Fix for kernel panics on Mac Pro with multiple GeForce cards: ATI Radeon HD 5770

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
August 1st, 2013 • 9:08 am

In the summer of 2012, Apple started seeding early builds of the OS X 10.8.2 update. As a member of the AppleSeed program, I was able to test these early builds. I quickly noticed (as one would) that they introduced a serious new bug that caused frequent kernel panics on my Mac Pro, up to several times a day. I of course immediately filed a bug report on these kernel panics.

In September 2012, the final version of the OS X 10.8.2 update came out, and the kernel panics were still there. Around the same time, Apple sent me a response to my bug report indicating that the problem was a “known issue” and closing my bug report as a “duplicate”. Meanwhile, a thread discussing the issue appeared on the Apple forums, and it quickly became apparent that the problem could be narrowed down to people running Mac Pro computers with multiple GeForce video cards driving multiple monitors, and involved a few kernel extension files that were updated in OS X 10.8.2.

In October 2012, Apple released an update called OS X 10.8.2 Supplemental Update, which updated one of the kernel extensions involved. Sadly, it quickly became apparent that the supplemental update did not fix the kernel panics.

In late 2012, Apple started seeding early builds of the OS X 10.8.3 update. It included updated versions of all three kernel extensions involved in the kernel panics. The update did appear to have an impact on the frequency of the kernel panics, at least on my machine. But it failed to eliminate them completely.

In March 2013, the final version of OS X 10.8.3 came out. Again, while it included updated versions of all three kernel extensions involved in the kernel panics, it failed to completely eliminate the kernel panics.

Meanwhile, Mac Pro users managed to identify various ways of dealing with the kernel panics. I myself provided a hack that offered temporary relief, at least for some people. But it was not a fix.

I purchased an expensive Mini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI Adapter, which enabled me to connect both of my Apple Cinema 30-inch displays to the same GeForce video card and stop using the second card. This eliminated the kernel panics altogether, but it also had a noticeable impact on video performance and general system responsiveness, undoubtedly due to the fact that my system now only had half as much VRAM and video card processing power available.

Some people in the Apple Discussions thread also mentioned that replacing one of the GeForce video cards with an ATI Radeon HD 5770 appeared to provide a permanent fix for the problem.

Personally, I went back to using my two GeForce cards when Apple started seeding OS X 10.8.3, which enabled me to continue to monitor the situation, but of course also meant that I continued to experience the kernel panics, albeit less frequently. This remained true with the final OS X 10.8.3 update, and with early builds of the OS X 10.8.4 update.

In June 2013, Apple released the final version of OS X 10.8.4, and it still did not fix the kernel panics. As I indicated at the time, it looked like Apple was working on the problem, especially since “graphics drivers” was listed as a focus area during the testing of early builds of the update. But the fact remained that the kernel panics were still there in the final version of OS X 10.8.4.

In spite of my willingness to voluntarily endure some level of computing hardship in the name of helping Apple improve its products, I finally decided that I had had enough, and purchased the ATI Radeon HD 5770 upgrade kit myself.

I installed it in early July, and I can now confirm, one month later, that it is indeed a permanent workaround for the problem. (I am reluctant to call it a “fix” myself, because the problem might be still there on the software side of things. But the upgraded hardware prevents OS X from encountering the software problem in the first place, so it’s as good as a fix.) I have not had a single kernel panic since installing the video card.

I can also confirm that installing the Radeon card is fairly straightforward and, for those (like me) sensitive to noise issues, I can also confirm that, even though the card is bulkier and more powerful and requires its own power supply, it has no substantial impact on the overall sound level produced by the Mac Pro. (Sound is a very subjective thing, and there are multiple factors involved. In the summer, for example, when it gets really hot, there is definitely more fan noise coming from my Mac Pro. But I don’t believe the situation is any different from what it was with the two GeForce cards.) Also, while the Radeon 5770 upgrade is listed for “Mac Pro (Mid 2010)”, it works just fine in my 2009 Mac Pro.

Of course, the card has double the VRAM of the GeForce and more processing power, so there is also a little bit of a boost performance-wise. But it’s the kind of small boost you very quickly get used to, and I don’t think I would say that it provides a significant improvement over driving the two Apple Cinema displays with two GeForce cards. It certainly does not appear to be worth purchasing if you are not having kernel panics to begin with.

The bottom line here is that Apple has failed Mac Pro users. While I cannot verify that the bug is still there in 10.8.5 (Apple has been releasing early builds for a while now), I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that it still is. How Apple can justify “knowing” about such a serious issue and not doing anything about it for several months or, indeed, nearly a year now, I just do not know.

As I said before, the cynical in me cannot help but wonder whether Apple is not just taking advantage of the fact that Mac Pro users (especially those with multiple monitors) tend to have more disposable income and don’t mind spending several hundred dollars to work around a problem created by the company in the first place. I know that, personally, being able to do my computing in an environment free of kernel panics is definitely worth the nearly $500 that I have now spent on this problem (not to mention the countless hours spent testing, bug reporting, and simply rebooting and restoring my work environment after crashes).

But it’s definitely not right, and Mac Pro users have every reason to be pissed off with Apple right now. (I am past that stage, but that’s mostly because I have taken steps to work around the problem and I have other important issues to worry about in my life these days.) Apple has let us down big time, and while there are still reasons to be excited about the new Mac Pro announced earlier this year, it will take more than a little effort on Apple’s part to repair its relationship with those affected by this very serious and (as yet?) unaddressed issue.


Delicious Library 3: A major disappointment

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
July 18th, 2013 • 2:58 pm

I used to have a custom-made FileMaker Pro solution for cataloguing my books, my music, and my movies. But when Delicious Library came about, with its built-in access to Amazon’s data, I quickly made the decision to switch to this particular tool. The user interface had a few quirks, but on the whole the experience of using it for cataloguing and browsing my ever-expanding collection was a pleasant one.

There was even a golden era when Delicious Monster was actually able to provide an iOS application that would seamlessly sync with the desktop application and enable you to carry your entire collection around in a convenient portable form. Unfortunately, Amazon then imposed new restrictions that made it impossible for Delicious Monster to continue to offer the iOS application — as if it was “competing” with Amazon’s own on-line offerings as opposed to actually encouraging people to buy more stuff from Amazon. (The iOS application, while no longer available from the App Store, still works on my aging iPad and iPod touch devices, but it’s probably only a matter of time before I have to give up on it altogether.)

All this brings us to the major upgrade that is Delicious Library 3. I have no time to review all its new features, but I have to report that, for my own purposes and in my own daily use, the new version is a major disappointment.

One of the first things you will notice is that the application no longer has a “Preferences” dialog box. That tells you something about the flexibility and customizability that they have sacrificed, probably in the name of “simplifying” the user experience. There are still various viewing options, but these options are too limited and make the experience of using Delicious Library downright annoying.

For instance, the “View as List” option, which is the only one that enables you to view your collection in a workable format, now uses two lines for each item, which of course significantly reduces the number of items that can be seen at any given time. Worse still, you apparently can no longer sort this list by title or by creator alone. The only column option available is an option called “Title and Creator”:

Delicious Library-TitleandCreator

By default, this column uses a sorting rule that follows a rather non-obvious logic, separating those items that do have a creator from those who don’t have one. When you know how inconsistent Amazon’s info is, especially for movies, this means that, for example, various seasons of a single TV show on DVD (say, Breaking Bad) will end up being listed separately, because some seasons have something in their “Creator” field whereas other seasons do not. (And of course all these items that have nothing in their “Creator” field take up as much vertical space as those who do have something, so there’s lots of wasted screen real estate here.)

It seems to me that, since Delicious Library is so intimately linked to Amazon’s data sets, using a data structure that assumes that all the data sets are in perfect condition, with all fields properly filled out, is rather ridiculous.

In addition, my initial impression was that the “Creator” field always took priority over the “Title” field, which meant that it was effectively impossible to have a list of all your titles in pure alphabetical order. DL would always sort by creator first, and then by title. It was simply unacceptable.

I only recently discovered, quite by accident, that you can actually somehow force Delicious Library to sort by title first and then by creator, by clicking on the “Title” word itself in the column header — although I am still not sure exactly what combination of clicks is required. (Now that I have achieved this, I am afraid to undo it.) Somehow, after clicking multiple times, I managed to have a column header that only has a triangle (indicative of sort order) next to “Title” and not to “Creator”:

DeliciousLibrary-TitlesansCreator

Now finally my lists are only sorted by title, whether or not the items have something in their “Creator” field. Don’t ask me exactly how I did it, though. It’s still very mysterious to me. It certainly does not meet the most basic tests of “discoverability”.

The sort order is still not perfect, however. Even though DL obviously has an algorithm for ignoring the definite article “The” in titles (as well as its equivalent in other languages, such as French), I still have a number of DVDs whose title starts with “The” that are listed under “T”, even though the next word does not start with a “T”. I have no idea why.

When DL 3 was first released, there was — believe it or not — absolutely no way to keep item details visible at all times. DL 3 did away with the “Details” pane altogether, and the details were only visible in one of those horrible “pop-up” windows, like in iCal/Calendar. Thankfully, there was enough of an outcry to force the developer to bring back something similar to the “Details” pane from DL 2, in the form of a separate “Details” window.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the implementation of this window is buggy. I quite often find myself in another OS X application with the “Details” window from DL 3 still visible in the foreground above the windows of my other application. I can fix the problem by switching to DL 3 and then back to my application, but really… This is a bit much.

The whole application has also become significantly more sluggish than DL 2 used to be. Even on my relatively fast 2009 Mac Pro with 12 GB of RAM and an SSD for the system volume, everything is slow and choppy, including such basic things as scrolling up and down the list. (Let’s not even mention what happens in “View as Shelf”.) My collection is not tiny, but it’s not enormous either. I find such performance levels barely tolerable.

The search feature is not any better. While it has been fine-tuned somewhat since the original DL 3 release, you are still afraid of making a typo while typing your search request, because this will cause DL 3 to initiate a useless “search-as-you-type” search, which locks up the UI for several seconds, before you’ve finished typing your search request. Ugh.

The process of adding new items to the library is also affected by this sluggish performance. While this process has been simplified and you can now just scan your item’s barcode without bringing up a dialog first, if you are unfortunate enough to attempt to scan the barcode while the application’s UI is locked up, the application emits a useless system beep instead of buffering your data entry and processing it when it becomes responsive again. This happens to me every time I add a new item, because, once DL 3 has recognized the barcode and downloaded the data from Amazon, it takes a couple of seconds to move the newly-added item to the appropriate position in the sorted list of titles. If I happen to scan the next barcode during that resorting, all I get is a beep. Each time I add a new item, I have to wait until DL 3 has moved it to the appropriate place before scanning the next barcode. It’s quite frustrating. I frankly would rather have a modal dialog box than this, because effectively it’s the whole UI that is now modal in an invisible way and forces you, without any visual feedback, to wait until it’s finished “processing” the new item.

This whole situation makes me sad. Delicious Library has not become entirely unusable, but it’s definitely taken a huge step back in usability. I waited for a few months, hoping that these issues would be addressed in subsequent DL 3 updates, but there have been many updates now, and most of the issues I describe here are still there.

If this were a proper review, I would of course offer a more balanced report, by describing the new features, some of which are quite nice (such as the “Recently Added” list on the side). But for me, none of the new features comes anywhere near outweighing the flaws and limitations introduced in the new version. The sluggishness and the lack of viewing and sorting options are fundamental flaws that will have to be properly addressed before I find any pleasure in using this application again.


Pages ’09: ‘The file format is invalid’

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Microsoft, Pages
July 4th, 2013 • 4:15 pm

Ever got this error when you tried to open a Word document in Pages ’09?

The file format is invalid

I just did, and I now know why.

See, Microsoft Word users in general and Windows users in particular are so confused about file extensions, and Microsoft’s user interface for dealing with file extensions is so confusing, that sometimes they do things that Microsoft and Apple did not anticipate, like… saving a DOCX file with the “.doc” file extension.

That’s exactly what happened in this case. When I got the error with this particular “.doc” file and noticed that it was opening in Word 2011 just fine, I figured I’d try to change the file extension to “.docx” and see what would happen.

Sure enough, as soon as I changed the file extension, the renamed file opened just fine in Pages ’09.

In this day and age, you’d think that:

  1. Microsoft Word would be smart enough to detect the error and give a warning to the user to the effect that the file he’s opening is a DOCX file masquerading as a DOC file, and offer to fix the problem;
  2. Apple’s Pages ’09 would be smart enough to recognize the correct file format in spite of the wrong file extension and offer to open the file just the same, again with some kind of warning about the file extension.

But no… Both companies obviously have bigger fish to fry, and so we get no warning whatsoever in Microsoft Word, and a useless error message with no suggestion in Pages ’09.

As for smartness in computer software, I guess it’ll take another century or two.


OS X: Sandboxing = more crashes

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
June 19th, 2013 • 9:09 am

This is something that pisses me right off.

Apparently, according to Apple, sandboxing is good for us. After all, it “provides a last line of defense against the theft, corruption, or deletion of user data if an attacker successfully exploits security holes in your app or the frameworks it is linked against”. Yay.

As far as I can remember, with no particular effort on my part to protect myself against thieves, hackers, and so on, I have never been the victim of a single act of theft, corruption, or deletion of my user data on my OS X by an attacker. (What has happened to me on-line is another matter.)

Since the introduction of this “sandboxing” thing, on the other hand, I have most definitely been the victim of this kind of thing:

mail-sandboxcrash

I am no expert, but I have little doubt that the above is a report on a crash that was caused by a bug in Apple’s “sandboxing” system (full crash log here). And it’s not the first one I have experienced. What did I do to deserve it? Nothing. I was simply composing an e-mail and tried to attach a file to it using the standard Open File dialog box.

So let me get this straight: In the name of improving my security, which has never been under threat as far as I can tell, Apple has introduced a new “feature” whose net effect is, quite simply, that I experience more crashes than I used to, through no fault of my own.

Great.

Now, let’s go back to the statement quoted above: sandboxing ““provides a last line of defense against the theft, corruption, or deletion of user data if an attacker successfully exploits security holes in your app or the frameworks it is linked against”.

Is it just me, or is this “last line of defense” not another way of telling developers: “Don’t worry if you introduce security holes in your app. We’ve got the user covered.” In other words, won’t this approach have the undesirable effect of making developers sloppier in their work?

And if the sandboxing system causes crashes so easily, how reliable can it really be anyway?

We had the nanny state. Now we have the nanny OS.


Word 2011: Why does word selection still select the trailing space?

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Microsoft
June 13th, 2013 • 10:11 am

In Microsoft Word, there is a myriad of inconsistencies, behaviours that don’t make sense and are simply the way they are because they have always been that way and nobody at Microsoft bothers to use his or her brains to think about whether these things still make sense today.

Take, for example, what happens when you double-click on a word in Word 2011. Double-clicking on a word is what is called “word selection”. No matter where you double-click on the word, it selects the entire word. It’s much faster and much less error-prone than having to position your cursor at the beginning of the word, to click-and-hold and then to drag your cursor to the end of the word. (And you can also select multiple words this way, by double-clicking on a word and holding the mouse button down while you continue to drag over several consecutive words. This is called “word-by-word selection”, as opposed to the default “character-by-character selection”.)

In every other OS X application, when you double-click on a word in the middle of a sentence, the application only selects that word. In Word 2011 (and every version before it), on the other hand, the application also selects the trailing space that comes after the word (if there is one, i.e. if the word is not immediately followed by a punctuation sign).

Why does Word 2011 do this? As far as I can tell, it’s because Word first came into being a long time ago, at a time when so-called “smart editing” features didn’t exist. These days, in most applications, when you double-click on a word to select it and then press Delete to delete it, the application is smart enough to also delete the extra trailing space that comes after it, so that you are not left with a situation where the two remaining words around the word that you’ve just deleted are separated by two spaces instead of one. Ditto if you cut the word with command-X.

This “smart” behaviour was introduced many years ago. Word itself introduced this feature many years ago. (If you don’t like it, you can turn it off in Word’s “Preferences” dialog box, under “Edit”, in the “Use smart cut and paste” customization options: the option is called “Adjust sentence and word spacing automatically” and it’s on by default.)

The thing is, the introduction of this very feature made the selection of the trailing space after the word irrelevant. As far as I can tell, the only reason why the original designers of Microsoft Word decided to include the trailing space with the word in word selection was in order to make it easier for writers to edit their text without having to constantly delete extra spaces. But once Word adopted the “smart” handling of word spacing, this automatic selection of the trailing space became irrelevant.

Try it: if, instead of double-clicking on a word to select it (and its trailing space) in a Word document, you select the word in question “manually” by positioning your cursor at the beginning of the word, clicking-and-holding and then dragging your cursor to the end of the word, without including the trailing space, and then you press Delete to delete the selected word, Word still deletes the extra space as well, because of the “Adjust sentence and word spacing automatically” option.

So why does word selection in Word still select the trailing space as well even today? As far as I can tell, it’s because no one at Microsoft has ever thought of using his or her brains to make the decision that, now that Word has smart handling of word spacing, the selection of the trailing space is no longer necessary.

Not only is it no longer necessary, but it is inconsistent with all other applications, and it has all kinds of undesirable side-effects. If you use word selection to select a word or a phrase in a Word document and then copy it to paste it in another application, the extra trailing space at the end will be copied and pasted along with it. Unless the destination application is an application that also has smart handling of word spacing (like another word processor), this extra space will remain.

It is the case, for example, if you use word selection to copy something in a Word document and then paste it in your web browser. You’ll always get that extra space along with it, and in many cases you’ll be forced to delete it manually in the destination application because it’s highly undesirable there.

Even within Word, the extra trailing space is highly undesirable when it comes to character-level formatting, because when you use word selection to select a word or a phrase and then apply some character-level formatting to the selection, more often than not this character-level formatting gets also applied to the trailing space, and so if, later on, you put your cursor after the trailing space to type something else, often times the new text you type will also have that character-level formatting, even though there is no visual indication that the space before it has that character-level formatting (a space in bold or italics looks just like a regular space). The worst situation is what happens with underlined text. I cannot count the times I see documents that contain underlined words where the underlining also extends to the space after the word, which is horrible from a typographic point of view. (Word has certain exceptions to this, but they don’t work all that reliably and only in limited circumstances. See this post for example.)

Does anyone at Microsoft care about all this? Apparently not. Today, in 2013, many many years after smart spacing was introduced in Word itself, word selection in Word still includes the trailing space. It is yet another indication that there is no actual thinking about real-world usage that takes place at Microsoft in the minds of the software engineers working on Microsoft Word.


About the new Mac Pro

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
June 11th, 2013 • 8:40 am

I am ambivalent about the upcoming new Mac Pro unveiled by Apple yesterday at the WWDC. Of course, I am relieved that Apple has finally given us something tangible to look forward to.

I am also glad that the new model is a radical rethink and that heavy emphasis has apparently been put on keeping the machine as quiet as possible (although of course how quiet it really will be remains to be seen, or rather heard).

I am happy that it will have lots of raw power. While my current machine (a 2009 Mac Pro) is no slouch, I am always looking for ways to increase my productivity. I am not one of those apparently numerous (if you believe the pundits) Mac users who feel that their current machine is fast enough. If you have ever tried to type text in a textbox in a Microsoft Word 2011 document or to resize a document window in Adobe InDesign, you know that there is still plenty of room for improvement. Since Microsoft’s and Adobe’s engineers obviously feel that their own software is “good enough”, we have no choice but to rely on the raw power of the underlying hardware to improve real-life performance in those applications.

I also appreciate the focus on raw graphics power. While I am not a videographer, I have lots of screen real estate (two 30-inch displays) and I wouldn’t mind having even more. A large Retina display is still probably several years away, but I might be tempted by a larger screen at some point, even if Apple itself does not seem interested in producing such screens anymore.

(I suppose that, when the time comes to buy one of these new Mac Pros, I’ll also have to spend some extra money on adapters for my current DVI displays.)

On the other hand, I too, like some other current Mac Pro owners, am worried about the lack of internal expandability. My current Mac Pro has four internal hard drive bays and two internal optical drive bays. And they are all full. I suppose I can live with external optical drives (although that will be yet another expense). But no internal bays for hard drives? Given that the new Mac Pro will come with an SSD, unless Apple has managed to perform an astounding miracle and make a 4 TB SSD that is actually affordable, there will obviously be a need for more storage, and that will mean that we’ll all be forced to purchase external Thunderbolt drives, again at additional cost.

I don’t have any problems with Apple adopting the new Thunderbolt 2 interface as long as it’s fully backward-compatible. But even Thunderbolt 1 offerings are still very limited today. It’s possible that, once the new Mac Pro has been on the market for a while, there will be a wider range of offerings at more affordable prices, but until then… In addition, if one of the key features of the new Mac Pro will be how quiet it is, how will this work in the real world if one is forced to have several external hard drives made by third party vendors who don’t necessarily put that much emphasis on noise reduction? (LaCie, I am looking at you.) It’s all well and good to have a quiet, superfast Mac Pro, but how quiet will the whole setup be once you’ve added a couple of external hard drives?

The current information provided by Apple is very short on details, technical specifications, etc. I guess we’ll have to be more patient. But it also looks like I might have to wait a while even after the new Mac Pro starts shipping, simply because the new computer is unlikely to be cheap and, with the additional expenses associated with the transitions (video adapters, external drives), it could turn out to be a very expensive proposition indeed.


Word 2011: Constant repagination while typing in footer

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
June 7th, 2013 • 4:37 pm

If there is one thing about Microsoft Word for OS X that you can say, it is that it is never boring. For sheer entertainment value, no other piece of OS X software will ever give you a scene such as this one:

Here’s the context: I am working on a Word document created by someone else, which contains a mix of formatted text and various graphics. Nothing too stupendously complex, but not your average two-page letter either — which is apparently the only kind of document that Microsoft Word is actually able to handle competently (although even then…).

Then I go to the footer of the document (in page layout view, called “Print Layout” in Word), I select a phrase that I want to replace and I start typing “Version provisoire”…

As the movie clip above demonstrates, Word has somehow decided that, for this particular document, in the footer, it needs to repaginate the entire document each time I type another character… Of course, repagination is supposed to be a background task, but as you can see, when the document is a few dozen pages, even if the repagination is fast, it has a very real impact on the application’s responsiveness, to the point that Word eventually gives up and even ignores a few of the letters that I’ve typed (in the first word).

How we got to this point, I have absolutely no idea. But the very fact that this scenario is possible, that it indeed happened in front of my very eyes, as this recording proves, is rather representative of how broken Word 2011 is as a piece of OS X software.

Given that Microsoft clearly has no interest in fixing its software, I have absolutely no interest in solving this particular problem. All I can do is work around it and then try to forget that it ever happened… because, as far as entertainment goes, the experience of using Word 2011 for OS X can be pretty haunting. You just never know what might happen next. It is a proper thriller alright!


OS X 10.8.4: Yet another big disappointment

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
June 4th, 2013 • 10:11 pm

What’s the point of submitting bug reports? That’s the question I used to ask myself when it came to Microsoft and its crappy software, but I must say I am increasingly asking myself the exact same thing with Apple and its own software offerings.

The two pieces of Apple software that I use the most are OS X itself (including all the free applications that are bundled with it, like Mail, Contacts, Safari, etc.) and the iWork suite of applications. I don’t need to remind anyone of the fact that there has not been a proper iWork upgrade in four years, and that even incremental updates have been very limited (mostly for things like iCloud compatibility), with no sign of Apple’s interest in fixing bugs or making improvements. It’s beyond embarrassing — but it’s a separate issue.

OS X itself is different of course. It’s the operating system, so Apple has no choice but to provide regular updates and upgrades. But increasingly, first when testing (via my AppleSeed membership) and then when using OS X updates, I find myself wondering, again and again: “Will they ever fix this? and this? and that?”

There are numerous annoyances in the operating system and the bundled applications that are simply not going away. And I am afraid I have to report that the latest OS X 10.8.4 update does nothing to address this situation, to the point that I really do wonder what it actually fixes. The update probably fixes some things for some people, but it puzzles me to no end that none of these things have anything to do with the bugs and flaws affect me in my use of OS X. I obviously don’t expect Apple to magically fix each and everyone of all the bugs that affect me in a single update, but at least some indication of incremental progress would be welcome. As it is, since the crucial improvements provided by OS X 10.8.2 (especially with the restoration of a “Save As…” behaviour that made sense), there has been… pretty much nothing.

On the contrary, Apple has actually introduced new bugs, some of which are very serious ones, and OS X 10.8.4 still does not fix them as far as I can tell.

The big one for me and many other Mac Pro users is that the kernel panics for Mac towers with dual GeForce video cards driving multiple monitors are still not gone.

As far as I can tell, Apple has been working on the problem. Throughout the testing phase for 10.8.4, “graphics drivers” was listed as what they call a “focus area”, i.e. something that was being worked on in the update. And indeed two of the three kernel extensions involved in the kernel panics, namely IOGraphicsFamily.kext and IONDRVSupport.kext, have been updated. (I also was contacted directly via AppleSeed about the kernel panic issue after they read my post on OS X 10.8.3. They gave me further instructions, and I followed these instructions and sent them the additional feedback they requested, but then I never heard from them again.)

My experience on my Mac Pro with two NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 cards driving two 30-inch Apple Cinema displays has been that, while the kernel panics are certainly far less frequent and less random than they were under OS X 10.8.3, they are still not entirely gone. I still had one a week ago while viewing a Flash video clip in Firefox on my secondary monitor. Several other users report that this situation is a particular trigger.

I view most of my on-line video in HTML5 and avoid Flash as much as I can (with the help of ClickToPlugin), but there are still situations where Flash is needed, and it’s massively disappointing that Apple still has not been able to fix this problem properly. (I also seem to be somewhat fortunate in that I do not need to use several other pieces of software that also seem to be triggers of the kernel panics.)

Lest you think that we are talking about a non-standard Mac Pro configuration here, I should reiterate here that the dual GT 120 cards were a standard customization option offered by Apple itself for the Mac Pro back in 2009. This is not a Mac Pro where I installed a third-party video card myself. This is a Mac Pro model configured and sold by Apple itself, which you would therefore expect them to continue to test on a regular basis with common configurations. While dual-monitor users like myself might be a minority, we still are a sizable group, and we also happen to have spent quite a chunk of money on Apple hardware.

Other Mac Pro users have given up on Apple ever fixing this problem and replaced one of their GT 120 cards with an ATI Radeon HD 5770 Graphics Upgrade Kit (sold by Apple via the Apple Store as well). This seems to be a permanent fix for the problem (if you’re willing to spend $249 + tax on it), which clearly demonstrates that the problem is with the NVIDIA drivers that Apple ships with OS X when running multiple monitors. (The cynical customer in me half-suspects that Apple’s apparent unwillingness to address this problem is in direct correlation with the number of ATI Radeon HD 5770 Graphics Upgrade Kits that they have been selling in the past few months…)

The bottom line here remains that Apple clearly knows that this has been a problem for nearly nine months now, but that they obviously don’t care enough about a small minority of professional users who happen to have purchased Mac Pros with multiple NVIDIA video cards in the past few years. I have said it before: I find this profoundly shocking. Even if Apple’s priorities are in the mobile market these days, this is inexcusable.

Just as inexcusable is the fact that one of Mountain Lion’s key features, namely the ability to restore applications to their last state after they are quit and relaunched or after the system is rebooted, still does not work properly. On my system at least, Safari itself still fails to restore the most recent session, instead restoring some unidentified previous session missing many of the tabs and windows I might have opened most recently. (And OS X also still fails to draw the expected drop shadows around Safari windows on the secondary screen, but here again, it’s only a problem for people with dual monitors, and possibly only a problem with NVIDIA cards, so I don’t expect Apple to fix that one any time soon, especially since it’s only cosmetic.)

OS X 10.8.4 also still often fails to restore windows in TextEdit, Preview and Numbers ’09 after a restart, at least on my system. Instead, it reopens the applications with no document windows whatsoever, and I’m left with having to navigate my “Open Recent” menus to try and find the documents that I need to reopen.

Restoring an application’s state is such a key feature in Lion and Mountain Lion that I simply can’t understand what is taking Apple so long to fix this problem — unless of course it just happens to be one of these bugs that only affects a minority of users and that Apple has not bothered to put much effort into trying to reproduce. Indeed, in my experience as a beta tester of Apple products, if you identify a bug that is not reproducible in an extremely straightforward manner, i.e. a bug that does not affect all users of OS X equally, the onus is apparently on you — the unpaid volunteer who is willing to experiment with beta software at his or her own expense — to provide Apple with all the required information to reproduce it on their machines. Except that even when you do provide as much information as you can, including all the steps you can think of, along with your detailed system profile, your installation logs, and so on, it’s still apparently not good enough for them, and I don’t really see any sign that they really do try to reproduce those problems that just happen to be a bit harder to reproduce.

Instead, you get… no feedback whatsoever, no sign that anyone is working on the bug, and then it does not get fixed in the next update and you cannot help but wonder: Should I submit a new bug report? Did it somehow fall through the cracks? These are all, to me, signs that the system for testing software and fixing bugs is indeed rather broken at Apple these days.

Other on-going issues in Safari include the dreaded “webpages are not responding” error message, which still occurs on a regular basis. It effectively forces you to reload all your currently open web pages, and is really just an application crash without the crashing part. One day, maybe, we’ll have a Safari web browser that has more than one “web content” processing thread and does not force you to reload all your pages when a single web site is causing the application to act up.

I’ve also noticed that, quite often, when Safari starts acting up, the responsiveness issues can get mixed with unpredictable cursor behaviours. For instance, I get the Spinning Beach Ball of Death, but Safari somehow still remains responsive and allows me to continue to switch windows and scroll through web pages — all that, while the SBBoD continues to spin. It’s quite puzzling and distracting, and the only remedy is usually a complete application relaunch… with its own associated problems, of course (see above!).

Mail is another OS X application that has numerous on-going problems that the 10.8.4 update fails to fix. It still does not allow me to remove attachments from my sent messages. Fortunately, someone has come up with a (weird) workaround that works for me and only requires one extra step, but still… Just how long is it going to take for Apple to acknowledge the problem and fix it? (Of course, it does not seem to affect people who only use an iCloud account in Mail. Just the rest of us with our own separate provider accounts.)

Mail still suffers from other problems introduced in Lion, nearly two years ago, such as the fact that the typing buffer ignores some keystrokes when you open a new message, that messages lose their rule-based colour when replied to, and that the blinking | cursor in a message that you are in the process of composing becomes invisible if you hide Mail while it is in the background and then return to it. (This bug also still affects other HTML-based applications, including the Robert dictionaries and the stand-alone web browsers created with Fluid.)

More recent problems that remain present in 10.8.4 include the fact that, on my system at least, there is often a delay between the time I click on the “Send” button and the time Mail actually closes the message window and proceeds to send the message. Sometimes this delay can be nearly 10 seconds, with no visual indication of what’s going on. Similarly, when I attach a document using the “Open File…” dialog box, once I have selected the file and closed the dialog, there is often a delay before the attachment is actually inserted in the message I am composing, and if I happen to move my cursor during that delay, the insertion position moves along with it and the attachment can get inserted right in the middle of a sentence, when it finally gets added to my message.

None of these issues are deal-breakers, but they are all constant annoyances, and they add up to a pretty frustrating experience. Most important, some of them have now been with us for a long time, sometimes years. Again, the question is: Exactly how long is it going to take for Apple to fix them?

Rather than gradual elimination of bugs over time, what I am observing these days is the persistence of old bugs and the regular addition of new bugs with new updates and upgrades. Again, I suspect that some things do get fixed for some people as part of these updates and upgrades, but for quite a while now, my personal experience has been that none of the issues that affect me ever get fixed and that, on the contrary, new issues are introduced on a regular basis.

Yes, in the big scheme of things, these are “details”. But there was a time when Apple’s legendary “attention to detail” actually manifested itself not just in new, amazing products, but also in incremental improvements of their existing products. In all honesty, I have seen very little of this in the past few years, to the point that I am starting to feel quite depressed about the whole situation. I simply don’t know what can be done about it, and exactly how many billions of dollars Apple needs to have in the bank before it finally starts spending some of that money on fixing problems.

While I fully respect Apple’s success on the mobile front, there is little denying that it has come at the expense of “serious” computer users whose life does not revolve around Facebook, Twitter, and Angry Birds. The very fact that we don’t have a release date for 10.9 and no details have even been announced yet, even though Apple promised a 1-year cycle last year, and the rumours that this has to do with OS X engineers being asked to focus on iOS instead, is just more confirmation that OS X simply is no longer a priority.

As a business, Apple has of course every right to focus on what drives its current success, but it makes one wonder where we’d be today if OS X had remained a bigger part of Apple’s overall activities. We’ll never know, but of course, since the alternatives (Windows? Linux?) are still more or less what they have always been, i.e. not really viable alternatives for demanding professionals, we’re effectively stuck and have to put up with what we have.


Swinsian: Fantastic iTunes replacement for music collectors

Posted by Pierre Igot in: iTunes, Music
May 7th, 2013 • 1:28 pm

As a music lover, I collect, among other things, lots of bootleg recordings of live Prince concerts. Back in the pre-Internet era, I actually spent some of my hard-earned cash on bootleg LPs, CDs, and VHS tapes. But thankfully, with the advent of the Internet, it has become possible to build a very decent collection of bootleg recordings without spending a cent. These recordings might not have the blessing of the artist himself, but at least there is no money involved and collecting them does not deprive the artist of any revenue. (My knowledge and appreciation of these bootleg recordings might affect my perception of the artist’s œuvre, but it certainly does not have an impact on my decisions when it comes to purchasing the artist’s official releases: I still buy everything he puts out.)

I also follow a number of other artists fairly closely, and also have a wide range of other musical interests.

This means, among other things, that I have amassed a rather vast collection of recordings, which needs to be maintained and managed. Most of it is now in digital form. (I still buy lots of music on CD, but I convert everything into digital files on my hard drive as well. The CDs are effectively my hard drive backup, and the medium for listening to the music on my main sound system, whereas I listen to the digital files with the sound system in my office.)

What are the options for managing these digital files? Well, on the Mac side, there seems to be pretty much only one option, which is iTunes. For years now, I have been praying for the introduction of some kind of version of iTunes optimized for music collectors — a kind of iTunes Pro, if you will. But of course, hoping that Apple itself would release such a product is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Instead, as time goes by, iTunes is becoming more and more bloated with things that are at best marginally useful to the music collector, and it’s becoming slower and slower, and buggier and buggier. Meanwhile, of course, my music collection is not getting any smaller.

A couple of months ago, I decided that I had finally had enough. While the iTunes 11.0.1 update released in late 2012 did address some of the worst issues introduced with iTunes 11, I still found myself constantly looking at the Spinning Beach Ball of Death, even for the most mundane of tasks (like starting or stopping playback!). In addition, knowing that this was at least partly due to iTunes constantly writing and rewriting the bloated files called “iTunes Library.itl” and “iTunes Library.xml” in the ~/Music/iTunes/ folder was not reassuring at all.

I had also started experiencing new bugs that were beyond irritating. For example, each time I imported music from an audio CD into my iTunes library, when I tried to eject the CD from within iTunes, the application would simply freeze altogether. (The only workaround was to quit iTunes after each import, eject the CD in the Finder, and then relaunch iTunes. Given that the very process of quitting and launching the iTunes application itself is slow as molasses, that was not really acceptable either.)

I was unable to reproduce the issue in a different user environment on my machine, so clearly it was a problem linked to my existing user environment and my existing iTunes music library. But I was not interested in exploring any of the more drastic troubleshooting options (like rebuilding my library from scratch, etc.) that would be required to try and identify the cause of the bug.

I then started exploring alternatives. First, I tried a couple of applications that were essentially alternate music players, like Ecoute or Fidelia, which would let me play the music from my iTunes library without having to launch iTunes itself. But I was not really satisfied and, besides, these solutions did not address my main concern, which was that even managing my music collection had become way too painful with iTunes. I needed a new music collection manager.

Then I stumbled upon Swinsian. I tried the demo and really liked what I saw. Unlike the other alternatives, it was an actual replacement for iTunes, not just as a music player, but as a music library manager. It could handle all the music file formats that iTunes supported (and then some). It offered tag editing, playlists, various view modes, etc.

But could it really replace iTunes? The first test was to see how it would handle my large collection of nearly 100,000 tracks. It passed that test with flying colours. Even the importing process was far shorter and smoother than I expected it to be. I made sure to configure it to only import the track info and not actually create duplicates of all my existing music files, and it was just fine with that.

Then I started playing around with the software, and began to feel increasingly confident about its ability to actually replace iTunes as my music library manager. It had some shortcomings, but it was very promising. I started sending reports about apparent bugs and issues to the developer, and was delighted to find that he was very responsive, even though I had not even purchased the software yet!

So I took the plunge, and decided to give it a real try. It wasn’t like I was taking a huge risk: If it didn’t work out, I could always go back to iTunes after a few weeks and simply update my library in iTunes to match the changes made in Swinsian. I would inevitably lose or have to redo some of my work in the process, but it would not be anything too catastrophic.

I purchased the software and set about using Swinsian in earnest for the various music library management tasks that my music collection usually requires. I started encountering other issues, of course, but was, once again, delighted to find that the developer would not only respond to my questions in a very positive and constructive manner, but would also actually implement bug fixes and enhancements in direct response to my comments, sometimes within a manner of days or even less! (I quickly opted to become a beta tester for new builds of the application, of course.)

This pattern continued for several weeks and it didn’t take me very long to decide that I had definitely made the right choice in switching from iTunes to Swinsian to manage my digital music collection. And now, as a long-time Mac user and iTunes user, I feel that it is almost my duty to report on what I have been able to experience and accomplish in Swinsian, with the help of its developer.

There is lots of material to cover and I won’t have time to mention everything that needs to be mentioned, but I’ll do my best to try and describe some of Swinsian’s key benefits and how it can be used as a replacement for iTunes for the purpose of managing and using one’s collection of digital music files. Everyone has different needs, of course, but I hope that sharing my experience will help others see that a switch from iTunes to Swinsian might be the best thing that they could do to regain control of their music library management experience.

Speed

This is definitely the main thing for me, and Swinsian really delivers. It is specifically designed for handling large libraries, and succeeds where iTunes fails miserably. It launches fast, it has a very responsive user interface, it lets you browse your large library quickly and smoothly, it lets you import tracks and edit tags efficiently, and it even has a Find/Replace feature that supports regular expressions, which is a crucial time-saver when you need to edit large numbers of tags in specific ways.

In fact, I am shocked to see how fast Swinsian is. Because of iTunes’s long-standing shortcomings and sluggishness, I had somehow managed to convince myself that the slowness was due to the large size of my library and to the intrinsic performance limitations associated with accessing and writing large numbers of files on a conventional hard drive. (My music collection is far too large to fit on an SSD drive.)

What Swinsian proves to me is that this was a false impression and that iTunes’s performance problems are not due to intrinsic limitations, but instead to the bad quality of iTunes itself as a piece of software. (Given Swinsian’s speed, the bottleneck is obviously not OS X itself or the file system.) I am more than surprised to see how fast Swinsian can, for example, modify the “Album” tag for dozens of tracks in a fraction of a second. I select the tracks, I edit the “Album” tag, I press Return to validate the changes — and my hard drive churns for about half a second, and that’s it! The same task in iTunes, at least for me with my large library, would be interrupted by multiple occurrences of the Spinning Beach Ball of Death and would easily, depending on the circumstances, take 10 or even 20 seconds sometimes.

It is really ridiculous how much faster Swinsian is, and it’s an eye-opener regarding the poor quality of iTunes itself as a piece of software, especially with large libraries.

Tags

With Swinsian, you can finally say goodbye to the semi-modal dialog box for editing track information. The information is displayed in a pane on the right-hand side that can stay visible at all times and is immediately updated based on the current selection in the main pane of the window. It takes a bit of time to adjust to this change (and the absence of visible field edges when the focus is not on the tag field is a bit disconcerting at first), but you quickly realize how pleasant it can be to have a non-modal interface for editing tags:

Swinsian-TrackInfo

Of course, the tags are not in the same order as in iTunes, so there is a period of adjustment there too. And Swinsian does not support as many tags as iTunes does. Notable absentees include iTunes’s sort fields. Swinsian only supports the standard “Artist” and “Album Artist” tags, so if you are used to sorting your artists by last name in iTunes, you will not have that option here. At first, I was a bit disappointed by this, especially given all the effort that I had put into tagging my tracks properly in iTunes in order to get, for example, all my Miles Davis music to show up under “D” rather than “M”.

But the truth is that, even after all these years, I was still very far from having properly tagged everything in my music library anyway, and of course, because of the limitations of the sort field feature in iTunes itself, it was a never-ending task, because there was nothing smart about this feature, and every time I imported a new Miles Davis album in iTunes, for instance, I still had to manually tag it properly in order to avoid having it show up under “M” rather than “D”. (A really smart sort field feature would have rules that would automatically add the right tags, at least for known artists with known sort fields, but also for obvious names. I mean, how hard can it be for a computer program to figure out automatically that, in “Neil Young”, “Young” is the last name and “Neil” is the first name?)

So basically I had to abandon the idea of having a music library with alphabetically-correct sorting. It’s not the end of the world for me, because I do a large part of my library browsing either via playlists or with the search feature anyway. When you access your Miles Davis tracks mostly by selecting a playlist or by typing “Miles Davis” in the search field (with instantaneous results in Swinsian, thank you very much), it does not much matter whether Miles Davis shows up under “D” or under “M” in alphabetical lists of artists.

One thing that the Swinsian developer has implemented is ignoring “The” when sorting things alphabetically. Initially, this only worked for artists, but he has recently added support for this same feature in track titles, so that “The End” shows up under “E” and not under “T” in alphabetical order. (And you can also browse lists by typing, which also correctly ignore the “The”. Ignoring “A/An” is not supported at this time.)

When editing tags, it is also now possible to use the familiar commandP and commandN shortcuts (as in “Previous” and “Next”) to jump from track to track in the Track Info pane without having to change the selection in the main pane. Even though the Track Info pane is not modal, it would still be a pain to constantly have to grab the mouse to select the track(s) whose info you want to modify.

In addition, Swinsian is a well-behaved OS X application, with support for the built-in spell checker, substitutions, etc. And it also provides text transformation commands for changing text to lowercase, title case or all caps.

Last but not least, Swinsian has a very powerful Find/Replace feature (separate from the regular search field) that supports regular expressions. This to me is pretty close to the Holy Grail of tag editing. Regular expressions have a bit of a learning curve, but they are such a powerful tool for editing large numbers of tags that I don’t think any owner of a large music collection can really do without them. (I know I did until now, but really I was just waiting for such a feature to finally become available.)

You can use the Find/Replace dialog without learning about regular expressions, of course, and it already enables you to execute batch operations that are impossible in iTunes, but regular expressions are where this feature truly shines.

In the process of collecting bootleg Prince recordings, for example, I often get, among other problems, tracks where the “Title” (song title) field contains the song title prefixed by a track number (as in “04 – Purple Rain”). Since there is already a separate track number tag, this is highly undesirable and the track number prefix needs to be removed. But how do you remove it? Well, without regular expressions, you have no choice but to do it manually, one track at a time. (Experienced iTunes users know that there are AppleScript scripts for iTunes for this type of thing, but they too are affected by the major performance issues in iTunes.) In Swinsian, you can just use a regular expression like:

[0-9]+ - 

(which means “any sequence of one or more digits followed by a space, a dash, and another space”) in the “Find:” field and replace all occurrences with nothing. While you cannot restrict the Find/Replace operation to the current selection of tracks, you can restrict the operation to tracks added recently only (in the last X days). And you can also preview the changes to make sure that the operation won’t affect any tracks that you don’t want it to affect.

With regular expressions, the possibilities are endless. You can clean up hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of tracks with lightning-fast batch operations. It is an essential tool for managing a large collection of digital music files.

Controls

If you are used to using your keyboard’s media keys to control playback in iTunes, the same media keys will work Swinsian. On my aluminium Apple keyboard, for example, I can use fnF8 from anywhere in OS X to play/pause playback in Swinsian, and fnF7 and fnF9 to jump to the previous and next tracks. (You don’t need the fn modifier key if you use OS X’s default keyboard settings for the aluminium keyboard.)

Controlling Swinsian playback volume specifically (without changing the overall volume level for the system) from anywhere in OS X is a bit more complicated, but one other key aspect of Swinsian is that it’s scriptable.

For increasing the playback volume, I ended up using Keyboard Maestro to define a macro that runs this AppleScript script:

tell application "Swinsian"
	set myVolume to volume
	set the volume to (myVolume + 0.05)
end tell

and displays a quick notification in Mountain Lion’s Notification Center, and I assigned the global cmdshiftF12 shortcut to it. I have a similar macro for decreasing the playback volume in Swinsian.

I am still in the process of experimenting with other AppleScript scripts. For example, for my Prince bootleg recordings, I also need a script to “albumize” a selection of tracks, i.e. to automatically number these tracks in the right order in the “Track Number” field. (Typically, tracks that come with a track number prefix in the “Title” field also fail to include a track number in the “Track Number” field.) Even though my scripting skills are quite limited, I already have a script that appears to be working fine:

tell application "Swinsian"
	set p to selection of window 1
	if p is not {} then
		set c to count of p's items
		repeat with i from 1 to c
			set t to item i of p
			set the track number of t to i
		end repeat
	end if
end tell

I initially had some performance issues with this script. But again, the developer has been very prompt to resolve them.

Interface

If you are one of the many iTunes users who were dismayed by the fact that Apple removed the small pane displaying the album art in the main window in iTunes 11 in list view, I am pleased to report that the track information pane in Swinsian includes such a section.

Sometimes, Apple’s design decisions are maddeningly stupid, and at some point you find yourself wanting to throw your arms in the air and give up on the whole thing. Well, with Swinsian, you can give up on iTunes and get a proper list view mode with album art again:

Swinsian-AlbumArt

Swinsian also brings back the option to have a browser view with columns on the left — another key feature that was removed by Apple in iTunes 11. And it’s quite flexible:

Swinsian-BrowserOptions

In many respects, Swinsian offers a user interface that is what the iTunes interface for music collectors should be, and no longer is.

The playlist management features are similar to the ones in iTunes. Due to restrictions imposed by Apple itself, Swinsian is unable to import smart playlists from iTunes, and imports them as regular (static) playlists instead. But you can easily recreate your favourite smart playlists in Swinsian itself.

The one big thing that is still missing in Swinsian, in my view, is the ability to open playlists in separate windows. It’s another thing that Apple removed in iTunes 11, and I was hoping to get it back with Swinsian. But the developer tells me that he’s thinking about it, so I am quite optimistic.

iTunes and Swinsian Cohabitation

Even if, like me, you decide to embrace Swinsian as your primary music library manager, it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to get rid of iTunes altogether. For one thing, you might be a regular iTunes Store customer and want to continue to be able to purchase music from the store.

The good news is that you can have both. All you need to do, after importing your existing iTunes music library into Swinsian, is to use Swinsian’s “Watched Folders” feature to keep an eye on your iTunes Music folder automatically:

Swinsian-WatchedFolders

On my machine, iTunes is configured to save new music files to a folder called “Music 2009” (where I consolidated my entire music library back in 2009, hence the name). Now that I’ve moved to Swinsian as my main music library manager, I have changed the iTunes setting so that music files are no longer copied to this folder when I add them to the iTunes library (so that I don’t end up with all kinds of duplicates when I add stuff from my Swinsian library to my iTunes library). But when I buy some music from the iTunes Store in iTunes, it still gets added to my “Music 2009” folder. And now, with Swinsian’s “Watched Folders” feature, these newly-purchased tracks are also automatically added to my Swinsian library as well. (Again, to avoid multiple copies, I have configured the “Watched Folders” settings for my “Music 2009” folder in Swinsian to “Just Add Tracks”, as opposed to copying them.

This way, when I import new music (from a ripped CD, for example), it gets copied to my Swinsian library folder. But when I purchase something from the iTunes Store in iTunes (which gets copied to my iTunes music folder), it simply gets added to my Swinsian library, without getting copied to my Swinsian library folder. This means that I have music files in two different places, yes, but both those locations are on the same hard drive, and I back up everything on that hard drive nightly.

The other important issue regarding iTunes and Swinsian cohabitation is managing the music that’s stored on iOS devices. Initially, I thought I’d have to try and keep my Swinsian library and my iTunes library in complete sync. But I’ve since discovered how, once you’ve plugged in your iOS device and it shows up in iTunes, you can switch to the device’s “Music” pane and then drag and drop music files from Swinsian directly onto that pane in iTunes so that it gets added to the device, bypassing the iTunes library itself altogether.

(You can also easily select a bunch of tracks in Swinsian and simply drag-and-drop them into iTunes to add them to the iTunes library. As long as you have the right settings in iTunes, iTunes will simply add references to the tracks to its library and not copy the tracks. And it’s actually reasonably fast — as fast as iTunes can be these days, anyway.)

Of course, this will never be as good as complete iOS device integration or direct access to the iTunes Store, which only iTunes can offer. But it’s good enough for me and I suspect it might be good enough for many other music collectors.

I should also note that Swinsian includes support for AirTunes, which means that you don’t necessarily have to rely on iTunes to play the contents of your music library on your living room’s sound system, for example.

Importing CDs

Swinsian does not include its own feature for importing CDs. Instead, you can use a third-party application, such as XLD. In order to make the process smoother, you can use Swinsian’s “Watched Folders” feature to keep an eye on the folder where XLD saves the imported tracks, so that they will be automatically moved from that folder to Swinsian’s library folder and added to the library. (See the “Watched Folders” screen shot above.)

XLD is donationware and is a pretty powerful tool, which lets you use alternate sources for track information and album artwork. And it does not freeze when you try to eject a CD after importing it!

Conclusion

There are several other aspects that I have not mentioned about Swinsian (podcasts, shuffle, last.fm support, etc.), simply because I don’t really use them myself, or because I am running out of time and space. But I hope I have given you a good idea of what Swinsian can do as a replacement for iTunes.

Of course, by switching to such a tool for managing my music collection, I am also taking a bit of a long-term risk in that I am now dependent on a single developer continuing to develop, update, upgrade, and otherwise improve his software. With the passing of Evan Gross, developer of Spell Catcher, less than a year ago, I am more than sufficiently aware of the risks associated with excessive reliance on independent developers.

But at this point in time, there is simply no reason to believe that Apple will ever make iTunes a user-friendly tool for music collectors again, especially those with large music collections. So it is, once again, a risk that I am willing to take. One thing to keep in mind is that the work you might do on tagging your music collection properly, for example, is not application-dependent, since the tags are stored with the music files themselves, which remain fully accessible and transferable.

I certainly hope that Swinsian’s developer will continue to develop his application for many years to come, while preserving its essential qualities of speed, responsiveness, and power — qualities that are sorely lacking in iTunes today and show no sign of being part of Apple’s priorities these days. Also, if I can convince other people to switch to Swinsian, this will of course also increase the likelihood that it will continue to be developed and improved, so I am not being completely selfless here!

If you are the owner of a large music collection and are endlessly frustrated by iTunes’s numerous flaws and major performance issues, I strongly urge you to give Swinsian a try. It’s not a flashy piece of software that tries to reinvent the wheel with custom UI controls or crumbles under its own feature bloat. It’s an extremely solid, super-fast, standards-compliant application that really gets the job done.


Word 2011: Header formatting madness (part III)

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Microsoft
May 5th, 2013 • 8:30 am

I have received more feedback about the issue with character-level formatting in the header of a Word document that I was working on the other day.

Yesterday, I indicated that the problem had to do with the fact that the text in the header, even though it didn’t look any different from regular text, was actually a reference to metadata associated with the Word document.

Since then, a couple of readers have written to confirm that, in Word 2010 under Windows, there is a visual difference in the header: “The title is shown within a light blue rectangle with the tag ‘title’.” I obviously cannot reproduce this on the Mac and I don’t have a copy of Word 2010 for Windows to confirm this myself. All I can say is that, in Word 2011, there is no visual difference whatsoever between this header text and regular header text.

Apparently, this all has to do with a feature called “content controls” that was introduced in Word 2007 for Windows. Evidently, this feature was never introduced in the Mac version of Word, but Word for OS X has to be able to open and display Word documents created in Windows. Since these Word documents can contain such “content controls” but Word for OS X does not have a “content controls” feature, what does the MacBU do? It just pretends that the feature does not exist and displays content controls as regular text.

But of course if you start interacting with such text, you end up encountering issues such as the one I experienced the other day. What I had in my document was apparently what is called, on the Windows side, a “plain text content control”:

… if you italicize one word of a sentence that is in a plain text control, all the text inside the control is italicized.

There is such a thing as a “rich text content control”, which can contain formatted text, but of course even if I had wanted to replace the plain text control with a rich text content control in my header, I wouldn’t have been able to do so, since Word for OS X does not have a “content controls” feature.

I still have no idea whether the author of the Word document that I was working on had even intended to use this “content controls” feature himself or it was used accidentally or unintentionally in the process of creating the document (maybe through the use of an existing document template or because Word has some other automatic behaviour that inserts such things without the user really understanding what’s going on).

What seems pretty clear to me is that these “content controls” are primarily intended as some kind of replacement for form fields (which are supported in Word for OS X). But it’s far from obvious to me that there is any benefit to insert a reference to the “title” field in the Word document metadata as opposed to simply typing out the title, whereas there are obvious drawbacks, such as the fact that the “title” field in the metadata only contains plain text.

You also won’t be surprised to hear that, based on the article about content controls mentioned above, the feature is at best half-baked even on the Windows side:

… despite their enormous potential, Microsoft has failed miserably in resolving long standing bugs and in providing enhancements to functionality to fully realize this potential.

What else is new?

What isn’t new either is the fact that Mac Word users are treated as second-class citizens and left to deal with mysterious, unexplainable behaviours all on their own.

Thanks to L. H. and Dan for their additional feedback.


Word 2011: Header formatting madness (continued)

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Microsoft
May 4th, 2013 • 9:43 am

I now have a partial explanation for the mad behaviour of the header text in a Word document that I described in a post yesterday. A reader has written to indicate that he believes the text in the header in that document is not actually regular text typed by the user, but a reference to the metadata that appears in the “Summary” tab of the “Properties” dialog for that particular document.

Sure enough, when I look at the properties for this particular document, I see this:

word2011-headerformatting4

The text in the “Title” field in the properties matches the contents of the existing header. And most important, if I edit the contents of the “Title” field in the properties, the text in the header changes accordingly.

Conversely, if I edit the text in the header by typing over it, the changes also affect the contents of the “Title” field in the properties.

As the reader who provided this information points out, “Since ‘Title’ can be edited in plain text outside the document canvas — even from outside Word, in fact — Word formats all the text within ‘Title’ as one item, presumably to avoid formatting merge issues when the text is modified externally.” This would tend to explain why attempts to change the formatting of some of the text trigger a change of the formatting for the entire text.

That said, there are lots of unexplained aspects remaining here.

First of all, I cannot find any kind of indication in the Word UI that this header text is anything other than ordinary text. It’s not a text field, because even if I use the Word preference setting to add grey shading to text fields, no shading appears behind the text, and if I use the Word preference setting to display field codes, nothing happens either.

What is it, then? How does one even insert such metadata into a Word document? Word’s Help feature is of course completely useless, and my on-line searches fail to return much of interest either. It is probably quite telling that the most common result for my on-line searches on Microsoft Word metadata is a Microsoft Support article about how to remove metadata from your Word documents for privacy reasons. Metadata is quite obviously one of these “features” that Microsoft added to Word at some point and that most people hate because it automatically adds personal information to their documents that they do not want to share with other people. And of course it’s on by default, so Microsoft finds itself having to post knowledge base articles about how to undo the damage.

Beyond this, however, the key question is this: If the text in the header of this document is some kind of reference to the “Title” field in the metadata, why is there no visual indication of this? And why am I even allowed to select part of it and try to apply character-level formatting to it, thereby triggering the weird, unexplainable behaviour described yesterday?

If there was a strict equivalence between editing the contents of the “Title” field and editing the contents of the header, I would simply put the lack of visual indication down to Microsoft’s usual sloppiness. But in fact, I can quite easily break this equivalence by using the workaround I described yesterday, which consists of switching from regular script to superscript and then back while typing something in the header. For example, if I replace the “Mathematics 1” text in the header by typing over it and entering the sequence 4-superscriptON-th-superscriptOFF-SpaceofSpaceJuly, when I go back to look at the “Properties” dialog, I see this:

word2011-headerformatting5

Word is now clearly very confused.

The conclusion here is that the situation is typical Microsoft. Instead of being an actual bug in the software, this strange behaviour that I encountered yesterday is actually some kind of “feature” that is very poorly implemented and that nobody really uses intentionally, but which ends up being used accidentally just the same and affecting the usability of Word documents in a way that makes look as if we are dealing with some kind of software monster with an impenetrable mind of its own.

I still have no idea how to insert metadata in a Word document. I still have no idea how one is can tell whether something in a Word document is a reference to its metadata (apart from the fact that trying to apply character-level formatting to it triggers non-standard behaviours). But at least I have some kind of “explanation” and a workaround that I can rely on the next time I encounter such weirdness.

The sad part, of course, is that there are literally hundreds of such opaque and poorly implemented “features” in Microsoft Word that Word users end up using unwittingly, to the endless frustration of their own selves and of those who have to work with the documents that they created.

Thanks to K. B. for the information about Word document metadata.


Word 2011: Header formatting madness

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Microsoft
May 3rd, 2013 • 10:17 am

Here’s the situation. I have an existing Microsoft Word document with a header that contains some text:

word2011-headerformatting1

I want to edit that header and replace the existing text with some text that contains a portion in superscript, like “July 4th” with the “th” in superscript. So I type the text and select the “th” portion:

word2011-headerformatting2

Then I apply the superscript to the selection and I get this:

word2011-headerformatting3

The entire header is now in superscript! And it’s not a visual glitch. No matter where I put my cursor in the header, Word tells me that the current selection is now in superscript.

And it’s not just superscript. If I try to put a portion of the text in bold, the entire header turns to bold. Same thing with any other kind of character-level formatting.

I open the exact same document in Pages ’09, and of course I am able to edit the header and apply character-level formatting to individual characters or strings of characters without any difficulty.

Out of curiosity, I switch to a different OS X environment with no customizations (in Microsoft Word itself or anywhere else in the OS) and I open the same document in Word. Same problem.

What exactly am I supposed to do? I check the current style for the header in Word’s lousy interface for viewing and editing styles, and it tells me that the text is in a paragraph style called “Header”. This style does not have its “Automatically update” option checked. (I checked, just in case.) I have no idea how to turn this behaviour off. I have no idea whether it’s some kind of hidden “feature” or an actual bug.

Then finally I get inspired and, instead of selecting the “th” to apply superscript to it, I delete the “th” so that the insertion point is after the the “4”, I switch to superscript without a selection, I re-type “th” and then I switch superscript back off. And now I have a header with only “th” in superscript.

What the hell was this?

I have no idea. And the problem is not gone. I’ve just managed to work around it, and fortunately, it only appears to affect the header, which I don’t really have to edit beyond this.

But still… Only in Microsoftland does such weirdness actually exist, and only in Microsoftland is even an experienced troubleshooter and computer user such as myself left stumped by such a repulsivelessly useless piece of junk software.

Just in case you are interested, here is a copy of the Word document with which you might be able to reproduce the problem:

word2011-headerformatting.docx

If you can reproduce it, give me a shout. Not that it will make any difference, unless you are a Microsoft developer who actually cares about improving the product. But I honestly have never heard of such an individual.

UPDATE: A Mac-using reader has confirmed that he can reproduce it in his work environment. And another reader has informed me that the problem can also be reproduced in Word 2010 under Windows 7. So I guess it’s not unique to the Mac version, and is tied to some more general problem with the underlying technology. Nothing too surprising, of course, but it means that Microsoft does not even have the excuse of the bug “only” affecting Mac users.


Amazon (Canada): More stellar customer service

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Movies, Technology
April 22nd, 2013 • 1:42 pm

As a long-time customer of the Amazon (France), Amazon (US) and Amazon (Canada) web stores, I must say that I have always enjoyed stellar customer service, and my latest experience is no exception.

Back in December 2012, I took advantage of a special offer at Amazon.ca to order a copy of Martin Scorcese’s Hugo on Blu-Ray that was available at a special price of $9.99. The discounted item happened to be a combo pack that included both the Blu-Ray and the DVD version of the movie. The availability line said “Usually ships in 1 to 2 months”, but I was not worried about that, as I was in no hurry to get the movie. I ordered another item with this one and was able to take advantage of the free shipping for orders above $25.

The other item was in stock, and so Amazon.ca sent it to me within a few days, even though it meant that they would have to ship the two items separately, at additional cost to them. (They often do this even for orders with free shipping.)

After a couple of months, however, Amazon.ca started sending me automatic messages saying, “We’re still trying to obtain the following item[s] you ordered…” and so on. Based on my past experience with such situations, sometimes it does indeed mean that they are still trying to get it and eventually they do, but sometimes it’s the first sign that there might be some problem with the availability of this particular item. In the past, I have had items like this on back order for a few months, with regular updates saying “We’re still trying…”, and then finally after six months or so I would receive a message saying, “Sorry, it looks like we won’t be able to get this…” and cancelling the remainder of the order. (Even if, without this missing item, the initial order didn’t qualify for free shipping, they don’t charge you anything else and just cancel the remainder of the order.)

In this case, I decided to wait another month or two. And then finally last week, after receiving yet another “We’re still trying…” message, I decided that it definitely didn’t look good for this particular item, especially since the page for the combo pack at Amazon.ca now clearly indicated that this item was only available from third-party sellers.

I did find, however, that the Blu-Ray only version of the same movie was still readily available at Amazon.ca, albeit at a slightly higher price of $14.99.

So I decided to try and contact Amazon’s customer service via the web site:

This is about the “Hugo (2011) Combo Pack (Blu Ray/ DVD /Digital Copy) [Blu-ray] [Blu-ray]” item that you’ve been trying to obtain and deliver for the past four months (order no ******). Your supply of this particular item has obviously run out and I suspect you will never get access to it again.

Since there is a “Hugo (Bilingual) [Blu-ray]” currently available and in stock at Amazon.ca:

http://www.amazon.ca/Hugo-Bilingual-Blu-ray-Ben-Kingsley/dp/B00ANB327Y/ref=sr_1_2?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1366057104&sr=1-2&keywords=hugo

couldn’t you just replace the item ordered by this replacement item and send me this one instead for the price specified on the original order ($9.99)? I don’t need the DVD version of the movie, only the Blu-ray. I only ordered this particular Blu-ray/DVD combo item at the time because it was the cheapest option available.

Please advise.

Thanks!

Within six hours, I had received a reply by e-mail saying:

Thanks for writing to us at Amazon.ca.

Per your request, I have swapped the ASIN of your item to (ASIN: B00ANB327Y) in your order and honoured the same price of $9.99.

And sure enough, within a couple of days, the item was shipped and I got an e-mail confirming the charge of $9.99 + tax for it. I received the package in the mail today and everything is in perfect order.

I honestly wouldn’t have been shocked if they had rejected my request and simply instructed me to order the Blu-Ray only version at $14.99 if I really wanted it. But they didn’t, and I for one really appreciate their flexibility and responsiveness. Of course, I have spent lots of money at Amazon over the years and it is possible that their customer service representative was able to see this history and decide that it was definitely worth accommodating my request in this particular case.

Nonetheless, I can also report that there have been several other situations in the past with the various Amazon stores that I shop at where they were just as accommodating. And this is something that, to me, is a strong incentive to continue shopping for books, movies and music at Amazon, even though I am perfectly aware that the picture is not entirely rosy, especially for warehouse employees working for such big on-line retailers.


Brent Simmons on Microsoft

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Microsoft
March 27th, 2013 • 4:30 pm

While I have a lot of respect for Brent Simmons as the developer behind NetNewsWire (although he sold it several years ago, and things have ground down to an ominous standstill since), I am afraid his latest column for Macworld is directly in line with everything that has ever been written in Macworld about Microsoft products.

I have never understood, and I still don’t understand, how Macworld can be so chronically blind to the atrocious quality of Microsoft’s software products in general and of its software products for the Mac in particular. Every time a new version of Office for OS X comes out, their reviews are systematically very positive, as if they themselves didn’t make any effort to actually use the software and notice the myriad of bugs and flaws that afflict it.

Back in the day, I used to think that it was because they were under pressure from Microsoft as a major source of advertising money. But surely this can no longer be true. Surely most of Macworld’s revenue comes from other sources these days. How, then, can they justify this continuing blindness regarding Microsoft’s products?

I don’t really care about Brent’s experience during his visit on the Microsoft campus. I am sure the people that work at Microsoft are like other people, and that some of them are even competent developers. And I am sure that Microsoft is still able to put together demos that look half-decent and can fool their audience.

But until some member of Macworld’s regular staff or a high-profile contributor dares to write in plain words in the publication about how awful Microsoft’s products for OS X really are in the real world, I am afraid that I will continue to completely distrust anything that Macworld ever publishes about Microsoft. And I will continue to rejoice at the thought that, with every passing day, Microsoft is sliding further and further into technological irrelevance. No matter how competent some of its developers might be, their products have been consistently awful — and have been and still are a constant source of frustration, annoyance, and rage in my daily working life.

If Macworld actually dared to write about how awful these products are and how shameful the lack of quality and polish coming from Redmond truly is, maybe things would change for the better (although I suspect it is far too late for this). But since they obviously can’t or won’t, the only hope that I have is that, sooner rather than later, I can work in a completely Microsoft-free environment. (Unfortunately, that day hasn’t arrived yet.)


Word 2011: Window status bar turns black

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Microsoft
March 25th, 2013 • 4:23 pm

What is wrong with this picture?

word2011-blackstatusbar

Well, I think it’s rather obvious: the document window’s status bar (or whatever it’s called in Microsoft parlance) is a big blob of solid black instead of displaying the various bits of information (page number, word count, etc.) and controls that it is supposed to display.

Fortunately, resizing the window clears the problem:

word2011-blackstatusbar-gone

And so does minimizing and maximizing the window again.

But it’s a recurring problem that happens to every single one of my Word document windows if I leave them open long enough (usually overnight) in Word 2011. (I tend to work on several things simultaneously, so I often leave windows open in various applications, in the background, usually hidden.)

I find it hard to believe that no one else has noticed the problem or that it’s occurring on my machine exclusively, but who knows? A quick search online fails to return any substantial results. Then again, most Word 2011 users have probably given up on complaining about bugs in the software, since Microsoft itself obviously does not care enough to fix them. So the lack of results does not necessarily mean much.

Still, I find it more than annoying to have to manually resize multiple Word document windows every day just so that they display properly. (It also does not help that Word’s window management is broken in many other ways, including the fact that sometimes, currently open windows fail to show up in the Dock icon’s menu altogether, and then Word also refuses to respond to “Hide All” commands coming from other applications, and so on. And let’s not even mention what happens when you close a document window and reopen it.)

It is just one of the myriad of ways that Microsoft manages to make our everyday working life more irritating than it should be.