|
Cool Mac Gear• iPod Video • iPod nano • iPod 1G-2G • iPod 3G • iPod 4G • iPod Mini • PowerBook-iBook • Garageband |
In OS 9, I used to use Apple's free MacsBug developer debugger tool to terminate frozen applications. It worked more often than not, and allowed one to get back to the Finder and save any unsaved work, then if one was wise do and orderly reboot, or if one was me, usually just carry on until the machine showed signs of an imminent system crash -- or if I lost the roll of the dice, it just crashed. OS X is more elegant in this context. I actually still use MacsBug in Classic Mode, but the Force Quit dialog in the Apple Menu is a more civilized way of dismissing a misbehaving application, and if that doesn't work one can resort to the Quit Process command in the Process Viewer. 
Another alternative is escapepod -- a little application by Andrew Welch that lets you terminate the frontmost application by hitting Control-Option(Alt)-Delete, terminate the Dock by hitting Shift-Control-Option-Delete, or do a force-logout by hitting Command-Control-Option-Delete. As Andrew notes, there are times that Mac OS X appears to be hung (especially in some games) when it really isn't -- just the frontmost application's GUI is wedged. The Dock also occasionally stops responding under some circumstances, which can be cured by terminating it. Additionally, when the entire GUI appears to be hung, it is safer to do a force-logout than to simply reboot your machine (and it is quicker, too). escapepod was created to adddress these issues. The first time you run escapepod, it will display a splash screen that tells you what it does; you have to click OK before escapepod will be active. On subsequent launches, escapepod will just briefly display a splash screen and run silently in the background. Even though escapepod's icon doesn't appear in your Dock, it is indeed running after you launch it. If you want escapepod to be active automatically when you start up your computer, add it to your login items ("Login" in System Preferences). To terminate the frontmost application, hit Control-Option-Delete. To terminate the Dock, hit Shift-Control-Option-Delete. To perform a force-logout, hit Command-Control-Option-Delete. WARNING: no confirmation dialog is displayed, and the termination or force-logout proceeds immediately. As a minor safety check, though, escapepod does check to make sure the Command key is down just before hit executes a force-logout (in case you meant to hit just Control-Option-Delete). If you want escapepod running all of the time because you can't predict when you will need to un-hang your system, you can add it to your Login items in System Preferences, after which it will be launched automatically every time you log in, so it will always be running when you need it. escapepod is just an application, so it cannot cause conflicts or other system-wide problems. However, should you want to get rid of it, simply drag the escapepod application into the trash, and log out and then back in again. If you added it to your Login items, you will want to remove it there as well. If you would like to quit escapepod, you need to use the Process Viewer application because escapepod does not present a user interface. escapepod seems to work fine on my iBook, and is a quick and slick way to quit applications even if they aren't misbehaving.
New in version 1.0.0d3
escapepod is freeware
For more information, visit:
oops! Hard drive defragmentation not necessary in OS X From Wilbur Pan Hi Charles, In your latest OS X Odyssey you talk about defragmenting your hard drive, as you have in the past. I recently came across an explanation of why defragging in Linux is unnecessary, and it appears to me that since OS X is also a multi-tasking, multi-threaded OS, defragging would also be unnecessary in OS X as well. The explanation is here:
Do I need to defrag the HD in Linux? If yes, how?
It's rather long, and should be formatted in a monospace font to make the text graphics come out right.
The bottom line is that in a multi-tasking/threaded OS, you don't need to defragment the file because the OS can reorder the disk accesses so that the data is read sequentially and then reordered appropriately. This is certainly true for Linux, and I believe that this is also the case in OS X. Does this mean that a highly fragmented disk will be as fast as a fully defragged and optimized disk? No -- but it does mean that the impact that fragmentation has on a multitasking/threaded OS will be greatly reduced -- so much so that some people think that the time it takes for defragging/optimizing is not worthwhile, especially if you consider that you may crash your drive by doing so. See this article in TidBITs:
My personal experience bears this out. On my iMac, I have been importing CD's into iTunes, then deleting the mp3 files and importing new ones in the 6 months that I have had the iMac. I have a lot of CD's, so I have managed to constantly use all but ~7 GB out of my 80 GB hard drive. I have not noticed any degradation on the hard disk performance of my iMac, even though I am positive that my data is fragmented all over the place. On my other computer, which is a non-Apple laptop running Linux, I have the same experience regarding hard drive performance, as I have been transferring mp3's from my iMac to my Linux laptop, erasing them, and replacing them with new mp3's. Back when I used to use Windows, defragging definitely improved hard drive performance. I'm glad I'm now using operating systems that don't require this bit of maintenance. Wilbur Pan
Hi Wilbur;
Thanks for the forward and link. It pretty much confirms what I suspected and inferred from empirical observation. Defragging probably speeds things up a tiny bit, but hardly enough to make the time and effort worthwhile.
Charles David Meyer Charles, My most recent message should have contained an example of a tag that didn't work properly with Safari. I'm pretty sure I included it in the text, but it didn't display. I can guess why, though. I sent it in html-recognizable form and it was 'interpreted' - except there was no 'tag content' to show. Oh, well. I should have known better. If you want to see the tag that SHOULD have been referenced in action, go to http://www.stagepage.info/ofnote/_actors_acting.html and, near the bottom of the page, "hover" over one of the four or so archived pages. IE and Netscape 7.x should pop up some text and Safari, in my experience, will just sit there. Others?
Dave Meyer - who really should know better than to include an obvious tag rather than a textual approximation.
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
Page: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 |
| ||||
|
| ||||||
