Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralPortable MacsHardwareNetworking
Applications
Mac ApplicationsEudoraFirefox / MozillaInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressMS OfficeEntourageExcelPowerPointWordVirtual PCMedia PlayerOther MS Products
Programming
Mac ProgrammingCodeWarriorPerl
Country Specific
Australian Mac GroupUK Mac Group

Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / March 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Time machine interval

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Howard Brazee - 15 Mar 2008 21:18 GMT
My Time Machine has been taking backups at 15 minute intervals.  I
checked System Settings and see that it thinks it is 1 hour intervals,
but I don't see where to change this setting.

I don't want 15 minute intervals.
Barry Margolin - 15 Mar 2008 21:30 GMT
> My Time Machine has been taking backups at 15 minute intervals.  I
> checked System Settings and see that it thinks it is 1 hour intervals,
> but I don't see where to change this setting.
>
> I don't want 15 minute intervals.

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710291721156

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Howard Brazee - 15 Mar 2008 22:26 GMT
> > I don't want 15 minute intervals.
>
> http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710291721156

Thanks.   That tells me where to find the 1-hour setting, and that file
shows it to be a 1 hour setting.

Checking, I find I was mistaken.  It does 1-hour settings, but at 15
minutes past the hour.  This does seem excessive, especially when I'm at
work or asleep, so I bumped it up.
Barry Margolin - 16 Mar 2008 20:27 GMT
> Checking, I find I was mistaken.  It does 1-hour settings, but at 15
> minutes past the hour.  This does seem excessive, especially when I'm at
> work or asleep, so I bumped it up.

The time past the hour depends on when you boot your computer.  That
appears to be when the timer starts.

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Mike Rosenberg - 16 Mar 2008 20:35 GMT
> Checking, I find I was mistaken.  It does 1-hour settings, but at 15
> minutes past the hour.  This does seem excessive, especially when I'm at
> work or asleep, so I bumped it up.

I don't think you understand how Time Machine works.  It's only backing
up whatever is new or has changed since the previous backup.  If you
don't use your Mac for, say, 8 hours, it's not actually backing anything
up when it runs 8 times, just creating 8 directories.  Then it only
keeps one per day for anything between 24 hours and one month old.  If
you're concerned about using drive space unnecessarily, don't be.

Signature

<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

Barry Margolin - 16 Mar 2008 21:02 GMT
> > Checking, I find I was mistaken.  It does 1-hour settings, but at 15
> > minutes past the hour.  This does seem excessive, especially when I'm at
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> keeps one per day for anything between 24 hours and one month old.  If
> you're concerned about using drive space unnecessarily, don't be.

I'm with the OP.  I find it annoying to be using the computer and hear
it start writing to my backup drive.

I've been backing up my Macs with Retrospect for two decades, and I've
been perfectly fine backing up every couple of days.  Of course, when it
was writing to removable media that I had to change whenever it filled
up (I started with tapes, then Zip drives, then CD-RW -- I finally
switched to a Firewire drive when those became affordable a few years
ago), it was necessary to compromise on frequency.

But even now that it's not so intrusive I think that hourly backups are
way overkill.  I think I've restored things from backups about once a
year, and it's always been a version of the file that had been in
existence for days, weeks, or months.  I just changed my TM to back up
every 8 hours.

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

AES - 17 Mar 2008 00:33 GMT
My concerns regarding backups are basically, how much work have I done,
or how much stuff have I received or downloaded that I don't want to
lose, since the last previous backup.

So, I'm wondering if there could be some kind of "activity measure" to
trigger intermittent backups -- a backup gets triggered after every so
many keystrokes, mouse clicks, and/or MB of data coming into certain
ports -- rather than just a crude time measure.

I appreciate that if "not much is happening, activity-wise" then backups
at fixed time intervals won't actually have to do much backing up or
consume much in the way of resources; so this isn't a major concern.  

But still, it's the "results of activity" that one really wants to
preserve.  Amazing how much harder and more painful it is to lose the
results of some task that one has done, and have to compose a memo or do
a calculation over again, than it was to do the same task the first time!
Frédérique & Her vé Sainct - 17 Mar 2008 08:09 GMT
> But even now that it's not so intrusive I think that hourly backups are
> way overkill.  I think I've restored things from backups about once a
> year, and it's always been a version of the file that had been in
> existence for days, weeks, or months.  I just changed my TM to back up
> every 8 hours.

if you want to keep backing up the old way, without even doing this you
can just unplug your backup drive, and whenever you want to backup, plug
and request an immediate TM backup...

Signature

Frédérique & Hervé Sainct, h.sainct@laposte.net [fr,es,en,it]
Frédérique's initial is missing in front of the above address
l'initiale de Frédérique manque devant l'adresse email ci-dessus

Barry Margolin - 21 Mar 2008 18:19 GMT
> But even now that it's not so intrusive I think that hourly backups are
> way overkill.  I think I've restored things from backups about once a
> year, and it's always been a version of the file that had been in
> existence for days, weeks, or months.  I just changed my TM to back up
> every 8 hours.

I noticed yesterday that my Time Machine had gone back to hourly
backups.  It looks like the Time Machine software update reinstalled the
standard com.apple.backupd-auto.plist.

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

HK - 17 Mar 2008 01:34 GMT
>> Checking, I find I was mistaken.  It does 1-hour settings, but at 15
>> minutes past the hour.  This does seem excessive, especially when I'm at
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> keeps one per day for anything between 24 hours and one month old.  If
> you're concerned about using drive space unnecessarily, don't be.

I don't know why Apple has to be so cutsie-poo on something like a
backup program. There are plenty of models to follow for backup software
that work easily, and are easily configured to do about anything you
might want.
Dave Balderstone - 17 Mar 2008 02:10 GMT
> I don't know why Apple has to be so cutsie-poo on something like a
> backup program. There are plenty of models to follow for backup software
> that work easily, and are easily configured to do about anything you
> might want.

And based on my experience and evidence here, hardly anyone uses them.

Apple's not being cute, their providing something that just works, for
Mom and Grandpa, and Great Aunt Beth.

Signature

Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

HK - 17 Mar 2008 03:27 GMT
>> I don't know why Apple has to be so cutsie-poo on something like a
>> backup program. There are plenty of models to follow for backup software
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Apple's not being cute, their providing something that just works, for
> Mom and Grandpa, and Great Aunt Beth.

I have an HP Windows Home Server. Works like a charm on the PCs, and
naturally there's no Apple software so it can work with my MacBook Pro.

The WHS backs up all our PC's every night, discards old backups on a
schedule, and requires no intervention. The one time I had to totally
restore a PC from it, I just plopped in a startup CD for that machine,
and in two hours, the dead PC came back to life.

Works off TCP/IP. Has many interesting features.
Jolly Roger - 17 Mar 2008 05:05 GMT
> > I don't know why Apple has to be so cutsie-poo on something like a
> > backup program. There are plenty of models to follow for backup software
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Apple's not being cute, their providing something that just works, for
> Mom and Grandpa, and Great Aunt Beth.

Well, that's their *goal*, at least.  Time Machine certainly ain't
workin' here.  ; )

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Barry Margolin - 17 Mar 2008 21:36 GMT
> > I don't know why Apple has to be so cutsie-poo on something like a
> > backup program. There are plenty of models to follow for backup software
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Apple's not being cute, their providing something that just works, for
> Mom and Grandpa, and Great Aunt Beth.

I'm not sure if it's what HK was referring to, but the thing I find "too
cute" is the fancy graphics for "Enter Time Machine" and then the way
you navigate the backups.  People need to restore from backups once in a
blue moon, we don't need it to be like a video game.  Why does this
thing have to take over the full screen, rather than working in a window
like most apps?

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Lewis - 18 Mar 2008 04:08 GMT
> I'm not sure if it's what HK was referring to, but the thing I find "too
> cute" is the fancy graphics for "Enter Time Machine" and then the way
> you navigate the backups.  People need to restore from backups once in a
> blue moon, we don't need it to be like a video game.  Why does this
> thing have to take over the full screen, rather than working in a window
> like most apps?

The 'enter time machine' graphics are not for those who are
restoring from backup, they are for finding that one file
(or one email, or one address) that you need.  The time
slider on the right, and the zippying back through the
various views of your data is a pretty useful interface as
far as I'm concerned. I've only used it a couple of times,
but it was simple to use, quick, and it got my right where I
needed to be very easily.

Signature

There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Barry Margolin - 18 Mar 2008 06:50 GMT
> > I'm not sure if it's what HK was referring to, but the thing I find "too
> > cute" is the fancy graphics for "Enter Time Machine" and then the way
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> restoring from backup, they are for finding that one file
> (or one email, or one address) that you need.

Isn't that what "restoring from backup" means?

> The time
> slider on the right, and the zippying back through the
> various views of your data is a pretty useful interface as
> far as I'm concerned. I've only used it a couple of times,
> but it was simple to use, quick, and it got my right where I
> needed to be very easily.

And so would a simple window containing a scrolling list of backup times
that you could double-click on.

What purpose does the "flying through space" graphics serve?  It's way
overkill -- I think someone was looking for a way to take show off some
new graphics API that was added in Leopard, so they threw this c00l GUI
on Time Machine.

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Howard Brazee - 18 Mar 2008 15:27 GMT
>cute" is the fancy graphics for "Enter Time Machine" and then the way
>you navigate the backups.  People need to restore from backups once in a
>blue moon, we don't need it to be like a video game.  Why does this
>thing have to take over the full screen, rather than working in a window
>like most apps?

Does it matter for an application that we run once in a blue moon?

The time line on the right is useful to quickly move to about the
right spot, then we have a finder.   It's obvious that we are in Time
Machine because of the full screen.
Clever Monkey - 18 Mar 2008 17:21 GMT
>> Checking, I find I was mistaken.  It does 1-hour settings, but at 15
>> minutes past the hour.  This does seem excessive, especially when I'm at
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> keeps one per day for anything between 24 hours and one month old.  If
> you're concerned about using drive space unnecessarily, don't be.

Even better: those directories are hard links, too, which is a very
clever trick indeed.
Signature

clvrmnky <mailto:spamtrap@clevermonkey.org>

Direct replies to this address will be blacklisted.  Replace "spamtrap"
with my name to contact me directly.

Howard Brazee - 15 Mar 2008 22:35 GMT
> > I don't want 15 minute intervals.
>
> http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710291721156

Interesting.  I changed this as the article said.  I first told it to
always open that application with TextWrangler.  Then I changed the time
interval.  At the first character change it asked if I wanted to unlock
it, and I said yes.   I finished the change and was asked for my
password, which I supplied.

Then I closed TextWrangler and saw two windows saying "You cannot change
the item "com.apple.backupd-auto.plist" to always open in the selected
application,

The item is either locked or damaged in a folder you don't have
permission to change.  Error -5000).
                  OK

I decided to open it again.  TextWrangler wasn't the default, again only
two instances of TextEdit were listed.   I set it as the default again
(which didn't take again).  I discovered that that error window popped
up when I started my edit (when such windows pop up behind my work, it's
hard to notice that they are there).   I saw that my previous fix had
taken.

Why didn't my request to change default editors take?
Why did that error message pop up behind my editor?
Lewis - 16 Mar 2008 01:09 GMT
> Why didn't my request to change default editors take?

because you don't have permissions to write to the FOLDER that file is
in.

Signature

Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

Howard Brazee - 16 Mar 2008 15:14 GMT
> > Why didn't my request to change default editors take?
>
> because you don't have permissions to write to the FOLDER that file is
> in.

That's interesting - it implies that there is a file within that folder
telling OS-X what applications are the defaults to open files within
that folder.    Is this a Unix thing or an OS X thing?   I assumed that
these settings were much more global than this.

Is there a way to set up the default so it works globally or so that it
works in this folder?
Jolly Roger - 16 Mar 2008 17:27 GMT
> > > I don't want 15 minute intervals.
> >
> > http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710291721156
>
> Interesting.  I changed this as the article said.  I first told it to
> always open that application with TextWrangler.

Why? If you have Xcode installed, then the default application should be
Property List Editor, which is a much better application to use to edit
property list files.

BTW, when I tried this, the first thing that happened is an immediate
error message displayed stating:

<http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/172/error1vq1.png>

You didn't mention this. That would be your first indication that maybe
you shouldn't be trying to change the default application, no?

> Then I changed the time
> interval.  At the first character change it asked if I wanted to unlock
> it, and I said yes.   I finished the change and was asked for my
> password, which I supplied.

You mean it asked for an *administrator* username and password, right?
When I edited the file, TextWrangler asked for an administrator
password. This is the standard way TextWrangler allows non-admin users
to edit files to which they would normally not have access, BTW.

I highly recommend all Mac users use a non-administrator account for
day-to-day usage rather than an administrator account.

> Then I closed TextWrangler and saw two windows saying "You cannot change
> the item "com.apple.backupd-auto.plist" to always open in the selected
> application,
>
> The item is either locked or damaged in a folder you don't have
> permission to change.  Error -5000).

I didn't see this error message at all. And when I look at the Info
window for the file in the Finder, it lists TextWrangler as the default
application.

> I decided to open it again.  TextWrangler wasn't the default, again only
> two instances of TextEdit were listed.   I set it as the default again
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Why didn't my request to change default editors take?

Good question. I can't seem to duplicate that problem here. I may be ble
to tell you why *you* are seeing the error though. Do this:

1. Open /Applications/Utilities/Terminal.
2. Enter this command:
   ls -alO /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd*
3. Copy the results and paste them in a reply to this message.

Here's what my system shows:

# ls -alO /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd*
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  -  528B Oct 10 00:02
/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd-attach.plist
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  -  541B Mar 16 11:24
/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd-auto.plist
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  -  473B Oct 10 00:02
/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd.plist

> Why did that error message pop up behind my editor?

I'm not sure why the error message displayed behind the editor. I
suppose it's possible there was a delay in generating the message, and
by that time you had already switched to the editor, so the Finder
displayed it in the background.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 16 Mar 2008 19:27 GMT
In article

> > Interesting.  I changed this as the article said.  I first told it to
> > always open that application with TextWrangler.
>
> Why? If you have Xcode installed, then the default application should be
> Property List Editor, which is a much better application to use to edit
> property list files.

The only option I was given was two mentions of Text Edit.  I didn't see
"Property List Editor".


> > Why didn't my request to change default editors take?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Here's what my system shows:

Last login: Sat Mar 15 16:22:19 on console
Macintosh-5:~ HBrazee$ ls -alO
/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd*
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  - 528 Oct 11 23:21
/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd-attach.plist
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  - 541 Mar 15 15:27
/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd-auto.plist
-rw-r--r--  1 root  wheel  - 473 Oct 11 23:21
/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd.plist
Macintosh-5:~ HBrazee$
Jolly Roger - 16 Mar 2008 19:54 GMT
> In article
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> The only option I was given was two mentions of Text Edit.  I didn't see
> "Property List Editor".

Then you don't have Xcode installed.  Is that, in fact, correct?

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 16 Mar 2008 23:22 GMT
In article
<jollyroger-D80CE0.13540316032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,

> > The only option I was given was two mentions of Text Edit.  I didn't see
> > "Property List Editor".
>
> Then you don't have Xcode installed.  Is that, in fact, correct?

At least spotlight doesn't find it.   I assume you're correct.
Jolly Roger - 17 Mar 2008 00:05 GMT
> In article
> <jollyroger-D80CE0.13540316032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> At least spotlight doesn't find it.   I assume you're correct.

You'd have a folder named "Developer" at the root of the startup volume.
Xcode is something you would have to go out of your way to install. So
unless you remember installing it, you probably don't have it.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Jolly Roger - 16 Mar 2008 19:55 GMT
> > > Why didn't my request to change default editors take?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd.plist
> Macintosh-5:~ HBrazee$

Looks the same to me.  How about this command then?:

    ls -lO /System/Library/ | grep LaunchDaemons

My system shows:

drwxr-xr-x  131 root  wheel  -  4.3K Feb 22 09:17 LaunchDaemons

(BTW, I am running 10.5.2 on a Power Mac G5 (PowerPC), upgraded from
10.4.)

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 16 Mar 2008 23:23 GMT
In article
<jollyroger-1611B2.13554716032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,

> Looks the same to me.  How about this command then?:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> (BTW, I am running 10.5.2 on a Power Mac G5 (PowerPC), upgraded from
> 10.4.)

Last login: Sun Mar 16 12:26:49 on ttys000
Macintosh-5:~ HBrazee$ ls -lO /System/Library/ | grep LaunchDaemons
drwxr-xr-x  124 root  wheel  -     4216 Feb 24 09:48 LaunchDaemons
Macintosh-5:~ HBrazee$
Jolly Roger - 17 Mar 2008 00:06 GMT
> In article
> <jollyroger-1611B2.13554716032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> drwxr-xr-x  124 root  wheel  -     4216 Feb 24 09:48 LaunchDaemons
> Macintosh-5:~ HBrazee$

Peculiar. Yours is exactly the same.

So can you take a screen shot of the error message you see when you try
to change the default application for that property list file?

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 17 Mar 2008 01:40 GMT
In article
<jollyroger-C9C953.18060316032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,

> So can you take a screen shot of the error message you see when you try
> to change the default application for that property list file?

Probably.  I'll check this thread tomorrow with an easier newsreader, to
find the name of the file I changed.

But I can't post screen shots in text newsgroups without making people
angry.
Jolly Roger - 17 Mar 2008 05:04 GMT
> In article
> <jollyroger-C9C953.18060316032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> But I can't post screen shots in text newsgroups without making people
> angry.

That's what http://imageshack.us is for.  ;  ) Upload the image there
and paste the URL here.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 18 Mar 2008 01:05 GMT
I tried to do this change again.

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710291721156 told me
that I needed to navigate into /System » Library » LaunchDaemons.
There you'll find a file named com.apple.backupd-auto.plist.

I didn't find it this time, so I searched for "backupd" in my finder
and in my Spotlight without success.   Searching for it caused my Time
Machine drive to spin - I need to find Spotlight settings to stop
this.

I found /Users/HBrazee/Library/LaunchAgents
I found /Library/LaunchDaemons (it looks empty)

I tried to get to CD \ in terminal.
Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 01:11 GMT
> I tried to do this change again.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I didn't find it this time

Well it's supposed to be there. The only way it got moved out of there
is if you moved it. Remember what I said about how running as
administrator is a bad idea?

Are you sure you were looking in /System/Library/LaunchDaemons and not
/System/Library/LaunchAgents?

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 18 Mar 2008 03:06 GMT
>Well it's supposed to be there. The only way it got moved out of there
>is if you moved it. Remember what I said about how running as
>administrator is a bad idea?

And I tried to persuade the Genius to set me up that way, but kept
telling me that I didn't need to until I gave up.

>Are you sure you were looking in /System/Library/LaunchDaemons and not
>/System/Library/LaunchAgents?

I'm sure (I pasted it from the utility you told me about).   Looking
at Time Machine, it has been backing up every 2 hours.

I get confused with a Mac about what /System is.   We don't see the
root, and we have two System directories.

How do I go to the correct directory from Terminal to see if the file
might be hidden?
Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 16:52 GMT
> >Well it's supposed to be there. The only way it got moved out of there
> >is if you moved it. Remember what I said about how running as
> >administrator is a bad idea?
>
> And I tried to persuade the Genius to set me up that way, but kept
> telling me that I didn't need to until I gave up.

Ummm... I gave you complete steps for how to do it yourself right here.  
It's not complicated at all. Want tham again?:

Removing Admin Privileges From Your Normal Account

The initial user account Mac OS X creates during installation is an
administrator account. But running with higher privileges than needed is
never a good idea. You really shouldn't give your normal, every-day
account administrator privileges. When you are logged in as
administrator, everything you do, every program you run (directly or
indirectly, purposefully or inadvertently) is executed with
administrative privileges with access to more parts of the system than
normal users. So if you make a mistake, or worse, if you unknowingly run
a trojan / worm in that account, you can damage and alter critical
system files with little or no acknowledgment from the system.

Mac OS X is designed such that you can accomplish all administrative
tasks from a non-administrative account simply by entering the username
and password of an administrator when prompted. So while you do need to
*have* an administrator account, there's really not much of a reason to
run as administrator for day-to-day use.

The secure thing to do is to create an account just for administration,
then remove administrator privileges from your day-to-day account.
Here's how to do it:

First, open and unlock the System Preferences > Accounts panel.

1. Open System Preferences.
2. Click Accounts.
3. Click the lock icon to unlock the panel (if needed).

Next, create a new administrator account:

1. Click the [+] button. A new user account sheet appears.
2. In the Name text box, enter "Administrator" (without quotes).
3. In the Short Name text box, enter "admin" (without quotes).
4. In the Password text box, enter a secure password. If you need help
creating a secure password, click the little key icon to the right of
this text box, and an assistant will help you come up with a secure
password.
5. In the Verify text box re-enter the secure password.
6. Check the "Allow user to administer this computer" checkbox.
7. Click Create Account.

Next, remove administrator abilities from your normal user account:

1. Open System Preferences.
2. Click Accounts.
3. Click the lock icon to unlock the panel (if needed).
4. From the account list on the left side of the System Preferences >
Accounts panel, highlight your normal user account name.
5. Uncheck the "Allow user to administer this computer" checkbox.

That's it. Now whenever you are asked for an administrator account's
credentials, you can enter user name "Administrator" (or "admin") and
the associated secure password.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 18 Mar 2008 17:59 GMT
>Ummm... I gave you complete steps for how to do it yourself right here.  
>It's not complicated at all. Want tham again?:

I printed them up, but my understanding is not good enough that I'm
willing to take this kind of step yet.   Hopefully I will learn more,
so that I'll be confident I'm not "just smart enough to get into
trouble".
Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 18:53 GMT
> >Ummm... I gave you complete steps for how to do it yourself right here.  
> >It's not complicated at all. Want tham again?:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> so that I'll be confident I'm not "just smart enough to get into
> trouble".

You apparently don't understand that every minute of every day you run
as administrator you put your system at risk for malware, but also at
risk of you inadvertently messing something up in system directories
that would otherwise be protected. You have no reason not to do these
steps ASAP.

The instructions are, in fact, written for people like you. They are
purposefully not complicated and written in such a way that if you
follow the steps to the letter, it works! Stop procrastinating and, as
Nike says, Just Do It!

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 18 Mar 2008 18:02 GMT
>That's it. Now whenever you are asked for an administrator account's
>credentials, you can enter user name "Administrator" (or "admin") and
>the associated secure password.

So how is that safer than doing the same thing without typing in
"admin"?
Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 18:50 GMT
> >That's it. Now whenever you are asked for an administrator account's
> >credentials, you can enter user name "Administrator" (or "admin") and
> >the associated secure password.
>
> So how is that safer than doing the same thing without typing in
> "admin"?

Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction??

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 18 Mar 2008 19:31 GMT
>Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction??

Yes, but as I told you, my I know just enough to be dangerous.    I've
been told by several "experts", and read from several sources that I
need to manually enter a password to have the ability to do all those
bad things.   They say that's why Macs are so safe.

Maybe they're all wrong.   In many ways they seem less knowledgeable
than you seem.   But no matter what, it isn't a bad idea for me to try
to increase my understanding.
Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 22:30 GMT
> >Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction??
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> than you seem.   But no matter what, it isn't a bad idea for me to try
> to increase my understanding.

If you have specific questions about this topic, please do ask.

Like I said, the steps are simple and written in such a way that if you
follow them precisely, nothing will go wrong. Note that the method I
describe with those steps does not change any files in your current user
account. It's not harmful. There's no reason you cannot or should not
switch to a normal account now.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 01:40 GMT
>> >Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction??
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>If you have specific questions about this topic, please do ask.

OK.   I'll ask again.   Why is it more secure to be prompted for my
name and password than just for my password?
Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 01:47 GMT
> >> >Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction??
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> OK.   I'll ask again.   Why is it more secure to be prompted for my
> name and password than just for my password?

You're not being prompted for YOUR name and password, you're prompted
for an administrator's name and password.  The key point is that YOU
aren't an administrator, so you're not normally running with
administrator privileges.  So you can't do anything that requires
privileges until you enter a name and password.

When you're running as an administrator, some system operations require
you to enter your password, but others can be done without entering ANY
password.  For instance, you can drag and drop programs into
/Applications.

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 01:52 GMT
>You're not being prompted for YOUR name and password, you're prompted
>for an administrator's name and password.  The key point is that YOU
>aren't an administrator, so you're not normally running with
>administrator privileges.  So you can't do anything that requires
>privileges until you enter a name and password.

Are there times when I am asked for a non-administer password?
Otherwise, I'm failing to see the difference.

>When you're running as an administrator, some system operations require
>you to enter your password, but others can be done without entering ANY
>password.  For instance, you can drag and drop programs into
>/Applications.

OK, so that's a difference I understand.
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:58 GMT
> >You're not being prompted for YOUR name and password, you're prompted
> >for an administrator's name and password.  The key point is that YOU
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Are there times when I am asked for a non-administer password?
> Otherwise, I'm failing to see the difference.

What you are failing to grasp is that when you are an administrator, you
are allowed to make changes to some parts of the system that normal,
non-admin users would not be allowed to make  - and *without password
authentication*.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 15:45 GMT
>> Are there times when I am asked for a non-administer password?
>> Otherwise, I'm failing to see the difference.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>non-admin users would not be allowed to make  - and *without password
>authentication*.

The rest of my post included:

>>When you're running as an administrator, some system operations require
>>you to enter your password, but others can be done without entering ANY
>>password.  For instance, you can drag and drop programs into
>>/Applications.
>
>OK, so that's a difference I understand.
Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 02:10 GMT
> >You're not being prompted for YOUR name and password, you're prompted
> >for an administrator's name and password.  The key point is that YOU
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Are there times when I am asked for a non-administer password?
> Otherwise, I'm failing to see the difference.

You're always asked for an administrator password.  If you're an
administrator, it will simply ask for your password.  If you're not an
administrator, it will ask for the name and password of an administrator
account.

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 02:34 GMT
> > >You're not being prompted for YOUR name and password, you're prompted
> > >for an administrator's name and password.  The key point is that YOU
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> administrator, it will ask for the name and password of an administrator
> account.

No, not always. There are some files and directories, for instance, that
may be modified by anyone in the administrator group without bringing up
an authentication prompt.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 02:40 GMT
In article
<jollyroger-9F0744.20344118032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,

> > > >You're not being prompted for YOUR name and password, you're prompted
> > > >for an administrator's name and password.  The key point is that YOU
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> may be modified by anyone in the administrator group without bringing up
> an authentication prompt.

I already mentioned that in another post.  My point here was to describe
what it does in the cases where it DOES prompt for a password, and how
this differs depending on whether you're running as an administrator or
normal user.

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 02:43 GMT
> I already mentioned that in another post.  My point here was to describe
> what it does in the cases where it DOES prompt for a password, and how
> this differs depending on whether you're running as an administrator or
> normal user.

My bad - I didn't realize that wwas you.  : )

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:55 GMT
> > >> >Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction??
> > >>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> password.  For instance, you can drag and drop programs into
> /Applications.

Precisely.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Daniel Cohen - 19 Mar 2008 10:59 GMT
> When you're running as an administrator, some system operations require
> you to enter your password, but others can be done without entering ANY
> password.  For instance, you can drag and drop programs into
> /Applications.

And you can delete items from Applications, which can be even more
dangerous if you don't know what you are doing.
Signature

http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read

Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:52 GMT
> >> >Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction??
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> OK.   I'll ask again.   Why is it more secure to be prompted for my
> name and password than just for my password?

Inherently? It's not. It's more secure to be prompted *at all* when you
normally would not be prompted. Also, by asking for the administrator
user name as well as the password, it clues you in that what you are
doing will modify protected system resources, and makes it so that if
someone you know obtains *your* password for *your* account, they won't
be able to compromise your system.

Again: It is always a good idea to run *without* escalated privileges.
Anyone who has any real experience with computing security will agree
with this.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 02:13 GMT
>Again: It is always a good idea to run *without* escalated privileges.
>Anyone who has any real experience with computing security will agree
>with this.

I agree.  I just to have a better knowledge about how it works.

It's funny that both Apple professionals and Microsoft professionals
don't make this the default - and seem to get angry when users wish to
do it that way.

At any rate, changing this has been bumped up on my to-do list -
probably Thursday.
Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 02:32 GMT
> >Again: It is always a good idea to run *without* escalated privileges.
> >Anyone who has any real experience with computing security will agree
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> don't make this the default - and seem to get angry when users wish to
> do it that way.

The default configuration isn't horrible.  You need to enter a password
to make changes to the guts of the OS and system-wide configuration
files.  Without a password, you can only update a few places, like
/Applications and /Library, but not /System.

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Daniel Cohen - 19 Mar 2008 10:59 GMT
> > It's funny that both Apple professionals and Microsoft professionals
> > don't make this the default - and seem to get angry when users wish to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> files.  Without a password, you can only update a few places, like
> /Applications and /Library, but not /System.

When one know what one is doing, having an admin and a non-admin account
is definitely the best thing.

If Apple set it up like that, plenty people who didn't know much about
Macs would be calling for support because "I tried to put this in the
Applications folder, and I was told I couldn't do it", and things like
that.

There's always a balance between security and simplicity.
Signature

http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read

Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 14:54 GMT
> > > It's funny that both Apple professionals and Microsoft professionals
> > > don't make this the default - and seem to get angry when users wish to
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Applications folder, and I was told I couldn't do it", and things like
> that.

I disagree.  First of all, you aren't told "You can't do that". You are
asked for the administrator name and password. There's a big difference.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 20:12 GMT
In article
<jollyroger-7F6C8A.08541219032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,

> > > > It's funny that both Apple professionals and Microsoft professionals
> > > > don't make this the default - and seem to get angry when users wish to
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> I disagree.  First of all, you aren't told "You can't do that". You are
> asked for the administrator name and password. There's a big difference.

Actually, you get an alert saying that you can't do it, with buttons
"Authenticate" and "OK".  You don't get asked for the administrator name
unless you click on Authenticate.  I can see how this might be confusing
for grandma.  Not to mention that I think the OK button should actually
be Cancel (OK is usually used to mean "Go ahead and do whatever you were
warning me might be dangerous").

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Daniel Cohen - 19 Mar 2008 20:41 GMT
> > If Apple set it up like that, plenty people who didn't know much about
> > Macs would be calling for support because "I tried to put this in the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I disagree.  First of all, you aren't told "You can't do that". You are
> asked for the administrator name and password. There's a big difference.

The truth is perhaps halfway between what I initially said and what you
have just said.

To double-check, I just tried to move an item into the Applications
folder.

The resulting message was

The item ... could not be moved because Applications cannot be modified"

Close enough to "You can't do that".

The alert user will see that there are buttons marked Authenticate and
OK, with OK the default. If that user clicks on Authenticate, they would
then, as you say, be asked for an administrator name and password.

But there are plenty of non-alert people around who would just click on
OK because it is the default - or perhaps would even ask for help
without clickin anywhere.
Signature

http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read

Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 22:25 GMT
> I just tried to move an item into the Applications
> folder.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> OK, with OK the default. If that user clicks on Authenticate, they would
> then, as you say, be asked for an administrator name and password.

I see what you mean now. Apparently, I have grown so accustomed to that
dialog box that I no longer read the text, and immediately see
"Authenticate"!

> But there are plenty of non-alert people around who would just click on
> OK because it is the default - or perhaps would even ask for help
> without clickin anywhere.

Yep - I see what you mean now.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 20 Mar 2008 20:25 GMT
>I see what you mean now. Apparently, I have grown so accustomed to that
>dialog box that I no longer read the text, and immediately see
>"Authenticate"!

I also noticed some differences between your directions to create an
admin account and my current version of 10.5.   You probably wrote
them up a while ago and haven't checked recently.

That said, the directions were close enough (and showed how simple it
was).
Jolly Roger - 20 Mar 2008 20:44 GMT
> >I see what you mean now. Apparently, I have grown so accustomed to that
> >dialog box that I no longer read the text, and immediately see
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> That said, the directions were close enough (and showed how simple it
> was).

Oh good catch. You're right.  I'll fix them up.  Thanks.

Signature

Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

Jolly Roger - 20 Mar 2008 20:51 GMT
> >I see what you mean now. Apparently, I have grown so accustomed to that
> >dialog box that I no longer read the text, and immediately see
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> That said, the directions were close enough (and showed how simple it
> was).

Fixed.  Thanks again.

Signature

Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

Howard Brazee - 21 Mar 2008 15:56 GMT
>> That said, the directions were close enough (and showed how simple it
>> was).
>
>Fixed.  Thanks again.

No problem.   It's hard to notice when something like this changes -
it's not as though this is a task you perform often.
Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 15:48 GMT
>When one know what one is doing, having an admin and a non-admin account
>is definitely the best thing.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Applications folder, and I was told I couldn't do it", and things like
>that.

Maybe hide them better - although they don't need to do it the way
they hide the Unix root.

I think that Jolly Roger's suggestion should be the default
configuration (for all kinds of computers).
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 22:26 GMT
> >When one know what one is doing, having an admin and a non-admin account
> >is definitely the best thing.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I think that Jolly Roger's suggestion should be the default
> configuration (for all kinds of computers).    

Same here!

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 20 Mar 2008 20:26 GMT
>> I think that Jolly Roger's suggestion should be the default
>> configuration (for all kinds of computers).    
>
>Same here!

You would.
Jolly Roger - 20 Mar 2008 20:43 GMT
> >> I think that Jolly Roger's suggestion should be the default
> >> configuration (for all kinds of computers).    
> >
> >Same here!
>
> You would.

*grin*

Signature

Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 00:51 GMT
> >That's it. Now whenever you are asked for an administrator account's
> >credentials, you can enter user name "Administrator" (or "admin") and
> >the associated secure password.
>
> So how is that safer than doing the same thing without typing in
> "admin"?

If you're an admin user, you can update some things without having to
type a password at all.  For instance, you don't need to enter a
password to copy a program into /Applications.

So by running as a non-admin, anything you do that tries to update a
system-wide file or folder will require you to enter the admin username
and password.

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Daniel Cohen - 18 Mar 2008 21:00 GMT
> Mac OS X is designed such that you can accomplish all administrative
> tasks from a non-administrative account simply by entering the username
> and password of an administrator when prompted. So while you do need to
> *have* an administrator account, there's really not much of a reason to
> run as administrator for day-to-day use.

That's more than 99% true, but not 100%. I have run across a program
that rejected an admin name and password when run from a non-admin
account, but worked fine from an admin account. But such cases are very
rare, and I can see arguments for saying that a program that behaves
that way should not be used.
Signature

http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read

Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 22:26 GMT
> > Mac OS X is designed such that you can accomplish all administrative
> > tasks from a non-administrative account simply by entering the username
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> rare, and I can see arguments for saying that a program that behaves
> that way should not be used.

Now that you mention it, so have I. It's called DNS Enabler:

<http://cutedgesystems.com/software/DNSEnabler/>

This is the only piece of software I know about that doesn't allow you
to enter administrator credentials from a non-admin account. And now
that I look at it...apparently, the developer of DNS Enabler took my
comments to heart and released a new version that does accept
administrator credentials from a non-admin account:

<http://cutedgesystems.com/software/DNSEnablerForLeopard/index.html>

So now that makes it zero applications I know of.  : )

To which one(s) are you referring?

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Daniel Cohen - 18 Mar 2008 23:58 GMT
> > That's more than 99% true, but not 100%. I have run across a program
> > that rejected an admin name and password when run from a non-admin
> > account, but worked fine from an admin account. But such cases are very
> > rare, and I can see arguments for saying that a program that behaves
> > that way should not be used.

> To which one(s) are you referring?

One of the earlier versions of ClamXav. The program worked fine from a
non-admin account, but if you tried to set up a schedule from a
non-admin account it asked for an admin name and password and then
rejected them. This was fixed in a later version.

It caused grief for quite a few of us, who wondered if we had mistyped
the password, or what was happening.
Signature

http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read

Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 00:21 GMT
> > > That's more than 99% true, but not 100%. I have run across a program
> > > that rejected an admin name and password when run from a non-admin
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> It caused grief for quite a few of us, who wondered if we had mistyped
> the password, or what was happening.

I bet!  : ) Thanks for sharing.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 16:54 GMT
> >Are you sure you were looking in /System/Library/LaunchDaemons and not
> >/System/Library/LaunchAgents?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> How do I go to the correct directory from Terminal to see if the file
> might be hidden?

It's simple - you just specify the full path in the ls command - like
this:

    ls -al /System/Library/LaunchDaemons

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 01:43 GMT
>It's simple - you just specify the full path in the ls command - like
>this:
>
>     ls -al /System/Library/LaunchDaemons

That found a lot

Last login: Tue Mar 18 17:21:37 on console
Macintosh-6:~ HBrazee$ ls -al /System/Library/LaunchDaemons
total 976
drwxr-xr-x  124 root  wheel  4216 Feb 24 09:48 .
drwxr-xr-x   63 root  wheel  2142 Mar 18 17:09 ..
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel   678 Sep 23 23:15 bootps.plist
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel   513 Oct  9 20:20
com.apple.ATSServer.plist
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel   741 Jan 20 13:09
com.apple.AppleFileServer.plist
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel   460 Sep 23 19:59
com.apple.CoreRAID.plist
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel   727 Jan 19 11:23
com.apple.DirectoryServices.plist
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel   528 Oct 14 01:04
com.apple.DirectoryServicesLocal.plist
...

But it doesn't appear to be what I was looking for.
Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 01:49 GMT
> >It's simple - you just specify the full path in the ls command - like
> >this:
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> But it doesn't appear to be what I was looking for.

It seems like you may have accidentally deleted the file.  Maybe you
should check to see whether there's a copy of it in the Time Machine
backup.

Signature

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 01:54 GMT
>It seems like you may have accidentally deleted the file.  Maybe you
>should check to see whether there's a copy of it in the Time Machine
>backup.

Hmm.   That brings up another question.   Let's say I created a file
sometime in the past.   I notice now that it is gone.    I have no
idea when it disappeared, and not a very good idea when it was
created.

Is there a way to search for it in Time Machine?
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:56 GMT
> >It seems like you may have accidentally deleted the file.  Maybe you
> >should check to see whether there's a copy of it in the Time Machine
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Is there a way to search for it in Time Machine?

1. Open /System/Library/LaunchDaemons in a Finder window.
2. Click the Time Machine icon in the dock.
3. Click the up arrow in Time Machine until you see the file appear.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 15:50 GMT
>> Is there a way to search for it in Time Machine?
>
>1. Open /System/Library/LaunchDaemons in a Finder window.
>2. Click the Time Machine icon in the dock.
>3. Click the up arrow in Time Machine until you see the file appear.

Hmmm, in a crowded folder this could get tedious.   Maybe a search
feature will be available in a future version of Time Machine.
Lewis - 19 Mar 2008 16:41 GMT
>>> Is there a way to search for it in Time Machine?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Hmmm, in a crowded folder this could get tedious.   Maybe a search
> feature will be available in a future version of Time Machine.

Tried the Search field in the Time machine finder window?

Signature

Lithium will no longer be available on credit

Howard Brazee - 20 Mar 2008 00:41 GMT
>> Hmmm, in a crowded folder this could get tedious.   Maybe a search
>> feature will be available in a future version of Time Machine.
>
>Tried the Search field in the Time machine finder window?

I may have done it wrong - but it searched the backup of the computer
for that backup.   I want to search the folder or file for all
backups.
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:55 GMT
> It seems like you may have accidentally deleted the file.  Maybe you
> should check to see whether there's a copy of it in the Time Machine
> backup.

Nah. He's just scrolling down far enough to see it. Items in ls listings
sort capital letters to the top, by default. The
com.apple.backupd-auto.plist appears below what he shows above as a
result.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:59 GMT
In article
<jollyroger-19AD50.19550618032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,

Edit:

> Nah. He's just NOT scrolling down far enough to see it. Items in ls listings
> sort capital letters to the top, by default. The
> com.apple.backupd-auto.plist appears below what he shows above as a
> result.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:50 GMT
> >It's simple - you just specify the full path in the ls command - like
> >this:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> com.apple.DirectoryServicesLocal.plist
> ...

The list is a *whole* lot longer than that, and one of the items in the
list is indeed com.apple.backupd-auto.plist. All you need to do it look.

If you'd rather look in a Finder window, issue this command in a
terminal window:

    open /System/Library/LaunchDaemons

> But it doesn't appear to be what I was looking for.

What *are* you looking for, exactly, if not
com.apple.backupd-auto.plist?!

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 02:26 GMT
>The list is a *whole* lot longer than that, and one of the items in the
>list is indeed com.apple.backupd-auto.plist. All you need to do it look.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>What *are* you looking for, exactly, if not
>com.apple.backupd-auto.plist?!

My mistake.   It didn't look like it did when I first looked at the
files via the finder.  But since the finder now doesn't show anything,
I was mistaken to assume it had showed everything the first time.

Hmmm.   I just looked using the finder.   Now I see everything.   Odd.

I just clicked on it and told it to open with.   I listened to my
backup drive run (why?) and then a "choose application" window popped
up.   I selected TextWrangler.app, checked "Always Open With", and hit
Open.   I got the following error window:

http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1rc5kd6.jpg

I clicked again - the "Open With" didn't take.
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 02:33 GMT
> >The list is a *whole* lot longer than that, and one of the items in the
> >list is indeed com.apple.backupd-auto.plist. All you need to do it look.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> My mistake.   It didn't look like it did when I first looked at the
> files via the finder.  

I'm betting you just didn't realize the sorting is done differently on
the command line in 'ls'.

> But since the finder now doesn't show anything,
> I was mistaken to assume it had showed everything the first time.
>
> Hmmm.   I just looked using the finder.   Now I see everything.   Odd.

Probably because you were looking at the Library folder in the local
domain (/Library) or the user domain (~/Library) that time, rather than
the Library folder in the system domain (/System/Library).

> I just clicked on it and told it to open with.   I listened to my
> backup drive run (why?) and then a "choose application" window popped
[quoted text clipped - 4