Simple questions about os x

[mkrishnan]

Do I have some sort of preference setting wrong? What am I doing wrong?

Are you trying to view a demo on their computers or on your computer? I'm confused. If you can't view the demo on their computers, you should ask for help at the store.

Or are you talking about the tour in the OS X Leopard page at Apple.com (here)? If you're talking about the latter, the pop-up window should have some text and things on the left, and an embedded Quicktime feed on the right, like this:

As far as I can see, the pop-up uses "Web 2.0" techniques and not Flash, so this shouldn't be a Flash issue. Do you see neither, or do you see the text but not the QT feed? What browser are you using?

 

[vonzoog]

Your picture is the page I am talking about.

I get the white page with information on the left side. It also give you the option to "learn more" and "see all features". I get the "play or pause" bar along the bottom. As the circle on the bar moves left to right I can hear the audio. The problem is that I get a blank white page. No video at all.

It doesn't matter which demo I try to watch, same thing, audio with no video. I'm assuming that I must have something set wrong, but I have no idea why it does not work.

Any help would be appreciated.

Sorry. I forgot to add that I am using Safari 2.0.4.

 

[mkrishnan]

Okay, so you're using a relatively recent version of Quicktime, too, right? The most common cause for the problem you're describing is installing too many conflicting codecs -- i.e. one of them thinks it can display this movie and takes over, but it has no idea what it's doing! 😱

What you should do next is open up the folder /library/quicktime (this is in the library folder inside the root of your Macintosh HD) and also the ~/library/quicktime if you have it (this would be in the library folder inside your HOME folder -- the one with your user name on it).

Between the two locations, do you have anything that isn't shown in the screenshot below? If so, what?

 

[vonzoog]

I only have the first one in your picture.

The "Appleintermediatecode.component.

Should I upgrade to Safari 3?

 

[mkrishnan]

Hmmm, okay...

(1) You wouldn't need any of the other stuff in my picture just to view the Apple site. Just wanted to make sure you didn't have anything else that might mess stuff up.

(2) Safari 3 is wonderful but should also not be required. Your QT should be fine unless it's very old.

Try the advice here:

http://themacguy-blog.blogspot.com/2007/05/quicktime-content-not-displaying-in.html

 

[vonzoog]

Thanks Mohon, I will start trying those suggestions.

I thought that Safari was part of my OS X and would upgrade along with all of the other updates and upgrade that I have set to automatic downloads. Should I go ahead and upgrade to Safari 3? I just assumed that I already had the latest version of Safari.

 

[mkrishnan]

I thought that Safari was part of my OS X and would upgrade along with all of the other updates and upgrade that I have set to automatic downloads. Should I go ahead and upgrade to Safari 3? I just assumed that I already had the latest version of Safari.

Safari 3 is actually a beta release. That's why it didn't automatically install with the software updates. Safari 3 is expected to go final release when Leopard comes out. However, it's quite stable and usable, at least in my experience. It has some minor, but nice upgrades from Safari 2.

Anyway, go ahead and try deleting those plist files -- one easy / safe way to do this is to close Safari, use spotlight to find them, and then drag them onto the desktop. This way you can put files back if you make a mistake. After you drag them to the desktop, restart Safari and try the site. 🙂

 

[vonzoog]

Thanks again Mohan.

Okay I will start my homework assignment now and let you know later how it turns out.🙂

 

[vonzoog]

Thanks Mohan,

I must have done my homework well.

It now works.😀

Thanks again and it is support like this that makes my new life with Mac better.

 

[penter]

Most applications in OSX are removed by simply dragging the app's icon from the Applications folder to the trash and emptying the trash.

There can be some residual files, most of them are a few KB in size and unlike Windows they have no effect on the system performance if left alone. There is no Regsitry in OSX, programs are, for all intents and purposes, self-contained. That icon you see in the Applications folder isn't just a launcher but a folder containing all the resources for that program.

The only files created by a program outside this self-contained folder are preference files that tell the program where you want the window, how you've set up your bookmarks etc. The plist file for a program is only called upon by that program, it has no effect on the system as a whole.

So, in summary, the best way to delete a program is to just drag it into the trash and empty the trash. None of that dll and registry problems from Windows here.

If you want to save space you can choose, when you get your Mac to do a clean install of the system and you can customise this install to exclude languages you don't speak, printer drivers you won't use and any programs you see as superfluous. It's not necessary though as the OS won't get bogged down with lots of programs installed as they are all self-contained but it can save you a good deal of space.

I already knew of all that, but what about Adobe Creative Suite?
Why does it seem to me like any of their stuff leaves hundreds, maybe thousands of files all over the computer?!?!
It kind of bothers me, especially when i want to completely remove the adobe applications....

 

[richard.mac]

to remove adobe suite applications you have to use a script which you can find on adobe's site.

 

[gbCreative]

As Chris said. Just ignore it. It's normal. It happened in Windows also, you just didn't know it did. The file is 1025 bytes or whatever the actual file size is. When it gets transfered from one computer to another, it is still transferred as 1025 bytes. It occupies 4kb of disk space.

It isn't a new problem -- it's that you don't understand how filesystems work.

It's a tradeoff -- you can design the filesystem so that files can occupy just one byte on the hard drive, but such a design becomes very inefficient for most uses. The 4kb is a tradeoff that generally works pretty well.

I have come across this same problem and have some issues outside of what I have found discussed here. For certain websites they require you to have a file that is under 3K to upload for their site. Everything is automated and when it reads a 4K file it won't accept it. It either won't take it in the browser stage to upload or you upload and then get a rejection later on. If the file is actually under 3K, but reads 4K, how can it be uploaded to a site like this?

My client has tried 4 times and it hasn't been accepted b/c it "thinks" it is 4K.🙁