15 New Messages
Digest #9728
Messages
Sun Sep 1, 2013 5:29 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Eric" emanmb
I found the author most helpful and that would be where I'd make my first inquiry.
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , ck368@... wrote:
>
> No and I don't know how!
>
> Charles.
>
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
> No and I don't know how!
>
> Charles.
>
Sun Sep 1, 2013 7:12 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"James Robertson" jamesrob328i
On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:19 PM, Michael Stupinski <stupnski@tiac.
> Just to close this out, here's what happened:
>
> Using Activity Monitor I selected the process causing the issue, highlighted it and clicked on 'Inspect&#
>
> I recognized this as being related to the application Spector Pro, something that was migrated to my Intel Core i7 iMac from my PowerMac G5. That's something for which I no longer have use (I don't even think it was Intel-compatible)
May I ask whether all your sleuthing led to anything improving in your user experience?
I'm not a techie, just a curious end-user, but the fact that this unidentified process was reported as using an unvarying 100% of one core suggests to me that the "left behind" process was somehow confusing Activity Monitor into reporting erroneously. The other thing that suggests that to me is that you're not now waxing eloquently about how much snappier your Mac "feels" after axing the devil...
--
Jim Robertson
__o
_-\<,
(*)/ (*)
````````````
My other car is an S-Works Roubaix
Sun Sep 1, 2013 7:45 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Michael Stupinski" mstupinski
It's not obvious if there has been any change, Jim. If the 100% use report had meant that I was using 100% of ALL my CPU capability I would have expected that the system would have bogged down seriously, but as Jim Saklad pointed out:
"Activity Monitor records % usage per CPU core, and reports the total for all cores. I recently did some major batch image processing that heavily utilized both cores of my 4.5 year old Core 2 Duo, and activity monitor reported *that process* as using 175%."
Based on that, I was probably using only about 50% to 60% of the total CPU capability. I never checked to see what Activity Monitor would report if, for example, I had an intensive Photoshop process running at the same time. I suspect, though, that the system has a prioritization function that would have tweaked down the allocation to the rogue process. Someone else will have to help here on that but I think it's a reasonable assumption.
So the answer is that you are correct: although I have a feeling that things are somewhat snappier now than they were just before I eliminated the problem, there hasn't been a clear-cut improvement in performance. Bear in mind that I have no idea when or how the issue appeared. It just became obvious that something wasn't right for an unknown process to be using that much CPU capability all the time. Once I identified the process it was clear it shouldn't have been running, so I killed it. I feel better about that, and Activity Monitor was apparently reporting properly.
.............Mike
On Sep 1, 2013, at 10:12 AM, James Robertson <jamesrob@sonic.net > wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:19 PM, Michael Stupinski <stupnski@tiac.net > wrote:
>
>> Just to close this out, here's what happened:
>>
>> Using Activity Monitor I selected the process causing the issue, highlighted it and clicked on 'Inspect' (the blue button with the 'i'). That identified the parent process, which wasn't of great help to me, so I next clicked on the 'Sample Process' button. This gave a fairly long log of the process, and early in the log I noted what appeared to be a call to a preference, which had the form 'com.spectorsoft.xxx'
>>
>> I recognized this as being related to the application Spector Pro, something that was migrated to my Intel Core i7 iMac from my PowerMac G5. That's something for which I no longer have use (I don't even think it was Intel-compatible). I located the folder containing it and there, along with the application, was the 'Agent' I was looking for. I trashed the folder and Activity Monitor no longer shows the 100% CPU use. I don't expect the problem to reappear.
>
> May I ask whether all your sleuthing led to anything improving in your user experience?
>
> I'm not a techie, just a curious end-user, but the fact that this unidentified process was reported as using an unvarying 100% of one core suggests to me that the "left behind" process was somehow confusing Activity Monitor into reporting erroneously. The other thing that suggests that to me is that you're not now waxing eloquently about how much snappier your Mac "feels" after axing the devil...
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Robertson
> __o
> _-\<,_
> (*)/ (*)
> ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> My other car is an S-Works Roubaix
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/macsupportcentral/files/faq.htm >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
"Activity Monitor records % usage per CPU core, and reports the total for all cores. I recently did some major batch image processing that heavily utilized both cores of my 4.5 year old Core 2 Duo, and activity monitor reported *that process* as using 175%."
Based on that, I was probably using only about 50% to 60% of the total CPU capability. I never checked to see what Activity Monitor would report if, for example, I had an intensive Photoshop process running at the same time. I suspect, though, that the system has a prioritization function that would have tweaked down the allocation to the rogue process. Someone else will have to help here on that but I think it's a reasonable assumption.
So the answer is that you are correct: although I have a feeling that things are somewhat snappier now than they were just before I eliminated the problem, there hasn't been a clear-cut improvement in performance. Bear in mind that I have no idea when or how the issue appeared. It just became obvious that something wasn't right for an unknown process to be using that much CPU capability all the time. Once I identified the process it was clear it shouldn'
............
On Sep 1, 2013, at 10:12 AM, James Robertson <jamesrob@sonic.
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:19 PM, Michael Stupinski <stupnski@tiac.
>
>> Just to close this out, here's what happened:
>>
>> Using Activity Monitor I selected the process causing the issue, highlighted it and clicked on 'Inspect&#
>>
>> I recognized this as being related to the application Spector Pro, something that was migrated to my Intel Core i7 iMac from my PowerMac G5. That's something for which I no longer have use (I don't even think it was Intel-compatible)
>
> May I ask whether all your sleuthing led to anything improving in your user experience?
>
> I'm not a techie, just a curious end-user, but the fact that this unidentified process was reported as using an unvarying 100% of one core suggests to me that the "left behind" process was somehow confusing Activity Monitor into reporting erroneously. The other thing that suggests that to me is that you're not now waxing eloquently about how much snappier your Mac "feels" after axing the devil...
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Robertson
> __o
> _-\<,
> (*)/ (*)
> ````````````
> My other car is an S-Works Roubaix
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://tech.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sun Sep 1, 2013 8:50 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
Select Activity Monitor > Window > CPU Usage (or cmd 2). You might be
surprised by what you see, as I was the first time when I noticed that
Handbrake was using more than 400% according to the AM main window. My MBP
has a Quad Core i7 so I expected to see 4 usage columns; instead I see 8
CPU columns. How can this be? Well, it's because the CPU uses
hyperthreading so it has 8 *virtual* cores.
So, your 100% was probably only 1/8 of the total.
Otto
On 1 September 2013 15:45, Michael Stupinski <stupnski@tiac.net > wrote:
> It's not obvious if there has been any change, Jim. If the 100% use
> report had meant that I was using 100% of ALL my CPU capability I would
> have expected that the system would have bogged down seriously, but as Jim
> Saklad pointed out:
>
> "Activity Monitor records % usage per CPU core, and reports the total for
> all cores. I recently did some major batch image processing that heavily
> utilized both cores of my 4.5 year old Core 2 Duo, and activity monitor
> reported *that process* as using 175%."
>
> Based on that, I was probably using only about 50% to 60% of the total CPU
> capability. I never checked to see what Activity Monitor would report if,
> for example, I had an intensive Photoshop process running at the same time.
> I suspect, though, that the system has a prioritization function that
> would have tweaked down the allocation to the rogue process. Someone else
> will have to help here on that but I think it's a reasonable assumption.
>
> So the answer is that you are correct: although I have a feeling that
> things are somewhat snappier now than they were just before I eliminated
> the problem, there hasn't been a clear-cut improvement in performance.
> Bear in mind that I have no idea when or how the issue appeared. It just
> became obvious that something wasn't right for an unknown process to be
> using that much CPU capability all the time. Once I identified the process
> it was clear it shouldn't have been running, so I killed it. I feel better
> about that, and Activity Monitor was apparently reporting properly.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
surprised by what you see, as I was the first time when I noticed that
Handbrake was using more than 400% according to the AM main window. My MBP
has a Quad Core i7 so I expected to see 4 usage columns; instead I see 8
CPU columns. How can this be? Well, it's because the CPU uses
hyperthreading so it has 8 *virtual* cores.
So, your 100% was probably only 1/8 of the total.
Otto
On 1 September 2013 15:45, Michael Stupinski <stupnski@tiac.
> It's not obvious if there has been any change, Jim. If the 100% use
> report had meant that I was using 100% of ALL my CPU capability I would
> have expected that the system would have bogged down seriously, but as Jim
> Saklad pointed out:
>
> "Activity Monitor records % usage per CPU core, and reports the total for
> all cores. I recently did some major batch image processing that heavily
> utilized both cores of my 4.5 year old Core 2 Duo, and activity monitor
> reported *that process* as using 175%."
>
> Based on that, I was probably using only about 50% to 60% of the total CPU
> capability. I never checked to see what Activity Monitor would report if,
> for example, I had an intensive Photoshop process running at the same time.
> I suspect, though, that the system has a prioritization function that
> would have tweaked down the allocation to the rogue process. Someone else
> will have to help here on that but I think it's a reasonable assumption.
>
> So the answer is that you are correct: although I have a feeling that
> things are somewhat snappier now than they were just before I eliminated
> the problem, there hasn't been a clear-cut improvement in performance.
> Bear in mind that I have no idea when or how the issue appeared. It just
> became obvious that something wasn't right for an unknown process to be
> using that much CPU capability all the time. Once I identified the process
> it was clear it shouldn'
> about that, and Activity Monitor was apparently reporting properly.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Sep 1, 2013 8:51 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"James Robertson" jamesrob328i
I've always endured the trickle of spam that most of us suffer with, but somehow, in the last two months the volume of the stuff has just exploded. It does seem that it crescendoed rather quickly over the course of a week or so, which makes me think I may have done something that triggered it, but I don't know what. I've never responded to it, clicked embedded links, "bounced" one of the messages (I'm told this just alerts the miscreants they've actually found a live sucker) or clicked a bogus "unsubscribe" links. However, this new crop of crap doesn't contain "unsubscribe" links.
Most of it contains a common set of characteristics:
1. The "From" address is a nonsensical sequence of consonants and vowels which COULD be a first name if one didn't have a dictionary or any memory of English names
2. I'm listed as one of several recipients, and I don't recognize any of the other recipients.
3. There's no subject
4. The body is in ASCII, consists again of nonsensical strings of alpha characters (an example: "cocy lame si debyfub fep
gezakep cim"), and there's always an embedded link.
5. Sometimes the link in the message body or the "from" address contains the dreaded ".ru" domain suffix, but often not.
My ISP uses spamassassin for server-side filtering, and the rogue emails don't come close to getting caught by their scoring system (the header of the example I'm looking at now says 5 spamassassin "points" are required to divert a message to my Graymail folder, and this one scored only 0.8).
Is there something I can do at my end to avoid having to look at this stuff in my Inbox? Options I'm aware of would be installing Spamsieve (and learning how to use it) and marking each of these messages as "junk" using Mail.app's built in menu item. In other words, I have absolutely no idea how much either of these might help.
I'm running Apple Mail in Mountain Lion. I've had the same home email address almost as long as there's been an internet - I may have even sent my first message to Al Gore! (sorry, got carried away there). Anyway, I hope I don't have to change my address.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Most of it contains a common set of characteristics:
1. The "From" address is a nonsensical sequence of consonants and vowels which COULD be a first name if one didn't have a dictionary or any memory of English names
2. I'm listed as one of several recipients, and I don't recognize any of the other recipients.
3. There's no subject
4. The body is in ASCII, consists again of nonsensical strings of alpha characters (an example: "cocy lame si debyfub fep
gezakep cim"), and there's always an embedded link.
5. Sometimes the link in the message body or the "from" address contains the dreaded ".ru" domain suffix, but often not.
My ISP uses spamassassin for server-side filtering, and the rogue emails don't come close to getting caught by their scoring system (the header of the example I'm looking at now says 5 spamassassin "points" are required to divert a message to my Graymail folder, and this one scored only 0.8).
Is there something I can do at my end to avoid having to look at this stuff in my Inbox? Options I'm aware of would be installing Spamsieve (and learning how to use it) and marking each of these messages as "junk" using Mail.app'
I'm running Apple Mail in Mountain Lion. I've had the same home email address almost as long as there's been an internet - I may have even sent my first message to Al Gore! (sorry, got carried away there). Anyway, I hope I don't have to change my address.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Sep 1, 2013 8:55 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Hamm" jimhamm90
Here<http://www.maclife.com/article/columns/maclife_101_how_filter_spam_apple_mail >
is
an articles to read that should help....Jim
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 8:51 AM, James Robertson <jamesrob@sonic.net > wrote:
> **
>
>
> I've always endured the trickle of spam that most of us suffer with, but
> somehow, in the last two months the volume of the stuff has just exploded.
> It does seem that it crescendoed rather quickly over the course of a week
> or so, which makes me think I may have done something that triggered it,
> but I don't know what. I've never responded to it, clicked embedded links,
> "bounced" one of the messages (I'm told this just alerts the miscreants
> they've actually found a live sucker) or clicked a bogus "unsubscribe"
> links. However, this new crop of crap doesn't contain "unsubscribe" links.
>
> Most of it contains a common set of characteristics:
>
> 1. The "From" address is a nonsensical sequence of consonants and vowels
> which COULD be a first name if one didn't have a dictionary or any memory
> of English names
> 2. I'm listed as one of several recipients, and I don't recognize any of
> the other recipients.
> 3. There's no subject
> 4. The body is in ASCII, consists again of nonsensical strings of alpha
> characters (an example: "cocy lame si debyfub fep
> gezakep cim"), and there's always an embedded link.
> 5. Sometimes the link in the message body or the "from" address contains
> the dreaded ".ru" domain suffix, but often not.
>
> My ISP uses spamassassin for server-side filtering, and the rogue emails
> don't come close to getting caught by their scoring system (the header of
> the example I'm looking at now says 5 spamassassin "points" are required to
> divert a message to my Graymail folder, and this one scored only 0.8).
>
> Is there something I can do at my end to avoid having to look at this
> stuff in my Inbox? Options I'm aware of would be installing Spamsieve (and
> learning how to use it) and marking each of these messages as "junk" using
> Mail.app's built in menu item. In other words, I have absolutely no idea
> how much either of these might help.
>
> I'm running Apple Mail in Mountain Lion. I've had the same home email
> address almost as long as there's been an internet - I may have even sent
> my first message to Al Gore! (sorry, got carried away there). Anyway, I
> hope I don't have to change my address.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
is
an articles to read that should help....Jim
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 8:51 AM, James Robertson <jamesrob@sonic.
> **
>
>
> I've always endured the trickle of spam that most of us suffer with, but
> somehow, in the last two months the volume of the stuff has just exploded.
> It does seem that it crescendoed rather quickly over the course of a week
> or so, which makes me think I may have done something that triggered it,
> but I don't know what. I've never responded to it, clicked embedded links,
> "bounced" one of the messages (I'm told this just alerts the miscreants
> they've actually found a live sucker) or clicked a bogus "unsubscribe&q
> links. However, this new crop of crap doesn't contain "unsubscribe&q
>
> Most of it contains a common set of characteristics:
>
> 1. The "From" address is a nonsensical sequence of consonants and vowels
> which COULD be a first name if one didn't have a dictionary or any memory
> of English names
> 2. I'm listed as one of several recipients, and I don't recognize any of
> the other recipients.
> 3. There's no subject
> 4. The body is in ASCII, consists again of nonsensical strings of alpha
> characters (an example: "cocy lame si debyfub fep
> gezakep cim"), and there's always an embedded link.
> 5. Sometimes the link in the message body or the "from" address contains
> the dreaded ".ru" domain suffix, but often not.
>
> My ISP uses spamassassin for server-side filtering, and the rogue emails
> don't come close to getting caught by their scoring system (the header of
> the example I'm looking at now says 5 spamassassin "points" are required to
> divert a message to my Graymail folder, and this one scored only 0.8).
>
> Is there something I can do at my end to avoid having to look at this
> stuff in my Inbox? Options I'm aware of would be installing Spamsieve (and
> learning how to use it) and marking each of these messages as "junk" using
> Mail.app'
> how much either of these might help.
>
> I'm running Apple Mail in Mountain Lion. I've had the same home email
> address almost as long as there's been an internet - I may have even sent
> my first message to Al Gore! (sorry, got carried away there). Anyway, I
> hope I don't have to change my address.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Sep 1, 2013 9:38 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"James Robertson" jamesrob328i
On Sep 1, 2013, at 8:55 AM, Jim Hamm <machamm@gmail.
> Here<http://www.maclife.
> is
> an articles to read that should help....Jim
Thanks for the link! I should have mentioned in my original post that I DO have Apple's "Junk Mail Filter" turned on using mostly the default configuration; actually, I'm one level up from the defaults: if Mail.app catches something, I have it divert the message to the Junk folder, but there's still a steady stream (I'd guess more than 20 messages per day) of this stuff that reaches my inbox NOT caught either by my ISP or by the Mail.app Junk filter.
Basically, your suggestion boils down to "spend some time TRAINING Mail.app'
I get enough of this crap that it shouldn'
My sense is that the stuff must be pretty carefully crafted in order to avoid triggering server-side recognition my my ISP's "spamassassin&
--
Jim Robertson
__o
_-\<,
(*)/ (*)
````````````
My other car is an S-Works Roubaix
Sun Sep 1, 2013 9:52 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Hamm" jimhamm90
Jim, what I've done quite some time ago is use Google's Gmail on their
server to handle all my email. I get almost NO spam and don't set up rules
or anything. On the rare occasion when I do get an email I consider spam I
mark it as such and never see it again.
For many reasons I find that I like Gmail on Google's servers better than
Mail or Thunderbird or whatever. I don't worry about updates, I can alway
access my mail where I left off whether I'm on my Mac, my PC, my iPad or my
iPhone, I can always search easily for an email I might have sent out a
year ago, ALL my emails are kept on the server for future access, and I
never have to tell anyone to hold my mail when I travel.
It might be a bit of a pain to switch everyone over to a new email address,
but once it'd done you'll be a happy camper with no more spam. Now, how bad
do you want to stop spam? I don't think there's any magic solution for you,
but Gmail will help....Jim
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:38 AM, James Robertson <jamesrob@sonic.net > wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2013, at 8:55 AM, Jim Hamm <machamm@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > Here<
> http://www.maclife.com/article/columns/maclife_101_how_filter_spam_apple_mail
> >
> > is
> > an articles to read that should help....Jim
>
> Thanks for the link! I should have mentioned in my original post that I DO
> have Apple's "Junk Mail Filter" turned on using mostly the default
> configuration; actually, I'm one level up from the defaults: if Mail.app
> catches something, I have it divert the message to the Junk folder, but
> there's still a steady stream (I'd guess more than 20 messages per day) of
> this stuff that reaches my inbox NOT caught either by my ISP or by the
> Mail.app Junk filter.
>
> Basically, your suggestion boils down to "spend some time TRAINING
> Mail.app's junk filter. If that works, I'll be a happy camper. However, so
> far as I know, the results of that training are not available to me; i.e.,
> even if doing this keeps my inbox more clean, I won't know what is telling
> the Mail.app junk filter to divert the spam (my ISP's "spamassassin" adds a
> few lines to the mail header that report how it compiles its score.
>
> I get enough of this crap that it shouldn't take long to figure out
> whether alerting Mail.app message by message helps.
>
> My sense is that the stuff must be pretty carefully crafted in order to
> avoid triggering server-side recognition my my ISP's "spamassassin"
> program. I'm reading about spamsieve now, to get a sense whether that might
> be a useful "escalation of force" tool.
>
> --
> Jim Robertson
> __o
> _-\<,_
> (*)/ (*)
> ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> My other car is an S-Works Roubaix
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
server to handle all my email. I get almost NO spam and don't set up rules
or anything. On the rare occasion when I do get an email I consider spam I
mark it as such and never see it again.
For many reasons I find that I like Gmail on Google's servers better than
Mail or Thunderbird or whatever. I don't worry about updates, I can alway
access my mail where I left off whether I'm on my Mac, my PC, my iPad or my
iPhone, I can always search easily for an email I might have sent out a
year ago, ALL my emails are kept on the server for future access, and I
never have to tell anyone to hold my mail when I travel.
It might be a bit of a pain to switch everyone over to a new email address,
but once it'd done you'll be a happy camper with no more spam. Now, how bad
do you want to stop spam? I don't think there's any magic solution for you,
but Gmail will help....Jim
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:38 AM, James Robertson <jamesrob@sonic.
> **
>
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2013, at 8:55 AM, Jim Hamm <machamm@gmail.
>
> > Here<
> http://www.maclife.
> >
> > is
> > an articles to read that should help....Jim
>
> Thanks for the link! I should have mentioned in my original post that I DO
> have Apple's "Junk Mail Filter" turned on using mostly the default
> configuration; actually, I'm one level up from the defaults: if Mail.app
> catches something, I have it divert the message to the Junk folder, but
> there's still a steady stream (I'd guess more than 20 messages per day) of
> this stuff that reaches my inbox NOT caught either by my ISP or by the
> Mail.app Junk filter.
>
> Basically, your suggestion boils down to "spend some time TRAINING
> Mail.app'
> far as I know, the results of that training are not available to me; i.e.,
> even if doing this keeps my inbox more clean, I won't know what is telling
> the Mail.app junk filter to divert the spam (my ISP's "spamassassin&
> few lines to the mail header that report how it compiles its score.
>
> I get enough of this crap that it shouldn'
> whether alerting Mail.app message by message helps.
>
> My sense is that the stuff must be pretty carefully crafted in order to
> avoid triggering server-side recognition my my ISP's "spamassassin&
> program. I'm reading about spamsieve now, to get a sense whether that might
> be a useful "escalation of force" tool.
>
> --
> Jim Robertson
> __o
> _-\<,
> (*)/ (*)
> ````````````
> My other car is an S-Works Roubaix
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Sep 1, 2013 10:09 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"David Brostoff" dcbrostoff
On Sep 1, 2013, at 09:52 , Jim Hamm <machamm@gmail.com > wrote:
> Jim, what I've done quite some time ago is use Google's Gmail on their
> server to handle all my email. I get almost NO spam and don't set up rules
> or anything.
Do you mean you get almost no spam--even in the Gmail spam folder--or that you get almost no spam in your Inbox?
David
> Jim, what I've done quite some time ago is use Google's Gmail on their
> server to handle all my email. I get almost NO spam and don't set up rules
> or anything.
Do you mean you get almost no spam--even in the Gmail spam folder--or that you get almost no spam in your Inbox?
David
Sun Sep 1, 2013 10:14 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Hamm" jimhamm90
David, in my inbox. I almost never pay attention to the Gmail spam folder.
I've peeked in there a couple of times to see if anything had been
mis-classified. As I recall, all was well ...Jim
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 10:09 AM, David Brostoff <davbro@earthlink.net >wrote:
> **
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2013, at 09:52 , Jim Hamm <machamm@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > Jim, what I've done quite some time ago is use Google's Gmail on their
> > server to handle all my email. I get almost NO spam and don't set up
> rules
> > or anything.
>
> Do you mean you get almost no spam--even in the Gmail spam folder--or that
> you get almost no spam in your Inbox?
>
> David
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I've peeked in there a couple of times to see if anything had been
mis-classified. As I recall, all was well ...Jim
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 10:09 AM, David Brostoff <davbro@earthlink.
> **
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2013, at 09:52 , Jim Hamm <machamm@gmail.
>
> > Jim, what I've done quite some time ago is use Google's Gmail on their
> > server to handle all my email. I get almost NO spam and don't set up
> rules
> > or anything.
>
> Do you mean you get almost no spam--even in the Gmail spam folder--or that
> you get almost no spam in your Inbox?
>
> David
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Sep 1, 2013 9:18 am (PDT) . Posted by:
jsm5320432
My office uses both MB Pro (2.66, 15") and MB Air (2013 models with i5 @ 1.3). My practice involves mostly documents with some spread sheets, and modest graphics. We see no difference in performance in the two models except that the MB Air is faster via wifi by about 30% consistently. John --- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , <tdale@...> wrote: Tks Randy most helpful
Sent from my iPhone 5
On 1/09/2013, at 2:36 PM, "Randy B. Singer" < randy@... > wrote:
>
> On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Tony wrote:
>
> > I am going to get one of these. How is the performance as I see they are i5 1.3 GHZ.
>
> My son has one. The performance is excellent. He is studying to be a software engineer and he often has to compile programs, which is something that can take all night. His MBA is faster than our slightly older iMacs. Unless you are going to be editing homemade movies, or you are rendering 3D images, I don't think that you will be using a program that requires more performance.
>
> >
> > Is there likely to be a refresh soon or have we already had that this year?
>
> No, now is the time to buy. See:
> http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#MacBook_Air
>
> ___________________________________________
> 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
> ___________________________________________
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sent from my iPhone 5
On 1/09/2013, at 2:36 PM, "Randy B. Singer" < randy@... > wrote:
>
> On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Tony wrote:
>
> > I am going to get one of these. How is the performance as I see they are i5 1.3 GHZ.
>
> My son has one. The performance is excellent. He is studying to be a software engineer and he often has to compile programs, which is something that can take all night. His MBA is faster than our slightly older iMacs. Unless you are going to be editing homemade movies, or you are rendering 3D images, I don't think that you will be using a program that requires more performance.
>
> >
> > Is there likely to be a refresh soon or have we already had that this year?
>
> No, now is the time to buy. See:
> http://buyersguide.
>
> ____________
> Randy B. Singer
> Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
>
> Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
> http://www.macattor
> ____________
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Sep 1, 2013 9:44 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
Do you have an 11ac router?
Otto
On 1 September 2013 17:18, <jsm5320432@yahoo.com > wrote:
> My office uses both MB Pro (2.66, 15") and MB Air (2013 models with i5 @
> 1.3). My practice involves mostly documents with some spread sheets, and
> modest graphics. We see no difference in performance in the two models
> except that the MB Air is faster via wifi by about 30% consistently.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Otto
On 1 September 2013 17:18, <jsm5320432@yahoo.
> My office uses both MB Pro (2.66, 15") and MB Air (2013 models with i5 @
> 1.3). My practice involves mostly documents with some spread sheets, and
> modest graphics. We see no difference in performance in the two models
> except that the MB Air is faster via wifi by about 30% consistently.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Sep 1, 2013 9:55 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Hamm" jimhamm90
From all that I've read recently the processor speed isn't near as
important a factor as it used to be. What really helps is lots of memory
and a SSD. My last two computer purchases (a MacBook Air and ThinkPad) both
have SSDs. Love the SSD over a spinning disk....Jim
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:18 AM, <jsm5320432@yahoo.com > wrote:
> **
>
>
> My office uses both MB Pro (2.66, 15") and MB Air (2013 models with i5 @
> 1.3). My practice involves mostly documents with some spread sheets, and
> modest graphics. We see no difference in performance in the two models
> except that the MB Air is faster via wifi by about 30% consistently. John
> --- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , <tdale@...> wrote: Tks Randy
> most helpful
>
> Sent from my iPhone 5
>
>
> On 1/09/2013, at 2:36 PM, "Randy B. Singer" < randy@... > wrote:
>
> >
> > On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Tony wrote:
> >
> > > I am going to get one of these. How is the performance as I see they
> are i5 1.3 GHZ.
> >
> > My son has one. The performance is excellent. He is studying to be a
> software engineer and he often has to compile programs, which is something
> that can take all night. His MBA is faster than our slightly older iMacs.
> Unless you are going to be editing homemade movies, or you are rendering 3D
> images, I don't think that you will be using a program that requires more
> performance.
> >
> > >
> > > Is there likely to be a refresh soon or have we already had that this
> year?
> >
> > No, now is the time to buy. See:
> > http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#MacBook_Air
> >
> > ___________________________________________
> > 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
> > ___________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
important a factor as it used to be. What really helps is lots of memory
and a SSD. My last two computer purchases (a MacBook Air and ThinkPad) both
have SSDs. Love the SSD over a spinning disk....Jim
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:18 AM, <jsm5320432@yahoo.
> **
>
>
> My office uses both MB Pro (2.66, 15") and MB Air (2013 models with i5 @
> 1.3). My practice involves mostly documents with some spread sheets, and
> modest graphics. We see no difference in performance in the two models
> except that the MB Air is faster via wifi by about 30% consistently. John
> --- In macsupportcentral@
> most helpful
>
> Sent from my iPhone 5
>
>
> On 1/09/2013, at 2:36 PM, "Randy B. Singer" < randy@... > wrote:
>
> >
> > On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Tony wrote:
> >
> > > I am going to get one of these. How is the performance as I see they
> are i5 1.3 GHZ.
> >
> > My son has one. The performance is excellent. He is studying to be a
> software engineer and he often has to compile programs, which is something
> that can take all night. His MBA is faster than our slightly older iMacs.
> Unless you are going to be editing homemade movies, or you are rendering 3D
> images, I don't think that you will be using a program that requires more
> performance.
> >
> > >
> > > Is there likely to be a refresh soon or have we already had that this
> year?
> >
> > No, now is the time to buy. See:
> > http://buyersguide.
> >
> > ____________
> > Randy B. Singer
> > Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
> >
> > Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
> > http://www.macattor
> > ____________
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Sep 1, 2013 10:16 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Michel Munger" mmungermtl
The SSD makes a huge difference. I bought a MacBook Air this week and it
is faster than my MacBook Pro. In part because the SSD is dangerously fast.
Michel
--
Site: http://www.munger.ca/
Jim Hamm wrote:
> From all that I've read recently the processor speed isn't near as
> important a factor as it used to be. What really helps is lots of memory
> and a SSD. My last two computer purchases (a MacBook Air and ThinkPad) both
> have SSDs. Love the SSD over a spinning disk....Jim
>
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:18 AM, <jsm5320432@yahoo.com
> <mailto:jsm5320432%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > My office uses both MB Pro (2.66, 15") and MB Air (2013 models with i5 @
> > 1.3). My practice involves mostly documents with some spread sheets, and
> > modest graphics. We see no difference in performance in the two models
> > except that the MB Air is faster via wifi by about 30% consistently. John
> > --- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:macsupportcentral%40yahoogroups.com>, <tdale@...> wrote: Tks Randy
> > most helpful
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone 5
> >
> >
> > On 1/09/2013, at 2:36 PM, "Randy B. Singer" < randy@... > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Tony wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am going to get one of these. How is the performance as I see they
> > are i5 1.3 GHZ.
> > >
> > > My son has one. The performance is excellent. He is studying to be a
> > software engineer and he often has to compile programs, which is
> something
> > that can take all night. His MBA is faster than our slightly older iMacs.
> > Unless you are going to be editing homemade movies, or you are
> rendering 3D
> > images, I don't think that you will be using a program that requires more
> > performance.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Is there likely to be a refresh soon or have we already had that this
> > year?
> > >
> > > No, now is the time to buy. See:
> > > http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#MacBook_Air
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________
> > > 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
> > > ___________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
is faster than my MacBook Pro. In part because the SSD is dangerously fast.
Michel
--
Site: http://www.munger.
Jim Hamm wrote:
> From all that I've read recently the processor speed isn't near as
> important a factor as it used to be. What really helps is lots of memory
> and a SSD. My last two computer purchases (a MacBook Air and ThinkPad) both
> have SSDs. Love the SSD over a spinning disk....Jim
>
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:18 AM, <jsm5320432@yahoo.
> <mailto:jsm53204
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > My office uses both MB Pro (2.66, 15") and MB Air (2013 models with i5 @
> > 1.3). My practice involves mostly documents with some spread sheets, and
> > modest graphics. We see no difference in performance in the two models
> > except that the MB Air is faster via wifi by about 30% consistently. John
> > --- In macsupportcentral@
> <mailto:macsuppo
> > most helpful
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone 5
> >
> >
> > On 1/09/2013, at 2:36 PM, "Randy B. Singer" < randy@... > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Tony wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am going to get one of these. How is the performance as I see they
> > are i5 1.3 GHZ.
> > >
> > > My son has one. The performance is excellent. He is studying to be a
> > software engineer and he often has to compile programs, which is
> something
> > that can take all night. His MBA is faster than our slightly older iMacs.
> > Unless you are going to be editing homemade movies, or you are
> rendering 3D
> > images, I don't think that you will be using a program that requires more
> > performance.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Is there likely to be a refresh soon or have we already had that this
> > year?
> > >
> > > No, now is the time to buy. See:
> > > http://buyersguide.
> > >
> > > ____________
> > > Randy B. Singer
> > > Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
> > >
> > > Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
> > > http://www.macattor
> > > ____________
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
Sun Sep 1, 2013 10:55 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Michael King" prudencehalliwell507
I have the new Haswell MacBook Air and no the CPU is not faster than last
years it is the way the SSD work it uses PCI and it very fast the other is
the battery life I am getting a good 11 hours or more on it. I love that
part and I am running the Developer Preview on it and battery is great. I
was worth getting it and yes I have the new Airport Extreme with AC and
that is one thing I am not impressed with it not any faster than N of 5GHz.
But that is not why I got it the main reason was the long battery life. I
have the 13 inch 1.3GHz Dual Core i5 and 256 GB SSD.
Mike
On 9/1/13, 11:55 AM, "Jim Hamm" <machamm@gmail.com > wrote:
> From all that I've read recently the processor speed isn't near as
> important a factor as it used to be. What really helps is lots of memory
> and a SSD. My last two computer purchases (a MacBook Air and ThinkPad) both
> have SSDs. Love the SSD over a spinning disk....Jim
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:18 AM, <jsm5320432@yahoo.com > wrote:
Michael King
2.3GHz Quad Core i7 15 inch MacBook Pro (Retina) •
10.9 Mavericks
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
years it is the way the SSD work it uses PCI and it very fast the other is
the battery life I am getting a good 11 hours or more on it. I love that
part and I am running the Developer Preview on it and battery is great. I
was worth getting it and yes I have the new Airport Extreme with AC and
that is one thing I am not impressed with it not any faster than N of 5GHz.
But that is not why I got it the main reason was the long battery life. I
have the 13 inch 1.3GHz Dual Core i5 and 256 GB SSD.
Mike
On 9/1/13, 11:55 AM, "Jim Hamm" <machamm@gmail.
> From all that I've read recently the processor speed isn't near as
> important a factor as it used to be. What really helps is lots of memory
> and a SSD. My last two computer purchases (a MacBook Air and ThinkPad) both
> have SSDs. Love the SSD over a spinning disk....Jim
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:18 AM, <jsm5320432@yahoo.
Michael King
2.3GHz Quad Core i7 15 inch MacBook Pro (Retina) •
10.9 Mavericks
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
