...
> > Native support for large TIFF is totally broken...
> 
> What does that mean? What is a large TIFF? I routinely work with TIFFs
> up to about 400MB in Lightroom and Photoshop CS 6 and Photoshop CC and
> I have experienced no problems.

That's using Adobe's image library.  The one built into Mavericks is 
broken so Safari, Preview, Mail, Finder, Quick View, etc. don't work.  
The low-res preview appears then it is replaced with garbage pixels.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58235

On 2014-03-30, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote:
> In article <300320140119284013%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> wrote:
>
>> Kevin McMurtrie:
>> 
>> > On the downside...
>> > Native support for large TIFF is totally broken...
>> 
>> What does that mean? What is a large TIFF? I routinely work with TIFFs
>> up to about 400MB in Lightroom and Photoshop CS 6 and Photoshop CC and
>> I have experienced no problems.
>
> That's using Adobe's image library.  The one built into Mavericks is 
> broken so Safari, Preview, Mail, Finder, Quick View, etc. don't work.  
> The low-res preview appears then it is replaced with garbage pixels.

Meh...

No doubt Apple will fix this eventually. Until then, as you say, there
are other ways to view TIFF images. And TIFF images aren't all that
popular to begin with.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58236

In article <bpr8hgFrulaU2@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2014-03-30, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote:
> > In article <300320140119284013%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Kevin McMurtrie:
> >> 
> >> > On the downside...
> >> > Native support for large TIFF is totally broken...
> >> 
> >> What does that mean? What is a large TIFF? I routinely work with TIFFs
> >> up to about 400MB in Lightroom and Photoshop CS 6 and Photoshop CC and
> >> I have experienced no problems.
> >
> > That's using Adobe's image library.  The one built into Mavericks is 
> > broken so Safari, Preview, Mail, Finder, Quick View, etc. don't work.  
> > The low-res preview appears then it is replaced with garbage pixels.
> 
> Meh...
> 
> No doubt Apple will fix this eventually. Until then, as you say, there
> are other ways to view TIFF images. And TIFF images aren't all that
> popular to begin with.

It is no big loss for them not working in Safari or Mail (in fact, it 
is excellent that it fails in Mail) but pity about Quick View or 
Preview.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58239

On 14-03-30 16:18, dorayme wrote:

> It is no big loss for them not working in Safari or Mail (in fact, it 
> is excellent that it fails in Mail) but pity about Quick View or 
> Preview.

Quicklook is essential when either browsing in Finder or more
importantly looking for a file in a File-Open dialogue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58244

On 2014-03-31, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-03-30 16:18, dorayme wrote:
>
>> It is no big loss for them not working in Safari or Mail (in fact, it 
>> is excellent that it fails in Mail) but pity about Quick View or 
>> Preview.
>
> Quicklook is essential when either browsing in Finder or more
> importantly looking for a file in a File-Open dialogue.

I consider QuickLook to be a "nice to have", but certainly not
essential.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58238

On 14-03-30 15:10, Jolly Roger wrote:
> No doubt Apple will fix this eventually. Until then, as you say, there
> are other ways to view TIFF images. And TIFF images aren't all that
> popular to begin with.

Any photo professional will have hundreds if not thousands of TIFF images.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58243

On 2014-03-31, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-03-30 15:10, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> No doubt Apple will fix this eventually. Until then, as you say, there
>> are other ways to view TIFF images. And TIFF images aren't all that
>> popular to begin with.
>
> Any photo professional will have hundreds if not thousands of TIFF images.

Having worked in the professional graphic field for many years, I'm well
aware of this. I'm also aware that any photo professional will have
alternative tools that are able to view TIFF images, as has been
discussed here in this very thread. I'm also aware that in terms of
viewing images in Safari, Mail, and so on, TIFF is not the most common
image format used in those applications. I wouldn't consider the
inability of Safari, Mail, Finder (QuickLook) to display large TIFF
images to be a critical thing for any photo professional. Hence the
"meh" - Apple will no doubt fix this eventually. Until then, other
options abound.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58266

On 3/30/14   PDT, 8:56 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-03-30 15:10, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> No doubt Apple will fix this eventually. Until then, as you say, there
>> are other ways to view TIFF images. And TIFF images aren't all that
>> popular to begin with.
>
> Any photo professional will have hundreds if not thousands of TIFF images.

Some will have tens of thousands of .TIFFs. Others will chose to archive 
in RAW format, which is what I do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58278

On 2014.03.31, 23:41 , John McWilliams wrote:
> On 3/30/14   PDT, 8:56 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
>> On 14-03-30 15:10, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> No doubt Apple will fix this eventually. Until then, as you say, there
>>> are other ways to view TIFF images. And TIFF images aren't all that
>>> popular to begin with.
>>
>> Any photo professional will have hundreds if not thousands of TIFF
>> images.
>
> Some will have tens of thousands of .TIFFs. Others will chose to archive
> in RAW format, which is what I do.

If I scan it, the master is kept in .TIFF.

If I took it with a digital camera, the master is kept in raw - 
typically in a .DNG wrapper (which is .TIFF at heart) made when 
importing from the camera's data cards.

One can also save a scanned .TIFF as a .DNG (open a .TIFF in CameraRaw 
(using Bridge), save as .DNG) which losslessly reduces file size by 
around 20 - 25%.

And of course there's the slowly accumulating pile of iPhone .JPG shots 
that don't have a raw master shot.

-- 
    ... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
    for the services these companies offer.  What they really
    want is to have us "on the leash."
                   -David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58241

In article <bpr8hgFrulaU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> > On the downside...
> >> > Native support for large TIFF is totally broken...
> >> 
> >> What does that mean? What is a large TIFF? I routinely work with TIFFs
> >> up to about 400MB in Lightroom and Photoshop CS 6 and Photoshop CC and
> >> I have experienced no problems.
> >
> > That's using Adobe's image library.  The one built into Mavericks is 
> > broken so Safari, Preview, Mail, Finder, Quick View, etc. don't work.  
> > The low-res preview appears then it is replaced with garbage pixels.
> 
> Meh...
> 
> No doubt Apple will fix this eventually. Until then, as you say, there
> are other ways to view TIFF images. And TIFF images aren't all that
> popular to begin with.

tiff is a very common image format.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58252

On 2014.03.30, 13:51 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <300320140119284013%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Kevin McMurtrie:
>>
>>> On the downside...
>>> Native support for large TIFF is totally broken...
>>
>> What does that mean? What is a large TIFF? I routinely work with TIFFs
>> up to about 400MB in Lightroom and Photoshop CS 6 and Photoshop CC and
>> I have experienced no problems.
>
> That's using Adobe's image library.  The one built into Mavericks is
> broken so Safari, Preview, Mail, Finder, Quick View, etc. don't work.
> The low-res preview appears then it is replaced with garbage pixels.

I just opened several 450 MB TIFF's (~8800 x 8800 pixels)in Preview with 
no issue.   I could zoom in to pixel level, rotate, etc.

Dragged and dropped to Mail where it shows in full (or I can reduce to 
an icon that is converted to a tiny copy of the image.  (Red warning 
about the size).

In Finder coverflow it looks pixelated.  I can live with that.

Wouldn't open correctly in Safari  -  OTOH, I could care less if it did.

-- 
   Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
   people are not trained to perform.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58254

On 2014-03-31, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.03.30, 13:51 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>> In article <300320140119284013%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin McMurtrie:
>>>
>>>> On the downside...
>>>> Native support for large TIFF is totally broken...
>>>
>>> What does that mean? What is a large TIFF? I routinely work with TIFFs
>>> up to about 400MB in Lightroom and Photoshop CS 6 and Photoshop CC and
>>> I have experienced no problems.
>>
>> That's using Adobe's image library.  The one built into Mavericks is
>> broken so Safari, Preview, Mail, Finder, Quick View, etc. don't work.
>> The low-res preview appears then it is replaced with garbage pixels.
>
> I just opened several 450 MB TIFF's (~8800 x 8800 pixels)in Preview with 
> no issue.   I could zoom in to pixel level, rotate, etc.
>
> Dragged and dropped to Mail where it shows in full (or I can reduce to 
> an icon that is converted to a tiny copy of the image.  (Red warning 
> about the size).
>
> In Finder coverflow it looks pixelated.  I can live with that.

Interesting. People use CoverFlow in Finder windows?

How does it look in QuickView?

> Wouldn't open correctly in Safari  -  OTOH, I could care less if it did.

And I take it you're running Mac OS X 10.9.x?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58258

On 2014.03.31, 18:47 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-03-31, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.03.30, 13:51 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>> In article <300320140119284013%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kevin McMurtrie:
>>>>
>>>>> On the downside...
>>>>> Native support for large TIFF is totally broken...
>>>>
>>>> What does that mean? What is a large TIFF? I routinely work with TIFFs
>>>> up to about 400MB in Lightroom and Photoshop CS 6 and Photoshop CC and
>>>> I have experienced no problems.
>>>
>>> That's using Adobe's image library.  The one built into Mavericks is
>>> broken so Safari, Preview, Mail, Finder, Quick View, etc. don't work.
>>> The low-res preview appears then it is replaced with garbage pixels.
>>
>> I just opened several 450 MB TIFF's (~8800 x 8800 pixels)in Preview with
>> no issue.   I could zoom in to pixel level, rotate, etc.
>>
>> Dragged and dropped to Mail where it shows in full (or I can reduce to
>> an icon that is converted to a tiny copy of the image.  (Red warning
>> about the size).
>>
>> In Finder coverflow it looks pixelated.  I can live with that.
>
> Interesting. People use CoverFlow in Finder windows?

Sometimes.  When I want to quickly locate an image it's handy.  Also 
handy when sorting images into other folders.

>
> How does it look in QuickView?

I have no idea what Quickview is.   Do you mean QuickLook?

(right click| Quicklook or three finger touch on trackpad).

Quicklook will show them.

GetInfo will show all TIF's as smaller "thumbnails".  The 450 MB TIF's 
take a bit of time show.

Note that I do have Adobe Photoshop (CS5) and Bridge installed - but I'm 
not using those to view the files.  Did installing those install 
something that helps 10.9.2 open and view the files?

>
>> Wouldn't open correctly in Safari  -  OTOH, I could care less if it did.
                                           doh:   couldn't care less...

>
> And I take it you're running Mac OS X 10.9.x?

10.9.2

-- 
   Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
   or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58262

On 2014-03-31, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.03.31, 18:47 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2014-03-31, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2014.03.30, 13:51 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>>>> In article <300320140119284013%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kevin McMurtrie:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On the downside...
>>>>>> Native support for large TIFF is totally broken...
>>>>>
>>>>> What does that mean? What is a large TIFF? I routinely work with TIFFs
>>>>> up to about 400MB in Lightroom and Photoshop CS 6 and Photoshop CC and
>>>>> I have experienced no problems.
>>>>
>>>> That's using Adobe's image library.  The one built into Mavericks is
>>>> broken so Safari, Preview, Mail, Finder, Quick View, etc. don't work.
>>>> The low-res preview appears then it is replaced with garbage pixels.
>>>
>>> I just opened several 450 MB TIFF's (~8800 x 8800 pixels)in Preview with
>>> no issue.   I could zoom in to pixel level, rotate, etc.
>>>
>>> Dragged and dropped to Mail where it shows in full (or I can reduce to
>>> an icon that is converted to a tiny copy of the image.  (Red warning
>>> about the size).
>>>
>>> In Finder coverflow it looks pixelated.  I can live with that.
>>
>> Interesting. People use CoverFlow in Finder windows?
>
> Sometimes.  When I want to quickly locate an image it's handy.  Also 
> handy when sorting images into other folders.

Cool. Yeah, I guess I can imagine it being useful. I've never given
CoverFlow much of a thought. I'll have to play with it some time.

>> How does it look in QuickView?
>
> I have no idea what Quickview is.   Do you mean QuickLook?

: D Yes, I meant QuickLook! Sorry. Why did I type QuickView?!

> Quicklook will show them.

Interesting, and are they pixelated as with CoverFlow?

> GetInfo will show all TIF's as smaller "thumbnails".  The 450 MB TIF's 
> take a bit of time show.
>
> Note that I do have Adobe Photoshop (CS5) and Bridge installed - but I'm 
> not using those to view the files.  Did installing those install 
> something that helps 10.9.2 open and view the files?

I suppose it's possible they could have installed a QuickLook plug-in
module that supports TIFF image files, and that module took over as the
default handler for TIFF image files. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58264

In article <bpupnrFkgpbU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > Note that I do have Adobe Photoshop (CS5) and Bridge installed - but I'm 
> > not using those to view the files.  Did installing those install 
> > something that helps 10.9.2 open and view the files?
> 
> I suppose it's possible they could have installed a QuickLook plug-in
> module that supports TIFF image files, and that module took over as the
> default handler for TIFF image files.

they didn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web