Thanks for the OS X Printing
Tip
After reading Slow Printing, Safari,
Mail, and Faster Classic Mode Launches, Jim Williams writes:
Thanks again, Dan. Once more your website has proved invaluable. I
have been experiencing exactly the same printing frustrations in Mac
OS X that you described in your article. My printer is an HP 952C.
Works fine on X but really slow. Sure enough, I just checked on HP's
site, and they have OS X drivers for the 952. I just figured if
OS X detected the printer, it was using the best drivers - but I
guess that's not so. Thanks for the article.
Glad to be of help, and equally glad others were there
to help me with my frustration. I hope Apple will do something about
this in the next revision of Mac OS X: "The printer you have just
selected, <printer name>, is being driven by drivers that shipped
with Mac OS X. These may be older driver and may not provide optimum
performance. Please check with the manufacturer to see if newer drivers
are available."
More on OS X Printer Drivers
Norman writes:
Thanks for your most recent article, Slow
Printing, Safari, Mail, and Faster Classic Mode Launches on Low End
Mac. I enjoyed it very much.
There was one thing I noticed that was simply not true and I wanted
to let you know. You wrote:
"Huh? I was printing to the Epson printer. The OS
recognized it. I just assumed that meant the Epson driver was
installed, but these were just Apple's drivers."
The drivers that come with OS X, whether for Epson, Canon, or HP
printers, are written by the printer vendors. You can see this by
selecting one of the drivers and then bringing up the Get Info panel in
the Finder. For example in your case you can use the Finder's Go->Go
to Folder command and enter '/Library/Printers/EPSON/'. Select the
SP870.plugin and then File->Get Info. You'll see that the version
line lists the copyright holder as EPSON. I think jaguar ships with
version 1.1.2 of the EPSON drivers. You must have installed a later
version to improve your speed.
I hope this is helpful and thanks again for the article.
Thanks for the information. I wonder if Apple works
with the manufacturers to make sure the current shipping version of
OS X includes the latest version of the manufacturer's drivers.
Come to think of it, it would be nice if Software Update could check
the drivers you use against a database and let you know when new
drivers were available for the printer(s) you use.
B&W G3 Much Better Than Beige
G3
In response to my comments on The
CPU Race, Thomas Eberhard writes:
The Beige G3 was not
bad, but the B&W G3
was so much better. The budget B&W G3/300 was as fast or faster
then the previous top of the line Beige G3 due to the glorious ATI 128
card and fast bus, etc.
The Beige G3/233 was good put hardly as fast as the 9600/350. A
solid step forward to a 7300/200 for sure, but not the leap of the
B&W. For me, the B&W G3 is the best leap ever. Not only did it
boost the CPU a lot, they also added a vastly superior 3D gaming card,
fast bus, a brilliant case design, as well as USB and FireWire
ports.
During the 4 years since Jan 1999, this basic design has been
tweaked by over time trickling in AGP, faster bus, more IDE, a second
optical drive instead of Zip, audio amplifiers, etc. So I am not
complaining that the beige G3 was bad, simply that the B&W was
exceptionally good. :-)
I think the current case is very good; it only lack some USB &
FW ports at the front and one hard disk sled like the ones in the
Xserve. Having an IDE disk - even an old
10-40 GB to back up files to - sure beat endless numbers of CDs. I
think that the bigger the HD, the more stuff you will put on them, and
when the HD went past 1 GB, the ZIP backup was tedious, and then past
10 GB the CD is slow, and my guess that even the DVD will not keep up
for long! I remember when I upgraded my LC II from 80 MB to 270 and thought
that was vast space.
Lastly, regarding the G4 and P4, the current P4 is at 3.06 GHz, so
half the speed is 1,530 MHz and one-third is 1,020 MHz. The previous
top of the line G4 was at 1,250 MHz, 280 MHz from half but only 230
from one-third.
The top-end G4 is 46% as fast as the top-end P4 in
clock speed - much closer to half the Pentium's clock speed than
one-third.
I also remember the incredible amounts of space when
moving from a 40 MB drive to 80, then 270, then 2 GB, and now have a
nearly half-empty 20 GB drive on my computer. Given time, it will fill
up.
And, yes, the B&W G3 was definitely a big
improvement over the beige G3, just as the beige G3 was a big
improvement over the 7300
- but even more so. From the 7300 to the G3 saw a one-third improvement
in bus speed; from beige to b&w saw a 50% increase, plus the
addition of the modern USB and FireWire ports, a much better IDE bus,
and New World ROMs. Given recent prices, the b&w is an excellent
budget Power Mac today.
A Curious Computer Insult
In reading about the "new" Macs, J. P. Medina muses:
There's a curious insult that's used in the computer industry. It's
to brand the previous model of hardware or previous version of software
"old" or "older." I am all but discouraged with Apple's production
engine which attempts to suggest that all systems previous to OS X
are "old," and I've become annoyed at the suggestion that earlier
models are somehow now obsolete. I've begun to notice this in the
articles in LEM. Perhaps this emphasis on the newest versions is
essential to the continued survival of a company, but really all the
computer companies are doing well. The earliest iMac is still not so
"old" as to be obsolete. If the computer industry begins to suggest
that we "need" to upgrade every year or we "must" invest in new
hardware to keep pace with some technological rabbit, my interest will
decrease.
I certainly don't see the term "old" as insulting.
It's more of a chronological term which I and most writers apply to any
model that isn't current - whether it's a Lisa, a Quadra 840av, or last
week's 15" G4 iMac with a SuperDrive. It's a statement of fact, not a
value judgment. It certainly never implies obsolete around here.
We remain dedicated to the value of older Macs, older
software, older peripherals, and the classic Mac OS. Sure, the 128K and
512K Macs are pretty much obsolete, but any with a MB of RAM or more
can still make a fine writing machine, email tool, etc.
That said, there are times when an older Mac may not
be obsolete, yet it is unable to perform new functions, such as
Thursday's Mac Daniel column where
someone wanted to use a digicam and photo printer with an LC 580. For better or worse, digicams and
printers are USB devices, and there is no way to connect them to any
pre-PCI Mac.
Still, my advice wasn't to buy a new eMac or iMac,
which would never work with his SCSI scanner or serial ImageWriter
printer. Instead I recommended a "newer" Mac that was similar to his
old one, compatible with both his old hardware and USB (with the
addition of a PCI card), and available for a very reasonable price.
No computer is obsolete until you say it is. My
Mac Plus became obsolete
for me when I needed to create color graphics, design Web pages
that included color, and browse the colorful Web. My Centris 610 never became obsolete; it
just reached the point where a newer Mac was a better deal than a bunch
of upgrades.
My SuperMac J700
remains a wonderful computer; one of my sons uses it alongside his
WallStreet. And I
don't foresee my 400 MHz
TiBook becoming obsolete, either. I may reach the point where it
makes sense to replace it with something a bit faster, with a higher
resolution display and Quartz Extreme, that includes a Combo drive -
but I'll be upgrading for the improvement, not because the old TiBook
can't do the job.
The key is to use it until you've used it up or it
becomes a serious impediment to your productivity. When my wife's
PowerBook 150 became an
impediment, she bought the entry-level 366 MHz iBook. When my Centris became a
bottleneck, I picked up a SuperMac for US$800. And the only reason I
bought a TiBook is portability - it's really nice when you can bring
your computer to Macworld Expo, to your part-time job, when you visit a
client.
Old isn't an insult at Low End Mac. The best Macs age
gracefully and may remain in use a decade or more after they were
produced. It all depends on your specific needs.
URL Selection Tip for Safari
Another response to Slow Printing,
Safari, Mail, and Faster Classic Mode Launches. This tip from Jon
Beck:
I hated how Safari wouldn't select the whole URL bar when I clicked
on it, too, but I read a tip on it the other day. If you click on the
little icon in the URL bar rather than the white space, it will
highlight the whole URL, similar to IE. It was a bit awkward at first,
but now I'm used to it and do it on every computer.
Thanks for the helpful tip. The graphic Jon refers to
is the favicon file, which appears to the left of the URL. In the case
of Low End Mac, our favicon looks like this: 
Just click the
graphic, and Safari will highlight the entire URL. Very helpful.
Chris Kilner writes:
Your article says: "Not a bug, but something different about Safari
compared with the other browsers, is the way Safari doesn't select the
text in the Google or URL windows when you click them. Other browsers
automatically select all the text, making it much easier to type in new
text, since you don't have to manually Select All first."
Try clicking on the favicon at the left of the URL. It will select
all the text. I think the Google box might do something similar, too,
depending on where you click.
Almost. Clicking on the magnifying glass in the Google
search brings up a list of recent searches and an option to clear the
recent search list. The Safari programmers are really going overboard
in coming up with simple, useful features.
Benjamin Wood also notes:
To highlight the whole address in Safari you can click on the icon
in the left of the address field. This only works for the address field
tough. For the Google search field it brings up a list of recent
searches and a "clear entries" option.
The Value of a Low End Mac
After reading The Value of a Low
End Mac, Eric McCann writes (blue text is quoted from that column):
The Power Mac 7500 was built in 1995, eight years ago. Eight years.
That's like 1,000 years in computer time. The Power Mac 7500 is to the
dual 1.42 GHz Power Mac G4 what the Roman chariot is to the Dodge
Viper. They both serve the same purpose, but hardly in the same
fashion.
Despite this comparison, my PM 7500 somehow manages to continue to
do everything I need it to do. Over the years, I have spent about $350
in upgrades. I have swapped the old PowerPC 601 for a G3 processor and
upgraded the RAM, L2 cache, and hard drive. I think I upgraded the
VRAM, too, but it has been so long I have forgotten.
For the lump sum of much less than $400 in upgrades over the course
of eight years, I essentially have a PowerMac G3/450 with a 20 GB hard
drive and 256 MB of RAM. Not top of the line, but not too shabby.
I think the key here is "over eight years." If I'd
known what I know now when I first got my 7600 (then a 7200/75) I'd have waited and just
picked up a beige G3 or
iMac 233-333.
Today, the 7500 runs every program I need, including the latest
versions of AppleWorks, Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop (okay,
version 6,which is admittedly not the "latest," but it will have to do
until I can afford Photoshop 7),
Features you need, or "upgrade-itis?"
Internet Explorer, and the list goes on. Thanks to some nifty
third-party utilities, it even runs Mac OS X - and runs it well. I have
my new/refurbished iBook for portability and my iMac DV/SE because my
wife got a PowerBook G4 and I inherited it. I have never really needed
the iMac as a desktop, since I have the 7500.
Trade ya... my 7600 for the iMac. <g> I've been
looking at upgrading as well, but I can't see spending the money for
upgrading it to a point where it's just matching a stock beige
G3 MT for the same price. Though I'll say it does one thing no G3 or G4
can do - run BeOS nicely.
Contrast this with the clone. I had it built brand-new in 1998. It
has a Cyrix 233 MHz processor, 64 MB of RAM, and an 8 MB hard drive.
These were close to top-of-the line specs in 1998, at least for what
the average consumer (me) could afford to pay.
And Cyrix has gone away. Be glad....
I know I said the Athlon was my only non-Mac computer, but what I
meant was that the Athlon is my only non-Mac computer still serving a
useful purpose. The clone used to run Windows 95 until I outgrew that
OS. It won't run Windows 2000 or XP without at least a memory upgrade.
If I did upgrade the memory, 2000 and XP would probably load but would
take all day.
It would (IIRC) also need a processor upgrade, for
XP.
Replace the processor, you say? That would be great except that this
motherboard won't support a processor much faster than the 233 already
in it.
There's also the fact that Cyrix, Intel, and AMD all
have different pinouts. You can't swap (say) a K6-2 or K6-3 with a
Pentium II or Celeron, or today's Pentium IV with an Athlon. It makes
buying mainboards for PCs (I build some on request. I won't turn down
cash) a pain. It's also an advantage for the 7500 you didn't mention.
The processor slot is the same for all the upgrades. The same
processor slot that houses my 604/120 now can house a 604, G3, or G4
upgrade.
Replace the motherboard? Yes, except it is an AT style, and I don't
think they make those anymore, what with ATX and all.
AT vs ATX power supply (and, annoyingly, power
switch) issues. Don't forget there's also MicroATX, MiniATX,
Baby-AT, and other form factors. Thus the reason "generic" PC cases
look like swiss cheese inside.
Okay, then replace the power supply and drill new holes in the case
to make the new motherboard fit. Sure, that is possible, but it is way
more time and effort than I wish to spend.
Most of the power supplies should fit any case (unless
you're looking at a brand-specific, HP/Compaq/Dell power supply, which
can be an odd shape.) The mainboard's possibly a different issue.
When I upgraded the 7500, I snapped open the case, pulled out the
old processor, and snapped the new one into the slot. It had plenty of
open RAM slots, so I just had to pop in the additional RAM. The L2
cache and VRAM were also of the just unplug and replace genre.
Point for the Mac. You can "snap" open the case
and shut it again. It's what hooked me on Macs actually. (I put in
an article on this some time back, with
my acquisition of a Quadra 700
and IIsi, both of which I still
have.) I even like the Q800/840/PMac 8100 case over most PC cases,
though the PC cases are catching up. The only one I hate dealing
with is a PMac 7100.
I don't think a novice should replace a motherboard,
power supply and who know what else on a PC.
And with WinXP, get ready for headaches. On the PC
here (yes, I, too, run both) we swapped mainboards and had to
reactivate the OS with a call to Microsoft and some gawdawful long
authentication number. They were quick, I give them points for customer
service, but....
Eight years later, (the 7500) is still a more than capable machine.
Five years later, the PC is a boat anchor.
Blame the processor wars and Megahertz myth for this.
They keep re-shrinking processors, there's no common pin layout, etc.
Otherwise, it's quite possible I'd be able to run the board I had a few
years ago with newer processors. Of course, there's no capability for
the heat sink to be supported or the like....
Look at the families they've gone through. From 97 or
so, IIRC:
- Pentium
- Pentium Pro (two - three, actually, if you go to the first 60 and
66 MHz Pentiums with another socket size - incompatible pin
layouts.)
- K6 / K6-2 / K6-3
- Cyrix 5x86
- NexGen (bought by AMD, but had its own pin layout too.)
- Pentium II / Celeron (Slot 1)
- Pentium II and Celeron again, back to a socket instead of
slot.
- Athlon (slot A)
- Pentium III (new slot.)
- Pentium III (socketed) and Celeron
- Xeon (Slot 2, and I think 3 now.)
- Pentium IV (new socket.)
- Athlon XP (different cores - two, actually, now.)
I'd hate to be a PC mainboard manufacturer.
Eric, this is part of the reason Low End Mac is so much more successful than Low End PC. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
