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."
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.
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 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.
Letters sent may be published at our discretion. Email addresses will
not be published unless requested. If you prefer that your message
not be published, mark it "not for publication." Letters may be
edited for length, context, and to match house
style.
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.
Apple's eMate still a great tool in the classroom, Tommy Thomas, Welcome to Macintosh, 05.09.
How one teacher equipped his classroom with eMates with his own money - and plans to keep using them as long as possible.
Best Power Mac G4 deals, Low End Mac Deals, 05.09.
Used Cube, $479; 400 MHz PCI, $70; 450 AGP, $105; 733 DA, $150; 867 QS, $200; 1 GHz, $250; 450 dual, $295; 1 GHz dual, $400; 1.42, $600; more.
Best 15" MacBook Pro deals, Low End Mac Deals, 05.09.
Used 1.83 GHz Core Duo, $1,100; 2.16, $1,295; refurb, 2.2 Core2, $1,449; 2.4 Penryn, $1,699; 2.5, $2,149; new 2.2, $1,525 after rebate; 2.4, $1,685 a/r; more.
140 million copies of Vista sold (yawn), Frank Fox, Stop the Noiz, 05.09.
It sounds like a lot, but over 85% of Windows users are staying away from Vista. 20% of Mac users have embraced Leopard in one-third the time.
Mac of the Day: Macintosh LC, Oct. 1990 - only 3" tall, the LC was the least expensive color Mac in 1990.
List of the Day: Jaguar List is for anyone using Mac OS X 10.2.x.
May 12 in LEM history: 99: Is Apple missing the boat? - 00: PowerBook history - Frankenstein Power Mac - 03: Beige Power Mac G3 - Is a 5400 worth buying? - Upgrades for the tray-loading iMac - Quiet computing - 04: Windows stability: Nothing changes - Broadband Internet access: Picking the right speed - 06: The future of PowerPC Macs in the Intel era - Setting up a 68040-based Mac media center - Mac mini Core Duo upgrades
Why one Mac user chose BlackBerry over iPhone, Andrew J Fishkin, Best Tools for the Job, 05.08.
The advantages of OS X, Safari, Mail, and iSync don't outweigh the familiarity of BlackBerry, its excellent software, easily replaceable batteries, and a camera-free option.
Best Intel iMac deals, Low End Mac Deals, 05.08.
Used 17" 1.83 GHz, $699; 20" 2.16 Core2, $885; refurb 20" 2.16, $949; 2.4, $1,099; 24" 2.16, $1,199; 2.4, $1,399; 2.8, $1,599; Penryn from $1,049 after rebate.
Best 17" PowerBook G4 deals, Low End Mac Deals, 05.08.
Used 17" 1 GHz, $790; 1.33 GHz, $850; 1.5 GHz, $859; 1.67 GHz, $889.
Best Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard' deals, Low End Mac Deals, 05.08.
Mac OS X 10.5.1 single user, $99; 5 users, $139; 10.5 Server, 10 users, $450; unlimited, $899.
Our advertising is handled by BackBeat Media. For detailed
price quotes and advertising information, please
contactat BackBeat Media (646-546-5194). This number
is for advertising only.