bjones@Apple.COM (Bruce Jones) (04/20/91)
In article <1954@camex.COM> kent@sunfs3.Camex.COM (Kent Borg) writes: >It does? Are you sure you are not judging based upon the fact that >the 800K floppies are really running 6.0.7 as they install 7.0, and >they do not run MultiFinder? Sorry, you're wrong. The System we run when booted off the 800K floppies is a VERY SEVERELY castrated System 7.0. During the installation of 7.0 most of the file (depending on your hardware configuration) gets copied to your target. No Finder on that first disk, not much of a System, but it's very much System 7. Believe me 6.X.X is breathing its last breaths. Also, >In article <=B5_#A_@smurf.sub.org> urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs) writes: >It seems to be possible to kill the Finder. The 7.0 Installer does it, for >instance. I don't know how it does this; it probably just sends the Finder a >QUIT AppleEvent. >(Those newfangled events have to be good for _some_ things. ;-) > >Whether killing off the Finder is a good idea is another question. >I don't think so. That dang Installer, mighty smart kido... Yes, the Installer does shutdown the Finder. We actually send an AppleEvent to the process manager (aka MultiFinder) to shutdown all applications. Since the Finder is an application (though a wee bit special) it gets shutdown as well. Why did we do this? A couple of reasons. First, it provides a lot more free memory which speeds up installations quite a bit. Second, when installing from floppies, we don't have to fight with the finder for each floppy. It is very very difficult to persuade the finder never to ask for old installation source floppies. Plus it speeds things up a bit. Since the Installer is always copying & modifying files, if a window such as the System Folder is open, the Finder can spend a noticable amount of time trying to keep everything updated. Installation is cleaner, faster, and easier without the Finder around. Is it unsafe for a user to shut down the Finder? Nope. Is it inconvenient? Yep. Can you believe this? I actually have free time to post a NetNews article. System 7.0 must be close to finished :-) Bruce -- =============================================================================== Bruce Jones bjones@apple.com Manager, Applications Group AppleLink: BRUCE.JONES Macintosh System Software 7.0 Team 408 974-3454 Apple Computer, Inc 20525 Marianni Avenue MS 81BB Cupertino, CA 95014 =============================================================================== Subject: Shutting down the Finder Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Keywords: Installer, Finder, System 7 In article <1954@camex.COM> kent@sunfs3.Camex.COM (Kent Borg) writes: >It does? Are you sure you are not judging based upon the fact that >the 800K floppies are really running 6.0.7 as they install 7.0, and >they do not run MultiFinder? Sorry, you're wrong. The System we run when booted off the 800K floppies is a VERY SEVERELY castrated System 7.0. During the installation of 7.0 most of the file (depending on your hardware configuration) gets copied to your target. No Finder on that first disk, not much of a System, but it's very much System 7. Believe me 6.X.X is breathing its last breaths. Also, >In article <=B5_#A_@smurf.sub.org> urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs) writes: >It seems to be possible to kill the Finder. The 7.0 Installer does it, for >instance. I don't know how it does this; it probably just sends the Finder a >QUIT AppleEvent. >(Those newfangled events have to be good for _some_ things. ;-) > >Whether killing off the Finder is a good idea is another question. >I don't think so. That dang Installer, mighty smart kido... Yes, the Installer does shutdown the Finder. We actually send an AppleEvent to the process manager (aka MultiFinder) to shutdown all applications. Since the Finder is an application (though a wee bit special) it gets shutdown as well. Why did we do this? A couple of reasons. First, it provides a lot more free memory which speeds up installations quite a bit. Second, when installing from floppies, we don't have to fight with the finder for each floppy. It is very very difficult to persuade the finder never to ask for old installation source floppies. Plus it speeds things up a bit. Since the Installer is always copying & modifying files, if a window such as the System Folder is open, the Finder can spend a noticable amount of time trying to keep everything updated. Installation is cleaner, faster, and easier without the Finder around. Is it unsafe for a user to shut down the Finder? Nope. Is it inconvenient? Yep. Can you believe this? I actually have free time to post a NetNews article. System 7.0 must be close to finished :-) Bruce
daf@cs.brown.edu (David A. Fedor) (04/24/91)
In article <13127@goofy.Apple.COM> bjones@Apple.COM (Bruce Jones) writes: > >Is it unsafe for a user to shut down the Finder? Nope. >Is it inconvenient? Yep. Well, it doesn't need to be inconvenient. As I posted earlier, it is easy to add a menu item to the finder for a Quit item. Since enough people are interested, here it is. NORMAL WARNING: not only is this unsupported, but finder 7.0 is unsupported... this is totally at your own risk. It works fine for me (better than that cmd-opt-esc trick). Open the finder with resedit. Open the fmnu resource, id 1252. This is where the file menu contents are. Append the hex string 7175 6974 8100 0000 0451 7569 742E. That's it! If you want the greyed-out line above it, then first append the string 7878 7830 0000 0000 012D. NEXT: the weird tricky thing. For some very strange reason, the finder (at least the version I am using) is silly about the order that it inserts menus - it does it in the same order as they appear in the file. Therefore, once you edit the file menu, cut out and paste back in menus 1253, 1254, 1256 and 1255. Yes, that order. That will make them stay in order on the menu bar. I got very confusing results before I figured out what was going on! So, they will read 1255, 1265, 1254, 1253, 1252, 1251 as you read down the screen (assuming you've got the view to be 'by order in file', of course) If you've comments or problems, let me know! I enjoy hacking this stuff. >Can you believe this? I actually have free time to post a NetNews article. >System 7.0 must be close to finished :-) > >Bruce Hooray! -Dave
daf@cs.brown.edu (David A. Fedor) (04/24/91)
In article <73239@brunix.UUCP> daf@cs.brown.edu (David A. Fedor) writes: > ... lots of stuff, some repeated below... but WHOOPS! I forgot a step in the description below. One very important thing (otherwise nothing changes) is to change the number you'll find in the very start of the resource. It currently reads 0001 0011, and you need to bump that up when you add entries to the bottom. If you're putting both the dotted line and quit, change it to be 0001 0013. If not, change it to 12. Otherwise, nothing happens. Here's the instructions, quoted again for your reading pleasure... > >Open the finder with resedit. Open the fmnu resource, id 1252. This is >where the file menu contents are. >If you want the greyed-out line above it, append the string >7878 7830 0000 0000 012D. >Append the hex string 7175 6974 8100 0000 0451 7569 742E. Change the second word in the resource to be either 0012 or 0013, depending on whether you put the grey line above or not (from 0011). >NEXT: the weird tricky thing. For some very strange reason, the finder >(at least the version I am using) is silly about the order that it inserts >menus - it does it in the same order as they appear in the file. Therefore, >once you edit the file menu, cut out and paste back in menus 1253, 1254, >1256 and 1255. Yes, that order. That will make them stay in order on >the menu bar. I got very confusing results before I figured out what was >going on! So, they will read 1255, 1265, 1254, 1253, 1252, 1251 as you >read down the screen (assuming you've got the view to be 'by order in file', >of course) > -Dave