 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Eudora / March 2008Some relief for Leopard problems with Eudora?
One person's preliminary experience (using separate TOC files): http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?p=37452#post37452 > One person's preliminary experience (using separate TOC files): Being perhaps excessively cautious, I kept separate .toc files all the way. Only on 10.4.11 now, but given I started using Eudora 1.5.3 on sys 7.1.2, and I never had any problems at all beyond some very rare settings corruption, and have never lost any mail except on purpose, I reckon that's a sound policy.  SignaturePeter Re: Using separate TOC files (rather than resource forks): If resource forks are becoming obsolete, it would be no surprise if each new OS worries less about promptly updating them. or even copying them or keeping them: "Standard Unix commands in Mac OS X don't understand resource forks" http://db.tidbits.com/article/7313 So if you copy your Eudora mailboxes using those commands (or any script which uses them), it would seem that you risk losing all your "mailbox summary" info (except that which can be automatically reconstructed, such as Who/Date/Subject). Apparently the resource fork has no independent time stamp; this has apparently burdened the Mac with having to unnecessarily copy resource forks when it is not known whether or not they have been modified (and according to the above, there may be a tendency to just not copy them at all). The lack of a time stamp would also eliminate the ability of Eudora to make sure that each TOC in a resource fork has been updated at least as recently as the mailbox data fork was updated -- this is a primary means by which Eudora detects potentially "stale" TOCs which need rebuilding, as it still does in "Classic" Windows Eudora. So it may be "sound policy," indeed, if all of this is true, to walk away from the otherwise originally "neat idea" of stashing TOCs inside mailbox resource forks. I should point out that I'm primarily a "Windows guy," and have my own email under Windows Eudora, so you should accumulate the direct evidence of user results to confirm whether the suspected relief comes, but if it does, then Eudora may get some reprieve from being completely savaged by a rampaging Leopard :) -- > Re: Using separate TOC files (rather than resource forks): > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > losing all your "mailbox summary" info (except that which > can be automatically reconstructed, such as Who/Date/Subject). That seems a somewhat dopey article to me. Why would I use standard unix commands to move/copy files around the OS unless I knew what I was doing? That's what I got the Finder for. I'm sure I don't have .toc files on my Mac at home (can't check right now). I have no Eudora problems under Leopard that might be caused by that (there some cosmetic issues that have appeared since I moved from Tiger to Leopard). Why do the tidbits people think that standard unix cp etc commands under Mac OS X should understand resource forks anyway? > Apparently the resource fork has no independent time stamp; > this has apparently burdened the Mac with having to unnecessarily > copy resource forks when it is not known > whether or not they have been modified (and according to the above, > there may be a tendency to just not copy them at all). I don't understand what you mean by this. [...] > > "Standard Unix commands in Mac OS X don't understand resource forks" > > http://db.tidbits.com/article/7313 [...] > That seems a somewhat dopey article to me. Why would I use standard unix > commands to move/copy files around the OS unless I knew what I was > doing? Have you read the article; seen its title? Its aim is to explain why you would use such commands, and how, so that you do know what you're doing. [...] > Why do the tidbits people think that standard unix cp etc commands under > Mac OS X should understand resource forks anyway? You're responding to a 4,5 year old article. I believe cp does recognize resource forks since about 10.4 or so. (If not, use ditto.) SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > I believe cp does recognize > resource forks since about 10.4 or so. (If not, use ditto.) I can't remember for sure about 10.4, but 10.5 definitely has resource fork awareness in the standard CLI commands (cp, rm, etc). And even earlier versions of OS X had special versions of those commands, like cpMac, that would handle the resource fork. John H Meyers wrote: > Apparently the resource fork has no independent time stamp; > this has apparently burdened the Mac with having to unnecessarily > copy resource forks when it is not known > whether or not they have been modified > I don't understand what you mean by this. In http://patternbuffer.wordpress.com/category/unix/ in the item "A history of rsync on Mac OS X, December 4, 2007 -- Kyle Crawford," these remarks appear: Apple's rsync speed was and is dismal on large data sets. The problem lies in the fact that resource forks do not have a modification date to compare when syncing. Without this key piece of data, there is no easy way of knowing whether the resource fork of a file has changed or not. Apple's solution to this problem was to ALWAYS COPY the resource fork. That's right, if your data has resource forks, you copy the resource data every time rsync runs. Yes, resource forks are typically small, but they add up, and for terabytes of small files, the I/O causes an rsync of unchanged data that should take about 30 minutes to instead take 4 hours. When Eudora keeps a mailbox TOC in the resource fork, the amount of data is probably larger, especially for large mailboxes, but what's even more important is that if there is no modification time stamp, then how does Eudora detect whether data in both forks is "in sync"? Further, if any internal operation, user operation, or unknown gremlin just doesn't bother preserving the resource fork, then there goes your TOC, and all of your "status," "labels," and other "summary info" indicators go with it (also a re-appearence of "deleted" items and any previous "saves" of messages being composed in the "Out" mailbox) -- are these not the very symptoms which keep being reported by Leopard users, particularly those who have just updated to 10.5.2? One relatively "good" sign about these reported symptoms is that it looks as if the TOC has been completely lost, rather than corrupted, and then completely regenerated, which at least does not cause TOC entries to point to the wrong locations and completely scramble the messages; it also preserves (actully regenerates) the Who/Date/Subject info, and thus is far less catastrophic than a corrupt or "out of sync" TOC. It appears that quite a few responders never switched to using TOC resource forks in the first place, and quite a few also never plunged ahead with Leopard, nor with 10.5.2, under which Eudora suddenly got worse than ever, for a number of people, so this doesn't provide as clear an indicator as would users of 10.5.2 who have been suffering "Eudora hell," who might report whether they are also using resource fork TOC's, and whether relief comes or not from going back to separate TOCs. The situation for those allicted has been prompting panicky bail-outs from Eudora, and if it should turn out that it has as simple a cure as the original replacement of a few sound files cured the first "Leopard blues," then this panic could also be ended, and we could all turn our attention back to the global political and economic crises instead :) -- Bad typing in my immediately preceding post: appearence -> appearance allicted -> afflicted (maybe the whole thing was bad, but that's all I just spotted :) -- > > One person's preliminary experience (using separate TOC files): > > Being perhaps excessively cautious, I kept separate .toc files all the > way. FWIW, when I switched Eudora 3 light to separate TOC files on my home Quadra 840 AV in an attempt to fix index corruption, I noticed a _huge_ performance boost. hauke SignatureNow without signature. From recent posts: ======== One person's preliminary experience (using separate TOC files): <http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?p=37452#post37452> ======== Being perhaps excessively cautious, I kept separate .toc files all the way. Only on 10.4.11 now, but given I started using Eudora 1.5.3 on sys 7.1.2, and I never had any problems at all beyond some very rare settings corruption, and have never lost any mail except on purpose, I reckon that's a sound policy. ======== FWIW, when I switched Eudora 3 light to separate TOC files on my home Quadra 840 AV in an attempt to fix index corruption, I noticed a _huge_ performance boost. ======== So it may be "sound policy," indeed, if all of this is true, to walk away from the otherwise originally "neat idea" of stashing TOCs inside mailbox resource forks. ======== OK, I'm now on Mac OS 10.4.11 (Tiger) and Eudora 6.2.3; I may sooner or later want to upgrade to 10.5 (Leopard), and beyond; after more than a decade of Eudora use, my mail folder contains 81 MB total in about 300 mailboxes, none of which (as best I understand it) use the "old style" separate .toc files; and I'd like to stay with Eudora absolutely as long as possible. So, it appears that I should maybe convert all of these accumulated mailboxes back to the old style .toc files (true?). If that's the case, the questions include "how?", and "what are the risks?". Can anyone suggest a step-by-step recipe to accomplish this in this particular situation? I assume this will include backing up the mail folder first, and I do know how to make good backups; and I'd really prefer not to have to use any Terminal commands for the conversion, although I guess I can follow that route, given careful guidance and precise instructions, if I have to. > Can anyone suggest a step-by-step recipe to accomplish this in this > particular situation? I assume this will include backing up the mail > folder first, and I do know how to make good backups Yes, it's a good idea to make a backup of the Eudora folder beforehand- just a Finder copy should do. > and I'd really > prefer not to have to use any Terminal commands for the conversion Perish the thought. I don't *think* that you need to. Go into Special:Settings:Miscellaneous, and check 'Use old style ".toc" files'. Then restart Eudora. It should create the toc files for each mailbox that you open, when you open them. I don't think that there's more to it than that. You can check it out by looking at the contents of Eudora Folder:Mail Folder. The .toc files should be visible there, in the Finder. SignaturePeter > > One person's preliminary experience (using separate TOC files): > > Being perhaps excessively cautious, I kept separate .toc files all the > way. Yep. Same here. Nice to hear that that may potentially lessen Eudora problems if/when I move to Leopard. SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > > One person's preliminary experience (using separate TOC files): > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > settings corruption, and have never lost any mail except on purpose, I > reckon that's a sound policy. I started with Eudora Lite 3.x or thereabouts, and I've never kept separate TOC files. I've never used Paid Mode, having been using Sponsored Mode since it became available. And I've been using version 6.2.4 since it became available. When I moved to a new machine with Leopard 10.5.1, I had no issues whatsoever. And now that I'm using 10.5.2, I still have no issues at all. (Well, not "none", but only one minor one that existed long before Leopard.) No crashes, no corruptions, nothing amiss. = Steve = SignatureSteve W. Jackson Montgomery, Alabama > I've never used Paid Mode, having been using > Sponsored Mode since it became available. I've always used Light mode, with separate settings files to create multiple personalities. It's always suited me fine. I'm glad to hear that Eudora runs well in 10.5.2. At the moment I really don't see any reason at all to go beyond Eudora. SignaturePeter > > I've never used Paid Mode, having been using > > Sponsored Mode since it became available. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm glad to hear that Eudora runs well in 10.5.2. At the moment I really > don't see any reason at all to go beyond Eudora. Well, not quite. I get a number of cosmetic artefacts now, and I can't get the screen font right, either. > I started with Eudora Lite 3.x or thereabouts, and I've never kept > separate TOC files. I've never used Paid Mode, having been using [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > minor one that existed long before Leopard.) No crashes, no > corruptions, nothing amiss. What computer are you using? (for those of us who are trying to figure out if Eudora has problems with Leopard on specific machine). Roberta SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > I started with Eudora Lite 3.x or thereabouts, and I've never kept > > separate TOC files. I've never used Paid Mode, having been using [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Roberta I have a brand new MacBook Pro purchased in late November of 2007. It shipped with Tiger and a "CPU drop-in" DVD for Leopard. I installed that immediately (clean install), before ever using the machine, so it's never run anything except Leopard while in my possession. I've never had any noteworthy problems with Eudora 6.2.4. All my settings files and mail and so on were transferred from the previous PowerBook G4 800 I used for over 5 years. = Steve = SignatureSteve W. Jackson Montgomery, Alabama > > What computer are you using? (for those of us who are trying to figure > > out if Eudora has problems with Leopard on specific machine). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > settings files and mail and so on were transferred from the previous > PowerBook G4 800 I used for over 5 years. Thanks, Steve -- that's good news for me! Roberta SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > One person's preliminary experience (using separate TOC files): > > http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?p=37452#post37452 Thanks for passing this along, John. If you get more confirmation that this solution seems to be working, can you pass it along, too? I'm in the market for a new laptop, now that they've speed-bumped the MacBook Pros. But new laptop means Leopard. And if Leopard means I can't use Eudora, then I can't use my new laptop. Yes, I am that dependent on Eudora -- a sad state of affairs, I know. So, I am keen to know if the Leopard problems have a workaround. Otherwise, it's wait and see if Odysseus lives up to its promises and hope that my Powerbook G4 keeps truckin' along. Roberta SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > I'm in the market for a new laptop, now that they've speed-bumped the > MacBook Pros. But new laptop means Leopard. And if Leopard means I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and see if Odysseus lives up to its promises and hope that my Powerbook > G4 keeps truckin' along. FWIW, I'm using a MacBook Pro that I got not quite a year ago, and recently upgraded it to 10.5. I haven't had any problems with Eudora on it. The MacBook is at the office and I'm at home, so I can't check to be certain, but I believe I'm using the "new" style TOC in the resource fork. SignatureKathy > > I'm in the market for a new laptop, now that they've speed-bumped the > > MacBook Pros. But new laptop means Leopard. And if Leopard means I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > be certain, but I believe I'm using the "new" style TOC in the resource > fork. Yeah, from what I've read, some people have problems with Eudora on Leopard and some don't, and no one has been able to find a pattern. I'm just worried that I'll plunk down the money for the laptop, only to find out that I'm in the "have problems" category. Roberta SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > FWIW, I'm using a MacBook Pro that I got not quite a year ago, > and recently upgraded it to 10.5. > I haven't had any problems with Eudora on it. 10.5.2 ? That update may have triggered new (more serious) problem reports (perhaps only on certain hardware?), whereas the earliest problem reports centered more on the unplayable sounds. Examples: "as far as i've observed, this just started happening after the upgrade from 10.5.1 to 10.5.2" http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13314 "message attributes (e.g., status, label) change unexpectedly; msgs may get duplicated" [re the "Out" mailbox] Quoting other recent messages from "Listmoms" Mac Eudora mailing list: "I am using Eudora 6.2.4 on a Mac running 10.5.2 and have been a loyal Eudora user for many years. Last night I checked my mail and went to bed. This morning I went to check my mail and all the old messages in the 'In' box were gone." "I'm also Eudora 6.2.4 on Mac 10.5.2. Over the last dozen years I have set hundreds of filters and have dozens of mailboxes. My Eudora has been VERY messed up since Leopard. I am desperately hoping for Odysseus soon. I turned off sounds and keep most of my incoming mail boxes empty. I've had every problem imaginable, from all messages changed from read to unread, hundreds changed to one date, hundreds of emails mixed up (subjects don't match contents), to missing emails. All of my out box emails get marked unsent and I have to change them all to sent. Yesterday I noticed that all my emails for the past couple weeks had disappeared. I open Eudora today and they are back. I am barely hanging on." "leopard messed up my eudora pro 6.2.4. i have learned that apple did not play nice with Alsoft, makers of DiskWarrior. maybe that is not the only company apple didn't keep in food chain. i have been waiting for over a year, or whenever leopard came out. i am at X.5.2. the first version was like a public beta" To repeat, I'm not using Mac Eudora, but just following the news, and suggesting something logical to try (separate TOC files), about which actual users may report results, perhaps finding a consistent pattern of causal circumstances, as well as whether or not the suggestion provides some relief (the first reporter above thought it may have; no follow-up reports as yet from "listmoms" list) Here is another case: http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?t=13326 Interesting details: "I am running Mac OS X 10.5.2 and have 2 GB memory and 66 GB available disc space. Eudora 6.2.4" "a dual Intel based Mini Mac crashes virtually every time I send an email" "this does not occur on my laptop MacBookPro or my Mac desktop tower" Is "Intel" a contributing factor? "Need more input!" [a line from the following family-fun screenplays] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091949/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096101/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929281/ o To help isolate causal factors (and perhaps find solutions), the following would be helpful additions to reports of problems with Leopard: o On which hardware platform (Intel? specific computer model?) o Have all original Eudora sounds been replaced with Mac sounds? (and <x-eudora-setting:66> changed to "1" or "2" ?) o Are you using TOC in resource fork, or separate files? o Any improvement if changing resource fork to separate TOC files? o Did problems start with 10.5.2 update, or earlier? Thanks! -- > Here is another case: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Is "Intel" a contributing factor? No, because all the MacBook Pros have Intel chips. *But* this is quite interesting... maybe some machine-Leopard combinations have the problem and others do not? That would be a useful bit of information to know. Roberta (particularly hopeful that the MBPs do not have this problem) SignatureRoberta Millstein usenet@spamaway.rlm.net Remove "spamaway" to reply -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > Is "Intel" a contributing factor? > > No, because all the MacBook Pros have Intel chips. *But* this is quite > interesting... maybe some machine-Leopard combinations have the problem > and others do not? That would be a useful bit of information to know. Definitely some MacBook Pro-Leopard combinations do not have the problem. I finally remembered to check my MacBook Pro at the office: Leopard 10.5.2 with Eudora 6.2.4 and TOC in the resource fork, and I have had no problems with it. SignatureKathy Thanks for all the reports; good to know that not all Leopards suffer Eudora indigestion :) Is there any other factor to look at? Multi-processor? OS options? other software? (anti-virus/spyware and firewalls wreak a lot of havoc on Windows; none of this happens on Macs, of course, but just in case any such programs are in use, that would be something to note). What about people who do have problems suggestive of TOC issues, and who might be using resource forks? Any word on whether changing to separate files brings any improvement would also be enlightening (or disappointing if not). Thanks, and best wishes. > Thanks for all the reports; > good to know that not all Leopards suffer Eudora indigestion :) > > Is there any other factor to look at? > Multi-processor? FWIW, my MacBook Pro (with no problems) is a single processor. > OS options? other software? > (anti-virus/spyware and firewalls wreak a lot of havoc on Windows; > none of this happens on Macs, of course, but just in case > any such programs are in use, that would be something to note). Good point--that may indeed be causing some people's problems. It might be worth asking those who are having problems if they're maybe using anti-virus/spyware. SignatureKathy > Good point--that may indeed be causing some people's problems. It might > be worth asking those who are having problems if they're maybe using > anti-virus/spyware. FWIW... The (only?) problems we see with Eudora under 10.5.x are: 1) If somebody resets a default "Eudora Settings" file and uses the "Eudora" alert sounds -- this will crash the program. 2) On *some* machines, trying to attach a document when using the menu commands will cause the program to generate the Spinning Pizza of Death wheel when the Open window comes up and the program will eventually crash. This also occurs if somebody accidentally hits "command-O" instead of "command-0" (zero) when trying to open the "Out" mailbox with the keyboard. For those users, clearing out the invisible .DS_Store file in the folder containing the document the user wants to attach sometimes *temporarily* resolves the crash, but it comes back. Users can manually drag the attachments into the message all the time, though. The above is using the .toc files, though. I'd *love* to know if there's some setting that could possibly help with problem #2, though... It *seems* like it's something that only happens the longer Eudora is running. It's not something that happens (usually) right when you first launch the program, but can occur if you bring up an "Open" window if the program has been running a while... I have a bug (duplicate) into Apple about this. It wasn't fixed in 10.5.2. Beyond those two issues -- for use at any rate -- Eudora is working exactly the same under 10.5 as it did under 10.4. The "sound" bug is easily worked around. The attach-files-from-the-menu-selection -- not so much. The only problem we see as relates to Eudora with Anti-Virus software would be with what we see with Sophos Anti-Virus (speficially). As mailboxes grow larger, the SPOD will appear in Eudora when large mailboxes are being appended (ie, when mail is checked and large "Junk" mailboxes or "In" mailboxes are modified. Usually, if the active mailboxes get to be above 5M in size, the SPOD will start showing up. However, this is not a 10.5 issue -- 10.4.x machines show the same behavior. This, we have users resolve by either reducing the size of their "active" mailboxes by transferring mail to "reference" mailboxes *or* we set Sophos to "exclude" the "Mail Folder". This is one of those things that Eudora 8 addresses better as -- like Mail.app -- each message is in it's own file so Sophos doesn't have to scan enourmous mailbox files each time they are modified. I can't say if other A-V programs generate the same SPOD as we've never tested any other ones here... - Steve > This [modifying large mailboxes vs. Sophos anti-virus scanning] > is one of those things that Eudora 8 addresses better > as -- like Mail.app -- each message is in its own file Really? That seems very un-Thunderbird like (is the "Compact" function gone?) Opera v9.2x is a "one file per message" mail client, resulting in (on Windows, anyway): o Wasted empty "slack" disk space in every message. o Extremely inefficient backup (fixed overhead per file), even bumping into archiver (e.g. "zip") limits on number of files per archive, and severely bogging down (or crashing) remote server network backups. o Slow moving between mailboxes, and slow deletion of large batches of messages. o Fragmented disk and "Windows master file table" (more than 50% of all files on my hard disk are Opera's headers for every individual newsgroup article or RSS feed item that I've ever retrieved). That's why I would use Opera'a mail app for newsgroups/RSS only, constantly delete all aging individual files, and never for a moment even consider it as a useful mail client. -- > > This [modifying large mailboxes vs. Sophos anti-virus scanning] > > is one of those things that Eudora 8 addresses better > > as -- like Mail.app -- each message is in its own file > > Really? That seems very un-Thunderbird like > (is the "Compact" function gone?) Ah,i could be wrong about this. My "local folders" appear to be one file for each mailbox. I'm just not (so far) seeing the same SPOD in Eudora 8 that I do with Eudora 6.2.4 with Sophos turned on... Though 8.0.0b3 still crashes too often for me to use it regularly (with or without Sophos turned on), I may just be missing this behavior. I wish Thunderbird 3.0 would progress a bit faster like Firefox 3.0 is... - Steve > My "local folders" [with "Eudora 8"] > appear to be one file for each mailbox. This seems more normal for Thunderbird; in Windows there would be "Inbox" (mail), "Inbox.msf" (index, like a TOC), and possibly a folder "Inbox.sbd" -- Thunderbird mailbox names can simultaneously be folders containing additional mailboxes; "Classic" Eudora declines to create both at the same time using the Eudora program, but in Windows you can create both a mailbox and a folder with the same name offline (in the GUI, these will both appear, but in different places, so they still will not appear to be related, as they do in Thunderbird). -- > > Thanks for all the reports; > > good to know that not all Leopards suffer Eudora indigestion :) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > FWIW, my MacBook Pro (with no problems) is a single processor. Technically, yes - it only has one processor, but that processor has two cores, so it is capable of "multi-processing". All MacBook Pros are the same as far as this goes (so far). Earlier models are Core Duo, later ones are Core2 Duo. Core Duo is 32-bit, Core2 Duo can do 64-bit, which isn't used by Eudora. FWIW, my MacBook Pro (Mid 2007, 2.2 GHz Core2 Duo) has no serious problems with Eudora 6.2.4 on Leopard (any version, now 10.5.2). I have my TOCs in the resource fork. I have one cosmetic problem: the task progress window isn't erased correctly, so I get leftover status information from previous operations. Eudora has crashed for me on rare occasions, but it has been doing that for years so it isn't a new problem in Leopard. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > Here is another case: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > "this does not occur on my laptop MacBookPro or my Mac desktop tower" This would be interesting if the settings files on both those Macs are the same, which they probably are not. Btw, that post also says "It makes it hard to work unless I batch send email", which suggests that Eudora crashes after sending. Possibly when trying to write to the Out Box's TOC? An error log would be more telling. It's a pretty vague report. SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > > One person's preliminary experience (using separate TOC files): > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Roberta My previous Macbook Pro (Nov 2006) died in a puff of smoke last week. Applecare swapped it out with a brand new 2.4ghz Santa Rosa and in the process upgraded me to Leopard (Digidesign, grrrrrr) and I just started using Eudora without thinking about it. Works fine for me. This MBP is great and the Penryn ones must be even more awesome. Digidesign excepted, Leopard has been pretty nice. Edwin SignatureIf you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. -Moshe Dayan > One person's preliminary experience (using separate TOC files): > http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?p=37452#post37452 That person has posted again, saying: "separate .toc files seems to have resolved toc corruption" http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/showthread.php?p=37595#post37595 For reasons as yet unfathomed, some people appear to have seen no problems using Leopard, while others have said the equivalent of "dear me, the sky is falling," but at least some problems that clearly indicate TOC corruption might benefit from (and won't be worsened by) using "separate TOC files." Best wishes. http://www.ilab.org/db/book1830_ESB9077.html http://geoweb.alexandria.lib.va.us/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!104459~!1 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.