My battery problems seem to be related to 10.3.6. I downloaded and installed the combo package. It didn't help. The battery still gets down to about 94% and then suddenly drops to 0%. BTW, I checked permissions with Disk Utility before and after installing.
I downloaded the 10.3.5 combo package and tried to install it. It said it couldn't install, probably because I already had 10.3.6 installed.
Several people have suggested going back to 10.3.5, but nobody has indicated how this is done!!! What's the trick?
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:23:45 +0000, Robert Peirce wrote:
My battery problems seem to be related to 10.3.6. I downloaded and installed the combo package. It didn't help. The battery still gets down to about 94% and then suddenly drops to 0%. BTW, I checked permissions with Disk Utility before and after installing.
I downloaded the 10.3.5 combo package and tried to install it. It said it couldn't install, probably because I already had 10.3.6 installed.
Several people have suggested going back to 10.3.5, but nobody has indicated how this is done!!! What's the trick?
Go back to Panther (10.3) first. Choose the 'archive and install' option in the Panther installer. Once that is done you can run the Combo 10.3.5 updater and you'll have 10.3.5 installed. You can selectively run other updaters (avoiding 10.3.6 which caused you trouble in the first place). There will presumably be a security update or two to run plus at least one of the Java updates that came out in August. (Remember to do permissions repair before and after these installs to be on the safe side.)
So, 'archive and install' (from Panther) should do the trick.
In article bob-9D674F.11184012112004@redacted.invalid, Robert Peirce bob@redacted.invalid wrote:
My battery problems seem to be related to 10.3.6. I downloaded and installed the combo package. It didn't help. The battery still gets down to about 94% and then suddenly drops to 0%. BTW, I checked permissions with Disk Utility before and after installing.
I downloaded the 10.3.5 combo package and tried to install it. It said it couldn't install, probably because I already had 10.3.6 installed.
Several people have suggested going back to 10.3.5, but nobody has indicated how this is done!!! What's the trick?
The combo package is an updater for versions prior to 10.3.5. You need to reinstall Panther from whatever system disks you have - you will need to do an "archive and install". Then you apply the combo upgrade to the newly installed system.
Cathy
In article bob-9D674F.11184012112004@redacted.invalid, Robert Peirce bob@redacted.invalid wrote:
My battery problems seem to be related to 10.3.6.
In all the dozens of threads you've spawned over this issue, I've never once seen a response to the suggestion that you reset the PMU (Power Management Unit). Have you done this? The behavior you describe doesn't sound likely to be solved by a simple downgrade, though anything is possible.
Do yourself a favor and try all avenues before deciding to go through the hassle of downgrading! Instructions for resetting the PMU can be found at:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=14449
In article bob-9D674F.11184012112004@redacted.invalid, Robert Peirce bob@redacted.invalid wrote:
My battery problems seem to be related to 10.3.6. I downloaded and installed the combo package. It didn't help. The battery still gets down to about 94% and then suddenly drops to 0%. BTW, I checked permissions with Disk Utility before and after installing.
I downloaded the 10.3.5 combo package and tried to install it. It said it couldn't install, probably because I already had 10.3.6 installed.
Several people have suggested going back to 10.3.5, but nobody has indicated how this is done!!! What's the trick?
You're looking at a lot of work here when it's not clear whether you've
taken the simple step of resetting the Powerbook's power management
unit, which has been suggested at least a couple of times already.
You'll have to go back to your 10.3 install CD and start from there if
you want 10.3.5, but doing that without first resetting the PMU is doing
things the really hard way, wasting time to do something that won't help
anyway if the PMU is the problem.
In article 121120041416296410%thomasareed@redacted.invalid, Thomas Reed thomasareed@redacted.invalid wrote:
In article bob-9D674F.11184012112004@redacted.invalid, Robert Peirce bob@redacted.invalid wrote:
My battery problems seem to be related to 10.3.6.
In all the dozens of threads you've spawned over this issue, I've never once seen a response to the suggestion that you reset the PMU (Power Management Unit). Have you done this? The behavior you describe doesn't sound likely to be solved by a simple downgrade, though anything is possible.
Do yourself a favor and try all avenues before deciding to go through the hassle of downgrading! Instructions for resetting the PMU can be found at:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=14449
Thanks for the lead. That is one thing I have been asking for and up until now nobody has provided.
On 11/12/04 8:16 PM, in article 121120041416296410%thomasareed@redacted.invalid, "Thomas Reed" thomasareed@redacted.invalid wrote:
In article bob-9D674F.11184012112004@redacted.invalid, Robert Peirce bob@redacted.invalid wrote:
My battery problems seem to be related to 10.3.6.
In all the dozens of threads you've spawned over this issue, I've never once seen a response to the suggestion that you reset the PMU (Power Management Unit). Have you done this? The behavior you describe doesn't sound likely to be solved by a simple downgrade, though anything is possible.
Do yourself a favor and try all avenues before deciding to go through the hassle of downgrading! Instructions for resetting the PMU can be found at:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=14449
-- Why is it that people don't have two volumes on the Computers. AT LEAST. 60-100GB as one volume is ridiculous. I have 10.3.6, 10.3.5, 10.3, and 10.2.8 on various volumes.
Good argument for partitioning.
ej
In article 121120041416296410%thomasareed@redacted.invalid, Thomas Reed thomasareed@redacted.invalid wrote:
In article bob-9D674F.11184012112004@redacted.invalid, Robert Peirce bob@redacted.invalid wrote:
My battery problems seem to be related to 10.3.6.
Do yourself a favor and try all avenues before deciding to go through the hassle of downgrading! Instructions for resetting the PMU can be found at:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=14449
Darn!! I really thought I had it. Several people suggested resetting the PMU, but you were the only one to tell me how to do it. And it seemed to help. Thank you for that.
Prior to resetting, the battery would reach 93% and then drop to 0% without hitting any intervening levels. It would do this after about 30 minutes, depending on load.
After resetting the PMU I reached 92% and then 91%, but then it dropped to 0% again. Throughout, it kept saying it was calculating the remaining time. It never succeeded in doing this. One good point, it took 52 minutes to die instead of 30.
Again, this is suggesting some kind of software problem to me. However, comments from others suggest I would be better off not trying to go back to 10.3.5 but to wait for Apple to come up with a fix.
Why is it that people don't have two volumes on the Computers. AT LEAST. 60-100GB as one volume is ridiculous. I have 10.3.6, 10.3.5, 10.3, and 10.2.8 on various volumes.
Good argument for partitioning.
at the end when your diks are full, you have 1gig left there, another 1 on this othe volume where you would have 2 gig left without partitioning
yomgui
Here's a new one. Since resetting my PMU, I only get "calculating ... remaining," which I believe is the remaining time. At least the ridiculous 9 hours no longer appears, yet why is it unable to determine the remaining time?
Note: I am refraining from starting yet another thread, and I apologize for having done so with wild abandon in the recent past.
On 11/13/04 8:56 AM, in article 4195BE28.1847BCED@redacted.invalid, "yomgui" not@redacted.invalid wrote:
Why is it that people don't have two volumes on the Computers. AT LEAST. 60-100GB as one volume is ridiculous. I have 10.3.6, 10.3.5, 10.3, and 10.2.8 on various volumes.
Good argument for partitioning.
at the end when your diks are full, you have 1gig left there, another 1 on this othe volume where you would have 2 gig left without partitioning
yomgui
And the practical problems of this are?
eric
"Eric" == Eric Johnson erj66@redacted.invalid writes:
On 11/13/04 8:56 AM, in article 4195BE28.1847BCED@redacted.invalid, "yomgui" not@redacted.invalid wrote:
at the end when your diks are full, you have 1gig left there, another 1 on this othe volume where you would have 2 gig left without partitioning
And the practical problems of this are?
You can't save a 1.1GB file, in spite of having 2GB of free disk space.
On 11/14/04 12:25 AM, in article 864qjtnxgo.fsf@redacted.invalid, "Calle Dybedahl" calle@redacted.invalid wrote:
"Eric" == Eric Johnson erj66@redacted.invalid writes:
On 11/13/04 8:56 AM, in article 4195BE28.1847BCED@redacted.invalid, "yomgui" not@redacted.invalid wrote:
at the end when your diks are full, you have 1gig left there, another 1 on this othe volume where you would have 2 gig left without partitioning
And the practical problems of this are?
You can't save a 1.1GB file, in spite of having 2GB of free disk space.
1 gb files are rare.
a certain small scale redistribution of what is saved where can easily be found.
Weigh this 1.1 GB scenario against the advantage of a secondary start-up volume.
Then say what is the practical problem again.
On 2004-11-14, Eric Johnson erj66@redacted.invalid wrote:
1 gb files are rare.
If you do anything at all with digital video, even something as simple as recording with an EyeTV or similar device, files of this size are very common.
In article 4195BE28.1847BCED@redacted.invalid, yomgui not@redacted.invalid wrote:
Why is it that people don't have two volumes on the Computers. AT LEAST. 60-100GB as one volume is ridiculous. I have 10.3.6, 10.3.5, 10.3, and 10.2.8 on various volumes.
Good argument for partitioning.
at the end when your diks are full, you have 1gig left there, another 1 on this othe volume where you would have 2 gig left without partitioning
yomgui
That is rather misleading. As a resul5 of partitioning, the smallest block size would be smaller so each partition would hold more files than the same number of blocks would hold if unpartitioned.
Cathy
On 2004-11-14, Cathy Stevenson cats1921@redacted.invalid wrote:
In article 4195BE28.1847BCED@redacted.invalid, yomgui not@redacted.invalid wrote:
Why is it that people don't have two volumes on the Computers. AT LEAST. 60-100GB as one volume is ridiculous. I have 10.3.6, 10.3.5, 10.3, and 10.2.8 on various volumes.
Good argument for partitioning.
at the end when your diks are full, you have 1gig left there, another 1 on this othe volume where you would have 2 gig left without partitioning
yomgui
That is rather misleading. As a resul5 of partitioning, the smallest block size would be smaller so each partition would hold more files than the same number of blocks would hold if unpartitioned.
Cathy
Hm. Is that really what you meant to say? Could you possibly quantify it?
-- Peter
Sun, 14 Nov 2004 (18:14 +0100 UTC) Eric Johnson wrote:
On 11/14/04 12:25 AM, in article 864qjtnxgo.fsf@redacted.invalid, "Calle Dybedahl" calle@redacted.invalid wrote:
"Eric" == Eric Johnson erj66@redacted.invalid writes:
On 11/13/04 8:56 AM, in article 4195BE28.1847BCED@redacted.invalid, "yomgui" not@redacted.invalid wrote:
at the end when your diks are full, you have 1gig left there, another 1 on this othe volume where you would have 2 gig left without partitioning
And the practical problems of this are?
You can't save a 1.1GB file, in spite of having 2GB of free disk space.
1 gb files are rare.
a certain small scale redistribution of what is saved where can easily be found.
Weigh this 1.1 GB scenario against the advantage of a secondary start-up volume.
Then say what is the practical problem again.
Since we are talking about portables, we are probably talking about drives with two platters and four heads. If you partition, does OS X divide those partitions so that they each is contiguous on the physical disk?
Whether or not it does, wouldn't your average seek time and latency increase with a partitioned drive? If a partition forces all of one volume to be on platter A side 2, then the chance of the system having to seek across pA2 increases compared to if the data could have been stored on pA1, pA2, pB1, or pB2, doesn't it? What are the other low-level variables that partitioning would "tickle?"
In article bob-849A2D.15535713112004@redacted.invalid, Robert Peirce bob@redacted.invalid wrote:
Here's a new one. Since resetting my PMU, I only get "calculating ... remaining," which I believe is the remaining time. At least the ridiculous 9 hours no longer appears, yet why is it unable to determine the remaining time?
Note: I am refraining from starting yet another thread, and I apologize for having done so with wild abandon in the recent past.
click on the battery icon and switch over to percentage or time remaining.
Karl.
In article 141120041215363630%cats1921@redacted.invalid, Cathy Stevenson cats1921@redacted.invalid wrote:
In article 4195BE28.1847BCED@redacted.invalid, yomgui not@redacted.invalid wrote:
Why is it that people don't have two volumes on the Computers. AT LEAST. 60-100GB as one volume is ridiculous. I have 10.3.6, 10.3.5, 10.3, and 10.2.8 on various volumes.
Good argument for partitioning.
at the end when your diks are full, you have 1gig left there, another 1 on this othe volume where you would have 2 gig left without partitioning
yomgui
That is rather misleading. As a resul5 of partitioning, the smallest block size would be smaller so each partition would hold more files than the same number of blocks would hold if unpartitioned.
...if you're still using HFS, rather than HFS+, or else have mind-bogglingly big disks. On HFS+ the minimum block size is 4kB. I don't know how big the disk has to be before you get above the minimum block size, but it's 4kB on my 200GB drive here. It's safe to say that the issue of block sizes is entirely irrelevant to this thread.
"Karl" <ploessl@redacted.invalid_invalid> wrote in message news:ploessl-DBD510.11573715112004@redacted.invalid
In article bob-849A2D.15535713112004@redacted.invalid, Robert Peirce bob@redacted.invalid wrote:
Here's a new one. Since resetting my PMU, I only get "calculating ... remaining," which I believe is the remaining time. At least the ridiculous 9 hours no longer appears, yet why is it unable to determine the remaining time?
Note: I am refraining from starting yet another thread, and I apologize for having done so with wild abandon in the recent past.
click on the battery icon and switch over to percentage or time remaining.
If I click on time it says it is calculating, but the battery drops to 0% without it ever giving me a time. If I click on %, I get it, but it appears it thinks my battery has about 5 times the capacity it really has, hence the fact that it used to tell me 9 hours.
In article tph-D2D011.10153815112004@redacted.invalid, Tom Harrington tph@redacted.invalid wrote:
In article 141120041215363630%cats1921@redacted.invalid, Cathy Stevenson cats1921@redacted.invalid wrote:
In article 4195BE28.1847BCED@redacted.invalid, yomgui not@redacted.invalid wrote:
Why is it that people don't have two volumes on the Computers. AT LEAST. 60-100GB as one volume is ridiculous. I have 10.3.6, 10.3.5, 10.3, and 10.2.8 on various volumes.
Good argument for partitioning.
at the end when your diks are full, you have 1gig left there, another 1 on this othe volume where you would have 2 gig left without partitioning
yomgui
That is rather misleading. As a resul5 of partitioning, the smallest block size would be smaller so each partition would hold more files than the same number of blocks would hold if unpartitioned.
...if you're still using HFS, rather than HFS+, or else have mind-bogglingly big disks. On HFS+ the minimum block size is 4kB. I don't know how big the disk has to be before you get above the minimum block size, but it's 4kB on my 200GB drive here. It's safe to say that the issue of block sizes is entirely irrelevant to this thread.
Thank you. I surely was still thinking in the world of HFS. 20 lashes with a wet noodle for Cathy.
C.
On 11/14/04 6:27 PM, in article 2vpiriF2o4h7tU1@redacted.invalid, "respower" respower@redacted.invalid wrote:
On 2004-11-14, Eric Johnson erj66@redacted.invalid wrote:
1 gb files are rare.
If you do anything at all with digital video, even something as simple as recording with an EyeTV or similar device, files of this size are very common.
Though I do agree and should have excluded video files, starting a video project on a computer with only 2 gb available is pretty sketchy.
Eric
On 11/15/04 12:33 PM, in article Pine.OSX.4.61.0411150625580.151@redacted.invalid, "Obfus Kataa" vapaa@redacted.invalid wrote:
Sun, 14 Nov 2004 (18:14 +0100 UTC) Eric Johnson wrote:
On 11/14/04 12:25 AM, in article 864qjtnxgo.fsf@redacted.invalid, "Calle Dybedahl" calle@redacted.invalid wrote:
"Eric" == Eric Johnson erj66@redacted.invalid writes:
On 11/13/04 8:56 AM, in article 4195BE28.1847BCED@redacted.invalid, "yomgui" not@redacted.invalid wrote:
at the end when your diks are full, you have 1gig left there, another 1 on this othe volume where you would have 2 gig left without partitioning
And the practical problems of this are?
You can't save a 1.1GB file, in spite of having 2GB of free disk space.
1 gb files are rare.
a certain small scale redistribution of what is saved where can easily be found.
Weigh this 1.1 GB scenario against the advantage of a secondary start-up volume.
Then say what is the practical problem again.
Since we are talking about portables, we are probably talking about drives with two platters and four heads. If you partition, does OS X divide those partitions so that they each is contiguous on the physical disk?
Whether or not it does, wouldn't your average seek time and latency increase with a partitioned drive? If a partition forces all of one volume to be on platter A side 2, then the chance of the system having to seek across pA2 increases compared to if the data could have been stored on pA1, pA2, pB1, or pB2, doesn't it? What are the other low-level variables that partitioning would "tickle?"
I given that partitioning occurs at initialization, It would depend upon how you set the partitioning parameters(eg how many and of what size are the partitions) and how large each platter is.
But the thread is originally about upgrading The OS. If one upgrades only one volume at a time, then it can be easily checked whether or not a problem is software or hardware based-and- if shifting backwards will solve your problem.
Also, partitioning seems even more handy on a portable, as a secondary HDD would not have to be attached to and carried with the portable in case of start-up problems on the main volume.
Eric