Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

slooksterPSV

macrumors 68040
Apr 17, 2004
3,543
305
Nowheresville
HiRez said:
I like this but also I'd like the ability to restrict network processes to a certain % for a certain process under certain condition. For example, let's say I'm doing a few big downloads using Safari, Unison, or Software Update. If there's no other network activity, then use 100% of the pipe for them. But, if I'm running World of Warcraft, always give WoW at least 75% and give it priority. I've gotten killed in WoW before because something like the ESPN baseball scoreboard page picks a bad time to autorefresh in the background.

There's one for Windoze, but its licenses are like $50 a single. I wish they had one for mac or windoze, cause the downloading I do, I would only like to use about 50% of the speed of the internet. The only bad thing right now is we're on dial-up and I'm tunneling through a proxy. But that kind of a program I could see a lot of users going and downloading.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,776
15
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
MarkCollette said:
But can you copy and paste that to a terminal or email?

I thought there used to be some way to click this icon and make it draggable by holding some button -- like you can drag a file from finder into terminal and have its path appear at the caret automatically. I thought that there used to be a way to do this with any window that has the file/dir icon next to the filename (i.e. a textedit window or a finder window). But now I can't seem to find a key combination that does that. :(
 

slooksterPSV

macrumors 68040
Apr 17, 2004
3,543
305
Nowheresville
mkrishnan said:
I thought there used to be some way to click this icon and make it draggable by holding some button -- like you can drag a file from finder into terminal and have its path appear at the caret automatically. I thought that there used to be a way to do this with any window that has the file/dir icon next to the filename (i.e. a textedit window or a finder window). But now I can't seem to find a key combination that does that. :(
You can drag and drop the file in Terminal and it will give you the whole location to it, and it should work with every file. You don't need to hold down a key. Then again I'm not sure what you're looking for.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,776
15
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
slooksterPSV said:
You can drag and drop the file in Terminal and it will give you the whole location to it, and it should work with every file. You don't need to hold down a key. Then again I'm not sure what you're looking for.

I thought there used to be a way to drag the icon that's in the window *title bar* to another application.

EDIT: Ooooh, found it. For some reason, I could've sworn I tried this the first time, and it didn't work.

If you click on the icon at the top of the Finder window (in the title bar) while holding down Apple-Option, you can drop it in Terminal to get the path, or you can drop it in Finder to create an alias, etc. The same technique works in other applications too (you can do this with the document icon in the titlebar of TextEdit). But it's touchy -- sometimes when I click, it doesn't work. And it also appears to have some quirks on my computer. Normally, while dragging, you can hot corner to hit up Exposé, but in this case, I don't seem to be able to. You can also drag it to the relevant dock icon, though.
 

MarkCollette

macrumors 68000
Mar 6, 2003
1,559
36
Toronto, Canada
Can you do it by clicking Command-C and Command-V ?

On Windows, at work, I find it a lot easier to select the file path, click Control-C, and just put the text insertion point wherever I want and press Control-V. That's a lot easier than trying to drag the file's icon around. Plus, on Windows, that would just do something wierd like embed the whole file, and not put the file path.

I haven't tried this kind of thing on my iBook at work, because there seems to be no way to do it easily.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,776
15
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
You can for files that show up in Finder, but not, AFAIK, for the icon in the titlebar. If you can highlight the file in finder, you can hit Apple-C and then Apple-V it into Terminal. In an application that understands embedded objects, though, it will probably try to paste it, just like in Windows.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,004
0
RichardFASmith said:
Another possibility is built in virus protection software.
It might be a good idea now since we are now switching to x86 processors. :(
 

JFreak

macrumors 68040
Jul 11, 2003
3,151
9
Tampere, Finland
intel processor is not equal to virus problem. windows is. there are plenty of intel-powered linux servers that are not affected to virii but only a handful of network worms, so therefore there is not a single reason why intel-powered macintoshes would somehow inherit the virus problem that is nonexistent on ppc-powered macintoshes.

windows equals virus problem, period.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,004
0
JFreak said:
intel processor is not equal to virus problem. windows is. there are plenty of intel-powered linux servers that are not affected to virii but only a handful of network worms, so therefore there is not a single reason why intel-powered macintoshes would somehow inherit the virus problem that is nonexistent on ppc-powered macintoshes.

windows equals virus problem, period.
I read somewhere in a thread (although I looked hard and couldn't find it) that x86 processor individual software processes can control each other. Because of this a virus can easily be written for any OS if the processor is an x86. I don't know how factual this is, but if it is true it is very sad for us Mac users because we will be vulnerable to viruses.
 

NicP

macrumors 6502
Jun 14, 2005
481
0
GodBless said:
I read somewhere in a thread (although I looked hard and couldn't find it) that x86 processor individual software processes can control each other. Because of this a virus can easily be written for any OS if the processor is an x86. I don't know how factual this is, but if it is true it is very sad for us Mac users because we will be vulnerable to viruses.

dont believe it, its made up
 

rand()

macrumors regular
Jul 15, 2004
151
0
Michigan
GodBless said:
I read somewhere in a thread (although I looked hard and couldn't find it) that x86 processor individual software processes can control each other. Because of this a virus can easily be written for any OS if the processor is an x86. I don't know how factual this is, but if it is true it is very sad for us Mac users because we will be vulnerable to viruses.

I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies... - Green Day

How's the virus going to get running is the real question. Sure, once an x86 virus (at least one that's written in true assembler or very low-level C) is running, it could wreak havoc on any system running Intel.

Windows has virus problems because there are multiple (and fairly obvious) holes in Internet Explorer that allow viruses to get to the processor. This is a prime concern, because IE's engine is built into the core OS, and used by tons of applications (Explorer, Outlook, Outlook Express, Kazaa in its web panel, etc.). It's so integrated that you practically can't not be running it in some fashion or another.

OS X doesn't suffer from the exact same vulnerabilities as Windows. That's not to say that it suffers from no vulnerabilities - it does. But it carries none of the typical backdoors that viruses take advantage of on a Windows system.

An additional advantage of OS X is its Unix foundation. The applications that you are running at any given time belong to only you, which means that any code run because of a vulnerability in those programs still only has your priveleges (SP?). Essentially, this means that a virus could delete your home directory files (suck) or create a bunch of popups (double suck) but it literally can't touch your system files, or other applications without gaining root privs. Most viruses lose there "Ha Ha, U R 0wn3D!" luster when they have to popup password boxes.

Hopefully that clears some stuff up. You won't be catching Windows viruses for a while, at least.

-rand()
 

michaelrjohnson

macrumors 68020
Aug 9, 2000
2,180
5
53132
I feel because of the switch to Intel, a few years down the road Apple will have a greater adoption rate of their OS and hardware (at least, I bet that's what they're hoping for). And because of increased popularity, Mac OS X is almost guaranteed to become a more susceptible *target* for virii. Whether its OS or hardware based, we will be targeted more, and we will all need to use virus protection software within 3 years.

(mark my words) ;)
 

weldon

macrumors 6502a
May 22, 2004
642
0
Denver, CO
There is a potential security vulnerability in the hyperthreaded Intel CPU's where a thread can access the memory available to a thread running concurrently on the same CPU. That's not quite the same as "x86 processor individual software processes can control each other" but it is a potential problem. Of course, Intel is aware of the issue and I would expect that it will be addressed in future dual-core HT CPU's, which Apple will use in their machines.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,004
0
michaelrjohnson said:
we will all need to use virus protection software within 3 years.

(mark my words) ;)
I don't think that we will need 3rd party virus protection software because with Mac OS 9 viruses were barely possible since Apple did all they could to prevent them. OS X pretty much eliminated the chance of ever getting viruses. If we ever do see a virus Apple will do all they can to prevent them again. Apple isn't like Microsoft. They make their systems secure.
 

iMacZealot

macrumors 68020
Mar 11, 2005
2,237
3
In my opionion, there isn't really much to change. I'm a happy Mac OS 10 user. Wait, I have a few suggestions:

1. I assume 10.5 will still be available for the PowerPC. I won't be happy if it's Intel only.
2. Something I've wanted to be incorporated into Mac OS 10 that was in System 9.x for so long. I would love to program the function keys to open certain things such as applications or documents. What's the point of having 16 function keys when all you're going to really use is F9, (Expose) F10, (Expose) F11, (Expose) and F12? (Dashboard) Sure, you have the dock, but you can't fit everything on the Dock.
3. It would be nice to keep Aqua, but add in a few more colors. Instead of just having Blue and Graphite as the main theme for the computer, the user could maybe choose shades of lime, lavendar, or perhaps red. I might be able to make some Aqua buttons in those shades, but I can't do that at the moment.
4. It would be fantastic to have invisible mode in iChat, ala AIM 5.9 for Windows. Otherwise, iChat is perfect.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,004
0
iMacZealot said:
In my opionion, there isn't really much to change. I'm a happy Mac OS 10 user. Wait, I have a few suggestions:

1. I assume 10.5 will still be available for the PowerPC. I won't be happy if it's Intel only.
Yeah I hope it will be too.

iMacZealot said:
2. Something I've wanted to be incorporated into Mac OS 10 that was in System 9.x for so long. I would love to program the function keys to open certain things such as applications or documents. What's the point of having 16 function keys when all you're going to really use is F9, (Expose) F10, (Expose) F11, (Expose) and F12? (Dashboard) Sure, you have the dock, but you can't fit everything on the Dock.
This would be really cool. The only good software to do this now is QuicKeys X3 and it is pretty expensive at about $100.

iMacZealot said:
3. It would be nice to keep Aqua, but add in a few more colors. Instead of just having Blue and Graphite as the main theme for the computer, the user could maybe choose shades of lime, lavendar, or perhaps red. I might be able to make some Aqua buttons in those shades, but I can't do that at the moment.
Yes. A choice of colorful loading bars and scroll bars would be cool. That is only if the Apple in the corner stays one color at a time (Please no OS 9 rainbow Apple!).

iMacZealot said:
4. It would be fantastic to have invisible mode in iChat, ala AIM 5.9 for Windows. Otherwise, iChat is perfect.
I haven't heard of invisible chatting before. Would you like to elaborate?
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,004
0
iMacZealot said:
Main Computer: iMac G5 Rev.2 2.0 GHz 256 MB RAM 17" Superdrive Mac OS 10.4.1
Other computer: iMac G3 Snow (Summer 2001) 500 MHz 128 MB RAM CD-RW Mac OS 9.2.1 & 10.3.9

Man your computers could be running a lot faster if you upgraded their ram to at least 512 megs. Plus you could run Tiger on your second system. Ever considered a ram upgrade? :confused:
 

iMacZealot

macrumors 68020
Mar 11, 2005
2,237
3
GodBless said:
Man your computers could be running a lot faster if you upgraded their ram to at least 512 megs. Plus you could run Tiger on your second system. Ever considered a ram upgrade? :confused:

Oops, I thought I said 512 MB RAM for the G5. It has 512, and runs great.

As for the G3, I don't use it too much, unless if I want to be nostalgic and run Mac OS 9. I wouldn't care to upgrade it to Tiger or a RAM boost, simply because I'm selling it at the end of the summer.
 

iMacZealot

macrumors 68020
Mar 11, 2005
2,237
3
GodBless said:
I haven't heard of invisible chatting before. Would you like to elaborate?

Invisible Chatting was created in AIM 5.5 (I think) for Windows. You would be online and could talk to people, but to them, it says you're offline. So, if you're mad or annoyed at someone and you don't want to talk to them, but you still want to talk to other people, you could go in Invisible Mode and it would mark you offline to everybody. Invisible Mode also elimates the use of Spy Screen Names. It's a very useful tool.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 22, 2005
1,004
0
iMacZealot said:
Invisible Chatting was created in AIM 5.5 (I think) for Windows. You would be online and could talk to people, but to them, it says you're offline. So, if you're mad or annoyed at someone and you don't want to talk to them, but you still want to talk to other people, you could go in Invisible Mode and it would mark you offline to everybody. Invisible Mode also elimates the use of Spy Screen Names. It's a very useful tool.
That is a good feature. I wonder why Apple hasn't imitated it yet.
 

iMacZealot

macrumors 68020
Mar 11, 2005
2,237
3
TreeHugger said:
not gonna happen :)

Yeah, the nagging about .mac won't end.

However, .Mac can be very useful. I got it and ditched my AOL plan, and I saved $200, plus it comes with so many things! It was better, though, when it was iTools, simply because it was free, but it's still a good value for $100 none the less.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.