sjhg9320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (/dev/null ) (06/18/91)
Here's a fun interaction I discovered between Silverlining 5.31/12 and
System 7.0's Finder-
Try the 'Put Away <CMD-Y>' command to unmount partitions on your hard
drive. When you reboot, 'voila'- you'll have a trashed Master File Directory
for the entire drive.
Workarounds include Disk First Aid and Dragging the Volume to the
Trash Instead or using <CMD-Y>.
Mac IIci, cache card, 8-Megs RAM, Quantum 105 and Quantum 80 Meg Pro Drives.
--
================================================================================
| This Space for Rent || |================================================================================baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.124525.7626@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> sjhg9320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (/dev/null ) writes:
Here's a fun interaction I discovered between Silverlining 5.31/12 and
System 7.0's Finder-
Try the 'Put Away <CMD-Y>' command to unmount partitions on your hard
drive. When you reboot, 'voila'- you'll have a trashed Master File Directory
for the entire drive.
Workarounds include Disk First Aid and Dragging the Volume to the
Trash Instead or using <CMD-Y>.
This is certainly worrisome, especially since 5.3x was so long in
coming. One would have thought that LaCie would have tested this.
Have you reported this to LaCie yet? Any response?
I'm still waiting for my upgrade; they've managed to cash my $25
check, but so far I've not seen a happy little upgrade disk poking out
of my mailbox... :-(
--
Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you."
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com |
cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Lettermannick@cs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.124525.7626@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, sjhg9320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (/dev/null ) writes: > Try the 'Put Away <CMD-Y>' command to unmount partitions on your hard > drive. When you reboot, 'voila'- you'll have a trashed Master File Directory > for the entire drive. For the record (although I'm sure you know this anyway) this is fine with Silverlining 5.28. Is there a good reason to go to 5.31 over 5.28 (the above being a rather bad reason... :-))? Nick. -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcsun!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ <-- WEST VIEWING ROOM EAST VIEWING ROOM -->
emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com (Mark Hartman) (06/19/91)
In article <BAUMGART.91Jun18185308@esquire.esquire.dpw.com> baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: >I'm still waiting for my upgrade; they've managed to cash my $25 >check, but so far I've not seen a happy little upgrade disk poking out >of my mailbox... :-( Only $25?!?!? They insisted that I send $50! Other users of SilverLining - please e-mail me with what you were charged for the upgrade; I will summarize and report to the net (and possibly to the California Attorney General's office). -- Mark Hartman, N6BMO "What are you just standing there for? Where Applelink: N1083 or BINARY.TREE do you think you are, DIS-ney World??" Internet: emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com -- General Knowledge, from uucp: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!emmayche CRANIUM COMMAND
sjhg9320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (/dev/null ) (06/20/91)
nick@cs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: >Is there a good reason to go to 5.31 over 5.28? Not as far as I know. I just used what I had access to. Silverlining has always been very flaky, so I had my Disaster Disks in hand when I updated the drivers. I can't wait for FWB to finally release their new software to the public- it is reportedly stable as a rock and includes nifty things like an optimzing cache in its drivers. (According to the folks at Ziff-Davis Rags. ;-) -- ================================================================================ | Return unused portion to creator if not fully satisfied. || |============================================================================= ===
drg@mdaali.mda.uth.tmc.edu (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.153849.6470@dhw68k.cts.com> emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com (Mark Hartman) writes: >Only $25?!?!? They insisted that I send $50! > >Other users of SilverLining - please e-mail me with what you were charged >for the upgrade; I will summarize and report to the net (and possibly to >the California Attorney General's office). They seem to be charging a different amount which depends on what version of SL you are currently using.I believe this is pointed out in their ads. David Gutierrez drg@mdaali.mda.uth.tmc.edu "Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard
nick@cs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.185610.22682@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, sjhg9320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (/dev/null ) writes: > Silverlining > has always been very flaky Really? I've been running it for a month on a couple of machines without problems. Getting it installed on a Rodime was interesting, but it's fine now it's running. What sort of problems have you been seeing? I'm still waiting to hear about any upgrade from 5.28. But then, I'm in Europe, so it could take a while. Nick. -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcsun!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ <-- WEST VIEWING ROOM EAST VIEWING ROOM -->
rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert K Shull) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.153849.6470@dhw68k.cts.com> emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com (Mark Hartman) writes: >In article <BAUMGART.91Jun18185308@esquire.esquire.dpw.com> baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: >>I'm still waiting for my upgrade; they've managed to cash my $25 >>check, but so far I've not seen a happy little upgrade disk poking out >>of my mailbox... :-( > >Only $25?!?!? They insisted that I send $50! There's been a discussion of this going on on CompuServe. They have indeed been quoting different rates to different people, even for upgrades from the same version. It appears to depend on who you get on the phone, and when. I was quoted $25 for upgrade from 5.27. Robert -- Robert K. Shull rob@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
mjkobb@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Michael J Kobb) (06/21/91)
In article <12849@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk writes: >In article <1991Jun19.185610.22682@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, sjhg9320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (/dev/null ) writes: >> Silverlining >> has always been very flaky > >Really? I've been running it for a month on a couple of machines without >problems. Getting it installed on a Rodime was interesting, but it's fine >now it's running. What sort of problems have you been seeing? I'll second Nick's experience. I've been running SL for two years now, and I've had very few problems. In fact, none that I can think of. The only problem I'm seeing now is that my partitions fail to unmount (error -19, I think), but I'd attributed that to running 5.28 under 7.0...
emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com (Mark Hartman) (06/21/91)
In article <5131@lib.tmc.edu> drg@mdaali.mda.uth.tmc.edu writes: >In article <1991Jun19.153849.6470@dhw68k.cts.com> emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com (Mark >Hartman) writes: >>Only $25?!?!? They insisted that I send $50! >> >>Other users of SilverLining - please e-mail me with what you were charged >>for the upgrade; I will summarize and report to the net (and possibly to >>the California Attorney General's office). > >They seem to be charging a different amount which depends on what version of SL >you are currently using.I believe this is pointed out in their ads. They didn't ask what version I was using... -- Mark Hartman, N6BMO "What are you just standing there for? Where Applelink: N1083 or BINARY.TREE do you think you are, DIS-ney World??" Internet: emmayche@dhw68k.cts.com -- General Knowledge, from uucp: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!emmayche CRANIUM COMMAND
sjhg9320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (/dev/null ) (06/22/91)
nick@cs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes: >What sort of problems have you been seeing? On an 80 Meg Quantum from LaCie, using a IIci, I've seen all sorts of fun things happen when I have my cache card enabled while I'm partitioning the drive- namely it stems from the Macintosh OS believing that every partition I created is 84 Megabytes. While the extra space is wonderful (grin), it does lead to some interesting read/write errors later on. -- ================================================================================ | Return unused portion to creator if not fully satisfied. || ---------------------------------------- |================================================================================
mel@fleet.UUCP (mel) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun18.124525.7626@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> sjhg9320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (/dev/null ) writes: >Here's a fun interaction I discovered between Silverlining 5.31/12 and >System 7.0's Finder- > >Try the 'Put Away <CMD-Y>' command to unmount partitions on your hard >drive. When you reboot, 'voila'- you'll have a trashed Master File Directory >for the entire drive. I have tried this same shortcut -> Put Away <CMD-Y> <- to a volume/partition running system 7.0 with a disk formatted with SilverLining 5.31/12. I did NOT loose my partition or any data/files contained therein. I wonder if the problem mentioned above is caused by some init or cdev conflict rather than a 'bug' in SilverLining 5.31/12. There seem to be a number of problems under 7.0 that can be traced to init/cdev 'conflicts'. If anyone else out there using SilverLining 5.31/12 under 7.0 has experienced any data loses let me know. I'll post a summary to the net of the results of this survey. I'll also send results to LaCie for evaluation. Include all relevant hardware data and if possible include a list of your cdevs and inits in use. Mel Shear !rex!fleet!mel