| Author |
W810i USB connection to Mac - Scary! Help? |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Yeah, a little research - MAC doesn't provide a means to disable write caching. So you have no option but to go through the eject process EVERYTIME you disconnect your W810, JUST INCASE there may happen to be some data in cache still.... Seems a pain to me.
Especially since 90% of the time you could pull the phone with no problems. Who wants to find out the 10% problem transfer happened to be when you really needed it to work? 
| |
|
sapporobaby
Joined: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Finland. Kuwait maybe :)
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-08-16 06:58:53, max_wedge wrote:
Yeah, a little research - MAC doesn't provide a means to disable write caching. So you have no option but to go through the eject process EVERYTIME you disconnect your W810, JUST INCASE there may happen to be some data in cache still.... Seems a pain to me.
Especially since 90% of the time you could pull the phone with no problems. Who wants to find out the 10% problem transfer happened to be when you really needed it to work?
|
|
Actually if you had done real research you would notice that the underlying Kernel is BSD with Mac OS being written on top of that. So we are back to the UNIX debate again. I have unplugged my phones, drives, MS DUO's numerous times with no data corruption. So the chances, I do not know where you got your percentages, of data corruption could be rather small. The fact that Windows disables write caching is a good thing. So good infact that it is a shame that SUn, Redhat, Liunx, BSD (Mac OS X), and a host of others never make it a defacto standard. Am I wrong about this? You continue to say that I am wrong but after reading and re-reading your posts, you really do not point out where.
For the sake of argument, let's recap. This was a thread addressed to Mac users but you jumped in. You provided no solution or information other than to take issue with my statement about Windows. The info that I provided is not incorrect in anyway, and in one or two cases you even repeated what I previously stated. Would that make me two times correct? Still you have not provided a solution to the originator of this thread, but he has thanked me for helping him. You have gone off on additional tangents about the virtues of Windows and its features that pretty much have nothing to do with the thread originators posts. Have I missed anything?
Is there anywhere you are going with this? It is beyond boring now.
_________________
*edited on a Mac of course. Mac: There is no substitute*
-/..../../...//.../../-/.//../...//--./---/../-./--.//-/---//-/...././/-../-
[ This Message was edited by: sapporobaby on 2006-08-16 06:27 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
Actually if you had done real research you would notice that the underlying Kernel is BSD with Mac OS being written on top of that. So we are back to the UNIX debate again. I have unplugged my phones, drives, MS DUO's numerous times with no data corruption. So the chances, I do not know where you got your percentages, of data corruption could be rather small. The fact that Windows disables write caching is a good thing. So good infact that it is a shame that SUn, Redhat, Liunx, BSD (Mac OS X), and a host of others never make it a defacto standard. Am I wrong about this? You continue to say that I am wrong but after reading and re-reading your posts, you really do not point out where.
For the sake of argument, let's recap. This was a thread addressed to Mac users but you jumped in. You provided no solution or information other than to take issue with my statement about Windows. The info that I provided is not incorrect in anyway, and in one or two cases you even repeated what I previously stated. Would that make me two times correct? Still you have not provided a solution to the originator of this thread, but he has thanked me for helping him. You have gone off on additional tangents about the virtues of Windows and its features that pretty much have nothing to do with the thread originators posts. Have I missed anything?
Is there anywhere you are going with this? It is beyond boring now.
_________________
*edited on a Mac of course. Mac: There is no substitute*
-/..../../...//.../../-/.//../...//--./---/../-./--.//-/---//-/...././/-../-
[ This Message was edited by: sapporobaby on 2006-08-16 06:27 ]
|
|
Mate, I know what underpins MAC OS, when did I say anything different? You are the king of assumption, not I.
You mentioned facts about Windows that are incorrect. You still can't see that. You have said that windows needs external drivers for cable and BT - you are wrong my friend, it doesn't. Spreading such misunderstanding does not help the end user understand their choices better.
It seems you recommended using the findercleaner program to remove the ds files and to cleanly eject the device. I thought that surely the user can just remove the device anyway without ejecting first, but you specifically recommend using the findercleaner to eject the drive - so I deferred to your knowledge re: MAC in suggesting the 10% figure (it was a guess only - I was being cautious I would think the chance of corruption would be more like .001%). In my view I would have thought it would hardly be an issue at all, just as it's a complete non-issue in windows.
So therefore in deferment to your statement that ejects should be handled by findercleaner, and by doing a quick search and finding that MAC provides no means to disable write caching (which ensures there is NO chance of corruption when removing), I posted that the W810/MAC user should infact eject the drive before removing it to ensure they avoid corruption.
So what is it Sapporobaby? Is it okay to just pull the drive, or should it be ejected first? I know that in Windows, such questions don't concern me.
Possible fix to stop DS files appearing on removable drives
The files that MAC leaves on the drive have nothing to do with the "windows" format. Removable drives use FAT, a proxy industry standard for removable memory. The ds files that mac litters over removable drives has nothing to do with Windows or the type of format, but are about MAC osx's needs (windows positions and so forth). They appear on all MAC drives, but are hidden. However when stored on a removable drive they are no longer hidden (when viewed by the phone for example).
There is a way to stop them from appearing but this method may only work for network drives:
Open a terminal and type “defaults write com.apple.desktopservices DSDontWriteNetworkStores true”, hit return, then restart the MAC.
http://maclife.techactually.com/news.php?item.42.4
Let me know if it works 
There is also this software, which doesn't handle ejects, but does seem to be a handy program, it also has a Windows version.
http://www.redroomdevelopment.com/products/ds_store_cleaner/
_________________
File System Tweaks for the K750 K750 Tricks
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2006-08-17 02:41 ] |
sapporobaby
Joined: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Finland. Kuwait maybe :)
PM |
Hey Max,
You can naturally just unplug the drive and ignore the screaming and yelling that Mac OS will send your way. You may or may not corrupt data in the process. You have hit on something interesting though. Maybe write caching is disabled as part of the OS regardless which would make it possible to simply remove the drive without first ejecting it. Maybe, and I could be VERY wrong here, the "eject drive first" scenario is a throw back to when BSD was first developed and no longer really needed. However, to be safe, I would eject the drive first.
As for the ._ds files, as long as the Mac user stays in strictly a Mac environment, these are never an issue. However, the moment the Mac user mounts an external drive, be it USB HD, or thumb drive, on a Windows machine, the ._ds files become an issue. They are harmless and can even be remove in Windows, but they can appear and be annoying to see all over your drive.
*edited on a Mac of course. Mac: There is no substitute*
N82(YES), iPhone 3G, Shure es530, Nikon D300, more stuff. No more SE stuff, why am I still here? |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
I must admit, when I first saw someone complain about ds files, I tended to think "what's the issue, just delete them?", but I suppose it could be annoying.
I have seen ds files on my own memory sticks after using them in MACs, it's not an issue. I have heard that some media players create playlists from the ds files when synchronised with a pc, but that seems more an excuse to find a better music sync program than to worry about the ds files. The music program should sync music only imho
|
sapporobaby
Joined: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Finland. Kuwait maybe :)
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-08-17 14:07:48, max_wedge wrote:
I must admit, when I first saw someone complain about ds files, I tended to think "what's the issue, just delete them?", but I suppose it could be annoying.
I have seen ds files on my own memory sticks after using them in MACs, it's not an issue. I have heard that some media players create playlists from the ds files when synchronised with a pc, but that seems more an excuse to find a better music sync program than to worry about the ds files. The music program should sync music only imho
|
|
Righty-o mate.
._DS files are annoying. They are benign but they are everywhere. They seem to multiply sometimes. You have one, connect the drive to something, then you have 3, and so on and so on. There are programs that will always clean the files but you lose the Finder positons, and other config data.
BTW, I got your PM. We be good mate. 
Cheers.
*edited on a Mac of course. Mac: There is no substitute*
N82(YES), iPhone 3G, Shure es530, Nikon D300, more stuff. No more SE stuff, why am I still here? |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
well I'm downloading the windows version of ds store cleaner so I can nuke those ds files easily when I get them (which isn't very often anyway)
| |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2006-08-16 06:58
