Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58216 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-03-29 16:09 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-03-31 11:48 +0000 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 27 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-01 17:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <VsqdnbHkUveItKbOnZ2dnUVZ_tkAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #58262 |
On 2014.03.31, 23:22 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> 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?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Sometimes my JPG's are pixelated too,
but usually not.
>
>> 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.
Hmm - I love it when I've completely lost touch with what's under the
hood. I usually have a good if not perfect idea of what lurks in the
machine - but in recent years I'm less and less in touch with what's in
there.
(OTOH, I have found a primitive way to invoke parallel processing from
my Pascal compiler - I can queue up as many "instances" of a procedure
that I like and up to 8 of them will run concurrently (i7) - when one
instance completes, the next waiting instance begins. For now this is
"fooling around" territory, but as an example I was doing MD5 checksums
on 5 disks concurrently (5 different files at a time).).
--
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]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-01 23:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bq1150F4uqkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58279 |
On 2014-04-01, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > OTOH, I have found a primitive way to invoke parallel processing from > my Pascal compiler - I can queue up as many "instances" of a procedure > that I like and up to 8 of them will run concurrently (i7) - when one > instance completes, the next waiting instance begins. For now this is > "fooling around" territory, but as an example I was doing MD5 checksums > on 5 disks concurrently (5 different files at a time). Wonder what I would get out of that on my Mac Pro (two Core Xeon E5462s). -- 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]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-01 23:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bq11o5F5483U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58280 |
On 2014-04-01, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2014-04-01, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >> >> OTOH, I have found a primitive way to invoke parallel processing from >> my Pascal compiler - I can queue up as many "instances" of a procedure >> that I like and up to 8 of them will run concurrently (i7) - when one >> instance completes, the next waiting instance begins. For now this is >> "fooling around" territory, but as an example I was doing MD5 checksums >> on 5 disks concurrently (5 different files at a time). > > Wonder what I would get out of that on my Mac Pro (two Core Xeon > E5462s). *oops* "two Xeon E5462s" : ) -- 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]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-02 18:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <TtqdnX0HpPG2EaHOnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #58281 |
On 2014.04.01, 19:51 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-04-01, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-04-01, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> OTOH, I have found a primitive way to invoke parallel processing from
>>> my Pascal compiler - I can queue up as many "instances" of a procedure
>>> that I like and up to 8 of them will run concurrently (i7) - when one
>>> instance completes, the next waiting instance begins. For now this is
>>> "fooling around" territory, but as an example I was doing MD5 checksums
>>> on 5 disks concurrently (5 different files at a time).
>>
>> Wonder what I would get out of that on my Mac Pro (two Core Xeon
>> E5462s).
>
> *oops* "two Xeon E5462s" : )
As far as I can tell your machine is not hyper threaded, so you'd get 8
instances (same as me) but you have 8 "real" cores, so it would be
faster overall (assuming no i/o waiting).
I'll send you a test program if you like (it just hunts for particular
random numbers in each instance - when so many of the sought number are
hit, that thread ends and the next one begins. On your machine you'd
get 1 "monitor" and 7 "search" instances running at a time and it would
run for so many total instances (say 100):
running: 7 [ 1701078726]
1: Done [ 310201322] 63 0
2: Run [ 311246557] 74 41
3: Run [ 309158486] 86 38
4: Done [ 279615125] 55 0
5: Run [ 310020934] 67 25
6: Run [ 319037821] 95 57
7: Done [ 243998055] 44 0
8: Run [ 77291922] 82 72
9: Run [ 43294955] 19 12*
10: Run [ 5787381] 19 18
11: Wait [ 0] 14 14
12: Wait [ 0] 91 91
13: Wait [ 0] 13 13
14: Wait [ 0] 16 16
...
--
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]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-31 23:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <533a3996$0$55743$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #58254 |
On 14-03-31 18:47, Jolly Roger wrote: > Interesting. People use CoverFlow in Finder windows? Surprised you didn't know that. If you have hundreds of image files in a folder, cover flow is quite to scan through them to find the one you want. Yes, there is stuff you can do in Bridge or other, but the finder does provide basic image management tools to find the right files. Similarly, in "file open" from apps, the quicklook is very helpful (for instance when tweeting a picture, or opening it directly from within photoshop etc).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-01 15:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bq05fhFtgb7U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58267 |
On 2014-04-01, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-03-31 18:47, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> Interesting. People use CoverFlow in Finder windows? > > Surprised you didn't know that. I knew the option was there. I've just never found it very useful myself. Then again, I don't work with giant folders of images much these days. -- 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]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-31 11:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lhbklu$4if$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #58223 |
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> writes:
> Anything is better than 10.7.
>
> I put 10.9 on two laptops and they run much better than 10.7 and 10.8.
> The virtual memory problems introduced in 10.7 are mostly fixed. In
> most cases, 10.9 virtual memory will outperform 10.6. I'm only seeing
> lingering problems with processes using extremely large amounts of
> memory.
Yes, this is finally functioning as it should.
> On the downside, they're still prone to momentary stalling and video
> glitches that never happened with 10.6. Native support for large TIFF
> is totally broken. QuickTime is still incomplete.
Then there's com.apple.IconServicesAgent. Open a dir with 4300 photos,
all of which have thumbnail images in their icons created by Graphic
Converter (in other words, no need to read the images and render icons
from them), and watch your quad-CPU machine grind away for many minutes
before anything useful can be seen. The same thing only takes about
ten seconds on a dual-G4 running 10.3.9.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web