esf00@amdahl.amdahl.com (Elliott S. Frank) (11/17/87)
$%@#&*!!!!
I'm using the new system and finder (4.2/6.0) , and I'm running into
problems with Installer 2.5.
Installing from the distribution floppy onto the hard disk on my SE
was no problem -- click, whirr, and all neatly installed. No Font/DA
Mover hassles to deal with the 850k of fonts in my system this time. One
happy camper, here.
The problems came when I attempted to install the new system on a floppy
for some of the software that won't run off the hard disk. Rather than
drag the system folder to the new floppy and then trash icons that weren't
needed on the new system, I figured that I could use Installer to ensure
that only the necessary resources went onto the new floppy. :-)
First, Installer requires that it be run from a boot disk. OK, so reboot
from a copy of the distribution floppy.
After selecting the appropriate resources, I then got (at least)
twenty-two (I may have lost count) "insert the following disk..." boxes,
alternating between the system (boot) disk and the new floppy, while
the message at the bottom of the main window said "calculating sizes...".
After a fifteen second wait after the last floppy insertion, I got back
the "this will take xxxk on [insert name of new disk here], or will
free yyyk if deleted" message and the appropriate radio buttons
highlighted. Clicking "install" resulted in another orgy of floppy
swapping that I terminated after about thirty disk insertions.
My suspicion: that one or more segements of Installer are marked
"purgable", and are getting purged at the slightest provocation,
resulting in innumerable floppy swap requests to reread the segment.
My request:
Is there a set of [ResEdit] patches to Installer 2.5 so that I can
reasonably run it from a floppy on a single-floppy SE or Plus? I don't
want to have to install the distribution system folder (and all of
the unneeded resources) on my SE (and on the Plus at work) just so
I can create an occasional bootable floppy.
Alternatively:
Is there an exhaustive list of resources (not necessarily just those
identified by icons) that correspond to the various features defined by
the Installer? (So I can do it by hand! :-))
--
Elliott Frank ...!{hplabs,ames,sun}!amdahl!esf00 (408) 746-6384
or ....!{bnrmtv,drivax,hoptoad}!amdahl!esf00
[the above opinions are strictly mine, if anyone's.]
[the above signature may or may not be repeated, depending upon some
inscrutable property of the mailer-of-the-week.]dorner@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu.UUCP (11/18/87)
(This is a flame.) Some poor, tortured soul, driven to distraction by endless disk swapping, writes: > My suspicion: that one or more segements of Installer are marked > "purgable", and are getting purged at the slightest provocation, > resulting in innumerable floppy swap requests to reread the segment. I don't think this is the case. I think the Installer is just abysmally stupid. It is checking resource-by-resource for the presence and size of everything it installs, on both the target and source disks. At two swaps per resource (give me the source; give me the target) it adds up fast. It is _impossible_ to run the installer from a floppy to install on a floppy, unless you have two floppy drives, or a penchant for hours of tedium. Once you have installed the new system on your hard disk, run the installer FROM THE HARD DISK to install onto floppies. This will work. Those of you with just a single floppy drive--don't use the Installer. It wasn't written for you. ---- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: dorner@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu UUCP: ihnp4!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 333-3339
tomwest@utgpu.UUCP (11/18/87)
In article <18374@amdahl.amdahl.com> Elliott S. Frank writes: >$%@#&*!!!! > >I'm using the new system and finder (4.2/6.0) , and I'm running into >problems with Installer 2.5. [tales of easy installation onto a hard disk] >After selecting the appropriate resources, I then got (at least) >twenty-two (I may have lost count) "insert the following disk..." boxes, >alternating between the system (boot) disk and the new floppy, while >the message at the bottom of the main window said "calculating sizes...". > >After a fifteen second wait after the last floppy insertion, I got back >the "this will take xxxk on [insert name of new disk here], or will >free yyyk if deleted" message and the appropriate radio buttons >highlighted. Clicking "install" resulted in another orgy of floppy >swapping that I terminated after about thirty disk insertions. This situation is appalling! My father was ready to cancel every Mac order for the Geophysics Dept because of this bug. The idea that official Apple system software was completely unusable on a single drive system AND THAT THERE WAS NO WARNING OF THIS FACT gave a clear indication to him that Apple was not serious about selling computers. There aren't too many other companies that could release a serious piece of system software with such a serious glitch. Considering that this scenario was being re-enacted probably tens of thousands of times across the country , God knows how many people are now ready to give up on Apple. I managed to rescue my father by manually installing the new system, but for anybody but the highly computer literate, this option is unlikely, especially since one is told to use installer instead of just copying stuff. I am completely horrified that this has continued to the current release of the system software. Hasn't anybody at Apple *tried* actually using the stupid thing? [ Yes, I am annoyed! I basically managed to sell my father on Macs, and my efforts are being sabotaged by stupidities like Installer ] -- Tom West BITNET: tomwest@utorgpu.bitnet, tomwest@gpu.utcs.utoronto Internet: tomwest@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu UUCP: tomwest@utgpu utzoo, yetti, harpo, mnetor \ cbosgd, deepthot, utoronto - !utgpu!tomwest ihnp4, lsuc, sfmin, vnr-vpa /
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/19/87)
>I don't think this is the case. I think the Installer is just abysmally >stupid. It is checking resource-by-resource for the presence and size of >everything it installs, on both the target and source disks. At two swaps >per resource (give me the source; give me the target) it adds up fast. This may sound like a silly question, but why does anyone use the installer at all? Not that I don't trust it or anything, but I find it MUCH easier and faster to simply take a new System file and stick all my fonts and DA's in it instead of trying to take an old system file and mucking with it in some undefined way. (and once I get around to installing suitcase, I may never need to touch the system file again!). I simply use the virgin Apple files, add my changes to them to build a prototype system, and then install it in place. If you keep a list of what changes you make to the various files (for me, it's only fonts, da's, a few fkeys and finder LAYO mods) it's much easier to just re-install them (and verify that you aren't hosing something out) than it is to try to upgrade the system. The installers nice, but why bother? chuq --- Chuq "Fixed in 4.0" Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
buzz@phoenix.UUCP (11/19/87)
In article <174400075@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >(This is a flame.) > >Once you have installed the new system on your hard disk, run the installer >FROM THE HARD DISK to install onto floppies. This will work. > >Those of you with just a single floppy drive--don't use the Installer. There is a BIG problem with installing from the hard disk. After I had my system set up on the hard disk, I went ahead and tailored the System file to my needs, i.e. I took the calculator and alarm clock DAs out, and also removed a bunch of fonts. When I went ahead to install a system onto a floppy, I got errors to the effect of: 'RSRC error; driver alarm clock not found'. I replaced the alarm clock and did the whole thing over again; this time I was told that the calculator wasn't found. Next I was told that FOND Courier wasn't found. Could someone tell me why the installer needs those resources? -- Mahboud Zabetian buzz@phoenix.princeton.edu 183 Little Hall (609) 520-1270 Princeton University (609) 734-7760 Princeton, NJ 08544 buzz@issun.princeton.edu
kwallich@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (Ken Wallich) (11/19/87)
Let me echo a resounding AAARRRGGGGG!!! >I'm using the new system and finder (4.2/6.0) , and I'm running into >problems with Installer 2.5. ^^^^^^^^ What do you call Nuclear War, a "family disturbance?" This is the most assinine piece of software Apple has tried to shove on us. It is totally, absolutely, and positively unusable on a single floppy system. After 45 some disc swaps (about 30 minutes worth), it CRASHED!!!! I only continued swapping so I could count up how many swaps there were, then the program bombs! I also used a BLANK floppy to install onto. Can any sane human explain why 20 disc swaps are necessary to figure out what the SIZES are? There were no bleeding files on the disc to be installed, why does the installer keep asking me to put it in? It just "checking sizes", not writing to the disc at all. I can only assume that all Apple utilites are written on HD systems with no thought of what a floppy user might do. The utility does work on a hard disc with no problem (except being slow), however there are instances where I didn't want to employ the hard disc (like when installing the stuff I got with my macII on my "upgraded" 128-512-512ke machine, which only has one 800K drive). The documentation does recommend (at least I think I read it) not to use the installer on a 1 floppy system, but the documentation also tells me not to do a copy of the system and finder. I recommend erasing it from all your discs, and pretending it never existed. It would make the world a better place. Ken "if Apple didn't make such great machines, I'd buy something else" Wallich ---------
pem@cadnetix.UUCP.UUCP (11/20/87)
[] You are 100% better off than I am. I tried to update my system (4.1) file on my SE with the provided Installer and script. The final result was a system that was broken in the interesting way of not recog- nizing the SHIFT key! I couldn't shift-click, or type capitals (SHIFT LOCK didn't work either). I also had some interesting bombs. I finally just put all my System-file fonts and DAs (not many because of Suitcase) onto a floppy and copied the System 4.2 file directly. Now things work normally, but I have a few compatability questions, each with two parts ((a) under Finder, (b) under Multifinder): I couldn't seem to get the Popkeys INIT from FKEY manager 3.0 to work. Is it broken? I see several reasons why SuperSpool might not work under Multifinder, but I couldn't get it to work under (uni)Finder either. Since the new built- in spooler only runs for Laserwriters, I face the frustration of not being able to spool prints after growing used to doing so. Will the built-in stuff spool to an appletalk imagewriter? If so, what is required to make an image- writer work as an appletalk device? What else seems to be broken? -- pem@cadnetix.UUCP (nbires!isis!ico!cadnetix!pem)
drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) (11/21/87)
In article <34318@sun.uucp>, chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > > This may sound like a silly question, but why does anyone use the installer > at all? Not that I don't trust it or anything, but I find it MUCH easier > and faster to simply take a new System file and stick all my fonts and DA's > in it instead of trying to take an old system file and mucking with it in > some undefined way. (and once I get around to installing suitcase, I may > never need to touch the system file again!). > > I simply use the virgin Apple files, add my changes to them to build a > prototype system, and then install it in place. If you keep a list of what > changes you make to the various files (for me, it's only fonts, da's, a > few fkeys and finder LAYO mods) it's much easier to just re-install them > (and verify that you aren't hosing something out) than it is to try to > upgrade the system. > > The installers nice, but why bother? But, Chuq, what about people with SEs and IIs? If you just take the virgin files from the distribution disks you are getting a number of patches that are not necessary (and could be less than desirable) whose sole raison d'etre is to emulate capabilities that their newer hardware already provides. There is an advantage to your approach for people with a Plus (I've been known to use it myself), but I don't and won't recommend it to people with an SE or a II. I have both at the office and have actually encountered (but not pinpointed) different behavior when following your suggestion on the II. This is all ignoring the point that it is wasteful of disk space. Dennis Cohen Ashton-Tate Glendale Development Center dBASE Mac Development Team -------------------------- Disclaimer: I speak for me, not for my employer.
alcmist@well.UUCP (Frederick Wamsley) (11/22/87)
Tech Note 75 says, roughly, "Installer performs poorly on single-drive systems. This is expected to be improved in the future." Shortly after System 4.1 came out there were rumors that systems put in without the installer weren't always reliable. Was this random noise, or can you cause trouble by having unnecessary resources in your system file? (TN75 also answers someone's question about why Installer was looking for the alarm clock).
ws0n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Walter Ray Smith) (11/23/87)
> But, Chuq, what about people with SEs and IIs? If you just take the virgin > files from the distribution disks you are getting a number of patches that are > not necessary (and could be less than desirable) whose sole raison d'etre is > to emulate capabilities that their newer hardware already provides. There is Patches are applied by ROM version, so unnecessary patches aren't applied. Using the distributed System means, on one hand, getting lots of resources that Plusses and SEs have no use for (like sounds, synthesizers, and color-related stuff), and, on the other hand, getting resources that SEs and IIs have no use for (new AppleTalk drivers, non-ADB keyboard handlers). The situation is not so simple. These separate Installer scripts confuse me, now that I think about it. I was under the impression that Apple wanted (and had, in 4.1) a Universal System, so you could boot any Mac (512KE & up) with the same disk and have it work. What are the differences between the scripts? I'll try to check this out next time I'm at my Mac. - Walt
hammen@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Robert Joseph Hammen) (11/23/87)
In article <34318@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >This may sound like a silly question, but why does anyone use the installer >at all? Not that I don't trust it or anything, but I find it MUCH easier >and faster to simply take a new System file and stick all my fonts and DA's >in it instead of trying to take an old system file and mucking with it in >some undefined way. (and once I get around to installing suitcase, I may >never need to touch the system file again!). From what I heard, System files >4.1 need to be "installed" for each machine (Plus/SE/II) - the Installer will only install the necessary resources for each machine (i.e. no snd or color resources if you're using an SE, misc. system patches, etc.). BUT, I know of a couple of people who have had problems using the Installer to update an old System to a current version. Sometimes, some old resources get left in the System that can cause problems (I believe this is mentioned in the Suitcase manual). So what's the solution? I do as Chuq does, simply archive my DAs & fonts & FKEYs & then toss out my old System files and put virgin ones on. Then, I run the Installer to make sure that I have only the resources I need for my machine. Then I go back and install the fonts, DAs, and FKEYs and am done. ========================================================================= Robert Hammen Computer Applications, Inc. hammen@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Delphi: HAMMEN GEnie: R.Hammen CI$: 70701,2104
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (11/23/87)
In article <34318@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >This may sound like a silly question, but why does anyone use the installer >at all? >The installers nice, but why bother? I can think of two reasons: 1. You don't always know what resources have been added to your system file. Remember the days before INIT 31, when applications like JClock would stick INIT resources into the system file for you? 2. The Installer is good for less experienced users, who could not be expected to copy all the fonts, DAs, etc. by themselves. --- Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com seismo!think!barmar
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/24/87)
>>The installers nice, but why bother? >I can think of two reasons: >1. You don't always know what resources have been added to your system >file. Remember the days before INIT 31, when applications like JClock >would stick INIT resources into the system file for you? You know, this sounds like a perfect reason NOT to use installer. Anything that got stuck in there that I've either forgotten about or didn't know about I'm not sure I want to keep around.... > >2. The Installer is good for less experienced users, who could not be >expected to copy all the fonts, DAs, etc. by themselves. Except that using the installer is at least as complicated as using the Font/DA mover, and in many (most?) cases you end up using the font/DA mover afterwards, anyway. I don't see any real win. --- Chuq "Fixed in 4.0" Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ