15 New Messages
Digest #9200
Messages
Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:25 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Barbara Adamski" bkadamski
Hi, Dan.
I am just trying this now. When I click on options I get the name of my back-up drive and the amount of data on it. There is no option to exclude items. The plus sign below the window is black, the minus sign is grey.
Barb
On 2012-10-25, at 12:58 PM, Patti A Robertson <pattiandken@charter.net > wrote:
> And you would be well advised to check on what Time Machine HAS backed up - I recently had to have the logic board replaced in my brand new Macbook Pro Retina and they had to reinstall my software after, and Time Machine didn't have my emails backed up for my Mail program. I don't know why, but if I hadn't had a second backup using Carbon Copy Cloner I would have been very unhappy…
>
> Patti
>
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 9:28 AM, Nick Andriash <medic65@telus.net > wrote:
>
> >
> > On 2012-10-25, at 9:08 AM, hal horwitz <hal.horwitz@comcast.net > wrote:
> >
> > > He (the store person) also said that Time Machine only backs up data, not programs. This means I would need to reinstall and update all the quadrillion programs and apps.
> >
> > Hmmm? I recently installed a new 512GB SSD in my MacBook Pro, and I used the latest Time Machine backup to populate my new SSD, and it copied everything over... including all my Programs.
> >
> > --
> > Nick Andriash
> > andriash@telus.net
> > 17" MacBook Pro, 2.3GHz Intel Core i7, Memory 16 GB, OS X 10.8.2
> > AMD Radeon HD 6750M 1024 MB
> > iPad2 WiFi & 3G, 64GB
> > iPhone4S 32GB
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I am just trying this now. When I click on options I get the name of my back-up drive and the amount of data on it. There is no option to exclude items. The plus sign below the window is black, the minus sign is grey.
Barb
On 2012-10-25, at 12:58 PM, Patti A Robertson <pattiandken@
> And you would be well advised to check on what Time Machine HAS backed up - I recently had to have the logic board replaced in my brand new Macbook Pro Retina and they had to reinstall my software after, and Time Machine didn't have my emails backed up for my Mail program. I don't know why, but if I hadn't had a second backup using Carbon Copy Cloner I would have been very unhappy…
>
> Patti
>
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 9:28 AM, Nick Andriash <medic65@telus.
>
> >
> > On 2012-10-25, at 9:08 AM, hal horwitz <hal.horwitz@
> >
> > > He (the store person) also said that Time Machine only backs up data, not programs. This means I would need to reinstall and update all the quadrillion programs and apps.
> >
> > Hmmm? I recently installed a new 512GB SSD in my MacBook Pro, and I used the latest Time Machine backup to populate my new SSD, and it copied everything over... including all my Programs.
> >
> > --
> > Nick Andriash
> > andriash@telus.
> > 17" MacBook Pro, 2.3GHz Intel Core i7, Memory 16 GB, OS X 10.8.2
> > AMD Radeon HD 6750M 1024 MB
> > iPad2 WiFi & 3G, 64GB
> > iPhone4S 32GB
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:03 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
In System Preferences > Time Machine panel, Options,
Your Time Machine hard drive is included since you don't want to back
up the backup to itself, so to speak.
To add something to be excluded you can drag it to the window named
Exclude these items from backups, or, you can click the Plus button and
use Finder to navigate to a file, to a folder, or to a hard drive.
For example, in my case, I have excluded the Applications folder. It
appears in the Exclude these items window as /Applications.
If you don't wish to exclude anything on your boot drive, then it
sounds like your configuration is just fine.
I understand that Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion has added some new
options to backups but I haven't tried those for myself. Yet!
Denver Dan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:25:01 -0700, Barbara Adamski wrote:
> I am just trying this now. When I click on options I get the name of
> my back-up drive and the amount of data on it. There is no option to
> exclude items. The plus sign below the window is black, the minus
> sign is grey.
>
> Barb
In System Preferences > Time Machine panel, Options,
Your Time Machine hard drive is included since you don't want to back
up the backup to itself, so to speak.
To add something to be excluded you can drag it to the window named
Exclude these items from backups, or, you can click the Plus button and
use Finder to navigate to a file, to a folder, or to a hard drive.
For example, in my case, I have excluded the Applications folder. It
appears in the Exclude these items window as /Applications.
If you don't wish to exclude anything on your boot drive, then it
sounds like your configuration is just fine.
I understand that Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion has added some new
options to backups but I haven't tried those for myself. Yet!
Denver Dan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:25:01 -0700, Barbara Adamski wrote:
> I am just trying this now. When I click on options I get the name of
> my back-up drive and the amount of data on it. There is no option to
> exclude items. The plus sign below the window is black, the minus
> sign is grey.
>
> Barb
Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:54 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Barbara Adamski" bkadamski
Hi, Dan.
Thanks. Basically, I want to know if my Aperture files have been included or not. I don't want to get the drive replaced without confirming this. The reason I'm wondering is that I can't recall whether or not I excluded it or not a long time ago, when I first set things up.
I am hoping that I decided against excluding Aperture, but would really like to confirm it. Most of my photos are housed elsewhere (on my Photoshelter account), but not all of them are.
Thanks,
Barb
On 2012-10-27, at 1:03 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.net > wrote:
> Howdy.
>
> In System Preferences > Time Machine panel, Options,
>
> Your Time Machine hard drive is included since you don't want to back
> up the backup to itself, so to speak.
>
> To add something to be excluded you can drag it to the window named
> Exclude these items from backups, or, you can click the Plus button and
> use Finder to navigate to a file, to a folder, or to a hard drive.
>
> For example, in my case, I have excluded the Applications folder. It
> appears in the Exclude these items window as /Applications.
>
> If you don't wish to exclude anything on your boot drive, then it
> sounds like your configuration is just fine.
>
> I understand that Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion has added some new
> options to backups but I haven't tried those for myself. Yet!
>
> Denver Dan
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:25:01 -0700, Barbara Adamski wrote:
> > I am just trying this now. When I click on options I get the name of
> > my back-up drive and the amount of data on it. There is no option to
> > exclude items. The plus sign below the window is black, the minus
> > sign is grey.
> >
> > Barb
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks. Basically, I want to know if my Aperture files have been included or not. I don't want to get the drive replaced without confirming this. The reason I'm wondering is that I can't recall whether or not I excluded it or not a long time ago, when I first set things up.
I am hoping that I decided against excluding Aperture, but would really like to confirm it. Most of my photos are housed elsewhere (on my Photoshelter account), but not all of them are.
Thanks,
Barb
On 2012-10-27, at 1:03 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
> Howdy.
>
> In System Preferences > Time Machine panel, Options,
>
> Your Time Machine hard drive is included since you don't want to back
> up the backup to itself, so to speak.
>
> To add something to be excluded you can drag it to the window named
> Exclude these items from backups, or, you can click the Plus button and
> use Finder to navigate to a file, to a folder, or to a hard drive.
>
> For example, in my case, I have excluded the Applications folder. It
> appears in the Exclude these items window as /Applications.
>
> If you don't wish to exclude anything on your boot drive, then it
> sounds like your configuration is just fine.
>
> I understand that Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion has added some new
> options to backups but I haven't tried those for myself. Yet!
>
> Denver Dan
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:25:01 -0700, Barbara Adamski wrote:
> > I am just trying this now. When I click on options I get the name of
> > my back-up drive and the amount of data on it. There is no option to
> > exclude items. The plus sign below the window is black, the minus
> > sign is grey.
> >
> > Barb
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:58 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Dave C" davec2468
Time Machine has been backing up my Mac mini since new, summer of last year.
Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to only yesterday at 9 PM.
The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750 GB boot drive.
What would cause backups to go away like that?
I have in the past weeks, retrieved files from backups many months old, so I know TM was doing its job well not so long ago.
Not serious, but very inconvenient, and most of all, disconcerting.
Thanks,
Dave
2011 Mini 2.7 GHz dual i7 / 16 GB / 250 GB / 750 GB
OS X 10.6.8 Snow Leopard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to only yesterday at 9 PM.
The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750 GB boot drive.
What would cause backups to go away like that?
I have in the past weeks, retrieved files from backups many months old, so I know TM was doing its job well not so long ago.
Not serious, but very inconvenient, and most of all, disconcerting.
Thanks,
Dave
2011 Mini 2.7 GHz dual i7 / 16 GB / 250 GB / 750 GB
OS X 10.6.8 Snow Leopard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:04 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Dave C" davec2468
And no, there is not more than 1 backup folder on the TM drive, just the one for this mini.
Dave
2011 Mini 2.7 GHz dual i7 / 16 GB / 250 GB / 750 GB
OS X 10.6.8 Snow Leopard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Dave
2011 Mini 2.7 GHz dual i7 / 16 GB / 250 GB / 750 GB
OS X 10.6.8 Snow Leopard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:59 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
> Time Machine has been backing up my Mac mini since new, summer of last year.
>
> Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to only yesterday at 9 PM.
>
> The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750 GB boot drive.
How can you think you could properly, safely, and reliably backup 500 GB of data on a 250 GB backup drive?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
>
> Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to only yesterday at 9 PM.
>
> The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750 GB boot drive.
How can you think you could properly, safely, and reliably backup 500 GB of data on a 250 GB backup drive?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:09 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
Dave, if I understand your post correctly, then you are trying to
backup 500 GB of files to a 250 GB hard drive and that doesn't work.
It's like trying to put 500 ounces of beer into a 250 ounce mug.
There'd be some splashing and loss of precious beverage.
Time Machine is designed to start deleting the oldest backed up files
once the backup drive has been filled up and it's supposed to notify
you before this happens.
Unless I misunderstood your message, or perhaps you did a typo with the
numbers, I'd suggest getting a backup drive that is larger than the
drive to be backed up, or, at least equal in capacity.
Denver Dan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:58:10 -0700, Dave C wrote:
> Time Machine has been backing up my Mac mini since new, summer of last year.
>
> Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to
> only yesterday at 9 PM.
>
> The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750
> GB boot drive.
>
> What would cause backups to go away like that?
>
> I have in the past weeks, retrieved files from backups many months
> old, so I know TM was doing its job well not so long ago.
>
> Not serious, but very inconvenient, and most of all, disconcerting.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
Dave, if I understand your post correctly, then you are trying to
backup 500 GB of files to a 250 GB hard drive and that doesn't work.
It's like trying to put 500 ounces of beer into a 250 ounce mug.
There'd be some splashing and loss of precious beverage.
Time Machine is designed to start deleting the oldest backed up files
once the backup drive has been filled up and it's supposed to notify
you before this happens.
Unless I misunderstood your message, or perhaps you did a typo with the
numbers, I'd suggest getting a backup drive that is larger than the
drive to be backed up, or, at least equal in capacity.
Denver Dan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:58:10 -0700, Dave C wrote:
> Time Machine has been backing up my Mac mini since new, summer of last year.
>
> Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to
> only yesterday at 9 PM.
>
> The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750
> GB boot drive.
>
> What would cause backups to go away like that?
>
> I have in the past weeks, retrieved files from backups many months
> old, so I know TM was doing its job well not so long ago.
>
> Not serious, but very inconvenient, and most of all, disconcerting.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:38 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Patti A Robertson" parpiano
Yes, I've read that twice the computer's hard drive capacity is a good rule of thumb.
Patti
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.net > wrote:
> Howdy.
>
> Dave, if I understand your post correctly, then you are trying to
> backup 500 GB of files to a 250 GB hard drive and that doesn't work.
>
> It's like trying to put 500 ounces of beer into a 250 ounce mug.
> There'd be some splashing and loss of precious beverage.
>
> Time Machine is designed to start deleting the oldest backed up files
> once the backup drive has been filled up and it's supposed to notify
> you before this happens.
>
> Unless I misunderstood your message, or perhaps you did a typo with the
> numbers, I'd suggest getting a backup drive that is larger than the
> drive to be backed up, or, at least equal in capacity.
>
> Denver Dan
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:58:10 -0700, Dave C wrote:
> > Time Machine has been backing up my Mac mini since new, summer of last year.
> >
> > Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to
> > only yesterday at 9 PM.
> >
> > The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750
> > GB boot drive.
> >
> > What would cause backups to go away like that?
> >
> > I have in the past weeks, retrieved files from backups many months
> > old, so I know TM was doing its job well not so long ago.
> >
> > Not serious, but very inconvenient, and most of all, disconcerting.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dave
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Patti
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
> Howdy.
>
> Dave, if I understand your post correctly, then you are trying to
> backup 500 GB of files to a 250 GB hard drive and that doesn't work.
>
> It's like trying to put 500 ounces of beer into a 250 ounce mug.
> There'd be some splashing and loss of precious beverage.
>
> Time Machine is designed to start deleting the oldest backed up files
> once the backup drive has been filled up and it's supposed to notify
> you before this happens.
>
> Unless I misunderstood your message, or perhaps you did a typo with the
> numbers, I'd suggest getting a backup drive that is larger than the
> drive to be backed up, or, at least equal in capacity.
>
> Denver Dan
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:58:10 -0700, Dave C wrote:
> > Time Machine has been backing up my Mac mini since new, summer of last year.
> >
> > Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to
> > only yesterday at 9 PM.
> >
> > The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750
> > GB boot drive.
> >
> > What would cause backups to go away like that?
> >
> > I have in the past weeks, retrieved files from backups many months
> > old, so I know TM was doing its job well not so long ago.
> >
> > Not serious, but very inconvenient, and most of all, disconcerting.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dave
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:02 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"N.A. Nada"
But he has 1/2 the capacity on the TM, not twice.
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Patti A Robertson wrote:
Yes, I've read that twice the computer's hard drive capacity is a good rule of thumb.
Patti
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.net > wrote:
> Howdy.
>
> Dave, if I understand your post correctly, then you are trying to
> backup 500 GB of files to a 250 GB hard drive and that doesn't work.
>
> It's like trying to put 500 ounces of beer into a 250 ounce mug.
> There'd be some splashing and loss of precious beverage.
>
> Time Machine is designed to start deleting the oldest backed up files
> once the backup drive has been filled up and it's supposed to notify
> you before this happens.
>
> Unless I misunderstood your message, or perhaps you did a typo with the
> numbers, I'd suggest getting a backup drive that is larger than the
> drive to be backed up, or, at least equal in capacity.
>
> Denver Dan
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:58:10 -0700, Dave C wrote:
> > Time Machine has been backing up my Mac mini since new, summer of last year.
> >
> > Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to
> > only yesterday at 9 PM.
> >
> > The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750
> > GB boot drive.
> >
> > What would cause backups to go away like that?
> >
> > I have in the past weeks, retrieved files from backups many months
> > old, so I know TM was doing its job well not so long ago.
> >
> > Not serious, but very inconvenient, and most of all, disconcerting.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dave
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Patti A Robertson wrote:
Yes, I've read that twice the computer's hard drive capacity is a good rule of thumb.
Patti
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
> Howdy.
>
> Dave, if I understand your post correctly, then you are trying to
> backup 500 GB of files to a 250 GB hard drive and that doesn't work.
>
> It's like trying to put 500 ounces of beer into a 250 ounce mug.
> There'd be some splashing and loss of precious beverage.
>
> Time Machine is designed to start deleting the oldest backed up files
> once the backup drive has been filled up and it's supposed to notify
> you before this happens.
>
> Unless I misunderstood your message, or perhaps you did a typo with the
> numbers, I'd suggest getting a backup drive that is larger than the
> drive to be backed up, or, at least equal in capacity.
>
> Denver Dan
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:58:10 -0700, Dave C wrote:
> > Time Machine has been backing up my Mac mini since new, summer of last year.
> >
> > Today I entered TM to find a file and see that backups go back to
> > only yesterday at 9 PM.
> >
> > The backup drive is 250 GB, I have about 500 GB filled on my main 750
> > GB boot drive.
> >
> > What would cause backups to go away like that?
> >
> > I have in the past weeks, retrieved files from backups many months
> > old, so I know TM was doing its job well not so long ago.
> >
> > Not serious, but very inconvenient, and most of all, disconcerting.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dave
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:51 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jon Kreisler" jonkreisler
I phoned Time Warner (TWC) on October 2nd. The Tech. Support person told me
there would be no problem. I needed to provide them with the manufacturer,
model and the HFC MAC address of my new, personal cable modem. I was then
told it would take three business days to have my new cable modem
"provisioned." I would receive a phone call when it was set up.
Three weeks later and my modem was still not connecting to the Internet.
Another call to TWC yielded a very apologetic Tech. Specialist who
promised, "it will definitely be working within 24 hours." 36 hours later,
I received a phone call that my modem provisioning was completed. Finally,
I was online on my own cable modem.
Since the Motorola SBG6580 is a wireless router, it made my Airport Extreme
unnecessary. However, since I already had a wireless network set up, I just
changed the Airport Extreme to bridging mode and I have an even bigger
wireless network.
So far, three days up and running with no problems. And, if at some point I
want to opt for "Turbo" Internet service, I am ready.
Jon
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Jon Kreisler <jonkreisler@gmail.com > wrote:
> I received the same notice from TWC. There are only two cable modems
> "approved" for use with Time Warner's turbo Internet service. While I don't
> use it yet, I may want to upgrade in the future and have the ability to do
> so now.
> The two are both Motorola models. One is also a wireless router. The
> SBG6580. The other is strictly wired, model SB6141.
> Since they are only about $14 apart in price, I opted for the wireless
> model, which I just ordered from Amazon.com.
> These two models are also backward-compatible with the standard and basic
> Internet services.
> I will post my feelings about the purchase, once I receive the modem and
> have a chance to try it out.
>
> Jon
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Vickie <vixpix26@hvc.rr.com > wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> I just got a notice that Time Warner is going to raise their rate to $4 a
>> month for renting their router. Their router is currently hooked up to my
>> Airport Extreme.
>>
>> I do not want to rent from them anymore. Can someone suggest a router to
>> purchase? Is the Airport Extreme considered a router?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Vickie
>> Sent from my iPad's big sister
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>> __
>>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
there would be no problem. I needed to provide them with the manufacturer,
model and the HFC MAC address of my new, personal cable modem. I was then
told it would take three business days to have my new cable modem
"provisioned.
Three weeks later and my modem was still not connecting to the Internet.
Another call to TWC yielded a very apologetic Tech. Specialist who
promised, "it will definitely be working within 24 hours." 36 hours later,
I received a phone call that my modem provisioning was completed. Finally,
I was online on my own cable modem.
Since the Motorola SBG6580 is a wireless router, it made my Airport Extreme
unnecessary. However, since I already had a wireless network set up, I just
changed the Airport Extreme to bridging mode and I have an even bigger
wireless network.
So far, three days up and running with no problems. And, if at some point I
want to opt for "Turbo" Internet service, I am ready.
Jon
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Jon Kreisler <jonkreisler@
> I received the same notice from TWC. There are only two cable modems
> "approved" for use with Time Warner's turbo Internet service. While I don't
> use it yet, I may want to upgrade in the future and have the ability to do
> so now.
> The two are both Motorola models. One is also a wireless router. The
> SBG6580. The other is strictly wired, model SB6141.
> Since they are only about $14 apart in price, I opted for the wireless
> model, which I just ordered from Amazon.com.
> These two models are also backward-compatible with the standard and basic
> Internet services.
> I will post my feelings about the purchase, once I receive the modem and
> have a chance to try it out.
>
> Jon
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Vickie <vixpix26@hvc.
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> I just got a notice that Time Warner is going to raise their rate to $4 a
>> month for renting their router. Their router is currently hooked up to my
>> Airport Extreme.
>>
>> I do not want to rent from them anymore. Can someone suggest a router to
>> purchase? Is the Airport Extreme considered a router?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Vickie
>> Sent from my iPad's big sister
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>> __
>>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:19 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
A personal note on CDFinder and a caution.
I've used CDFinder for many years. It's been a great program and very
reliable for indexing and cataloging disk data of all kinds. CDs,
DVDs, BDs, hard drives.
But I can no longer recommend the program.
CDFinder has been "improved" and renamed NeoFinder version 6.
Some things in NeoFinder are good improvements.
But the new and fancier Search/Find capability is so badly thought out,
so cumbersome to use, so awkward, difficult, time consuming to try to
use, that the program is not worth using.
I regret make the upgrade purchase and am now looking for an
alternative program which will be a time consuming process after
install it to re-catalog/index all of my archive discs.
I've been in contact with the programmer/owner of CDFinder / NeoFinder
and he doesn't seem to understand the problem he has created for me and
I'm sure for other users of his new NeoFinder program.
Denver Dan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:33:47 -0700, Randy B. Singer wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Dave C wrote:
>
>> I'd like to find a utility that I can point to the USB drive and
>> have it find all photos on it, all audio files, all video files.
>
> Disk Library ($40)
> http://www.obviousmatter.com/disklibrary.html
>
> NeoFinder ($40)
> http://www.cdfinder.de/en/info.html
>
> ___________________________________________
> Randy B. Singer
A personal note on CDFinder and a caution.
I've used CDFinder for many years. It's been a great program and very
reliable for indexing and cataloging disk data of all kinds. CDs,
DVDs, BDs, hard drives.
But I can no longer recommend the program.
CDFinder has been "improved" and renamed NeoFinder version 6.
Some things in NeoFinder are good improvements.
But the new and fancier Search/Find capability is so badly thought out,
so cumbersome to use, so awkward, difficult, time consuming to try to
use, that the program is not worth using.
I regret make the upgrade purchase and am now looking for an
alternative program which will be a time consuming process after
install it to re-catalog/index all of my archive discs.
I've been in contact with the programmer/owner of CDFinder / NeoFinder
and he doesn't seem to understand the problem he has created for me and
I'm sure for other users of his new NeoFinder program.
Denver Dan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:33:47 -0700, Randy B. Singer wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Dave C wrote:
>
>> I'd like to find a utility that I can point to the USB drive and
>> have it find all photos on it, all audio files, all video files.
>
> Disk Library ($40)
> http://www.obviousm
>
> NeoFinder ($40)
> http://www.cdfinder
>
> ____________
> Randy B. Singer
Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:47 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"N.A. Nada"
I may be mistaken, but I think what Dave C is looking for is something to find all of his photos, audio files, & video files, not catalog them.
He is wiping his hard drives to dispose of them.
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Denver Dan wrote:
Howdy.
A personal note on CDFinder and a caution.
I've used CDFinder for many years. It's been a great program and very
reliable for indexing and cataloging disk data of all kinds. CDs,
DVDs, BDs, hard drives.
But I can no longer recommend the program.
CDFinder has been "improved" and renamed NeoFinder version 6.
Some things in NeoFinder are good improvements.
But the new and fancier Search/Find capability is so badly thought out,
so cumbersome to use, so awkward, difficult, time consuming to try to
use, that the program is not worth using.
I regret make the upgrade purchase and am now looking for an
alternative program which will be a time consuming process after
install it to re-catalog/index all of my archive discs.
I've been in contact with the programmer/owner of CDFinder / NeoFinder
and he doesn't seem to understand the problem he has created for me and
I'm sure for other users of his new NeoFinder program.
Denver Dan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:33:47 -0700, Randy B. Singer wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Dave C wrote:
>
>> I'd like to find a utility that I can point to the USB drive and
>> have it find all photos on it, all audio files, all video files.
>
> Disk Library ($40)
> http://www.obviousmatter.com/disklibrary.html
>
> NeoFinder ($40)
> http://www.cdfinder.de/en/info.html
>
> ___________________________________________
> Randy B. Singer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
He is wiping his hard drives to dispose of them.
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Denver Dan wrote:
Howdy.
A personal note on CDFinder and a caution.
I've used CDFinder for many years. It's been a great program and very
reliable for indexing and cataloging disk data of all kinds. CDs,
DVDs, BDs, hard drives.
But I can no longer recommend the program.
CDFinder has been "improved" and renamed NeoFinder version 6.
Some things in NeoFinder are good improvements.
But the new and fancier Search/Find capability is so badly thought out,
so cumbersome to use, so awkward, difficult, time consuming to try to
use, that the program is not worth using.
I regret make the upgrade purchase and am now looking for an
alternative program which will be a time consuming process after
install it to re-catalog/index all of my archive discs.
I've been in contact with the programmer/owner of CDFinder / NeoFinder
and he doesn't seem to understand the problem he has created for me and
I'm sure for other users of his new NeoFinder program.
Denver Dan
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:33:47 -0700, Randy B. Singer wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Dave C wrote:
>
>> I'd like to find a utility that I can point to the USB drive and
>> have it find all photos on it, all audio files, all video files.
>
> Disk Library ($40)
> http://www.obviousm
>
> NeoFinder ($40)
> http://www.cdfinder
>
> ____________
> Randy B. Singer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:57 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"chas" schuetzen
I do not understand why Apple went to a new machine platform as a requirement
for the new 10.7 and later versions of the OS-X?
This is reminiscent of the FORCED requirement to replace several other
personal computers with the change over to later OS by MS as well as Intel
and M$.
After all, when you put $2500 into a MacPro and then are virtually required
to dump it when a new OS version is released or certain apps are updated to
the extent that they will only run on the new version of the OS which means
you have to replace your entire machine to be able to run the app or the OS.
There should be backward compatibility of the OS so that you can get more
than 3 or 4 yrs ( 6 in the case of the MacPro Intel) out of the machine
without having to replace it.
or, will Apple continue to support the 10.6.x OS for another 4 yrs or so?
It seems to me that Apple should provide a 50% trade in for my 1,1 (2006) on
the new-er (2009 or 2010) MacPro.
I just cannot understand the reasoning behind the forced obsolescence and why
they did not offer at least a trade in on the relatively new 1,1 .
iow, looking at what I have in my machine, all I need is a patch to allow me
to run 10.7 -- after all, I don't need much more in a replacement MacPro just
to be able to run the newer OS, or so it seems to me.
Anyone??
thanks
chas
Hardware Overview:
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro1,1
Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 16 GB
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz
Boot ROM Version: MP11.005C.B08
SMC Version (system): 1.7f10
Serial Number (system): YM63421VUQ2
Hardware UUID: 00000000-0000-
Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:28 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"N.A. Nada"
You don't need a patch to run 10.7, it already can.
Your 2006 Mac Pro can run up to 10.7.4 according to MacTracker.
Sorry, no sympathy from me.
You're not being forced to upgrade or to retire your hardware. You are choosing to upgrade, because you want the new features that requires new hardware. The new features are going to cost you. And the same goes for when you upgrade hardware, expect to have to replace at least some of your software. That is just how it goes with technology.
You want to get something out of your Mac Pro, sell it. Check PowerMac.com or Gazelle or Craigslist. There are plenty of people that would be glad to move up to a 2006 Mac Pro. Just don't expect to get 50% out of it, after all it is 6 years old.
Me, I have two G4s hanging around, for when something goes wrong with my 2008 MBP.
So no one has ever told you not to buy the first model of anything? While I am at it, would you be interested in buying my orphaned Apple Studio Display LCD/ DVI?
And if it is budgetary issues that are making you complain, I'm in the same boat. I have been under-employeed for 2.5 years. I would love a new MBP and my first iPad.
Brent
- I complained, "I had no shoes, until I saw a man with no feet."
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:57 PM, chas wrote:
I do not understand why Apple went to a new machine platform as a requirement
for the new 10.7 and later versions of the OS-X?
This is reminiscent of the FORCED requirement to replace several other
personal computers with the change over to later OS by MS as well as Intel
and M$.
After all, when you put $2500 into a MacPro and then are virtually required
to dump it when a new OS version is released or certain apps are updated to
the extent that they will only run on the new version of the OS which means
you have to replace your entire machine to be able to run the app or the OS.
There should be backward compatibility of the OS so that you can get more
than 3 or 4 yrs ( 6 in the case of the MacPro Intel) out of the machine
without having to replace it.
or, will Apple continue to support the 10.6.x OS for another 4 yrs or so?
It seems to me that Apple should provide a 50% trade in for my 1,1 (2006) on
the new-er (2009 or 2010) MacPro.
I just cannot understand the reasoning behind the forced obsolescence and why
they did not offer at least a trade in on the relatively new 1,1 .
iow, looking at what I have in my machine, all I need is a patch to allow me
to run 10.7 -- after all, I don't need much more in a replacement MacPro just
to be able to run the newer OS, or so it seems to me.
Anyone??
thanks
chas
Hardware Overview:
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro1,1
Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 16 GB
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz
Boot ROM Version: MP11.005C.B08
SMC Version (system): 1.7f10
Serial Number (system): YM63421VUQ2
Hardware UUID: 00000000-0000-1000-8000-0017F201E34A
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your 2006 Mac Pro can run up to 10.7.4 according to MacTracker.
Sorry, no sympathy from me.
You're not being forced to upgrade or to retire your hardware. You are choosing to upgrade, because you want the new features that requires new hardware. The new features are going to cost you. And the same goes for when you upgrade hardware, expect to have to replace at least some of your software. That is just how it goes with technology.
You want to get something out of your Mac Pro, sell it. Check PowerMac.com or Gazelle or Craigslist. There are plenty of people that would be glad to move up to a 2006 Mac Pro. Just don't expect to get 50% out of it, after all it is 6 years old.
Me, I have two G4s hanging around, for when something goes wrong with my 2008 MBP.
So no one has ever told you not to buy the first model of anything? While I am at it, would you be interested in buying my orphaned Apple Studio Display LCD/ DVI?
And if it is budgetary issues that are making you complain, I'm in the same boat. I have been under-employeed for 2.5 years. I would love a new MBP and my first iPad.
Brent
- I complained, "I had no shoes, until I saw a man with no feet."
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:57 PM, chas wrote:
I do not understand why Apple went to a new machine platform as a requirement
for the new 10.7 and later versions of the OS-X?
This is reminiscent of the FORCED requirement to replace several other
personal computers with the change over to later OS by MS as well as Intel
and M$.
After all, when you put $2500 into a MacPro and then are virtually required
to dump it when a new OS version is released or certain apps are updated to
the extent that they will only run on the new version of the OS which means
you have to replace your entire machine to be able to run the app or the OS.
There should be backward compatibility of the OS so that you can get more
than 3 or 4 yrs ( 6 in the case of the MacPro Intel) out of the machine
without having to replace it.
or, will Apple continue to support the 10.6.x OS for another 4 yrs or so?
It seems to me that Apple should provide a 50% trade in for my 1,1 (2006) on
the new-er (2009 or 2010) MacPro.
I just cannot understand the reasoning behind the forced obsolescence and why
they did not offer at least a trade in on the relatively new 1,1 .
iow, looking at what I have in my machine, all I need is a patch to allow me
to run 10.7 -- after all, I don't need much more in a replacement MacPro just
to be able to run the newer OS, or so it seems to me.
Anyone??
thanks
chas
Hardware Overview:
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro1,1
Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 16 GB
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz
Boot ROM Version: MP11.005C.B08
SMC Version (system): 1.7f10
Serial Number (system): YM63421VUQ2
Hardware UUID: 00000000-0000-
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:57 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"OBrien" conorboru
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:57:11 -0500, chas wrote:
> I do not understand why Apple went to a new machine platform as a
> requirement
> for the new 10.7 and later versions of the OS-X?.....
But, you aren't required to use a later version of OSX (it's OSX). Just stick with your present system. If you want all the latest bells and whistles, then you'll have to buy a later model Mac. I'm running a G5, and am living with OSX 4.11 (I can upgrade to 5, if I decide to). I can't use the latest browsers, I can't upgrade Flash, and I can't do a lot of other things with this old Mac...that's just the way it is. I'm thinking of getting a new Mini.
Actually, Apple has always been fairly good about making things backward compatible. There comes a time, though, when it's no longer possible.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O'Brien ––– –... .-. .. . -.
> I do not understand why Apple went to a new machine platform as a
> requirement
> for the new 10.7 and later versions of the OS-X?.....
But, you aren't required to use a later version of OSX (it's OSX). Just stick with your present system. If you want all the latest bells and whistles, then you'll have to buy a later model Mac. I'm running a G5, and am living with OSX 4.11 (I can upgrade to 5, if I decide to). I can't use the latest browsers, I can't upgrade Flash, and I can't do a lot of other things with this old Mac...that's just the way it is. I'm thinking of getting a new Mini.
Actually, Apple has always been fairly good about making things backward compatible. There comes a time, though, when it's no longer possible.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O'Brien ––– –... .-. .. . -.
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
