Cool Mac Gear

One of Mac OS X's most vaunted features is its support for secure multiple user accounts. While OS 9 had a Multiple Users feature that allowed setting up individual user profiles with distinct Desktop settings and Preferences, etc., it was still essentially a patch on an 0S designed for single users.

OS X, on the other hand, is engineered from scratch as a multiple-user operating system, so that each user is required to log in, and will find their own, private Desktop environment just as they left it, even if several other people use the machine. Stuff like Desktop icon positioning; Dock configuration; Web browser preferences and bookmarks; email account settings and mailbox archives; personally installed programs and fonts; and so on; will remain unique to each user, regardless of how other users can figure their user profiles, and aside from "root," no one else can mess with your settings (well, almost).

Even if you are, like me, basically the only user of your Mac, you may still find it convenient to set up more than one user count. I have three -- my main working account; the Root account (more on that in a moment), and a more or less pristine Administrator account with no third party stuff installed, and the OS X default settings, which I find occasionally useful for troubleshooting and to work around conflict issues.

For example, when I first tried to install IBM ViaVoice, its installer took a dislike to a third-party Finder hack I head previously installed. Even trashing the offending piece of software didn't help. The workaround was to log into my parallel universe user ID, install ViaVoice there, which worked fine, and then establish a second user identity for ViaVoice in my main account.

There are three types of OS X accounts:

Administrator Accounts: usually the machine owner or the IT professional in company or institutional settings, often the person who originally installed 0S X. Only administrators can add or delete accounts, install programs in the Applications folder; and fonts to the main Library folder for common use; make changes to basic System Preferences like Date & Time and Network Settings; etc.. If you've installed software in OS X, you will have noticed the necessity to check the little lock button and enter your system administrator password during the install procedure.

Normal Accounts: users of Normal accounts have access only to their own Home folder and some System Preferences. They can only create new folders inside their Home folder, or in some cases in a common shared folder if available.

Root Account: also known as "superuser." While even administrators don't have access to other users Home folders, and can't remove folders from the System Folder that would alter or disable other users' settings, a user logged in as Root has free range. While this can be useful, the absolute power a Root user login provides can also be dangerous, which is why the Mac OS X default installation does not include a Root account.

However, Root loggin is required for executing certain UNIX commands, although it's best to stay away from Root logins of less you have a specific need and know what your doing.

And finally, if you have OS 9 installed on your machine, it amounts to, in some respects, a super superuser account, in that OS 9 doesn't give a hoot about OS X's security protocols, and allows you to roam OS X folders and files at will, deleting or moving anything you like. Not something you would use as a rule, but it might come in handy at times.

Re: Hardware not booting Mac OS 9

From Nick Winterhalter

Hi Charles,

I thought your recent article in Applelinks was right on.

I used to work with the premier ASP in the SF Bay Area. As such, we had a lot of visits with Apple's marketing and technical crew. They've been vocally threatening to flip the bit in hardware for almost a year now. They always present it as an "inevitability," that will occur "sooner rather than later" but are vague on the details like when or how. Summer 2002 was the inferred target date back when the innuendo started, but it's obviously not going to happen this quarter.

They can't cripple the hardware without alienating massive chunks of their professional user base, this is obvious. 100% of our small and mid-size business clients would have to purchase new hardware and software in order to be compatible with Mac OS X. Many would have to completely redesign their current workflows for no reason. What has taken sometimes years of tuning in not only production but administration and job processing would become obsolete until employees were trained on new software and new production practices were perfected. This, in my opinion, is not the goal of progress. Classic is not the answer, it doesn't work.

So Apple must have a plan to keep these users happy and loyal, right? Guess what, the threats continue! John Cambra and Phil Hunter don't care. They said it point blank, switch to Mac OS X or die. When asked if they would care if that meant losing 50% of current Mac users they said no; tons of Windows users would be banging on the front door. Uh huh, right.

People are focusing on the Windows-oriented side of the "Switch" campaign and forgetting that Mac OS X is just as a big a leap for professional Mac OS 9 users, sometimes greater.

Best regards,

Nick

Thanks for the insights, Nick. I agree with your assessment.

Charles

Re: Disable MacOS 9 boot

From Wayne Folta

Charles,

I think the article (and you) misinterpret Apple's intentions. New machines do not have to be rigged or sabotaged to not boot MacOS 9. Rather the reverse is true: MacOS 9 has to be modified to run on the new machines, and the machines may have to be modified to support MacOS 9.

This is nothing new. From what I understand, you can't boot MacOS 7 on your Powerbooks. Maybe not even MacOS 8. And remember that MacOS 9 still works just fine on legacy equipment. They're not killing MacOS 9: they're just not going to design a new generation of hardware around it, nor keep a MacOS 9 development effort going for years to come.

Apple really has to close the hardware gap now that MacOS X has hit its stride with Jaguar. Steve Jobs said as much at a recent conference: they've been concentrating their limited resources on getting MacOS X up to speed, and soon they'll turn their attention to their lagging hardware.

They will not be able to do this, however, if they have to continue to drag MacOS 9 along with them for three reasons:

1) The division of resources required to maintain MacOS 9.

2) The limitations that MacOS 9 compatibility will put on their ability to move to new hardware.

3) The slowing of the rate of hardware change required for MacOS 9 to keep up.

With MacOS X, we've seen an accelerated rate of software change that Apple will have to maintain to stay competitive. Their hardware will have to move to such a rate of change, and the OS must support this rate of change. This is not the trivial matter that it has been in the past, with Apple's slow rate of (real, underlying) hardware change.

So, this move by Apple will no doubt hurt it in some ways, just as the move to the PowerPC or to USB, etc, hurt it. But it seems to be the only way for Apple to sprint out into the lead hardware- and software-wise, which is the only way for Apple to survive.

Wayne Folta

Hi Wayne;

My layman's assumption is that if OS 9 is to enjoy continued support as Classic Mode, then there should be no technical impediment to retaining dual-boot capability, and any lockout of direct booting into OS 9 would be arbitrary. I could be mistaken about this, but I would like it explained why if I am.

There was no real hardship in the lack of boot support in older versions of the Classic OS as new machines were released, since the newer versions were always high-90s percent compatible with existing applications and generally more desirable in general. This is not true of obsoleting OS 9 in favor of OS X.

I can use software I bought 10 years ago with OS 9.2.2, and all my old SCSI and serial peripherals still are supported (on machines with compatible ports). There is not even a driver for my old (and only) printer in OS X.

This is in a sense a culture wars issue, as observed by Nick in the letter above. Apple can of course choose to inconvenience and alienate a substantial percentage of its loyal user base, on the unproven hope that the slack will be taken up by Windows "switchers." However, if they continue to trample the sensibilities and preferences of that user base, they may see a significant exodus to Linux, or Lindows, or even Windows.

Charles

HFS Zip disks

From Tate

Dear Charles:

I agree with you about many things OS 9; I am quite content motoring along in 9.1. I do also run 10.1.5 from time to time.

In OS X Odyssey 150 you wrote:

"I also have a bunch of legacy hardware and stuff backed up on HFS Standard formatted media that I need OS 9 for access to. For example, OS X won't read HFS formatted Zip Disks."

I booted into X tonight for the first time in about two weeks to double check this on my Pismo. I have a VST 250MB expansion bay Zip drive, and it reads/writes 250MB and 100MB HFS formatted disks. Are you sure your Zip drive will not read or write to HFS in OS X?

The performance of this VST drive in OS X is actually better for me than in OS 9.1. I have an extension conflict somewhere that won't let me hot-swap the Zip drive in OS 9, but it does so flawlessly in X.

Best wishes,

Tate

Hi Tate;

When I inserted the HFS formatted Zip disk in the Pismo's expansion bay drive under OS X, I got a dialog box saying : "this dik is unreadable; do you want to erase and reformat it." or words to that effect. When I rebooted in OS 9.1, the disk mounted fine.

I deduced at the time, that this indicated that OS X didn't support HFS Standard formatted disks, but upon further investigation, David Pogue's "OS X: The Missing Manual" (p.259) says that OS X does support HFS disks for read, but won't start up from them.

I have no idea why X balked at reading my old Zip disk.

Charles

Locator

From Antonio Dini

Hi Charles,

I read with passion your column from day 14. I find it very interesting. About the story of Watson and Sherlock 3, I think it is importat to locate files in today huge hard disks (expecially if someone is not a talented one to find the right place to put the files in, like me). So I found an interesting utility, that is a smart front end for a Unix command, "locate". The utility's name is Locator, from a german developer, http://www.sebastian-krauss.de/software/ . I share this little but powerful utility with you and the other Odyssey readers: I guess it should be useful.

Best regards
Antonio

Hi Antonio;

Thanks for the tip, and I'm glad you enjoy the Odessey

Charles

Photoshop 6 in X

From Jay Scheuerle

Charles, PS6 runs fine on my G4 450 running OSX 10.1.5. I think Ramon is right about trying some different extension sets. I'd guess he has something incompatible in there. I'd try booting Classic with them all off to start and then go from there.

Good Luck Ramon! - j

Your reader's question about Photoshop 6

From David Johnson

Make sure that Photoshop 6 is on the same partition that you are using for Classic. I had the same problem with Pagemaker; however, changing the Classic volume to the same one that it was installed on solved the problem. I didn't run Photoshop 6 long enough to have that problem. Hope this fixes it.

David

OSX book

From Chris Long

Hey Charles:

Re -- your advice to Jim Hartneady;

"First, I would suggest getting at least one, good, hard copy OS X book. The best all-rounder is probably David Pogue's "OS X: The Missing Manual"

As you recall, you gave me the same advice some weeks back. We bought the book here at work & i've since gone thru it, cover to cover.

It is fabulous. not only is it clear and understandable but it's good reading, thanks to Pogue's sense of humor.

I too would recommend this one to anyone new to mac OSX who wants to learn the ropes. I learned A TON!

Keep m comin,

Chris

The OS X Odyssey archives may be accessed here:
http://www.applelinks.com/news/odyssey/

CM

CM

Charles W. Moore

Cool Mac Gear