Messages In This Digest (16 Messages)
- 1a.
- Re: iDefrag From: Harry Flaxman
- 1b.
- Re: iDefrag From: Randy B. Singer
- 1c.
- Re: iDefrag From: Randy B. Singer
- 1d.
- Re: iDefrag From: Harry Flaxman
- 1e.
- Re: iDefrag From: Harry Flaxman
- 1f.
- Re: iDefrag From: Randy B. Singer
- 1g.
- Re: iDefrag From: Arjun Singhal
- 1h.
- Re: iDefrag From: Randy B. Singer
- 1i.
- Re: iDefrag From: Randy B. Singer
- 1j.
- Re: iDefrag From: Harry Flaxman
- 1k.
- Re: iDefrag From: Harry Flaxman
- 1l.
- Re: iDefrag From: Harry Flaxman
- 2.1.
- Re: Space Available Drastically Wrong! From: Christopher Collins
- 2.2.
- Re: Space Available Drastically Wrong! From: Keith Whaley
- 2.3.
- Re: Space Available Drastically Wrong! From: Arjun Singhal
- 2.4.
- Re: Space Available Drastically Wrong! From: Harry Flaxman
Messages
- 1a.
-
Re: iDefrag
Posted by: "Harry Flaxman" harry.flaxman@comcast.net hflaxman001
Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:20 pm (PST)
On Dec 17, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Jim Saklad wrote:
>>> I've had iDeFrag for years, and I keep it updated.
>>> That said, it was of much greater utility in years past than it is today.
>>> I'm not entirely sure I would purchase it today.
>>
>> Is the new version much improved over the last one?
>> Harry
>
> I think the only *recent* changes are Lion compatibility.
I thought the 'big' thing was iDefrag 2? I haven't kept up with it, so I don't know what the differences are,
More expensive?? :)
Harry
Harry Flaxman
harry.flaxman@comcast.net
- 1b.
-
Re: iDefrag
Posted by: "Randy B. Singer" randy@macattorney.com randybrucesinger
Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:21 pm (PST)
On Dec 17, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Harry Flaxman wrote:
> I will read the article you mention. I'd be willing to bet that the
> 30 bucks would be negligible considering the return in performance.
> Have you used the program at all, or do you know of associates that
> have and have mentioned it?
If your hard drive had 80% free, I doubt that you have much of a need
for iDefrag. If you use it's highest optimization level you should
see a small performance gain, as iDefrag puts things in an order on
your hard drive for best performance.
iDefrag's most valuable feature is, if you routinely use it to
defragment your hard drive,( let's say about every 6 months or so) it
will allow you to fill up your hard drive more (that is, with more
safety for your data) than if you had never used it, possibly making
it unnecessary to ever purchase a new external drive before the day
comes when you purchase an entirely new Mac.
Yes, I own a copy of iDefrag, and I often hear from folks who use it
because of my Web site.
_____________________ _________ _________ ____
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattorney.com/ts. html
_____________________ _________ _________ ____
- 1c.
-
Re: iDefrag
Posted by: "Randy B. Singer" randy@macattorney.com randybrucesinger
Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:24 pm (PST)
On Dec 17, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Harry Flaxman wrote:
> Yup, found the thread.
Note that after all the yelling and arguing was over in that prior
thread...it turned out that a little vital piece of information had
been left out. The person complaining that iDefrag wasn't doing much
for them was using a hybrid drive.
_____________________ _________ _________ ____
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattorney.com/ts. html
_____________________ _________ _________ ____
- 1d.
-
Re: iDefrag
Posted by: "Harry Flaxman" harry.flaxman@comcast.net hflaxman001
Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:27 pm (PST)
On Dec 18, 2011, at 12:21 AM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Harry Flaxman wrote:
>
>> I will read the article you mention. I'd be willing to bet that the
>> 30 bucks would be negligible considering the return in performance.
>> Have you used the program at all, or do you know of associates that
>> have and have mentioned it?
>
> If your hard drive had 80% free, I doubt that you have much of a need
> for iDefrag. If you use it's highest optimization level you should
> see a small performance gain, as iDefrag puts things in an order on
> your hard drive for best performance.
>
> iDefrag's most valuable feature is, if you routinely use it to
> defragment your hard drive,( let's say about every 6 months or so) it
> will allow you to fill up your hard drive more (that is, with more
> safety for your data) than if you had never used it, possibly making
> it unnecessary to ever purchase a new external drive before the day
> comes when you purchase an entirely new Mac.
>
> Yes, I own a copy of iDefrag, and I often hear from folks who use it
> because of my Web site.
Prior to doing an erase and install, my system drive was probably 80% full. The system has always been terribly slow since I got it, about a year ago. I had been doing migrations for a few computers now, probably 3. I think that in the process of migrating, erroneous data were transferred at some point, if not a little each time. Anyway, when I went from my Core 2 Duo to this Core i3, not much improved. Not dramatically so anyway. I have always had the drive at least 60% full or so.
I think that the clean install had everything to do with the system performance increase. I look at iDefrag now to keep the performance up.
Honestly, it's like a new computer, even though it's a year old now. Dramatic improvement.
I wonder what it would have been like had I installed 10.6 cleanly as well.
Oh well. I"m pretty much convinced that I should have iDefrag in my toolkit.
Thanks Randy.
Harry
Harry Flaxman
harry.flaxman@comcast.net
- 1e.
-
Re: iDefrag
Posted by: "Harry Flaxman" harry.flaxman@comcast.net hflaxman001
Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:29 pm (PST)
On Dec 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Harry Flaxman wrote:
>
>> Yup, found the thread.
>
> Note that after all the yelling and arguing was over in that prior
> thread...it turned out that a little vital piece of information had
> been left out. The person complaining that iDefrag wasn't doing much
> for them was using a hybrid drive.
Guess it wouldn't do a heck of a lot for a hybrid.
I had considered buying a hybrid until I studied up a little. I don't' believe that the cost would justify the speed increase. May as well go all the way to a SSD.
Harry
Harry Flaxman
harry.flaxman@comcast.net
- 1f.
-
Re: iDefrag
Posted by: "Randy B. Singer" randy@macattorney.com randybrucesinger
Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:42 pm (PST)
On Dec 17, 2011, at 7:20 PM, Harry Flaxman wrote:
> thought the 'big' thing was iDefrag 2?
The big thing with iDefrag 2 is the ability to boot into a special
mode and defragment your hard drive. You no longer have to create a
special boot CD to run iDefrag. iDefrag 2 also now does its job
faster, and it has an improved interface. I don't remember how much
it used to cost, I think something like $80. but it is now only $31.
User reviews of iDefrag:
http://download.cnet.com/ iDefrag/3000- 18512_4-54784. html?tag= mncol;
1#userreview
(Note that the very few negative reviews seem to be from folks who
have never actually tried the program. They say that the program is
worthless, but they don't reference any personal experience with it.
The overwhelming number of actual users of iDefrag find it to be a
very useful utility.)
_____________________ _________ _________ ____
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattorney.com/ts. html
_____________________ _________ _________ ____
- 1g.
-
Re: iDefrag
Posted by: "Arjun Singhal" arjunsinghal@yahoo.com arjunsinghal
Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:50 pm (PST)
I remember a WWDC Keynote presentation, when they were either launching Lion, or talking about Mission Control. And the presenter, I think it was Bertrand Serlet (though I may be wrong), said that Defrag is something that users should never need to use. He said that regular Windows users consistently use disk utilities such as Defrag and Scandisk and stuff that help keep data organized and the disk reliable. But this is not what a user should be doing, and thus these utilities are built into the core of OS X. The operating system does these things on its own, including the indexing of spotlight for speedy searches.
Though, ever since I've been using the modern generation of Macs, Tiger Panther Leopard or whatever, I've never really encountered a situation where Defrag has become necessary - Apart from now, that on Lion I am wondering why there is a difference in free space on my disk if checked using different system utilities. In older days, the PowerBooks shipped with far smaller hard disks - 40GB, 60GB and sorts, and now I have 500Gigs under my palm, does that make a difference? On a desktop Mac I guess people also have 1TB or more.
I might not be accurate, since its obvious there are folks involved in this discussion that do more of IT, but can we investigate, if we really need a defrag software on the Mac, and more so on Lion?
On 18-Dec-2011, at 10:59 AM, Harry Flaxman wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>
> > On Dec 17, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Harry Flaxman wrote:
> >
> >> Yup, found the thread.
> >
> > Note that after all the yelling and arguing was over in that prior
> > thread...it turned out that a little vital piece of information had
> > been left out. The person complaining that iDefrag wasn't doing much
> > for them was using a hybrid drive.
>
> Guess it wouldn't do a heck of a lot for a hybrid.
>
> I had considered buying a hybrid until I studied up a little. I don't' believe that the cost would justify the speed increase. May as well go all the way to a SSD.
>
> Harry
>
> Harry Flaxman
> harry.flaxman@comcast.net
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 1h.
-
Re: iDefrag
Posted by: "Randy B. Singer" randy@macattorney.com randybrucesinger
Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:56 pm (PST)
On Dec 17, 2011, at 9:29 PM, Harry Flaxman wrote:
> I had considered buying a hybrid until I studied up a little. I
> don't' believe that the cost would justify the speed increase. May
> as well go all the way to a SSD.
Judging from the handful of people that I've heard from who have
hybrid drives, that seems to be the consensus.
SSD's are really coming down in price. I suspect that my next iMac
will have an SSD for performance, and a huge traditional external
hard drive for storage. I'll probably get an SSD in my next laptop too.
Gizmodo really liked the Kingston's SNV425-S2 64GB drive in their
last comparison test, which is good, because it was one of the more
reasonably priced SSD's:
http://gizmodo.com/5678532/ budget-sub+ 150-solid- state-drive- round+up
That model has been superseded by the Kingston SSDNow SV100S2/64GZ,
which is going for only $110:
http://is.gd/BTgvlh
(Disturbingly, though, there have been reports of these drives
completely failing.)
_____________________ _________ _________ ____
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattorney.com/ts. html
_____________________ _________ _________ ____
- 1i.
-
Re: iDefrag
Posted by: "Randy B. Singer" randy@macattorney.com randybrucesinger
Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm (PST)
On Dec 17, 2011, at 9:50 PM, Arjun Singhal wrote:
> And the presenter, I think it was Bertrand Serlet (though I may be
> wrong), said that Defrag is something that users should never need
> to use. He said that regular Windows users consistently use disk
> utilities such as Defrag and Scandisk and stuff that help keep data
> organized and the disk reliable. But this is not what a user should
> be doing, and thus these utilities are built into the core of OS X.
> The operating system does these things on its own, including the
> indexing of spotlight for speedy searches.
Yes, there is a ton of misinformation about this, even from Apple
themselves. See:
http://www.macattorney.com/ts. html
Item #6 and Note #1
_____________________ _________ _________ ____
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattorney.com/ts. html
_____________________ _________ _________ ____
- 1j.
-
Re: iDefrag
Posted by: "Harry Flaxman" harry.flaxman@comcast.net hflaxman001
Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:00 pm (PST)
On Dec 18, 2011, at 12:50 AM, Arjun Singhal wrote:
> I remember a WWDC Keynote presentation, when they were either launching Lion, or talking about Mission Control. And the presenter, I think it was Bertrand Serlet (though I may be wrong), said that Defrag is something that users should never need to use. He said that regular Windows users consistently use disk utilities such as Defrag and Scandisk and stuff that help keep data organized and the disk reliable. But this is not what a user should be doing, and thus these utilities are built into the core of OS X. The operating system does these things on its own, including the indexing of spotlight for speedy searches.
>
> Though, ever since I've been using the modern generation of Macs, Tiger Panther Leopard or whatever, I've never really encountered a situation where Defrag has become necessary - Apart from now, that on Lion I am wondering why there is a difference in free space on my disk if checked using different system utilities. In older days, the PowerBooks shipped with far smaller hard disks - 40GB, 60GB and sorts, and now I have 500Gigs under my palm, does that make a difference? On a desktop Mac I guess people also have 1TB or more.
>
> I might not be accurate, since its obvious there are folks involved in this discussion that do more of IT, but can we investigate, if we really need a defrag software on the Mac, and more so on Lion?
>
Very strange indeed, your space issue. I have been monitoring space using Disk Utility, Finder, and Grand Perspective. All three seem to agree to the decimal point as to free space on the internal drive. I noticed nothing off so far.
I know that since I've used OS X, there has not been a need to defray, at least in my case, at all. I do feel that it might be handy to have iDefrag around, the same way I always keep DiskWarrior up to date. I probably have more use for DiskWarrior than I would for iDefrag, but one never knows.
Apple has deviated from standard Unix just enough to make it uncomfortable, IMO. I'm sure the kernel workings are probably right on, but I saw a timing issue with the kernel and the USB bus sometime during 10.6, i believe. Could have been 10.5. That was enough to make me sit up and take notice.
There are those developers now that are using undocumented APIs, which are always fun. I made the mistake of purchasing one of these programs without knowing it. Caused me all kinds of low-level grief. I saw my first kernel panic while running this app. I believe it was totally the programs fault.
Anyway, if it does cost me 32 us$ for peace of mind, I'll spend it. I don't want to go through what I just went through, anytime soon.
Harry
Harry Flaxman
harry.flaxman@comcast.net
- 1k.
-
Re: iDefrag
Posted by: "Harry Flaxman" harry.flaxman@comcast.net hflaxman001
Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:05 pm (PST)
On Dec 18, 2011, at 12:56 AM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2011, at 9:29 PM, Harry Flaxman wrote:
>
>> I had considered buying a hybrid until I studied up a little. I
>> don't' believe that the cost would justify the speed increase. May
>> as well go all the way to a SSD.
>
> Judging from the handful of people that I've heard from who have
> hybrid drives, that seems to be the consensus.
>
> SSD's are really coming down in price. I suspect that my next iMac
> will have an SSD for performance, and a huge traditional external
> hard drive for storage. I'll probably get an SSD in my next laptop too.
>
> Gizmodo really liked the Kingston's SNV425-S2 64GB drive in their
> last comparison test, which is good, because it was one of the more
> reasonably priced SSD's:
> http://gizmodo.com/5678532/ budget-sub+ 150-solid- state-drive- round+up
>
> That model has been superseded by the Kingston SSDNow SV100S2/64GZ,
> which is going for only $110:
> http://is.gd/BTgvlh
> (Disturbingly, though, there have been reports of these drives
> completely failing.)
Wow! 64gb for $110 or $115! They are coming down. Someone ought to shake OWC's tree and let them know. I think they're still fairly expensive for their SSDs.
They told me at one point that my 21.5" machine does not have the room for a SSD, even using the optical drive bay. Don't know if that's changed, but I can see their point. I had a tech on-site here a few days ago and took a look. Not much space there at all. It does look as if the SSDs are coming down in size as well.
I'm partial to desktops at this point, although with talk of a Retina display for the MacBook Pros, that might sway me. Thinking my next machine will be the 27" iMac. I kind of believe the speculation that the Mac Pros are pretty much on their way out, considering the power contained in an iMac these days.
Harry
Harry Flaxman
harry.flaxman@comcast.net
- 1l.
-
Re: iDefrag
Posted by: "Harry Flaxman" harry.flaxman@comcast.net hflaxman001
Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:26 pm (PST)
On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Harry Flaxman wrote:
> Wow! 64gb for $110 or $115! They are coming down. Someone ought to shake OWC's tree and let them know. I think they're still fairly expensive for their SSDs.
>
> They told me at one point that my 21.5" machine does not have the room for a SSD, even using the optical drive bay. Don't know if that's changed, but I can see their point. I had a tech on-site here a few days ago and took a look. Not much space there at all. It does look as if the SSDs are coming down in size as well.
>
> I'm partial to desktops at this point, although with talk of a Retina display for the MacBook Pros, that might sway me. Thinking my next machine will be the 27" iMac. I kind of believe the speculation that the Mac Pros are pretty much on their way out, considering the power contained in an iMac these days.
I retract the statement re OWC. Just had a look see at their site and they start at $119 for 60gb.
The thing about the Kingston drive on Amazon is that it's $115 BEFORE a $40 post-purchase cash rebate. That's some savings!
They also carry Crucial SSDs as well, although no rebate there.
Harry
Harry Flaxman
harry.flaxman@comcast.net
- 2.1.
-
Re: Space Available Drastically Wrong!
Posted by: "Christopher Collins" maclist@analogdigital.com.au cjc1959au
Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:18 am (PST)
Unlike you Randy, I don't claim to be an expert.
You're so hung up on the malware reference that you fail to see the big picture.
If I have a client who has a machine such as Harry's with memory that has been corrupting data, I can have it back up and running in 2 hours with a guarantee that no corrupted data is still on the disk.
Can your way do that? Guarantee that there is NO corrupted data left on the disk?
No, it can't. You can never GUARANTEE that no data corruption remains.
Because I've done it your way previously as well.
You can say it's bad advice if you like, but until you can GUARANTEE that NO data corruption remains on the disk, your way is still only a maybe.
And I notice you didn't comment on the fact that I was right with Harry?
Please be any expert you like Randy. I'd rather be wrong (according to you) and still have very happy clients because I do my job properly, quickly & with a guarantee that no corruption still exists.
cjc
On 18/12/2011, at 12:09 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Christopher Collins wrote:
>
> > Actually Randy, whether it is Windows, MAC OS X or Linux/Unix/Xenix
> > makes little to no difference.
> >
> > Data Corruption can hide on the most mysterious of places. Like
> > damage from viruses/malware/trojans can hide in the most mysterious
> > of places.
>
> I'm afraid that I don't agree with you, and neither do every other
> Macintosh expert that I've ever come in contact with.
>
> Different operating systems are...different. Extrapolating from one
> to another (something that Windows users like to do) doesn't always
> work.
>
> Damage from malware is just about non-existant on the Mac, as just
> about any long-time Mac user can tell you. There just isn't a lot of
> malware for OS X, and what does exist isn't prevalent.
>
> Insist all that you want, you have nothing to back this up. It is
> simply bad advice that less experienced Mac users should be wary of.
>
> _____________________ _________ _________ ____
> Randy B. Singer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 2.2.
-
Re: Space Available Drastically Wrong!
Posted by: "Keith Whaley" keith_w@dslextreme.com keith9600
Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:33 am (PST)
Hah. I GUARANTEE you, there's nothing wrong with your ego!
keith whaley
Christopher Collins wrote:
> Unlike you Randy, I don't claim to be an expert.
>
> You're so hung up on the malware reference that you fail to see the big
> picture.
>
> If I have a client who has a machine such as Harry's with memory that
> has been corrupting data, I can have it back up and running in 2 hours
> with a guarantee that no corrupted data is still on the disk.
>
> Can your way do that? Guarantee that there is NO corrupted data left on
> the disk?
>
> No, it can't. You can never GUARANTEE that no data corruption remains.
>
> Because I've done it your way previously as well.
>
> You can say it's bad advice if you like, but until you can GUARANTEE
> that NO data corruption remains on the disk, your way is still only a maybe.
>
> And I notice you didn't comment on the fact that I was right with Harry?
>
> Please be any expert you like Randy. I'd rather be wrong (according to
> you) and still have very happy clients because I do my job properly,
> quickly & with a guarantee that no corruption still exists.
>
> cjc
- 2.3.
-
Re: Space Available Drastically Wrong!
Posted by: "Arjun Singhal" arjunsinghal@yahoo.com arjunsinghal
Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:42 am (PST)
learners += post->the_experts_contribute( );
On 18-Dec-2011, at 3:02 PM, Keith Whaley wrote:
> Hah. I GUARANTEE you, there's nothing wrong with your ego!
>
> keith whaley
>
> Christopher Collins wrote:
> > Unlike you Randy, I don't claim to be an expert.
> >
> > You're so hung up on the malware reference that you fail to see the big
> > picture.
> >
> > If I have a client who has a machine such as Harry's with memory that
> > has been corrupting data, I can have it back up and running in 2 hours
> > with a guarantee that no corrupted data is still on the disk.
> >
> > Can your way do that? Guarantee that there is NO corrupted data left on
> > the disk?
> >
> > No, it can't. You can never GUARANTEE that no data corruption remains.
> >
> > Because I've done it your way previously as well.
> >
> > You can say it's bad advice if you like, but until you can GUARANTEE
> > that NO data corruption remains on the disk, your way is still only a maybe.
> >
> > And I notice you didn't comment on the fact that I was right with Harry?
> >
> > Please be any expert you like Randy. I'd rather be wrong (according to
> > you) and still have very happy clients because I do my job properly,
> > quickly & with a guarantee that no corruption still exists.
> >
> > cjc
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 2.4.
-
Re: Space Available Drastically Wrong!
Posted by: "Harry Flaxman" harry.flaxman@comcast.net hflaxman001
Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:48 am (PST)
On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:18 AM, Christopher Collins wrote:
> Unlike you Randy, I don't claim to be an expert.
>
> You're so hung up on the malware reference that you fail to see the big picture.
>
> If I have a client who has a machine such as Harry's with memory that has been corrupting data, I can have it back up and running in 2 hours with a guarantee that no corrupted data is still on the disk.
Good luck! Try reinstalling, by hand, 2 dozen or so registered applications, let alone try to take the easiest and quickest route to solve the problem, as I would assume would be the logical. When I worked in the 'business', I would have done the same thing. The time lost would be part of the drill. The idea is not to have this happen, but one would NOT automatically wipe and reinstall the OS, especially in OS X, or any major real operating system. This was the point of my last rant.
In the real world, one does not halt production to reinstall an operating system on an AS\400, or a Cray. Never happen. There have been many, many larger systems running Unix and they have handled situations like this in a non-destructive way.
>
> Can your way do that? Guarantee that there is NO corrupted data left on the disk?
Of course not, but that's why there are journaled filesystems and cyclic redundancy checks. Odds are it would take quite a bit for this to happen, and it did.
>
> No, it can't. You can never GUARANTEE that no data corruption remains.
>
> Because I've done it your way previously as well.
Which is not the standard in the Mac world, and never has been. I believe this is what Randy is trying to point out.
>
> You can say it's bad advice if you like, but until you can GUARANTEE that NO data corruption remains on the disk, your way is still only a maybe.
>
> And I notice you didn't comment on the fact that I was right with Harry?
How? You were right, but your firsthand attack at a solution was not right in this instance. I have been in similar situations where an archive and install took care of the situation without a problem, more times than none.
>
> Please be any expert you like Randy. I'd rather be wrong (according to you) and still have very happy clients because I do my job properly, quickly & with a guarantee that no corruption still exists.
I think the point is that there is less likely to be corruption under OS X as with Windows. The solutions are definitely not the same. When I worked in the Win world, nothing was thought of re-installing, from scratch, the operating system. With OS X, there are other non-destructive ways that work 99.9% of the time and are the proper way to handle things. No loss of data, not much down time, etc.
Harry
Harry Flaxman
harry.flaxman@comcast.net
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
MARKETPLACE
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
