15 New Messages
Digest #9312
Messages
Wed Jan 2, 2013 6:50 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
> This thread has opened my eyes regarding the need for power conservation. I have my Mac Pro set to sleep "never", although I sleep my displays at 15 minutes. I don't have a UPS, so I don't have an easy way to measure how much power the computer is consuming. Is there software available that runs on the Mac itself that can monitor it?
A good idea, but in the meantime:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_A_Watt >
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com
A good idea, but in the meantime:
<https://en.wikipedi
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.
Wed Jan 2, 2013 7:11 am (PST) . Posted by:
"James Robertson" jamesrob328i
On Jan 2, 2013, at 4:59 AM, Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@
> You might prefer a plug-in power monitor
Some related questions:
If my Mac Pro does sleep, will Time Machine wake it up to do hourly backups, or will backups occur only if the Machine has been active within the configured time before sleep? Corollary question: if Time Machine doesn't wake up a sleeping Mac to do backups, what happens to the previously active defaults for starting hourly, daily, and weekly backups? I don't see any options in Time Machine to configure these things.
Let's say, for example, that Time machine has been doing weekly backups on Monday evenings at 7:40 pm, and that usually I'm using the Mac at that time. Now, let's say I leave for an 8 day trip after finishing a large project on Monday afternoon. If Time machine wakes up sleeping Macs, it will do a whole bunch of very small backups while I'm gone, waking up the computer every hour and dramatically reducing any energy savings ordinarily realized by having the system sleep after some time interval (let's say it's set for 30 minutes).
On the other hand, if Time machine DOESN'T awaken sleeping Macs, and I come home the following Tuesday, all those hourly, daily, and the ordinary weekly backup that would have happened the evening I left and the evening before I came home would not have occurred. Will Time machine recognize that a weekly backup is overdue and do that whenever I wake up the computer, or will it follow its previous schedule, doing hourly backups and daily backups so long as the computer is awake, and the next WEEKLY backup not until the following Monday?
I guess the same question is pertinent to the clone I create weekly in SuperDuper! Does it (or CCC) awaken a sleeping Mac? I know that the day and time for cloning is user-configured in SuperDuper! (I do mine at 2 am on Saturday, when I'm very unlikely to be using the computer).
Final related question: is there likely something I need to configure besides toggling the Energy Saver option to awaken the Mac for network activity in order to configure "Back to my Mac" so I can get access to my Mac Pro at home from my office (it works now using our Linksys router at work and a "Gigabit Ethernet Airport Extreme N" as the router at home) once I tell Energy Saver to put the Mac Pro to sleep after 30 minutes of inactivity?
Thanks again,
--
Jim Robertson
__o
_-\<,_
(*)/ (*)
````````````
My other car is an S-Works Roubaix
Wed Jan 2, 2013 7:26 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
> The main problem I can see with a plug-in power monitor is that I won't be able to see it (the nest of power cords, data cables, transformer bricks, power strips, routers, cable system terminal adapters, etc., behind my desk strikes fear into the hearts of all!
I plugged mine into a 3- or 6-foot heavy-duty extension cord, so i could have the meter where I could see it, and then plugged the item, or the power strip with the items, into it.
> I've also considered trying to save natural gas and electricity with the "Nest" thermostat, but haven't done that because it supposedly "learns" when it should be warming the house, when it should be cooling it, and I don't think there's a person alive who can figure out when my wife will want it warmer, when she'll want it cooler!
I replaced the cheap, simple thermostat that came with my house 30 years ago with first one, then another electronic, multiple set-back model, but I've gone back now sor some years to a simple, heating-only, single-setting, on-off one, except now it's electronic, not mechanical.
We never could get the settings right for our "schedule".
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com
I plugged mine into a 3- or 6-foot heavy-duty extension cord, so i could have the meter where I could see it, and then plugged the item, or the power strip with the items, into it.
> I've also considered trying to save natural gas and electricity with the "Nest" thermostat, but haven't done that because it supposedly "learns" when it should be warming the house, when it should be cooling it, and I don't think there's a person alive who can figure out when my wife will want it warmer, when she'll want it cooler!
I replaced the cheap, simple thermostat that came with my house 30 years ago with first one, then another electronic, multiple set-back model, but I've gone back now sor some years to a simple, heating-only, single-setting, on-off one, except now it's electronic, not mechanical.
We never could get the settings right for our "schedule".
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.
Wed Jan 2, 2013 7:29 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
> If my Mac Pro does sleep, will Time Machine wake it up to do hourly backups, or will backups occur only if the Machine has been active within the configured time before sleep? Corollary question: if Time Machine doesn't wake up a sleeping Mac to do backups, what happens to the previously active defaults for starting hourly, daily, and weekly backups? I don't see any options in Time Machine to configure these things.
I think it does NOT wake from sleep for TM -- since no significant files change while asleep.
I suspect the "power nap" mode on the newer no-hard-drive models is different.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com
I think it does NOT wake from sleep for TM -- since no significant files change while asleep.
I suspect the "power nap" mode on the newer no-hard-drive models is different.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.
Wed Jan 2, 2013 7:32 am (PST) . Posted by:
"James Robertson" jamesrob328i
On Jan 2, 2013, at 6:49 AM, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@icloud.
> A good idea, but in the meantime:
> <https://en.wikipedi
That may indeed be the ticket; the wireless sensor/display combo would obligate me to make only one contortionist dip into the snake den of cords, cables, power bricks, and power strips so long as I choose wisely where to insert the wireless Kill-A-Watt sensor and transmitter. It's a bit surprising that they don't make a receiver that plugs into computers via USB to create a database of sensor readings...
It transmits at 916.5 MHz. Is that likely to interfere with any other home electronics? My cordless phones are DECT-6, which operate at 1.9 GHz.
Unfortunately, the Kill-a Watt wireless receiver/display unit is expensive enough that it would overwhelm any savings from not having my Mac Pro swagger with all guns (er, processors) blazing all the time. The display and one sensor from amazon.com is $240.
--
Jim Robertson
__o
_-\<,_
(*)/ (*)
````````````
My other car is an S-Works Roubaix
Wed Jan 2, 2013 7:48 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
On 2 January 2013 15:26, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@icloud.com > wrote:
>
> I plugged mine into a 3- or 6-foot heavy-duty extension cord, so i could
> have the meter where I could see it, and then plugged the item, or the
> power strip with the items, into it.
>
The Belkin F7C005AF has its display connected by a cable to the monitor
itself, so you can read it without grovelling on the floor or using an
extension. Why is such an obvious feature so rare?
Otto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> I plugged mine into a 3- or 6-foot heavy-duty extension cord, so i could
> have the meter where I could see it, and then plugged the item, or the
> power strip with the items, into it.
>
The Belkin F7C005AF has its display connected by a cable to the monitor
itself, so you can read it without grovelling on the floor or using an
extension. Why is such an obvious feature so rare?
Otto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jan 2, 2013 9:45 am (PST) . Posted by:
"N.A. Nada"
James, to my knowledge, Macs do no have the hardware built in to monitor _actual_ use as opposed to estimated. At that point you lose the whole point of the exercise.
As Jim Saklad suggested look into Kill a Watt. Here in Oregon, you can check them out of the public library. Look into that local to you.
Brent
On Jan 2, 2013, at 4:29 AM, James Robertson wrote:
On Dec 30, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Don <y-photo.96705@hawaiiantel.net > wrote:
> I'm not sure of the power use by an iMac my MacPro currently is running at 200 watts, according to the power meter on my UPS. Sleeping it uses 3 watts or less. That's just over $2.00 per day that not sleeping costs where I live, using the highest cost electricity in the USA.
This thread has opened my eyes regarding the need for power conservation. I have my Mac Pro set to sleep "never", although I sleep my displays at 15 minutes. I don't have a UPS, so I don't have an easy way to measure how much power the computer is consuming. Is there software available that runs on the Mac itself that can monitor it?
Thanks so much,
--
Jim Robertson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
As Jim Saklad suggested look into Kill a Watt. Here in Oregon, you can check them out of the public library. Look into that local to you.
Brent
On Jan 2, 2013, at 4:29 AM, James Robertson wrote:
On Dec 30, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Don <y-photo.96705@
> I'm not sure of the power use by an iMac my MacPro currently is running at 200 watts, according to the power meter on my UPS. Sleeping it uses 3 watts or less. That's just over $2.00 per day that not sleeping costs where I live, using the highest cost electricity in the USA.
This thread has opened my eyes regarding the need for power conservation. I have my Mac Pro set to sleep "never", although I sleep my displays at 15 minutes. I don't have a UPS, so I don't have an easy way to measure how much power the computer is consuming. Is there software available that runs on the Mac itself that can monitor it?
Thanks so much,
--
Jim Robertson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jan 2, 2013 10:01 am (PST) . Posted by:
"James Robertson" jamesrob328i
On Jan 2, 2013, at 9:45 AM, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.
> As Jim Saklad suggested look into Kill a Watt. Here in Oregon, you can check them out of the public library. Look into that local to you.
Now THAT is pretty cool!
I've just reconfigured my Mac Pro to sleep and I'll see what happens with Time Machine backups, accessibility of the Mac Pro from outside my LAN; e.g., when I'm at work or on the road, and perhaps I'll buy one of the Belkin monitors as suggested by Otto.
Jim Robertson
Wed Jan 2, 2013 10:07 am (PST) . Posted by:
"N.A. Nada"
Shop around the P4220 can be had for under $40 and the receiver for $90. And the non-wireless for $20 total.
There will be no interference. The two frequencies are not even close. One is mega-Hertz and the other giga-Hertz.
You can estimate all of this with a formula, a pencil and paper, and an estimated hours of use. But then again, it is just an estimate.
On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:32 AM, James Robertson wrote:
On Jan 2, 2013, at 6:49 AM, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@icloud.com > wrote:
> A good idea, but in the meantime:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_A_Watt >
That may indeed be the ticket; the wireless sensor/display combo would obligate me to make only one contortionist dip into the snake den of cords, cables, power bricks, and power strips so long as I choose wisely where to insert the wireless Kill-A-Watt sensor and transmitter. It's a bit surprising that they don't make a receiver that plugs into computers via USB to create a database of sensor readings...
It transmits at 916.5 MHz. Is that likely to interfere with any other home electronics? My cordless phones are DECT-6, which operate at 1.9 GHz.
Unfortunately, the Kill-a Watt wireless receiver/display unit is expensive enough that it would overwhelm any savings from not having my Mac Pro swagger with all guns (er, processors) blazing all the time. The display and one sensor from amazon.com is $240.
--
Jim Robertson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
There will be no interference. The two frequencies are not even close. One is mega-Hertz and the other giga-Hertz.
You can estimate all of this with a formula, a pencil and paper, and an estimated hours of use. But then again, it is just an estimate.
On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:32 AM, James Robertson wrote:
On Jan 2, 2013, at 6:49 AM, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@icloud.
> A good idea, but in the meantime:
> <https://en.wikipedi
That may indeed be the ticket; the wireless sensor/display combo would obligate me to make only one contortionist dip into the snake den of cords, cables, power bricks, and power strips so long as I choose wisely where to insert the wireless Kill-A-Watt sensor and transmitter. It's a bit surprising that they don't make a receiver that plugs into computers via USB to create a database of sensor readings...
It transmits at 916.5 MHz. Is that likely to interfere with any other home electronics? My cordless phones are DECT-6, which operate at 1.9 GHz.
Unfortunately, the Kill-a Watt wireless receiver/display unit is expensive enough that it would overwhelm any savings from not having my Mac Pro swagger with all guns (er, processors) blazing all the time. The display and one sensor from amazon.com is $240.
--
Jim Robertson
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jan 2, 2013 6:56 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Eric" emanmb
I'm having the same issue and have recently posted about it. I'm in the US presently and away from my Mac Pro till the 21st but if you find an answer, please share as this issue remains on my comp back in BKK.
e
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , Dave C <davec2468@...> wrote:
>
> Activity monitor shows Safari taking a few percent CPU. But there is also "Safari Web Content" taking from 30 to 100 percent (it jumps as I watch AM's numbers).
>
> I don't recall seeing Safari Web Content listed in AM before. It was just the Safari app taking processor power.
>
> What defines "Safari Web Content" such that it is different from what falls under "Safari" usage?
>
> Is there some way to know (without going tab-by-tab and guessing) which web page is requiring such a large bite of resources?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> Safari 5.1.7
> 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]
>
e
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
> Activity monitor shows Safari taking a few percent CPU. But there is also "Safari Web Content" taking from 30 to 100 percent (it jumps as I watch AM's numbers).
>
> I don't recall seeing Safari Web Content listed in AM before. It was just the Safari app taking processor power.
>
> What defines "Safari Web Content" such that it is different from what falls under "Safari" usage?
>
> Is there some way to know (without going tab-by-tab and guessing) which web page is requiring such a large bite of resources?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> Safari 5.1.7
> 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]
>
Wed Jan 2, 2013 7:55 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Bill B." kernos501
Yeh, Safari sucks when it comes to memory management. The problem is having a lot of tabs/windows open. The solution is to use Chrome. There are some things about Chrome that interfere with my work flow, extension solve some. Others I am still looking for a way around.
Bill B
At 2:56 PM +0000 1/2/13, Eric wrote:
>I'm having the same issue and have recently posted about it. I'm in the US presently and away from my Mac Pro till the 21st but if you find an answer, please share as this issue remains on my comp back in BKK.
>e
>
>--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , Dave C <davec2468@...> wrote:
>>
>> Activity monitor shows Safari taking a few percent CPU. But there is also "Safari Web Content" taking from 30 to 100 percent (it jumps as I watch AM's numbers).
>>
>> I don't recall seeing Safari Web Content listed in AM before. It was just the Safari app taking processor power.
>>
>> What defines "Safari Web Content" such that it is different from what falls under "Safari" usage?
>>
>> Is there some way to know (without going tab-by-tab and guessing) which web page is requiring such a large bite of resources?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave
>>
>> Safari 5.1.7
>> 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]
>>
Bill B
At 2:56 PM +0000 1/2/13, Eric wrote:
>I'm having the same issue and have recently posted about it. I'm in the US presently and away from my Mac Pro till the 21st but if you find an answer, please share as this issue remains on my comp back in BKK.
>e
>
>--- In macsupportcentral@
>>
>> Activity monitor shows Safari taking a few percent CPU. But there is also "Safari Web Content" taking from 30 to 100 percent (it jumps as I watch AM's numbers).
>>
>> I don't recall seeing Safari Web Content listed in AM before. It was just the Safari app taking processor power.
>>
>> What defines "Safari Web Content" such that it is different from what falls under "Safari" usage?
>>
>> Is there some way to know (without going tab-by-tab and guessing) which web page is requiring such a large bite of resources?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave
>>
>> Safari 5.1.7
>> 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]
>>
Wed Jan 2, 2013 9:34 am (PST) . Posted by:
"emanmb@yahoo.com" emanmb
Dave & I are both using 10.6.8 so I wonder if the issue was resolved in 10.7 or 10.8.
I have Chrome & FF and so far prefer FF, but I'll have to spend the time to get Chrome set up properly to make a fair judgement.
e
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 2, 2013, at 9:55 AM, "Bill B." <bill501@mindspring.com > wrote:
> Yeh, Safari sucks when it comes to memory management. The problem is having a lot of tabs/windows open. The solution is to use Chrome. There are some things about Chrome that interfere with my work flow, extension solve some. Others I am still looking for a way around.
>
> Bill B
>
> At 2:56 PM +0000 1/2/13, Eric wrote:
>> I'm having the same issue and have recently posted about it. I'm in the US presently and away from my Mac Pro till the 21st but if you find an answer, please share as this issue remains on my comp back in BKK.
>> e
>>
>
I have Chrome & FF and so far prefer FF, but I'll have to spend the time to get Chrome set up properly to make a fair judgement.
e
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 2, 2013, at 9:55 AM, "Bill B." <bill501@mindspring.
> Yeh, Safari sucks when it comes to memory management. The problem is having a lot of tabs/windows open. The solution is to use Chrome. There are some things about Chrome that interfere with my work flow, extension solve some. Others I am still looking for a way around.
>
> Bill B
>
> At 2:56 PM +0000 1/2/13, Eric wrote:
>> I'm having the same issue and have recently posted about it. I'm in the US presently and away from my Mac Pro till the 21st but if you find an answer, please share as this issue remains on my comp back in BKK.
>> e
>>
>
Wed Jan 2, 2013 8:01 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Hugh Crymble" hcrymble
Whenever I drag an email file from the list pane to my desktop I get an .eml file with the title as in the Subject line.
Is this a good file to archive a message or is it just a link to the message in MacMail?
I have been saving messages to workfiles as pdf's but if .eml files are standalone files, this route would be easier.
Thanks
hugh
Is this a good file to archive a message or is it just a link to the message in MacMail?
I have been saving messages to workfiles as pdf's but if .eml files are standalone files, this route would be easier.
Thanks
hugh
Wed Jan 2, 2013 9:54 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Dave C" davec2468
I have set the default mail program to "Mail (4.6)" in Mail's Preferences several times.
Given time, it always reverts back to Eudora and when I click a mail link in Safari will launch Eudora.
I can repair disk permissions, reset the PRAM, toss Mail Preference file, and other measures, but nothing fixes this permanently. It's not clear to me exactly when -- and under what conditions -- it reverts to Eudora.
Anyone else have this issue? A fix?
I need to keep Eudora around because I still search my 15-year-plus archive of mail occasionally and nothing searches like Eudora.
Thanks,
Dave
Mail 4.6
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]
Given time, it always reverts back to Eudora and when I click a mail link in Safari will launch Eudora.
I can repair disk permissions, reset the PRAM, toss Mail Preference file, and other measures, but nothing fixes this permanently. It's not clear to me exactly when -- and under what conditions -- it reverts to Eudora.
Anyone else have this issue? A fix?
I need to keep Eudora around because I still search my 15-year-plus archive of mail occasionally and nothing searches like Eudora.
Thanks,
Dave
Mail 4.6
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]
Wed Jan 2, 2013 10:19 am (PST) . Posted by:
"bj" jblair44
One of my "installed printers" is "Adobe PDF".
I don't know if it came with Acrobat or if it's also available otherwise.
I've been printing-to-PDF for so long it seems routine for me.
I got Acrobat years & machines (& versions) ago because the
cheapo-workarounds of the time didn't work properly for files I had to send
to others, though they were adequate, if inconvenient, for producing my own
hard-copy from Word docs. I've kept up the habit of upgrading/new versions
even if it does cost money -- having the Real Acrobat eliminates any
variables in others' use of the docs vs. if I use some 3rd-party
implementation.
Acrobat's scan-to-PDF is also, I've discovered, *way* better than the one
that came with my most-in-one. I can also mess-with docs easily. I've barely
scratched the surface of what it can do even after a dozen+ years.
So I feel it's worth the price. BTJM. It's not the only thing I pay extra
for to get convenience. :-)
(but I do save Big Buck$ on Starbucks & Netflix since I don't use
either one :-) )
bj
-----Original Message-----
From: Daly Jessup
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 8:26 AM
To: macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [macsupport] How to reverse page order in PDF?
On Jan 1, 2013, at 8:45 PM, bj wrote:
> oops -- I left out that I printed it to PDF not a paper-printer.
> I don't know what other print-to-PDF s/w may be able to do.
BJ, that was what stymied me using Adobe Reader. How did you get it to print
to PDF using Adobe's driver?
Daly
I don't know if it came with Acrobat or if it's also available otherwise.
I've been printing-to-
I got Acrobat years & machines (& versions) ago because the
cheapo-workarounds of the time didn't work properly for files I had to send
to others, though they were adequate, if inconvenient, for producing my own
hard-copy from Word docs. I've kept up the habit of upgrading/new versions
even if it does cost money -- having the Real Acrobat eliminates any
variables in others' use of the docs vs. if I use some 3rd-party
implementation.
Acrobat's scan-to-PDF is also, I've discovered, *way* better than the one
that came with my most-in-one. I can also mess-with docs easily. I've barely
scratched the surface of what it can do even after a dozen+ years.
So I feel it's worth the price. BTJM. It's not the only thing I pay extra
for to get convenience. :-)
(but I do save Big Buck$ on Starbucks & Netflix since I don't use
either one :-) )
bj
-----Original Message-----
From: Daly Jessup
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 8:26 AM
To: macsupportcentral@
Subject: Re: [macsupport] How to reverse page order in PDF?
On Jan 1, 2013, at 8:45 PM, bj wrote:
> oops -- I left out that I printed it to PDF not a paper-printer.
> I don't know what other print-to-PDF s/w may be able to do.
BJ, that was what stymied me using Adobe Reader. How did you get it to print
to PDF using Adobe's driver?
Daly
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
