Dialup Is Slow but Dependable
From Richard:
Charles
One more reason still to have dialup technology: A week ago we had a
very wet snow storm that eventually took out our power. So,
guess what didn't work? The cable broadband, of course. When the repair
dragged on into the second evening and my household was desperate for
email (important job offer coming in), I fired up the modem in my
eMac and made use of our
localnet.com dialup. Though it was painfully slow, it nonetheless saved
the day. (And to think I have been recently contemplating canceling the
"outmoded" dialup service.)
- Dick
Hi Dick,
Yes, dialup does have the advantage of reliability in
virtually all weather. I gripe about the service I get here (mainly
speed), but I really can't complain about downtime. The only time it
has been offline that I can recall in the past 12 years is when a Dept.
of Highways brushcutter clipped the main fiber optics line leading out
of this county, and even then it was off for less than a day. I've been
posting the news on Applelinks.com since August 1999, and I haven't
missed a single business day in that time, all over dialup.
Charles
Possible Solution to Eudora Problems with
Dialup
From Stephen:
Hello Charles,
I've been reading LEM for some time and certainly enjoy your
articles!
As for the problem with dialup, from what I understand, you're using
the Apple USB modem?
One idea I have, which might work if it has something to do with the
TCP/IP stack with the modem, is to have an external dialup-to-ethernet
solution such as Apple's AirPort or a D-Link router with a serial port
for connecting an external modem.
This is what I did when I moved out into the country. I went from
cable broadband to good old dialup. Myself and my wife wanted to share
the dialup connection, so I used a D-Link DI-804 router (I think is the
model number) with an external serial modem. It worked great! Meanwhile
I fought with the local cable company to get me hooked up to broadband.
This took over a year....
Anyhow, it's just a thought of a possible solution.
Thanks
-Steve
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the input and suggestion.
Yes I am using Apple's external USB modem with the
MacBook, however, I don't think the issue derives from the modem. SMTP
support over this dialup connection is cranky with OS X 10.5
Leopard even from the PowerPC PowerBook's internal modem - it's smooth
and unproblematical running in Tiger on the same machine through the
same modem.
I have succeeded in getting SMTP email out working
with Thunderbird 3b2, which is further evidence that the modem is not
at fault. No Joy with Eudora 6, however.
At least you had a cable company to fight with.
;-). No cable TV here at all.
Charles
Editor's note: Apple has made several different
AirPort Base Stations over the years, and recent ones no longer have a
built-in modem. Models that include a 56k modem are the original
802.11b gray base station (M5757) that has 40-bit encryption and only
one ethernet port, which is limited to 10 users; the white 802.11b
"dual ethernet" base station (M8440), which has 128-bit encryption and
supports 50 users; and two of the three versions of the round 802.11g
AirPort Extreme base station - M8799 and M9397 have the modem, but
M8930 does not. dk
My 333 MHz Lombard Is Faster than My 400 MHz
Pismo
From Vernon:
Hi Charles,
I'm writing you from my screen crippled workhorse of a Pismo for any
insight you might share on its apparently sluggish behavior. I have
noticed since acquiring a 333
MHz Lombard that the Pismo can be sluggish! Strange, me thinks.
It's a 400 MHz bought used and not starting from shut down without a
reset unless power-up is initiated just seconds after completing
power-down (times may even have varied in trials). New PRAM battery,
d-card reseat, RAM swaps improved it. So it's stayed powered for the
majority of two years, either awake or asleep! It performs normally, I
believe, and was a great upgrade to my 300 MHz WallStreet - until
more than a year ago it smoked and spun up everything that could spin
(I think) and sent the screen a-garbled. Oh no, smoke and the distinct
smell of burning circuits. It was self-perpetuated freefall, it seemed
and quickly I disconnected power/dumped the battery. I pulled out the
smelliest of the RAM and went back to work shortly thereafter.
Then she did it again some days later, I think while unplugged. But
this time, the screen went south altogether. After some time of
fishing, I got her back in video mirroring mode from an external
monitor. It has worked reliably as a desktop (with onboard UPS),
staying awake or asleep ever since.
Enter Lombard 333 MHz with 512 MB RAM, 512 KB L2 cache (oh yeah, the
Pismo's got 640 MB). I just now took the time to make the empirical
test of opening an identical 35 MB Illustrator doc in 10.4.11
simultaneously on each, and who wins? The Lombard! Illustrator starts
more quickly, too. With half the L2 cache, less MHz, slower data path,
slower disk, it wins. I began scrutinizing task times when evaluating
MAPublisher software. Now I have serious questions!
Yet the Pismo is completely reliable/operable despite it's cripples.
What gives? I ran Tech Tool Pro 9.1, and all checks out. Everything.
System profiler shows all the appropriate bits including 1 MB cache. I
tried to make a disk of Apple's hardware diagnosis download for the
'Book but haven't been able to make it bootable as yet. I also swapped
on a Lombard monitor to see if that worked, but nope. Tried the Lombard
inverter and still it behaved the same. The backlight is fine in either
case, either monitor, either inverter. And the external VGA monitor
makes not a hint of any video card problems.
With this background, do you suppose there is anything to suspect
something other than the logic board? If I had another daughtercard to
test - although I'm not sure I'd lend me one - I would. If it were
possibly a d-card, this would be incentive to get a G4 processor! So,
is this workhorse staked to clamshell mode forever more? Where should I
look for the apparent shortfalls in speed?
Your wisdom is very much appreciated in this regard. I'd like to
divert this puppy from the e-waste stream for as long as is
possible!
Best,
Vernon W.
Hi Vernon,
Relative speed can be subject to an almost infinite
variety of factors and interaction. For example, one of my Pismos is
noticbly faster than the other, even though thay both have 550 MHz G4
processor upgrades, and the one with more RAM is the slower unit - due
presumablty to the fact that it has a 4200 RPM hard drive while the
speedier one has a 5400 RPM drive with an 8 MB cache.
Also, given the ordeals your poor old Pismo has
experienced, it's amazing that it still works at all. I would say that
some sort of motherboard issue would not be unlikely uder the
circumstances.
OTOH, it could also be a software issue - some sort of
corruption in the system. Are both machines running the same version of
the Mac OS? You didn't say whether you're still using OS 9 or have
one of the OS X versions. OS 9 is faster on a Pismo than any
OS X version.
Driving an external monitor also saps some video
power, which is not in copious supply on the Pismo anyway. The clock
speed difference from 333 MHz to 400 MHz is not great.
I admire your resolve to keep the old Pismo in
service, but I'm skeptical that it's an ideal candidate for upgrading
given its history. You can pick up used Pismos in good running
order for under $300, and that would be my recommendation if you want
an upgrade-ready system.
Charles
Hi Charles,
These are very subjective observations indeed. But, still, I contend
these count in the objective reality! I would feel all things weigh in
the advantage of the Pismo, though she's been through a lot. Add to
that already mentioned both G3s are operating under 10.4.11; Pismo runs
ATA4 5400 RPM 8 MB and Lombard handles ATA3 4200 RPM 2 MB. I
suppose if I were to boot in OS 9 and run a speed utility, this
could be a more reliable indicator of hardware function.
In your LEM
Pismo guide you mention that running the 'Book in clamshell mode
diverts video resources to the external monitor. Are there still some
additional drains? I did a clean install to an expansion bay drive in
order to put 10.4 on the Lombard, but I didn't make any effort to
observe changes in the Pismo's behavior. 'think I tried this in the
past, however.
Oh, and everything checks out hardware-wise on the Pismo with AHT.
Booting AHT with the lid closed allowed me to view what was happening
on the external monitor. I suppose I would not know if there was a
fault found when running in open book mode, but all checks out with the
test when closed.
Yes, as in all things I like, this Pismo is a hard worker with a
lifespan may be not yet truly defined. I'd like to acquire another hard
worker to spare from the scrap heap. At least there isn't clunker
legislation for 'Books like there is for automobiles! I have my eyes on
a well used unit at Dal Arch/Planning, but I think those guys know the
good thing they got. To go new, I probably won't go Mac.
Vernon
Hi Vernon,
Far be it for me to try and discourage you from
getting more mileage out of the old Pismo!
Booting in OS 9 as a diagnostic sounds like a
worthwhile exercise. I don't know if running in clamshell mode diverts
any extra resources to the external monitor, but at least it relieves
them from having to support the built-in display.
Wegener Media still has some Pismos at reasonable
prices. My nicest Pismo is one of theirs purchased last year to replace
a previous one I got from them in which I blew the Power Manager board
with a dodgy AC power cord (not the Pismo's fault).
What sort of computer do you think you might get? PC
prices certainly are enticing, and I hear that Ubuntu Linix is pretty
good these days. I really love my new Unibody MacBook, though.
Charles
Safari 4 Beta on G3 Macs
From Damian:
Hi Charles,
re your article Test Driving
Safari 4 Beta
I enjoyed your review and am always keen to hear experiences of
others who squeeze maximum life out of low-end Macs.
The reason I approach you now is the hardware specs which you relay
on Safari 4, particularly Firewire built-in. I realise Tiger itself is
unsupported on configurations below that but wonder if you or any of
your contacts have tried Safari 4 on 10.4.11 on G3 iMac 333 MHz or similar?
We have similar issues in NZ re dialup vs. broadband. I had hoped
the proliferation of mobile devises would create new awareness of
bandwidth economy, but apparently most coders have moved toward the
'city'. Consequently I'm reluctant to wait out the download only to
learn it does explicit hardware checking or in fact has a specific
hardware requirement.
Anything you or your people may know of this constraint would be
appreciated.
Regards,
Damian
Hi Damian,
Safari 4 works reasonably well on my 1.33 GHz G4 PowerBook, but
as I noted in the review, contra the speed exploits being reported by
folks on broadband, on dialup it takes a backseat in performance to
Opera, Camino, and perhaps even Safari 3.
It also seems a bit overhead-heavy, and it has to take
some cycles to run stuff like Top Sites and CoverFlow, so I haven't
even been tempted to try it on my Pismos running OS X
10.4.11. I can't say, but my suspicion would be that it would challenge
slower G4s and definitely G3s.
Charles
Help Tiger Run Better on Low-end Macs with
ShadowKiller
From Ronald in response to Helping Tiger Run Better on Low-end
Hardware:
Hi Charles,
I've got another suggestion for speeding up Tiger on older hardware:
ShadowKiller
I'm not a big fan of haxies, but in my experience, ShadowKiller
works well on older Macs.
OS X looks quite a bit different with shadows disabled, but it runs
faster.
Tiger does get a bit less pretty without the shadows, but the
increased interface responsiveness is more than worth the small
cosmetic downgrade.
Best wishes, and thanks for the great site!
Ronald
Thanks for the tip and link, Ronald. Glad you
like LEM!
Charles
Editor's note: ShadowKiller is compatible with Mac OS
X 10.2 through 10.4.11. It is not compatible with 10.5. dk
17" PowerBook G4 Memory Slot Problem
From Ian Bradford:
Hi Charles,
This comes to you from (not so) sunny Portsmouth in the UK.
With reference to 15" PowerBook G4
Lower Memory Slot Problem Revisited
It seems I too am a victim of the problem. I've a 17" 1.33 GHz
AlBook purchased new from Apple around (best I recall) late 2003,
supplied with Apple installed 1 x 1 GB RAM module. Second slot
empty.
Whilst aware of the 15" Repair Extension Program, I paid it no heed
(not the correct PB in screen size or clock speed & I had no
inclination to increase RAM capacity), until now!
I should also mention I'm very conversant with Macs technically -
anyhoo...
All has been well, so having recently obtained a second 1 GB module,
I installed same in spare slot but not recognised.
- Changed module positions but still not recognised.
- Removed second module - all OK.
- Placed original module in slot 2 and again all OK.
- Placed 2nd module in Slot 1 - OK.
- Placed 2nd module in Slot 2 - OK, module is fine.
Both RAM slots work regardless module inserted (provided only one
module fitted).
Just to satisfy myself, I then fitted a 512 MB module (with a
1 GB module - alternatively Module 1 and later Module 2 in Slot
1), and this 512 MB too was not recognised.
Conclusion: RAM Slot Problem.
Apple of course are not interested!
Perhaps, assuming you do not now consider the issue now ancient
history, you'd add my experience to "the database".
Best regards,
Ian
Hi Ian,
Sorry to hear of the difficulty. If I'm reading you
correctly, your machine is a 17" rather than a 15" unit, and thus
identical in spec to the PowerBook I'm typing on right now.
I hadn't previously heard of 17-inchers being prone to
this particular affliction, but it certainly sounds like yours is, so
it's an interesting development. Wonder if there are others. My rig has
always worked happily with its 1.5 GB of RAM installed, although it
would be happier maxed out at 2 GB of course.
Charles
Replacement Control/Alt Keys for Unicomp
Keyboards
From Ruffin:
Was looking through your report, Return of the Best Computer
Keyboard Ever?, and was interested enough to Google up a few
reviews. One was from another Mac user, who
mentioned that, for $10, you can get Unicomp to send over a few not
exactly Mac keys, but at least good Windows key replacements to
eliminate the awkwardness you mention in your report.
I've enjoyed my Microsoft Natural Keyboard Pro for years, but I'm
curious to re-experience the old Model M and might have to give it a
shot. Thanks for the information. Wonder if I could get used to a
built-in trackball?
Ruffin
Hi Ruffin,
Thanks for the info. I also had read somewhere in a
review that the author thought Apple keycaps could be ordered from
Unicomp, but I couldn't find any reference to that on their Website, so
omitted mention of it. Those keycaps in the photos would certainly do
the job nicely. Too bad they wouldn't offer it as a BTO option.
I've never been much of a fan of built-in pointing
devices in keyboards. My most recent encounter was with the Logitech
DiNovo Edge 'board, which has a small scrolling trackpad built-in, but
it doesn't really appeal. Of course, I'm inclined to use a mouse, even
with a laptop.
Charles
Apple's Current USB Keyboard Is the Best Mac
Keyboard
From Richard:
The best keyboard ever is Apple's current wired keyboard.
Once used to laptop style keyboards, almost impossible to go
back.
Richard
Hi Richard,
I agree about laptop-type keyboards, and the current
Apple alumimum units are certainly nice, although I still think the
Kensington Slimtype has the edge in typing feel and for some reason
doesn't cause as much typing pain and fatigue as other 'boards for this
user.
Charles
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
