Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Donate    Amazon Affiliate

Board index » Technical Help




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 1485
I will try to delete that partition, or else save the other 2 to my new bigger HD and erase / re-partition the whole damn disk!

Another complication you will not believe, it's so fatuous. I managed to restore iTunes 10.7 and all its bits, then authorised the i7 with the iTunes Store so I could play my Apple DRM music. So far so good. No problems. Then I tried to play an audiobook (Audible), and it too wanted the computer to be authorised with Audible. "Ok", I thought, "no sweat", and input my email and password. Rejected as 'invalid' every time, and I tried many times.
I was on the phone to Audible several times, and each time they told me I had to be upgraded to the latest version of iTunes. "No!" I said. "I've been playing my Audible content for years in iTunes 10". This morning I got through to the technical department, and had my old Mac play Audible content in iTunes 10. "See? I don't need to be upgraded." Silence for ages then they came back and told me they were very sorry (and all that) but to authorise the computer (though not necessarily to play content, obviously!) I had to have the latest version of iTunes.
So I guess when I install Sierra in its little partition - sooner rather than later, obviously! - I will also automatically get the latest version of iTunes and will authorise the computer that way. Sheesh. How stupid can they be? Having code that requires the latest version of iTunes to go through the once-only hoop of authorising the computer, even though it's absolutely unnecessary to play the content.

_________________
"If it ain't broke, we can fix it" (© Tim Cook, Jonny Ive)

Core i5 2011 21.5" iMac 12,1 2.5 GHz 12GB RAM OS X 10.9.5


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:27 pm
Posts: 5136
Location: Cumberland
MacBiter wrote:
... save the other 2 to my new bigger HD and erase / re-partition the whole damn disk!


Seems to me by far the simplest damn solution! Not only the simplest, but the best in terms of data integrity. To start fresh on a new disk is much better than cobbling the old one, especially when it's got such problems. It would be my gold star solution if there was an option. There is an option. That's what I'd do anyway.

I don't know why you're so resistant to taking the least stressful and simplest solution - you always seem to want to do things in the most complicated way that you possibly can :? :| :)

:D :D :D :tu:

_________________
......................1952
...............Effie Madge Mabel Biddie
...................See them on the beach
......................Or in New York City

.............Tina Louise & Hazel & Mavis
Can you name, name, name, name them all today
Can you name, name, name, name them all today

......................


Last edited by Leewave on Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 1485
Leewave wrote:
I don't know why you're so resistant to taking the least stressful and simplest solution - you always seem to want to do things in the most complicated way that you possibly can

Except that you suggested both alternatives! Erasing the one partition in DU was a piece of p*** and now TiM is busily encrypting my Mac to the new partition. :) 59GB of 379GB in 2 hours ... it might finish by tomorrow morning :D

_________________
"If it ain't broke, we can fix it" (© Tim Cook, Jonny Ive)

Core i5 2011 21.5" iMac 12,1 2.5 GHz 12GB RAM OS X 10.9.5


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:27 pm
Posts: 5136
Location: Cumberland
Yeah I know! Well I'm glad to hear it has worked, you could do it with Disk Utility and did not need to use Terminal? Well fine. But as you had the option of erasing the whole thing I would've probably gone down that path but that also would have meant you had to make some clones. But anyway, I would have repartitioned the whole thing to have more confidence in the stability of the disk afterwards - but if it's working, it's working - that's great!

Glad to hear of the progress and good news. :D


And as far as the Time Machine backup goes I think you might find it will speed up and will be done well before tomorrow morning. The reason is I think it starts off slowly with all the thousands of small nitty-gritty stuff, and that takes a while with lots and lots and lots of tiny files. Then it moves on to the big things which are just quicker and easier to deal with even though they are larger. There are just less numbers of files to deal with, faster data throughput in the last rds of the backup

It would be interesting to take a note of how much is done on every hour - plot a graph.

_________________
......................1952
...............Effie Madge Mabel Biddie
...................See them on the beach
......................Or in New York City

.............Tina Louise & Hazel & Mavis
Can you name, name, name, name them all today
Can you name, name, name, name them all today

......................


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 1485
Oops, didn't see this in time to make a graph!

However, I can report that it did half the backup first then encrypted that, before doing the other half. And you were right - it finished before bedtime. :) (Oops - it finished the backup, but not encrypting; now carrying on with that...)

Oh, and I got back my custom iTunes EQ settings, but had to restart in order to see them.

_________________
"If it ain't broke, we can fix it" (© Tim Cook, Jonny Ive)

Core i5 2011 21.5" iMac 12,1 2.5 GHz 12GB RAM OS X 10.9.5


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:27 pm
Posts: 5136
Location: Cumberland
So it's nearly a week on since you set it up, what's the verdict, does it perform the way you hoped?
Any unexpected problems or difficulties?

_________________
......................1952
...............Effie Madge Mabel Biddie
...................See them on the beach
......................Or in New York City

.............Tina Louise & Hazel & Mavis
Can you name, name, name, name them all today
Can you name, name, name, name them all today

......................


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 1485
Pretty good! Not quite as fast as I thought it would be for an SSD, except for restarts which are much quicker.

I have noticed something that I had eliminated with the original Mavericks install, but it took ages to hunt down then, and I'm not sure I want to invest that time and energy - basically, with the extra RAM one or two Safari pages swell their RAM consumption to 1GB - 3GB (I just kill them in Activity Monitor), but on one occasion a web page was up to 5GB+ and kernel task was 9GB and virtual memory was 41GB!! I only noticed because everything slowed right down, and Activity Monitor showed amber memory. I killed that Safari process and within a minute, everything was back to normal.

Otherwise, I'd say everything is observably quicker than the other computer, perhaps about as quick as Snow Leopard on that used to be?

_________________
"If it ain't broke, we can fix it" (© Tim Cook, Jonny Ive)

Core i5 2011 21.5" iMac 12,1 2.5 GHz 12GB RAM OS X 10.9.5


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:23 pm
Posts: 788
That Safari thing about grabbing so much RAM for pages is generally attributed to extensions & add-ons.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 1485
BDAqua wrote:
That Safari thing about grabbing so much RAM for pages is generally attributed to extensions & add-ons.

It's more like the "usual suspects" - Facebook (which constantly updates), and less often, the TV listings page (which has video adverts on), and maybe one or two others. Most of the Safari Web Content processes only use around 100MB or less.

_________________
"If it ain't broke, we can fix it" (© Tim Cook, Jonny Ive)

Core i5 2011 21.5" iMac 12,1 2.5 GHz 12GB RAM OS X 10.9.5


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:23 pm
Posts: 788
Ah, thanks for the info. :)


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Board index » Technical Help


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

 

HTML tutorial