siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) (01/17/91)
(At least, it seems important to me.) When I encounter system problems after a power failure or crash, I have previously reinstalled my system file using the Installer program on a locked System Tools disk. Until now I'd thought this should completely relace and repair any damage to the system file. A Mac expert here at Stanford, who should know about these things, says that running the Installer to a HD with the old system file still in place does NOT replace or repair damaged resources. The Installer checks that needed system resources are present, and updates them with the latest version if necessary; but it has no way to check that a resource might be internally damaged, and it does not replace all resources, only outdated ones. To really repair a damaged system, the drill is apparently to save DAs and fonts from the old system; start up from the System Tools disk; trash the old system file (and the Finder also? -- I don't know); then run the Installer. Doing this cured the Excel menus problem I posted about earlier (as pointed out also by Rex Sanders). This information is second-hand, and I'm not a Mac expert, but I think this is the real skinny on what the Installer does, and doesn't, do. [It also strikes me as the WRONG way to do things, but that's another matter.] It may be the solution to a lot of mysterious problems with applications and with Mac systems generally.
sanders@parc.xerox.com (Rex Sanders) (01/17/91)
In article <85@sierra.STANFORD.EDU> siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) writes: (refers to Apple Installer not checking/replacing all System resources) > [It also strikes me as the WRONG way to do things, but that's >another matter.] It may be the solution to a lot of mysterious >problems with applications and with Mac systems generally. This is NOT the wrong way to do things. By using the Installer you can update your System from version x to y WITHOUT having to dance with the Font/DA mover, or re-installing your Ethernet driver. With the present behavior, I can tell people to update their System version by handing them several floppies, and saying "Boot off System Tools; double-click Installer; follow on-screen instructions". Now, if your System is *damaged*, then what should happen? Trash your Fonts, DAs, and other unusual widgets? How do you distinguish between a "good" resource, "bad" resource, and "modified-by-user-for-good-reason" resource? Opinions from: -- Rex Sanders
siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) (01/17/91)
In article <1991Jan16.235950.16515@parc.xerox.com> Rex Sanders writes: (referring to the Installer's default property of really only updating, not repairing or fully replacing, system resources) >This is NOT the wrong way to do things. By using the Installer you can >update your System from version x to y WITHOUT having to dance with the >Font/DA mover, or re-installing your Ethernet driver. With the present > >Now, if your System is *damaged*, then what should happen? Trash your >Fonts, DAs, and other unusual widgets? How do you distinguish between >a "good" resource, "bad" resource, and "modified-by-user-for-good-reason" >resource? > Reasonable arguments (and as I said, I'm NOT an expert on this). But: 1) Installer could SAY what it's doing; it could print a log ("Replaced MUNG resource with updated value"), so you'd know what it had, and had not, done. 2) It could ASK YOU what you wanted it to do ("Trash existing system?" Or perhaps, "Replace ALL resources? Or only UPDATED resources?"). It could ask you, "Retain all existing DAs and fonts?". 3) I'd still argue that: (a) Repairing (often unknown) system damage (from a crash, sudden power failure, magnitude 6.5 earthquake :-)) is a MUCH more common task than merely updating a system, or installing a new system. Hence, that would be a more useful thing for the Installer to do as its default action. (b) And, since the Installer is, in fact, used to install a NEW system (when a new system comes out, or a new machine is purchased), I think it's a much more reasonable or obvious assumption for the novice user to make that running the Installer again will install a NEW system again. (c) Making this assumption does imply that added DAs and fonts will be lost. But a well-known tool, Font/DA Mover, exists for handling this; handling the problem of saving fonts and DAs is fairly obvious for even nonspecialists. How many ordinary users mess with the system file beyond that? Very few, I would think. If INITs or other more sophisticated programs change the system file (something I don't know), that will be handled by the restart required after installation anyway, won't it? It still seems to me that a complete rebuild would be the preferred default action for the Installer. --AES
roland@dna.lth.se (Roland Mansson) (01/19/91)
In article <87@sierra.STANFORD.EDU> siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) writes: >Reasonable arguments (and as I said, I'm NOT an expert on this). But: > >1) Installer could SAY what it's doing; it could print a log >("Replaced MUNG resource with updated value"), so you'd know what it >had, and had not, done. > I really support this idea. It is very non-macish, but it would be very useful for those of us who have to know what is happening. It's not very convinient to have to run MPW's rezequal... Of course this should feature should be off by default. I don't care if it is supported feature of the installer or not, just go ahead and do it! -- Roland Mansson, Lund University Computing Center, Box 783, S220 07 Lund, Sweden Phone: +46-46107436 Fax: +46-46138225 Bitnet: roland_m@seldc52 Internet: roland.mansson@ldc.lu.se or roland.mansson%ldc.lu.se@uunet.uu.net UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!sunic!ldc.lu.se!roland.mansson AppleLink: SW0022