From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I recently bit the bullet and loaded OS X Tiger 10.4.3 (updated to
10.4.6) on a Mac PowerPC G4 duo 450 MHz with two HD's: Quantum 30 gig
and Seagate 120 gig. Printer is HP Deskjet 1220c with updated driver.
The first time I made a mistake by formatting the Quantum as Mac OSX
extended Journaled Case-sensitive through the Disk utility.
The second time, I partitioned the 30 Gig Quantum to provide 10 Gigs exclusively for Classice, and I named it "Classic". Well, the System Preferences Classic window reports that I don't have a version of Mac
OS 9 installed that supports Classic. "Classic cannot find a Mac OS 9
system folder on the startup disk to use. I re-installed it using my
original G4 OS9 System disks with no results. There is, in fact one
there that was loaded from the Tiger disks, and I'm wondering if the
"Classic" partition is confusing the finder.
My new Quark 6.5 and Adobe CS2 programs are not liking Tiger and
Photoshop gives me the following error message when opening any file:
"Could not complete your request because of a program error."
Other error messages include:
while printing a pdf..."document could not be printed"
printing from preview...no pages from the document were selected to be
printed
Suitcase Fusion keeps asking for the serial number and won't work.
Suitcase Fusion application"
· Error: Spelling Service.Framework when printing Quark 6.5 to HP
1220c.
· "The Finder cannot complete the operation because some data in
"alexa" could not be read or written. (Error code -36).
HP Deskjet 1220c printed a page from a website through Safari, but
hasn't printed since, and only gives the following mesage: Error while printing. Preview and pdf pages also won't print. New driver downloaded
from HP and installed. No help.
Adobe Acrobat: "The document could not be printed."
While opening Quark 6.5:
Quark 6.1 Unknown error. [-30871]
Quark 6.1 Unknown error. [-50]
While registering Quark 6.5: "The Suitcase Fusion plug-in could not
locate a
running copy of the Suitcase Fusion application"
When I opened a native document: · Error: Spelling Service.Framework
when printing Quark 6.5 to HP Deskjet 1220c.
PhotoShop: (while trying to open a .jpeg file:
"Could not complete your request because of a program error."
PhotoShop: Occassionally all pull down menu items are grayed out.
Adobe Help Center, regarding a program that was installed from CS2
disks: "The topic you want to view applies to a CS2 product you have
not installed"
Now, here the all time Classic mistake:
Lost all data on internal 120 Gig AND firewire 120 Gig backup. Why?
Thinking that I safely "drag & drop" copied some files to the internal
120 Gig drive, I trashed the entire contents of the backup drive. I am
now locked out of my internal 120 Gig drive, because I dragged &
dropped the desktop files, and now the index is screwed up. Result: I
no longer have any of my OS9 Applications or Client files.
I ordered a new G4 Powerbook to try and get some work done, but I'll
attempt to restore both drives using ProSoft Data Rescue II.
Now here's the question:
Why can't I run Classic, and what did I do to cause all the other
software to "punk out" on me?
Johnny Y'sthishapnintome
parkhurst@optonline.net
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1145500277.378249.296750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Nightrain <Parkhurst@optonline.net> wrote:

Why can't I run Classic,

What version of OS 9? OS X needs 9.1 at minimum, and 9.2.2 is the best.

and what did I do to cause all the other
software to "punk out" on me?

How much RAM, and how much free disk space? I'm guessing the answer to
both questions is "not much"...
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1145500277.378249.296750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Nightrain" <Parkhurst@optonline.net> wrote:

The first time I made a mistake by formatting the Quantum as Mac OSX
extended Journaled Case-sensitive through the Disk utility.

What's Case-sensitive? Why is this a mistake? I'd thought extended journaled was
the best format.

--
John Rethorst
jrethorst at post dot com
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Hi Dave,

Why can't I run Classic,

"What version of OS 9? OS X needs 9.1 at minimum, and 9.2.2 is the
best. "

and what did I do to cause all the other
software to "punk out" on me?

Mac OS 9.2.2 on the Classic volume
Tried re-installing 9.0.4, but not yet updated to 9.1

"How much RAM, and how much free disk space? I'm guessing the answer to

both questions is "not much"... "

Ram: 640
Free Space: 6 Gigs on the main hard drive partition.
Free space: 17 Gigs on the "Classic" partition.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-20, John Rethorst <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:

In article <1145500277.378249.296750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Nightrain" <Parkhurst@optonline.net> wrote:

The first time I made a mistake by formatting the Quantum as Mac OSX
extended Journaled Case-sensitive through the Disk utility.

What's Case-sensitive?

It means that File1 and file1 can coexist as two distinct files
on the filesystem.

Why is this a mistake?

It isn't a mistake if it is what you want but you should be aware
that certain things that work with the default Mac OS X file system
may break with a case-sensitive filesystem (and other things which
don't work using the default filesystem may be fixed by using a
case-sensitive filesystem).

I'd thought extended journaled was the best format.

Journaling is good - particularly in the event of a power failure.

Ian


--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

John Rethorst <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote:

In article <1145500277.378249.296750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Nightrain" <Parkhurst@optonline.net> wrote:

The first time I made a mistake by formatting the Quantum as Mac OSX extended Journaled Case-sensitive through the Disk utility.

What's Case-sensitive? Why is this a mistake? I'd thought extended
journaled was the best format.

Case-sensitive is what it says: The file system will see the difference
between ThisFile and thisfile and tHISfILE, which the Mac has always
considered to be variants of the same name, but which most unix variants
do not - they see totally different names. For backward (Mac)
compatibility, stick with non-case-sensitive unless you know you need it
and how to deal with it.

As for HFS+ Journaled, it is indeed A Good Thing (tm). Use it.
--
/Jon
For mail address, run the following in Terminal:
echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: storhaugen
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1he3d30.1v0r4gx1ai5kp3N%see_signature@mac.com.invalid>,
see_signature@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:

Case-sensitive is what it says: The file system will see the difference between ThisFile and thisfile and tHISfILE, which the Mac has always considered to be variants of the same name, but which most unix variants
do not - they see totally different names. For backward (Mac)
compatibility, stick with non-case-sensitive unless you know you need it
and how to deal with it.

Perhaps Jon or someone else can clear this up for me. In previous posts
to this group, perhaps a year ago, someone said that HFS+ is NOT case-sensitive; it is case-respective (or respecting, if that's the
proper word). Meaning, if you do a case-sensitive find, the system will
find the proper file and not return spurious results with mixed upper-
and lower-case variant. However, if you have files such as ThisFile, thisfile, and tHISfILE in the same Enclosing Folder, you're asking for
trouble because there are system operations which can't tell the
difference between the three files. The system may, depending on what
function is called, see three files with EXACTLY the same path.

Is this all Mac urban legend or what?

--Fred
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <fmoore-F679C5.12020520042006@network-065-024-007-028.columbus.rr.com>,
Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

In article <1he3d30.1v0r4gx1ai5kp3N%see_signature@mac.com.invalid>,
see_signature@mac.com.invalid (Jon) wrote:

Case-sensitive is what it says: The file system will see the difference between ThisFile and thisfile and tHISfILE, which the Mac has always considered to be variants of the same name, but which most unix variants
do not - they see totally different names. For backward (Mac) compatibility, stick with non-case-sensitive unless you know you need it and how to deal with it.

Perhaps Jon or someone else can clear this up for me. In previous posts
to this group, perhaps a year ago, someone said that HFS+ is NOT case-sensitive; it is case-respective (or respecting, if that's the
proper word). Meaning, if you do a case-sensitive find, the system will
find the proper file and not return spurious results with mixed upper-
and lower-case variant. However, if you have files such as ThisFile, thisfile, and tHISfILE in the same Enclosing Folder, you're asking for trouble because there are system operations which can't tell the
difference between the three files. The system may, depending on what function is called, see three files with EXACTLY the same path.

Is this all Mac urban legend or what?

HFS+ is case preserving, meaning that it will retain the case of
filenames as they are originally defined. By default, HFS+ not case sensitive, meaning that "ThisFile" and "thisfile" are the same name and
two such named files cannot exist in the same folder.

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-20, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

Perhaps Jon or someone else can clear this up for me. In previous posts
to this group, perhaps a year ago, someone said that HFS+ is NOT case-sensitive; it is case-respective (or respecting, if that's the
proper word).

Case-preserving is how I have heard it described.

Is this all Mac urban legend or what?

Prior to 10.3 server, if you wanted a case-sensitive filesystem
you had to use UFS. With 10.3 server a new variant of HFS was
introduced that is case-sensitive - it is still not the default
though, and should probably not be used for boot volumes.

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113