View Full Version : File Sharing in X - Suxs!

01-11-2002, 03:50 PM
OK - I have played around with 10.1 for long enough. The parts that work great are EXCELLENT, but I fail to understand why Apple has to make some features as useful as a RUEgoldberg machine!

I have no clue how to file share FROM X. That is I can connect easily from a system running classic to a system running 10, but not the other way around. The only clue I have is there should be a 'connect to server' option somewhere...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>FROM chatwood2
File sharing is problematic. The "Connect to Server" thing has a broken browsing feature. The only way I have been able to do sharing is to enter the IP address in the address bar.

The good thing is that OS X file sharing is very robust, on my desktop I have had volumes mounted for days on end. Though on my powerbook volumes unmount when I put the machine to sleep.


So it seems he may be using a browser... can I do this in IE?
Apple really NEEDS to bring back simple and secure file sharing. They also need to bring back real dual monitor support, but that I guess is another thread.


To boldly go where no english professor has gone before! -)

01-11-2002, 06:01 PM
Hey drag,
Try going to the menu bar under 'GO' and pick 'CONNECT TO SERVER" Command+K for the shortcut. Should allow you to mount any drive. Not sure if that's what you meant. Hope that helps
In another post you mentioned an article at xlr8yourmac that detailed reliability issues with the 120GXP. I was unable to find anything except a 75GXP article. Could you point me in the right direction?

[This message has been edited by ricks (edited 11 January 2002).]

01-12-2002, 03:49 AM
The GO menu? Wow - I did not even pay attention in the finder mode. Its kind of annoying that Apple moved it from the Apple Menu to the Application menu. So far I can only see myself, but I think I am on the right track.. I guess I could fall back to IP if necessary.

Here is the link to the 120GXP IBM. I do not know ho solid this is - but with IBM's other issues, once bitten twice shy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>IBM 120GXP IDE Drives - Not Recommended for 24/7 Use?
(from a reader email)

"Check out IBM's 120GXP Drive Specs Document "Reliability" section in the specs file at: http://www.storage.ibm.com/hdd/desk/ds120gxp.pdf
Note the "Recommended power-on hours (monthly) 333"

Although I can't say as I noticed a recommended POH/month rating in other drive specs in the past, that's not exactly confidence inspiring. (Especially for anyone that runs their system 24/7.) For a 30 day month that would be an avg of 11.1 hours per day.

Last year there were several notes/links here on 75GXP series drive failures (one owner started a class-action lawsuit), but knock on wood my 3 are still doing fine - but they've not been in servers or used more than a few hours a day. The most disturbing reports on the 75GXP were the large number of owner reports on failures (often repeated ones) from Cnet's review of the 75GXP 75GB drive. When I posted that link about 51% of the owner ratings gave the drives a negative/thumbs down rating. [There's now 140 (59%) negative ratings as of today at noon eastern time.] There have been some failure reports in the database here, but not a large number so far. (But that means little to someone that has personally experienced a failure, or repeated ones.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

01-12-2002, 05:30 AM
We use the GO to Server option all the time to connect up from OS X to my ASIP server as well as any of my other Macs...Works fine and you can store the IP address under the 'Favourites" menu. I did notice that sometimes you need to put in the IP number but browsing around also works once you've brought up that menu


01-12-2002, 01:13 PM
Thanks DX,
I find myself somewhat uncomfortable with even a hint of durability issues. Admittedly, the mentioned article is a reader review, but WE are those very same 'reader reviewers' too often, doesn't invalidate the facts.

Frustrating that there's always the possibility of someone with an axe to grind, one un-attributed bad review, which is going to happen now and then, screws up everyones viewpoint concerning reader reviews.

Before I can jump up and tout the 120GXP I guess some of these questions are going to have to be answered. I am fairly satisfied with the 60GXP's quality, virtually no problems have been reported as occuring over and over.

The performance numbers from the GXP120 drive almost put them in SCSI league. If it wasn't for the much higher CPU overhead IDE drives inherently require I'd say that the 120GXP had closed the gap. BUT, a drive that can't 24/7 isn't an enterprise drive, PERIOD.

Thanks again for your insight on the issues. It's very impressive how many places your plugged into and your piecing together the 'new technology' facts faster than anyone else. It's much appreciated!


01-12-2002, 03:13 PM
StorageReivew (http://www.storagereview.com) has had a database and in depth reviews as well as Tom's Hardware and other sites that go well beyond what a user would have available for testing. Recently they added a "user satisfaction' database to help gauge how long and reliable a given drive way. With thousands of entries it was possible to see patterns of failure, replacement, trust, etc.

I was intrigued that FWB HDT 4.5.2 offers monitoring of the drive's built-in SMART self-diagnostics that usually can predict an impending failure. Meaning I may use FWB again on IDE at least.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If it wasn't for the much higher CPU overhead IDE drives inherently require<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was under the impression that new ATA/100 drives have a limit on data over the same channel but cpu overhead has been dramatically reduced to near SCSI levels with the use of embedded DSP chips. Borrowing from their SCSI cousins to add tagged command I/O and other features to inexpensive IDE.

I hope StorageReview stays around in some form. I didn't realize it was in desperate financial straits. With all that data, it would be a loss to the community. Tens of thousands of users paying a couple dollars a year would have mad a difference. The difference in price between buying one drive from Gurus versus elsewhere knowing (?) probably helps keeps this forum alive.


[This message has been edited by Gregory (edited 12 January 2002).]

01-12-2002, 03:51 PM
HI Gregory,
I had never seen it stated that ATA drives had gotten their overhead into near scsi levels, I guess I date myself and my reference books by my catagorical statement. Consider it retracted until I can 'edikate' myself.

That puts the 120GXP into even better light if it can hold up under use. We won't know that until we get the data base built on them. Just a few failures does not a trend make. (I can hardly wait to see what a hardware RAID built with 120GXP's will do)

On another note, did you ever get your issues with ATTO on your G4 resolved. I followed your thread with great interest and had not heard any conclusions to your situation. I have had zero difficulties with my UL3D and Quicksilver to date, hopefully I can maintain that record, ATTO performance ROCKS. I would miss it if I had to part with it.

Thanks for your insights, much appreciated.


01-12-2002, 09:04 PM
I think the main issue with the IDE/ATA drives vs. SCSI is that only one IDE/ATA drive per channel can 'function' or send data across the bus. So a master/slave config the drives alternate very quickly. SCSI would allow all the drives to operate independantly - or combined - up to the limit of the SCSI or PCI bus.

For single drives IDE/ATA has almost closed the gap - but there are no 15K IDE/ATA drives - yet. Of course you do save a bundle and IDE is not normally rated for 5 years of service. I think running one IDE/ATA per channel would get pretty good - close to SCSI RAID performance.

I was traveling this holiday season, and I found it took me about a 12 hours to figure out how to setup Dialup on system X. Not that I spent a 12 consecutive hours at it, but I gave up after about 45 minutes, then the next day the answer poped into my head. http://macgurus.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This however did not happen with file sharing though http://macgurus.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

It seemed like there should have been a application - like the chooser or maybe a simple option in the network or file sharing prefs. O'well.

01-13-2002, 04:13 AM

They are readying a 1.66 firmware (guess they gave up on 1.65) to resolve issue and performance but it affects b*w mostly (maybe DA) but QuickSilver seems to be free of trouble. They've been silent for 3 months though w/o an update or peep. ;(