|
Cool Mac Gear• iPod Video • iPod nano • iPod 1G-2G • iPod 3G • iPod 4G • iPod Mini • PowerBook-iBook • Garageband |
APM Tuner is a freeware app that allows you to adjust the Advanced Power Management Value (APM Value) for hard disks in the internal ATA bus and expansion bays of recent PowerBooks. 
Advanced (or Adaptive) Power Management is a feature found in hard disks for portable usage aimed at conserving power. However, APM can effect the user experience, creating a sense of "lag" or clunking sounds when the head is parked. By increasing the APM Value, the drive will "park" its heads less often. The result is a more responsive drive with less "clunking." I've been using APM Tuner for nearly four years, first with my WallStreet PowerBook, which it made much nicer to live with, both with the original 2 GB IBM hard drive, and with the 10 GB Toshiba HD I upgraded to iNovember he fall of 2000. I hate computer noise, and the constant hard drive "hunting" noises even when a drive is not being accessed drive me nuts. APM Tuner silences them. Both OS X and Classic OS versions are available, and they both work well. My Pismo PowerBook's 20 GB Toshiba hard drive without APM Tuner operative, seems to be constantly struggling to catch up with whatever you're doing, and there is head racket going on most of the time the machine is not idling. It's not unusually loud -- just clunking away annoyingly in the background. The drive itself is reasonably quiet, and the one on my new iBook is near-silent, at least so far. If you set the APM Value larger than the factory default (I keep it at the max of 254), power consumption will increase. It is recommended to set a higher APM Value only when the PowerBook is in a stationary condition with the AC Adapter plugged in (this is where the separate settings for AC and battery power is useful).
System requirements:
Here is a partial list of hard disks and PowerBooks that work with APM Tuner. Many reports were gathered at the PBG3 BBS (in Japanese) and also via e-mail. Please contact me with new information and corrections. Hard disks where APM Tuner worked:
IBM
Toshiba
Hitachi
APM Tuner Made no difference:
IBM
APM Tuner did not work:
Fujitsu
Toshiba
APM Tuner is provided as freeware to the PowerBook community.
APM Tuner can be downloaded here:
and here:
Note: It has come to my attention that the download links for APM Tuner at both MacUpdate and VersionTracker are producing the following error message: Forbidden
I have no idea whether this is temporary or permanent. Apologies for any wasted time chasing the broken links, and I hope this excellent little hack will be available agains soon. CM And before we goi today, I don;t know if this qualifies as an "Easter Egg" (probably not), but it does seem to be an undocumented OS X feature that facilitates displaying your Mac's serial number in the Apple Menu's "About This Mac" dialog. Just open "About This Mac, " and click on where it says "Version 10.x.x." 
The version of the OS X you're using will appear. 
Click on that number, and the the number OS X build you're using will be displayed. 
Now, click again on the build number, and your Mac's serial number will appear. Cool. Note: This apparently works only on Macs about three years old or less. Memory And OS-X Memory Leaks et al Memory leaks Follow-up on time/date problem with 10.2.4 Date bug in 10.2.4 Boonies Broadband and OS X memory The Dock must go! Trash - Dock Dock discussions Dock doesn't let you build motor memory? Re Odyssey 270 and the Dock From KC I have plenty of RAM (1 GB) but am often running 6-7 major apps. My feeling is that it involves the screen saver - even though it's really an app now instead of a system function (ie: it doesn't really stop other processes) - it still seems to affect it. Mozilla definitely starts to lose steam after 5-6 hours of running especially with the screen saver activated at some point. Same with Photoshop (files open much slower) - same with iTunes ... On real busy days, when I just don't have a chance to activate the screen saver (I have it set off unless I trigger it) - it's still a general feeling that things are slowing down - the screen saver just seems to speed it up by a few hours. Definitely running 6-7 apps after 5-6 hours of switching between them, they start to slow down. And with Toast (after running the screen saver), it's like 1996 all over, if I don't restart before trying a CD burn, my odds drop to 50-50 that it's a coaster. Haven't tried it with the DVD burner since with a CD, all I've lost is a $.04 but with DVD's at a buck, I'll restart. All and all, OSX is still great but there is a leak somewhere. Not a tragedy - just not perfection. KC
Hi KC;
I have 17 apps running right now, not counting the Finder and some small background utilities, and that's a relatively light load for me. However, I do the same in OS 9, and can go for days without restarting.
Charles
Tobias Buckell Good advice coming to you about the memory links. I downloaded memory stick (what an awesome app) to see what was going on on my 512 meg lombard, and was unable to get to the point you where. No wonder you're so miserable! I relabelled my free memory to be green, so when all my green is gone I know I need to free up some of it by killing programs. But I've had like 12 items open with multiple windows going and still had free memory, so you've got a gobbler somewhere. It's really a good idea to have this though, it's like a tachometer on a car, so you know when you're about to redline your system and back off a bit :-) tb
Hi Tobias;
I havn't been blowing smoke all these months. The performance degradation over relatively short periods of time has been substantial and infuriating.
Maybe it's partly because I run so many applications and utilities -- I often have 20 or 25 open, and I also heep a lot of windows open and windowshaded -- two-dozen is not unusual. I switch among programs a lot too.
However, I do exactly the same thing in OS 9 and have never had any problems with memory leaks, running out of memory, etc.
Memory Stick is indeed cool!
Charles From James Robinson Just to further your education: Memory leaks happened in OS 9, too. IE is a notorious leaker. Basically, there were two possible outcomes. When an OS 9 application launches, it *reserves* a certain amount of RAM (the familiar number in the Get Info box) and it *allocates* memory from that reserved partition. If it tries to allocate more memory than it reserved at startup, then you get the "Out of Memory" dialog box, and what happens next depends on how the programmer decided to handle it. The worse case is if the application allocates "temporary" memory, which is allocated in the *operating system's* partition. In that case, a leak will bloat the system to the point where it crowds out other applications, which can cause application and system instability. Note that either of these things can happen whether or not the allocated memory is leaked, but they're obviously more likely to happen if there's a leak. OS X, in contrast, merely slows down, at least until an app hits the far side of the 2GB partition that all apps get. Re: Tog's Dock critique, go back and look at the date posted. Apple has long since solved the Fitt's Law problem and (as far as my own tests have determined) the clicking-on-empty-space problem. As to the rest, I don't doubt that the "better widgets" were better for power users, but they were far worse for novice users (you know, "the rest of us" that Apple has always claimed to target). My computerphobic mother took to the Dock instantly. Its design is really quite simple: Click on what you want. The perceived complexity comes from trying to break that paradigm down into subcategories (e.g., running or not running) that were much more important in OS 9 than in OS X, because of the worse multitasking and memory handling. It doesn't scale up as well as the old system did, but it's easier to ask pros to download system enhancements to serve more advanced or specialized needs (they certainly did in OS 9!) than it is to ask my Mom to download system enhancers that make the handful of things she needs clearly and immediately accessible.
Thanks,
Hi James;
Now that you mention it, I do vaguely recall discussions about Internet Explorer "memory leaks" a few years back. I quit using IE back in 2000 when I purged virtually all Microsoft applications from my computer (I kept Word 5.1), and enjoyed an instant and substantial stability enhancement. Still not using MS stuff routinely, although IE crept back in with OS installations.
However, memory leaks must be a lot less common in OS 9, at least among the apps I use, as it is not something I've ever encountered as a problem until OS X, at least knowingly.
I'll grant you that the Dock is probably easier to use for newbies and novices like your Mother, but why, oh why couldn't Apple give us a choice. Unsanity and other 3rd party devleopers have demonstrated that there was no fundamental obstacle to windowshading, as customizable Apple Menu, etc. in OS X. As I said in my comments, keep the Dock as an option for thoise who like it, but give us the good old stuff back too.
Charles
From Walter.French
This issue has been around in every OS more complex than MS-DOS 1.0. Most applications, be they word processors, draw programs, whatever, don't know when they start up what resources they'll need; they ask for memory as the need arises. It's their obligation to give it back to the OS when they're finished with it, but if they lose track of what they're up to -- and things like rendering HTML that may get garbled, or truncated, seems like an awesomely difficult chore -- they'll hold onto unneeded memory, eventually hogging the whole pool if unchecked. Protected memory, old hat to mainframers and new to the Mac world with OSX, keeps the reverse problem from causing havoc: if an application gives back memory that it's still using, now the application will crash because OSX refused the attempt to use it. (Pre-OSX, the confused app wrote over memory that quite likely was in use by something else, making it impossible to determine why the second app ran amok.) So yes, it is particular to "dynamic memory" but that isn't saying much. We still rely on programmers being more accountants than the cowboys that they'd rather be. New programming tools take over some housekeeping chores, but multiply many times the number of opportunities for mistakes. I'm surprised that an OS maker hasn't insisted on safe versions of software tools so this can't arise. I guess that this would make it too hard to port programs from one platform to another. The next crisis comes with the 64-bit systems, where all the current assumptions about tracking memory in 32-bit addresses, get blown to smithereens.
Oh goody -- something else to look forward to.... ;-)
You have explained certain application unexpected quits I've expereinced recently when the memory was maxed out.I've actually lost more unsaved data to crashes in OS X over the past six months than I have in OS 9, which usually gives some advance warning that things are getting flaky.
Charles Follow-up on time/date problem with 10.2.4 From Constance Graves Hi Charles, once again. MacFixIt.com has been talking about the time and date problem with 10.2.4 for several days. You (and others affected) might check there. Today there was a long explanation (which went over my head by and large) about the exact causes of the problem. Connie From Mel Charles, MacFixIt has extensive coverage of the date/time bug in 10.2.4, including workarounds. It appears that dual processor machines are most susceptible. There are also theories about Power Manager problems with attendant PRAM battery issues. Your readers will find lots of good information there. Mel
Hi Connie and Mel;
Yes, I've been following the MacFixit thread. There is definitely a bug, that apparently affects mainly (but not exclusively) dual=processor machines.
Charles
Boonies Broadband and OS X memory From Chris Kilner Hi Charles: Just a couple of comments on today's Odyssey. 1) Instead of restarting to get your memory back, try running a maintanence program like MacJanitor. 2) It's not just folks in the boonies that can't get broadband. I live in Fairfax, Virginia, in an area that has been dubbed the "Internet C@pitol" since it is currently home to more than 200 Internet companies and has a rich history in the origin and development of the Internet (NSF/ARPA, AOL, Network Solutions/VeriSign, WorldCom, PSINet, UUNet, Proxicom, WebMethods, etc.). A significant percentage of Internet backbone traffic flows every day through Vienna, VA at "MAE East," the largest traffic exchange point of the 'Net....just a few miles from my house...yet I can't get broadband. No DSL since Verizon used fiber on the local loops. No satellite since I use a Mac. No cable since Cox hasn't "upgraded" my neighborhood yet (they promised a full upgrade by 2000 when they got the cable franchise). I could get business-class ISDN or sDSL to get a 15%-125% improvement over my 56K modem, but at an unreasonable cost of $120-150/month (8-10x the cost of dial-up).
Peace,
Our Telco promised upgraded lines that would support DSL four years ago, but never came through. :-(
Charles
From: David Charles: TOG has hit on almost every complaint I have about the dock. I hate it so much that I’ve hidden it away and never touch it. Thankfully Unsanity has restored WindowShading so I don’t have to worry about my minimized windows whisking away into uselessness.
I've never found this one an especially big deal, but I prefer the Trash in its traditional location on the lower right of the Finder. I don’t think it necessarily belongs in the corner, but it doesn’t belong on the Dock. Think about it. The Dock is supposedly for switching, launching, dragging, and maximizing. What does the Trash have to do with any of those things other than dragging? As far as I’m concerned, the perfect place for the Trash can would be in the Finder window button bar. But Apple doesn’t allow that. 6. Hiding the Dock makes things worse I agree. I keep the Application Switcher palette visible at all times in OS 9, and hiding the Dock would just amplify most of its shortcomings. If you hide it to completely ignore it, hiding does make it better. I can’t remember the last time I used the Dock. I use DragThing as my Dock and WindowShade for minimizing windows. 7. The Dock ignores Fitts's Law Which is that the corners and edges of the screen are predicted to be the most easily reached targets. Never thought of that before, and I don't find it a terribly compelling argument. For experienced users this might be the case, but watch a new computer user as he is using an application that has a button bar. He’ll often move the mouse beyond the button and click somewhere else. This is one of the reasons Windows with its floating application layer (and movable menu bar) is so bad. For me, the worst part about the Dock is its lack of organization. Basically apps are on one side, windows on the other, and the trash at one end. If I actually try to use the Dock as a launcher, there are only a limited number of spots I can use. DragThing fixes this by offering a tabbed interface. I have four tabs. One for my everyday applications (10 of them!), another for my graphics applications, one for my programming tools, and a fourth for folders and current projects. The other big flaw of the Dock is that it displays running services that I have no need to see. I have no need for DragThing, QuicKeys, SuitCase, or SpellChecker to appear in the Dock. I almost never switch to them, they aren’t applications in the sense that Word or Photoshop are, and I don’t drag files to them. Apple should provide a user controlled means for allowing applications to be invisible in the Dock. And then to add insult to injury, Apple has fixed it so if you kill the Dock or use trickery to hide an application from the Dock things don’t work right. Bah!
cheers
Hi David;
Excellent point about stuff that you don't access for functional reasons showing up uselessly in the Dock. One that Tog missed.
Charles From Chris Foote Charles: In fractional answer to Tog's rant: If you put the dock on the right side (where it consumes less real estate, in my opinion) and pin it using Tinkertool, then the Trash is in the right corner and stays there-and it's always visible. Chris
Hi Chris;
Yup, that's where it is on my machine. However, it sounded like Tog keeps his dock at the bottom. Still should be in the neighborhood, though.
Charles
From Jon Jones Charles, Were you aware that the Dock article you were referring to was over 2 years old?
Hi Jon
Actually I wasn't. I followed a link from somewhere else last evening (Mac Surfer?) and thought it was an interesting rant. I was using a text browser, and the date didn't show up.
However, I hadn't seen it before, and since every Dock issue Tog addressed still obtains, it's still topical, and seems to have generated lots of discussion.
Charles
Dock doesn't let you build motor memory? From Anonymous Dear Charles, I disagree with that indictment of the Dock. If you don't have the Dock magnify or hide, it stays put, and does let you build motor memory. That's assuming of course you don't minimize too many windows and only have your most frequently used applications already in the Dock. Granted, once you open an application that's not in the Dock, or minimize a window,icons have to move, but they remain in the same relative position to each other.
Sincerely,
Hi A.
Yes, but they do move. The Applications Switcher palette of course expands as you open more apps. However, the apps. keep their respective positions (alphabetical order) regardless of the order in which they were opened. Not so with the Dock. And when you run with 20 or so open like I do, opened randomly as needed, it is much less intuitive. I keep only the dozen or so apps. I "always" have open in the Dock to try and cut down on congestion. The Dock icons are much less easy to distinguish as well, at least when reduced to the same size as App Switcher icons.
Charles From Bill DeVille Charles: Following are comments I sent to Bruce Tognazzini about his article on the Dock. I'm quite comfortable with the Dock, and prefer its operations generally to the OS 9 menu choice for application switching.
Contrary to your arguments, I prefer the Dock to the traditional top-of-screen menus for launching applications and switching between them.
I set the Dock to Hide, so that it doesn't take up screen real estate on my PowerBook G4 unless I want to see it. I turned off magnification.
My most commonly used applications are set to stay in the Dock. That means their relative positions remain constant, so that I can move instantly to the application icon I want to select.
I do have a Dock utility called DockFun, that allows one to create sets of docks for particular purposes, such as writing tools or graphics tools. But for the most part, I stay with a set that has 36 icons. They are grouped functionally, so that, for example, my browser icon is adjacent to the DEVONthink icon, as I switch back and forth between them when collecting reference material from the Web. I don't have any difficulty in distinguishing between icons in the working set. I don't place documents or folders in the Dock -- that's not the way I work. The Dock will, of course, show me all the windows that are open in an application, and let me jump to any one of them.
I don't want the trash, or anything except my background picture, to show on the Desktop. I prefer the Trash to be on the Dock, or in a Finder window. That's why I use Path Finder to hide my otherwise very messy Desktop.
I've been using X-Assist as my Applications Menu since the early days of OS X, but I almost never use it for application switching.
I've been using Apples since 1979 (Apple II) and Macs since 1987 -- I've had eleven Macs, and still have three. With a few third-party utilities such as X-Assist, Default Folder, Path Finder and DockFun, I prefer the ergonomics of OS X to OS 9. (I cheated in OS 8 and 9; I installed A-Dock as soon as it was available, since I found the bottom of screen location natural for me -- and not because I had been a NeXt or Windows user.)
So, with all due respect (and you do deserve respect for the work you did at Apple), I would prefer that Apple not adopt your recommendations.
Regards,
Hi Bill;
I keep "everything" (well, not really everything -- but probably about a hundred things at any given time) on the Desktop by preference.
Charles
The OS X Odyssey archives may be accessed here: Note: Letters to Moore's Mailbag may or may not be published at the editor's discretion. Correspondents' email addresses will NOT be published unless the correspondent specifically requests publication. Letters may be edited for length and/or context. Opinions expressed in postings to Moore's MailBag are those of the respective correspondents and not necessarily shared or endorsed by the Editor and/or Applelinks management. If you would prefer that your message not appear in Moore's Mailbag, we would still like to hear from you. Just clearly mark your message "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," and it will not be published. CM Note: Letters to Moore's Mailbag may or may not be published at the editor's discretion. Correspondents' email addresses will NOT be published unless the correspondent specifically requests publication. Letters may be edited for length and/or context. Opinions expressed in postings to Moore's MailBag are those of the respective correspondents and not necessarily shared or endorsed by the Editor and/or Applelinks management. If you would prefer that your message not appear in Moore's Mailbag, we would still like to hear from you. Just clearly mark your message "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," and it will not be published. CM
Page: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 |
| ||||
|
| ||||||
