I have final Panther (10.3-7b85)

Originally posted by 3mors
as i've already said, it's because of apple protection plan.
some disc images (and also cds) can't be burned/copied with toast. there r some file inside unreadable for toast.
on the web u can find many how-to to skip this protection.

in order to create your personal backup, i mean. ::angel::
Click to expand...

That seems like somewhat of a ridiculous explanation to me. Let me get this straight - Apple's "copy protection" is to make the images incompatible with some third party burners, but completely compatible with burning software included on EVERY machine?

Seems to me that would only protect from the small percentage of users that have burners that are incompatible with disk copy/disk utility.

Unless it's coupled with Fryke's comment, which makes a lot more sense... And then I'd guess that it's some other "feature" that Toast doesn't yet understand, not some sort of mystical copy protection that obviously serves no purpose.
 
Originally posted by Krevinek
If it doesn't burn right in Toast, try this spitty27:

Mount the image, then use Toast to burn the volume. It won't be a bit-for-bit copy, but more likely to boot.
Click to expand...

garrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!! ok, so disc copy and disc utility dont pick up on my burner (listed in my sig). im on panther 7B80, and been trying to burn 7B85. as i've heard, Toast cannot burn as an image, so i tried what you said, by burning the mounted volume. didnt work either. greeeeeeeggeuoijrgkhnreiujk!!!!!! ugh....apple needs to put in support for every burner ever made ::angel:: ...:eek: ...guess ill wait for GM to be released, besides, pippin claims of 7B85c....o well, one more cd to throw away.
 
Originally posted by Ripcord
That seems like somewhat of a ridiculous explanation to me. Let me get this straight - Apple's "copy protection" is to make the images incompatible with some third party burners, but completely compatible with burning software included on EVERY machine?

Seems to me that would only protect from the small percentage of users that have burners that are incompatible with disk copy/disk utility.

Unless it's coupled with Fryke's comment, which makes a lot more sense... And then I'd guess that it's some other "feature" that Toast doesn't yet understand, not some sort of mystical copy protection that obviously serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

I didnt say that copy protection avoid that you copy discs with toast, but I said that it's a problem of Toast, that doesn't understand some files.
Read better next time!
 
I'm just waiting for 10x8x2 inch boxes with a shiny, blocky X on the front to appear on store shelves.
 
Originally posted by ScottW
Here is my only question for Panther...

If you are logged in, and your screensaver is locked because you left for the afternoon, can another user on the system, switch to another user account w/o having to logout or mess with that session?

The way it is now... I have this program that runs that basically allows you to kill the current logged in session. Sometimes I will run outside for something, come back in and my wife sat down and exited my entire login session... disposing of whatever apps I had opened or was working on.

I just hope this doesn't have to continue with 10.3.
Click to expand...

If there are multiple users setup on the system, and fast user switching is enabled, when a password protected screensaver is running a new button entitled "Switch User..." appears when the screensaver is awoken. This leaves all running apps running etc...
 
Originally posted by cybergoober
If there are multiple users setup on the system, and fast user switching is enabled, when a password protected screensaver is running a new button entitled "Switch User..." appears when the screensaver is awoken. This leaves all running apps running etc...
Click to expand...

I've noticed that as well. Its a welcome addition, but it was in Build 7B59 as well, for those who haven't upgraded since then.
 
Does that leave your screensaver running, like if you have a password-protected screensaver, or do you have to exit the screensaver first (not a good method)?

Also, does Panther have a way of locking the computer besides using the screensaver?
 
Originally posted by arden
Does that leave your screensaver running, like if you have a password-protected screensaver, or do you have to exit the screensaver first (not a good method)?

Also, does Panther have a way of locking the computer besides using the screensaver?
Click to expand...

It pops up a box that has a button that lets you switch to the login screen, leaving the current user logged in, and his screen saver still running. Interestingly, it seems that the screensaver process takes up 0% CPU in the background, but this could possibly be only whilst the password box is displayed.

When you log back into the user who had the screensaver running, you need to enter your password again to unlock the screensaver. This is a little unfortunate, but I suppose it's more secure...

You can lock Panther without using the screen saver by going to the switch user menu, and selecting 'Login Window...' - this flips you back to the login screen. Note though, that in your absence another user could log in and use the computer. I actually think this is a good thing, especially in a corporate environment, where you could jump on a spare machine and check your email whilst the owner is out to lunch. OS X is so stable that there's little danger of you crashing the machine and them loosing work.
 
I figured. That makes sense, although it's a bit inconvenient to enter your password twice to get back to your own setup, I guess. I would expect the screensaver to take up 0% CPU in the background, since it doesn't actually have to do anything unless it's saving the screen (from great green goblins of death!).
 
arden: Then just go to the login screen instead of activating the screen saver to lock your computer...
 
Just tried this. :) It's a nicer way to lock your workstation... I wish you could add a keyboard combo to do just that...
 
Any confirmation of the legitimacy of this being the GM? Apple announced its release date, so speculation points to this build or one very close to it. This entire build process has been different than in the past, or so it seems.
 
Hmmm... I was reading the forum over at macnn.com and someone was REALLY concerned about the build number of the GM version -- he thought that if he already had the GM beta build, that he could just skip buying the boxed version, and thought that the 10.3.x updates would just install on his "GM beta build."

I didn't think that was right. If I remember correctly, even when Jaguar went "GM," even if you had the latest beta build that happened to be the GM that you couldn't apply the 10.2.x updaters. I'm almost positive that even if they christen build XXXX or whatever the GM that the final build that is released would have a different build number, or, at least have some internal changes that signify it as the final, boxed version.

Anyways, I told him he was wrong, whether I was right or not... hehe... seemed like it made sense at the time. ;)
 
Originally posted by 3mors
I didnt say that copy protection avoid that you copy discs with toast, but I said that it's a problem of Toast, that doesn't understand some files.
Read better next time!
Click to expand...

What makes you think it's something to do with some sort of "Apply copy protection", and not something else? Reference?
 
Nope. GM version and Retail version are identical. And thus can be updated. You should still buy the package, of course, unless you're an ADC member and will be sent the GM anyway.

Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca
I didn't think that was right. If I remember correctly, even when Jaguar went "GM," even if you had the latest beta build that happened to be the GM that you couldn't apply the 10.2.x updaters. I'm almost positive that even if they christen build XXXX or whatever the GM that the final build that is released would have a different build number, or, at least have some internal changes that signify it as the final, boxed version.

Anyways, I told him he was wrong, whether I was right or not... hehe... seemed like it made sense at the time. ;)
Click to expand...
 
Ah, my mistake then... I guess he'll just have to wait until the final version comes out to see if he's got the latest version. Thanks for the correction!

I didn't realize that paying ADC members (I'm a student ADC member, so I don't get beta builds) got the final release for free... well, in spite of their membership costs.
 
Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca
Ah, my mistake then... I guess he'll just have to wait until the final version comes out to see if he's got the latest version. Thanks for the correction!

I didn't realize that paying ADC members (I'm a student ADC member, so I don't get beta builds) got the final release for free... well, in spite of their membership costs.
Click to expand...

Yes, I got both 10.2 and 10.2.3 on CD. (I had to expire my membership though recently... money is tight)

Although you can still do an Archive/Install with the final over the beta builds, so I don't consider it a loss. I am starting to like Archive/Install now :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top