Previous Issue | Search TidBITS | TidBITS Home Page | Next Issue

TidBITS Logo

TidBITS#601/15-Oct-01

Mac OS X 10.1 is a success, but it's not an unqualified success, and this week Matt Neuburg looks at one area where 10.1's interface is both inconsistent and incomprehensible: Open and Save dialogs. For network geeks, Adam marvels at the PacketShaper, a network device that monitors and improves the performance of Internet connections. In the news, 4D ships WebSTAR V, Macworld returns to IDG, and Handspring announces the hybrid cell phone/PDA Treo Communicator.

Topics:

Copyright 2001 TidBITS Electronic Publishing. All rights reserved.
Information: <info@tidbits.com> Comments: <editors@tidbits.com>


This issue of TidBITS sponsored in part by:


MailBITS/15-Oct-01

Handspring Announces Treo Communicators -- Handspring today announced the Treo Communicator, a hybrid device incorporating a Palm OS handheld, mobile phone, and pager - but don't expect to acquire one any time soon. In a first for the Palm platform, the Treo 180 includes a BlackBerry-style mini-keyboard instead of the stylus-based Graffiti recognition system that has been the hallmark of Palm devices since the original Pilot. Those who prefer Graffiti can order the Treo 180g model that uses Graffiti. Each device, priced at $400 with phone service activation, includes 16 MB of memory, a high-resolution grayscale screen, rechargeable battery, and runs the Palm OS. Gone from the Treo line is the Visor's Springboard expansion slot, since the Treo is clearly more of a cellular phone on steroids than a dedicated organizer. What's equally interesting about today's announcement is the long lead time before the Treo will actually be in users' hands: Handspring expects the Treo 180 and 180g to be available in early 2002. A color model, the $600 Treo 270, won't be available until mid 2002. Given the sharp downturn in the handheld market and the drop in Handspring's stock price (currently trading at about $3, though it's been as low as $1.13 in recent months), I'm guessingthat the announcement is designed to bolster confidence in the company, even if the products themselves won't be available for a financial quarter or longer. Handspring's announcement may also be a preemptive strike against a rumored wireless device from rival Palm, Inc. [JLC]

<http://www.handspring.com/products/communicators/>
<http://www.rim.com/products/handhelds/>

Macworld Returns to IDG -- Four years ago, during one of the dips in the Macintosh industry, the fierce competition for advertising between the two leading Macintosh magazines, Macworld and MacUser, was halted by International Data Group (IDG) and Ziff Davis merging the two (along with Ziff Davis's MacWEEK) into a joint venture called Mac Publishing. MacUser was folded into Macworld immediately after the merger, and MacWEEK struggled to find its place as a weekly print magazine, as eMediaweekly, and as the daily news Web arm for Mac Publishing before finally being merged into the MacCentral news site that Mac Publishing acquired in 1999. Now IDG has bought out Ziff Davis's half of the joint venture, and Mac Publishing has become a wholly owned subsidiary of IDG. At IDG, the U.S. Macworld rejoins both the Macworld Conference & Expo and the other ten international versions of Macworld. The move is a good one for Mac Publishing and the Macintosh industry, since the joint venture made for a bizarre corporate structure confused further by the competition between IDG and Ziff Davis. [ACE]

<http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0110/10.macworld.php>
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbser=1208>

WebSTAR V Ships for Mac OS X -- 4D, Inc., is now shipping WebSTAR Server Suite V for Mac OS X, marking the move of another long-time Mac OS Internet server to Apple's new operating system despite its built-in set of Unix-based Internet servers. WebSTAR V is now native for Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server and claims to outperform Apache, thanks to multiprocessor support and improved caching. In another distinction from Apache, 4D concentrated on ease of use, with delegable administrative authority to virtual hosts and full remote administration. Other new and improved features include a significantly faster search engine, built-in WebDAV file sharing services, support for Unix and Perl CGIs, enhanced security options with SSL support, unattended monitoring and relaunching of the server as necessary by WebSTAR Admin, and an FTP server that can listen on multiple IP addresses. WebSTAR V requires Mac OS X 10.0.3 or later with at least 128 MB RAM and 50 MB of free disk space. Upgrades from WebSTAR 3.x cost $300 or $200 for owners of WebSTAR 4.x. New copies of WebSTAR now cost $400 (down from $600), and come with support and updates for a year, after which annual renewals to receive continuing support and future updates cost $180, although unrenewed copies continue to operate without updates. A free demo is available. [ACE]

<http://www.webstar.com/>


Apple's Dirty Little Secret

by Matt Neuburg <matt@tidbits.com>

The dust has settled, and Mac OS X 10.1 has brought Apple's new operating system from embryo to infancy. We all have our favorite features: the new keyboard shortcuts for controlling menus and dialogs, copy and paste (and Undo!) to manipulate files in the Finder, the restoration of AppleScript to something approaching first-class citizenship. But what's the worst thing about Mac OS X? That question is rhetorical, so don't answer; I'm going to tell you. No, it isn't the file extensions crudding up the end of file names (though I'd be willing to admit the closeness of the race there). It isn't the lack of support for your favorite peripheral, either. For me, it's the Open and Save dialog boxes.

Since System 6, I've been outraged at Apple's Open and Save dialogs. To see why, all you have to do is watch my mother use a Mac. Here's this computer whose default environment (called the Finder, though she doesn't quite grasp that) is a wonderful and easy way of navigating the file system. She has become accustomed to, and quite adept with, the way this works. But then, every time she wants to open or save a file, she is suddenly confined to a little dialog that works in a completely different and much clumsier way. This confuses her utterly. She doesn't know where she is or how to get to the place where she wants to be; missing are all the Finder's visual cues that have come to mean "a place on the computer" and all her shortcuts and standard actions for reaching places quickly.

Developers have complained to Apple about this at every World-Wide Developer Conference talk-back session for the past decade or more. With Mac OS X, Apple had a chance to fix this long-standing problem, to root it out and start all over from scratch. And they fumbled the opportunity almost entirely.

I say "almost" because one or two things are definitely improved. The new Open and Save dialogs have a multi-column arrangement, so it's easier to get a sense of where you are in the file hierarchy. The menu interface to commonly used and "favorite" folders is far better than in the Mac OS 9 Navigation Services dialog, so you're much more likely to use it; and some recently used folders are included. Some improvements introduced with Navigation Services are carried forward as well. The dialogs can be resized (though you may not guess this in Mac OS X, since they sometimes don't show their grow handles). And if you can arrange the windows acceptably, you can drop a file or folder from the Finder into an Open or Save dialog as a way of navigating to it; this strongly mitigates the frustrating situation where you could actually see the file or folder you wanted, right behind the dialog in the Finder, but you had to go through navigational contortions to reach it in the dialog itself.

Finder Mimicry? But the question remains: why don't the Open and Save dialogs work like Mac OS X's Finder? (Let's skip the broader question of why there are Open and Save dialogs at all; I've always thought that when you want to open or save a file you should just find yourself in the Finder. But perhaps that's too much to ask.)

The Finder has several views: icon view, list view, and column view. The Open and Save dialogs have only one: column view. Why? What if that isn't the view you'd like? What's wrong with list view? It isn't multi-columnar, but it has some important advantages: in particular, it can be sorted on criteria other than the filename. Why can't the Open and Save dialogs let you do that?

Furthermore, the column view in Open and Save dialogs isn't really the column view at all; it's just a pale and inconsistent imitation of the way the Finder does it. The similarity to the real column view, combined with the differences, results in confusion. For example, the Finder's column view now lets you widen and narrow the columns manually, so that you can see the entirety of long names; the Open and Save dialogs do not. In the Finder, holding the Option key lets you immediately see all of a long name that's otherwise curtailed; in the Open and Save dialog, it doesn't (you have to float the cursor over the name and wait, drumming your fingers, until the tooltip deigns to appear).

<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06584>

Worst of all, keyboard navigation works differently, so much so that behaviors you've learned navigating in Finder windows can foul you up in Open and Save dialogs. In the Finder, Tab and Shift-Tab navigate levels, whereas in the Open and Save dialogs they rocket you out of the file navigation area altogether. In the Finder, you can use left and right arrows to navigate levels, and use the up and down arrows to navigate the level you're in (plus typing a name to jump to the first item with that letter); but in the Open and Save dialogs these work inconsistently. Sometimes right-arrow works; sometimes it does nothing - even though I can see the level I want to navigate down to, I can't get there by using the keyboard. Sometimes left-arrow does nothing; sometimes it works; sometimes it navigates up a level but instead of selecting the containing folder, the alphabetically first folder at that level is selected (as if I'd hit left-arrow and then up-arrow many times). And for some real confusion, just try pressing the up-arrow or down-arrow repeatedly in Open and Save dialogs in Carbon applications.

Typing a letter key is no better. Sometimes I type a letter and find myself in an unfamiliar part of the file hierarchy with no relation to where I intended to go. Sometimes I type a letter and the whole file navigation area of the dialog goes blank!

To experience this insanity, you need a Carbon application, because part of the problem is that Carbon and Cocoa work differently in this respect. Let's use Sherlock. In Sherlock, choose File -> Open Search Criteria, and in the Open sheet, navigate to the top level of your Mac OS X hard drive. Using arrow keys only, navigate down to /Library/Scripts/URLs. So far so good, but now you're stuck; the right-arrow key won't move you into the URLs folder. Now hit the down-arrow key. Were you able to guess what would happen? Do you know where you are now? Hit up-arrow to try to return to where you were. You should now be very confused; the dialog's navigation area may well be blank, and you may see some odd cosmetic glitches at the left side of the sheet. I think I can deduce the keyboard navigation "rules" here, but there's little point, since they're both hellishly difficult to obey and capriciously inconsistent with keyboard navigation in both the Finder and Cocoa application Open and Save dialogs.

This situation is unacceptable. Too long - for over 600 issues of TidBITS - we users have been subject to this silly dichotomy, where there are two completely different ways of navigating the file hierarchy, the Finder and the Open and Save dialogs. Let us not sit meekly by! When you see the Open and Save dialogs behaving badly, don't just shrug and accept the situation. Send Apple back to the drawing board and ask them to fix not just the unnecessary inconsistencies, but the whole shooting match! Open and Save dialogs should work just like the Finder! The time to pound the table is now, and the URL at which to do it is below.

<http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/>


Sculpting Internet Traffic

by Adam C. Engst <ace@tidbits.com>

As you may remember from back in April, we had to move a number of TidBITS servers from Geoff's suddenly darkened broadband connection to the relatively poky 56 Kbps frame relay connection at our old house in Seattle. We did what we could to cache articles on our main Web server at digital.forest for fast access, but there was no question that some TidBITS services were significantly impacted by the massive traffic in and out of my line for about a month.

You can read more about how Geoff coped with his loss of connectivity in "Surviving Your ISP's Darkest Hour" in TidBITS-588, but the product that made the month-long episode possible from my connection was a PacketShaper, a truly magical network device made by Packeteer. PacketShapers are expensive for casual needs, but for anyone who's serious about monitoring and maintaining Internet performance, a PacketShaper is a thing of wonder.

<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06494>
<http://www.packeteer.com/products/packetshaper/>

Adam, Network Dodo -- This story starts before Geoff's broadband service went dark. Something was causing my Internet connection to turn into sludge. Technically speaking, when I would perform a ping test, which sends a single packet to a computer on the Internet and times how long it takes to return, it was taking 3,000 to 5,000 milliseconds rather than the more common 100 milliseconds. I could tell - Web pages loaded incredibly slowly, and Internet services in general felt unresponsive. As I said, sludge.

The problem was sporadic, which made testing difficult. Over the period of several months, I managed to document it a bit and got my ISP to verify that my network wasn't being attacked. The only other cause that I could think of was a problem in the telephone company switching hardware somewhere, so I called Qwest. A technician there looked at my traffic (luckily I was able to get him while the problem was occurring) and noted that the slowdown was only apparent in outgoing traffic from my connection. Then the lights went off in my head: it wasn't a network problem at all - it was my SE/30 running LetterRip Pro! Whenever one of the translated issues of TidBITS came in, LetterRip Pro promptly packaged up the 30K file and sent it to between 700 and 1,300 people. That's a lot of data, and even though the SE/30 may seem woefully underpowered in comparison to today's machines, it was more than capable of flooding the 56 Kbps Internet connection.

I reduced the severity of the problem by cutting down the number of outgoing connections that LetterRip Pro could make at any one time. But I was still bothered - it somehow didn't feel right that my little SE/30 could so easily overwhelm my Internet connection. I was sure there had to be a more elegant solution, and I knew just the friend to ask - Richard Ford, a networking enthusiast who was the Open Transport product manager before leaving Apple for Packeteer. Indeed, when I explained the problem to him, Richard offered to bring over a PacketShaper so I could see what was going on and "shape" the traffic to make the problem disappear. I'd seen one of the purple pizza box PacketShapers in action only briefly once before, when Richard used one at MacHack to prevent Hotline users from hogging all the bandwidth on a 256 Kbps ISDN connection, so I was intrigued to take a closer look.

<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=05470>

PacketShaper to the Rescue -- Installing the PacketShaper required a bit of reconfiguration on my network so it could sit between my router and the rest of the network, since all traffic has to pass through the PacketShaper for it to work its magic. That done, we launched a Web browser to access the device's Web-based interface and logged in via a clever reverse lookup mechanism that lets you connect to a new PacketShaper even before it has an IP number. A few settings later, the PacketShaper was ready to go.

The first thing we did was check out the network efficiency graph, which showed that my network efficiency for Internet traffic was often as low as 65 to 75 percent. That's awful, since it means that one of every three or four packets was being lost somewhere and had to be retransmitted, reducing the effective throughput of the connection. The reason in my case was that computer operating systems are tuned to operate on high-speed Ethernet local area networks (LANs), and that simply didn't mesh with my slow 56 Kbps Internet connection. Even with faster Internet connections, such imbalances between the LAN and the Internet are common, so Packeteer developed a technology called "rate control" for the PacketShaper. Since the PacketShaper sees and can touch every packet to and from the Internet, the rate control setting lets it massage the connection such that packets aren't being lost nearly as often.

Apologies in advance for even approaching the overhyped information superhighway metaphor, but if you think of the Internet as a freeway and the interconnections between it and individual LANs as on-ramps, the PacketShaper's rate control feature acts a bit like those metering traffic lights that allow only one car onto the freeway every few seconds, rather than letting everyone try to merge as fast as possible. Though the metering slows every car entering the freeway down a bit, the end result is that traffic moves more smoothly, increasing the overall throughput of the freeway. The same is true in the network world, where metering the packet traffic via rate control smooths out the burstiness and improves overall throughput by reducing packet collisions (which, thankfully, don't result in injuries, gawkers, or insurance claims).

After turning on the PacketShaper's rate control feature, my network efficiency immediately jumped to between 95 and 99 percent, and the connection felt a bit more sprightly.

The next step was to let the PacketShaper run for a while and see what more it could determine about my Internet traffic. We queued up some messages for TidBITS Talk and went to dinner. By the time we came back, the PacketShaper had detected a number of different types of Internet traffic - SMTP, HTTP, FTP, POP, Timbuktu Pro, and so on - based on ports used and peeking into packet headers. It can detect most common types of Internet traffic automatically, and you can manually identify types it doesn't know about. It had also tracked every packet in and out and graphed the results so we could slice and dice the data in numerous ways. A look at an area graph of the most common protocols showed that outgoing SMTP - all those TidBITS Talk messages and TidBITS translation issues - was indeed the culprit in my network woes. Less-expensive versions of the PacketShaper are limited to monitoring traffic and displaying the results; they can be useful in diagnostic situations, but in this case, I wanted to solve my problem as well and that called for the PacketShaper's "shaping" capabilities - partitions and policies (monitoring-only PacketShapers can be upgraded to add shaping capabilities later).

Return for a moment to the freeway analogy. You can think of a partition as a separate carpool lane that's restricted to cars with three or more occupants. The PacketShaper can create a partition based on a variety of criteria - destination of traffic, source of traffic, type of traffic, and so on - and permanently carve out some amount of bandwidth for that traffic, just like a carpool is permanently carved out of a freeway (though the PacketShaper doesn't allow cheating). I could have, for instance, set up a partition that permanently carved 10 Kbps out of my 56 Kbps connection for outgoing SMTP. That would have been silly, though, since there are plenty of times when nothing else needed the remaining bandwidth, so there was no reason not to give the full 56 Kbps to outgoing SMTP. Partitions are most useful for services like voice that require only a certain amount of bandwidth or for situations where a Web hosting firm might want to limit the amount of bandwidth available to individual clients.

Instead of carving out a lane on the freeway, a policy simply changes the priority of different types of traffic, much like a police car or fire engine does by turning on its siren and lights. Since all the normal cars pull over, the emergency vehicle doesn't have to contend with congestion and can travel more quickly. So in the PacketShaper, we gave sirens to incoming HTTP (Web pages I was viewing) or incoming FTP (files I was downloading) so they had a higher priority than outgoing SMTP (TidBITS Talk messages or translations that were being sent). The amount of fast computation that this entails is mind-boggling, which is part of the reason why the PacketShaper is a dedicated box rather than a piece of software that could be distracted by something else happening in the operating system.

With this simple policy in place, my Internet performance troubles simply disappeared. The PacketShaper silently watched all the traffic, and as long as I didn't need to use the connection for some other reason, it allowed outgoing SMTP to take as much bandwidth as it wanted. As soon as I requested a Web page or started a download, though, the PacketShaper throttled outgoing SMTP traffic back to make sure the HTTP and FTP packets arrived at my Mac as fast as possible. Since outgoing SMTP isn't an interactive service where a person would notice the slowdown, the only liability is that outgoing messages were delivered a bit more slowly.

Rush Hour -- As much as I was grateful that the PacketShaper solved my problem, I couldn't pretend that I was in any way stressing the PacketShaper's capabilities. That opportunity came when Geoff's broadband connection went dark and five servers migrated to my house. Suddenly, the PacketShaper had a lot more types and quantity of traffic to squeeze through a too-small connection.

Most important was outgoing HTTP, of course, since we wanted people doing searches in the TidBITS article database and browsing the TidBITS Talk archive to have the best possible performance. We also increased the priority for outgoing POP3, to make it easier for Geoff to pick up his mail via a 19.2 Kbps modem connection. And over the next week, I twiddled policy settings for other services like Timbuktu Pro, FileMaker, and others to which we needed occasional access at high speed, but which seldom accounted for much traffic.

I also set up some custom reports that showed me graphs of what sort of traffic was being sent and received, and I took to refreshing those constantly to make sure the connection was holding up. It was astonishing. It went from a spiky usage pattern that corresponded to LetterRip Pro sending messages or me downloading big files to one where the network usage was pegged at the maximum 56 Kbps without any respite at all. Unfortunately, I was too busy at the time to think about saving the graphs for this article, so the best ones I could find came after we moved the servers back to Geoff's reactivated ISDN connection.

<http://www.tidbits.com/resources/601/>

The PacketShaper provided hard numbers too, so I saw that whereas a normal day might send 70 MB of outgoing traffic, the first Tuesday (our highest traffic day) after adding Geoff's servers transmitted over 320 MB for the 24 hour period. That's a lot of data for such a small connection.

Interface Annoyances -- The internal code is what matters the most in a product like the PacketShaper, of course, and you can see that Packeteer hasn't focused nearly as much effort on the interface. The PacketShaper's basic functionality is all accessible via a Web-based interface, which makes sense as a way of making it work across many different platforms. Packeteer's engineers chose to rely heavily on JavaScript, and the result is that you basically can't use the Macintosh version of Internet Explorer to manage the PacketShaper. Netscape (at least Netscape Communicator 4.7) on the Mac works for the most part, though resizing a window forces a refresh in Netscape, which in turn moves you to a specific, but usually unwanted page in the PacketShaper interface). Netscape also suffers from a font display issue that makes the text so small that it's almost unreadable. The sad fact is that the vast majority of Packeteer's customers use Windows or Unix, so making sure things work on the Mac has been a low priority, though one that Richard continually champions.

From a basic functionality viewpoint, though, the Web-based interface does provide quite a lot of flexibility. You can easily change the time ranges for graphs to show the last 3 hours of traffic or the last 4 days or even the last 2 months. And setting policies and partitions is relatively obvious, though I found that explanation in the extensive manual was often necessary to understand exactly what I was doing.

However, as much as the graphical interface is welcome, anyone who gets serious about the PacketShaper will learn its Unix-like command-line interface. Not only is it far faster, but you can create almost any arbitrary query against the PacketShaper's store of data. Want to know exactly what machine a spike of FTP traffic went to at a specific point in time? The PacketShaper knows, and can tell you, but only if you can construct the appropriate command. The command-line interface also comes in handy when you're trying to make a number of changes at once.

Who's It For? Realistically, the PacketShaper is not for end users or for those with modest Internet connection needs. It shines in situations where the demands on an Internet or wide area network (WAN) connection are too great and where the cost of buying more bandwidth is prohibitive or perhaps just unnecessary. The best example of this are international WAN connections, which are generally 56 Kbps to 384 Kbps frame relay connections, and satellite Internet connections, where installing a PacketShaper lets an organization avoid or put off paying for upgraded bandwidth. More generally, anytime users in organization (such as large companies, universities, and ISPs) regularly complain about WAN or Internet performance, a PacketShaper can help network administrators see exactly what's happening on the network and manipulate it for optimal efficiency.

Colleges and universities often have extremely high-bandwidth Internet connections, but over the last few years, they've seen their bandwidth needs increasing radically thanks in part to what are essentially dormitory-based peer-to-peer server farms running Napster and its descendents. With the PacketShaper, an administrator can simply lower the priority of song swapping traffic so it doesn't interfere with more important traffic. Plus, as Napster's legal woes have reduced usage significantly, the PacketShaper can tell network administrators which competing services are taking over the undiminished music-sharing traffic from Napster.

A PacketShaper is also a godsend in situations where you pay for bandwidth based on usage, something that's common outside of the U.S. When every gigabyte of data transferred per month has a specific cost, you want to know what sort of data you're paying for and where it's coming and going. A PacketShaper can tell you all that and help you make sure your bandwidth budget isn't being eaten up by music sharing or streaming video.

Finally, Web hosting firms often use the PacketShaper to provide a guaranteed minimum amount of bandwidth to clients. That ensures, for instance, that an extremely popular site won't slow traffic to other co-located sites. Plus, PacketShaper policies can ensure that non-interactive traffic, like SMTP email from a large mailing list, won't obstruct traffic that a person is waiting to receive - Web pages or a videoconferencing stream, for instance.

Pricing -- Like many high-end network devices, a PacketShaper isn't the kind of thing you pick up off the shelf in CompUSA. Prices vary based on whether the unit can monitor or shape the traffic and by the size of your connection, so you can expect prices to range from $3,500 to $34,000 (the unit I used was in the $3,500 category, whereas someone with a T1 Internet connection would be looking at more like $8,000). If you're interested in learning more, Packeteer's Web site has information, along with a form you can fill out to have a salesperson give you a call (or you can contact the local office nearest you).

<http://www.packeteer.com/moreinfo/>
<http://www.packeteer.com/company/offices.cfm>

Obviously, I can't recommend that everyone run out and buy a PacketShaper, but it's definitely worth a look for folks who are responsible for a large and/or heavily used Internet connection. That's particularly true if you've been considering adding more bandwidth but balking at the additional monthly expense. Between its rate control and prioritization capabilities, the PacketShaper can help you make sufficiently better use of your existing connection that you might be able to postpone adding more bandwidth, which - despite what some pundits say - still isn't free.


Non-profit, non-commercial publications and Web sites may reprint or link to articles if full credit is given. Others please contact us. We do not guarantee accuracy of articles. Caveat lector. Publication, product, and company names may be registered trademarks of their companies. TidBITS ISSN 1090-7017.

Previous Issue | Search TidBITS | TidBITS Home Page | Next Issue