Power Mac Demand Exceeds Production — In what might be described as the same old song on a new processor, Apple confirmed last week that it is struggling to keep up with demand for Power Macs and plans to step up production. Historically, Apple has rarely been able to meet customer demand for its machines, much to the frustration of users and dealers alike. But the sheer size of the demand might come as a surprise. More than half of Apple’s units are Power Macs; production of Power Macs have more than doubled since a year ago; and over two million Power Macintosh units have shipped since introduction. Additionally, Apple noted the Macintosh installed base now exceeds 20 million machines, double what it was three years ago. Nonetheless, the total personal computer market continues to grow at similar rates, leaving Apple consistently hovering at around ten percent of market share. [GD]

Stormin’ Norman — Apple recently tapped Apple Fellow Don Norman to serve as vice president of Apple’s Advanced Technology Group, which is responsible for researching and managing future Apple technologies and product designs. Dr. Norman was previously working as Apple’s "User Experience Architect," and is a widely-recognized expert on human interface design. He’d previously led UCSD’s Psychology and Cognitive Science departments, and has published several books, including the classic The Design of Everyday Things, Turn Signals Are the Facial Expressions of Automobiles and Things That Make Us Smart, all of which we recommend highly if you want to get a sense of where Don’s thoughts and interests lie, and thus what he might be talking about within Apple. [GD]

No, We’re Just Part of the Internet — Everyone’s favorite tycoon Bill Gates announced last week that the upcoming Microsoft Network (MSN) – already in manufacturing with the rest of Windows 95 – will have full Internet access ready for U.S. users on 24-Aug-95, the date Windows 95 is to be available. "Think of the Microsoft Network as an Internet community," Gates said. "Our goal here is to make this be a very, very large community." Though this is a far cry from MSN’s original "the Internet is irrelevant" attitude, analysts note that Microsoft is being forced into this stance by other commercial online services like AOL and CompuServe that have aggressively promoted their Internet strategies. It’s worth noting, however, that non-U.S. MSN users can’t expect Internet access until the second quarter of 1996. [GD]

Makes You Want To Shout — Cypress Research Corporation announced last week that Apple plans to bundle a version of its MegaPhone screen-based telephony software with new Performa 5200CD and 6200CD. MegaPhone works with the Global Village TelePort Gold internal modems installed on these machines to provide an answering machine, a full-duplex speakerphone, a contact manager, Apple event support, and automatic arbitration between incoming voice and data calls. Users of MegaPhone for Performa will be able to upgrade to the full version of MegaPhone for $50, which has advanced features and integration with PowerTalk, popular contact managers, and applications like FileMaker Pro. [GD]

Rex Sanders <[email protected]> writes in regard to Apple’s acquisition of Glenn Anderson’s popular MailShare and its subsequent renaming (see TidBITS-284):

I was at Mactivity, too, and talked to the "corporate naming weenie" at Apple who came up with "Apple Internet Mail Server."

First, without naming names, I’ve known this guy for about five years – he isn’t a weenie. Second, he apologized for the name. Just a few days before the product announcement, Apple lawyers told him that MailShare had trademark problems, and they didn’t have time to make an extensive search for any creative names. What could they approve? Anything generic, that started with the word Apple. So, we got Apple Internet Mail Server. Blame the lawyers. At least it’s descriptive.

At the beginning of the year, if you wanted to subscribe to an Internet mailing list, you’d have to send a message to a mainframe or Unix-based workstation running a program like LISTSERV, Listproc, or Majordomo. But just a few months later, there are three full-fledged Mac-based mailing list processors available, each of which brings its own unique strengths and weaknesses to the table.

ListSTAR — The most publicized list processor is StarNine’s ListSTAR, a commercial "mailbot" and list server package. ListSTAR comes in four different versions: ListSTAR/SMTP, which acts as its own SMTP server (but not as a POP server); and three versions that require another mail server: ListSTAR/POP (requiring a POP/SMTP server like the Apple Internet Mail Server, formerly known as MailShare), ListSTAR/MS (for Microsoft Mail-based systems), and ListSTAR/QM (for QuickMail systems). ListSTAR/SMTP is smart about large mail jobs: if a mailing list includes several users from a single site, it’ll make one connection to that site and send a message to all five users at once. In contrast, the Apple Internet Mail Server is a little less friendly, making one connection for every entry on a distribution list.

http://www.starnine.com/
ftp://ftp.starnine.com/pub/evals/liststar/

Aside from the networking code, all four ListSTARs behave exactly the same: they process incoming mail by moving sequentially through a set of user-defined rules. Rule are triggered by the content of the incoming message and perform actions like sending a reply, forwarding the message to a mailing list, adding or removing the sender from a mailing list, and even executing an AppleScript.

As a result, ListSTAR is a powerful tool that’s extremely customizable, meaning that with enough coaxing, it could probably perform just about any email operation imaginable. But that customizability comes at a price: ListSTAR can be complicated, and if your rules are buggy, you can bounce, lose, or misroute important mail.

Macjordomo — A more traditional (and much easier to use) list server is the freeware Macjordomo 1.0 (no relation to the Unix Majordomo), just released by Michele Fuortes of Cornell University. Macjordomo is a POP/SMTP-based list server, requiring the use of a POP/SMTP mail server, whether that server is a Mac-based Apple Internet Mail Server or just some Unix-based server.

http://leuca.med.cornell.edu/Macjordomo
ftp://leuca.med.cornell.edu//Allora/FTP/ Macjordomo/Macjordomo1b2.hqx

Macjordomo’s strength is its interface. Setting up a list server and individual mailing lists is accomplished through a series of windows and dialog boxes. Users can personalize their server from within Macjordomo by editing a series of pre-configured generic welcome and error messages. Macjordomo requires one POP mailbox for its list server account and one additional box for each mailing list it’s going to run (currently limited to nine lists, though that number is expected to increase in the next release).

Macjordomo can automatically create and mail out mailing list digests, and provides users on the outside with the set of list server commands you’d expect from a Unix-based list server like Majordomo or Listproc. Its main drawbacks are that it doesn’t work as an auto-reply "mailbot," and it doesn’t support APOP, the password-authentication scheme that adds extra security to POP transactions.

AutoShare and FireShare — Two other list servers are extensions of Apple Internet Mail Server (AIMS), the Mac-based POP/SMTP server formerly available as MailShare. Though author Glenn Anderson has sold MailShare to Apple and will continue developing it for them (see TidBITS-284), AIMS 1.0 will remain freeware.

http://abs.apple.com/products/mailserver.html

The freeware AutoShare, by Mikael Hansen of Denmark, is a simple application that must run on same server as MailShare. Because it waits for new messages to appear in a watch folder before acting, MailShare is less intrusive than POP/SMTP based list servers – it only acts when there’s mail that needs to be processed, rather than repetitively logging in to see if there’s new mail.

http://www2.kb.bib.dk/Staff/meh/AutoShare/ AutoShare.html
ftp://ftp.tidbits.com/pub/tidbits/tisk/tcp/ mail/auto-share-10.hqx
ftp://ftp.freedonia.com/servers/AutoShare- 1.0fix.sit

AutoShare offers the same list server functionality as Macjordomo, including automatic digests, plus some very strong "mailbot" features: You can create accounts on your AIMS server that will automatically respond to all mail with a canned text file, and even vary what text file is sent based on the text in the Subject line. [In fact, TidBITS currently uses AutoShare to handle all of our automatic replies, such as Adam’s, um, personal FAQ, available at <[email protected]>. -Geoff]

The downside with AutoShare is that doesn’t offer much of an interface. Configuring AutoShare involves creating folders and correctly-named text files in the correct places. It’s not very intuitive. A QuickStart document (in the interests of full disclosure, I wrote it) seems to ease the installation process somewhat, but using AutoShare isn’t for the timid. Still, once you have the hang of it, AutoShare can be a seamless addition to your existing AIMS or MailShare server.

In addition to the final 1.0 version, Mikael Hansen released a "1.0 fix" edition of AutoShare that fixes bugs involving AutoShare’s "vacation mail" automatic reply system.

Also available as an extension to MailShare is Jerry Stratton’s "liberalware" FireShare, a series of AppleScript applets that work similarly to AutoShare, reacting when AIMS has placed new messages in a drop folder. FireShare offers mailing list, auto-reply, and FTP-by-mail capabilities. Though it’s even harder to get up and running than AutoShare, its AppleScript nature makes it a highly customizable option for scripting aficionados. "Liberalware" means that registration involves sending a $10 donation to one of a selection of political organizations – details are available on FireShare’s web pages.

http://cerebus.acusd.edu/html/FireBlade/ FireShare/FireShare.html

Checking It Twice — Which Mac mail server is right for you depends a great deal on your needs: ListSTAR is a powerful option for users who need customizability and the support of a commercial vendor; Macjordomo is easy to configure and use; AutoShare offers strong mailbox features and dovetails well with AIMS; and FireShare comes in highly customizable AppleScript form. Since all of these are available freely on the Internet (StarNine has made a time-limited version of ListSTAR available on their FTP site), you can look at them all and choose the one that’s right for you – an option we didn’t have just a few months ago.

StarNine Technologies, Inc. — 800/525-2580 — 510/649-4949
<[email protected]>

If you’ve paid any attention to the CD-ROM market in the last few months, you’ve noticed one thing: quad-speed (4x) CD-ROM drives are all the rage. Third-party, quad-speed drives for the Mac have been available from manufacturers such as NEC and Sony for some time, and Apple will be including quad-speed drives in desktop Macs. Double-speed CD-ROM drives are going the way of the 800K floppy drive, and quad-speed drives look to be the next step up the ladder. To make matters more complicated, there are also triple-speed (3x) and sextuple-speed (6x) CD-ROM mechanisms on the market.

Despite the enthusiasm for this technology, there’s a lot of misapprehension. Do I need a quad-speed CD-ROM? I heard quad-speed drives can be slower than double-speed CD-ROMs?! What does it mean for a CD-ROM to be "engineered" for quad-speed drives? Although this article probably won’t answer every question out there, hopefully it’ll help clarify a few key issues. Most of the issues in this article apply to any high-speed CD-ROM drive, including 3x, 6x, and (yes) 15x drives, although I’ll be using the term "quad-speed" generically.

What Quad-Speed Means — "Quad-speed" means that a CD-ROM drive is capable of sending data at four times the speed of a "standard" single-speed CD-ROM drive. A single-speed CD-ROM delivers data to the computer at a speed of about 150K per second – and that’s a best case figure. A double-speed CD-ROM – like the AppleCD 300 series common in the last few years’ worth of desktop Macs – delivers information at about 300K per second (again, best case). A quad-speed drive can achieve in the neighborhood of 600K per second. So the rate at which a quad-speed CD drive can deliver information can be as much as four times faster than the original single-speed CD-ROM drives.

Please note the word "capable" in the first sentence of the paragraph above. All sorts of things can conspire to prevent quad-speed transfers from happening or helping you: some reasons are obvious and some are subtle. There are detailed examples below, but, succinctly, simply replacing a single-speed CD-ROM drive with a quad-speed CD-ROM drive is not guaranteed to give you a fourfold increase in actual performance.

Seek and Ye Shall Find — The speed at which information is delivered to the computer isn’t the only thing that’s improved with time. Newer CD-ROM drives typically have much faster seek times, which is how long the drive typically spends looking for a particular spot on a CD-ROM disk. Single-speed drives have typical seek times of in the neighborhood of 300 to 500 milliseconds (ms), so it can take them as much as half a second to get to a particular location on a CD-ROM. Double-speed drives typically have seek times between 250 and 350 ms, and typical quad-speed drives have seek times around 150 to 200 ms. In contrast, today’s hard drives usually have access times less than 10 ms, so even the best CD-ROM drive will take at least ten times longer to seek than your hard disk.

How does seek time affect you? To put it simply, the more often the CD-ROM drive has to go to a specific location on a disk (rather than just reading from the disk sequentially), the more often seek time is a factor in the perceived speed of the drive. The effects of seek times can often be seen when opening Finder windows with large number of files, particularly if those files have custom icons (like typical Photoshop files). In that case, for each file the CD drive has to get information from the desktop database, then scoot out to the file’s physical location on disk to load the icon, then scoot back to the desktop database for the next file. All that jumping around can take some time and make the drive seem very slow. Similarly, reading a 2 MB text file that’s fragmented on the CD-ROM and stored in twenty different pieces is going to take longer than reading the same file stored contiguously on the disk (one seek versus twenty seeks). So, it’s important to note that (a) seek time can dramatically affect the perceived performance of the drive and, (b) because the physical layout of a given CD-ROM can be a major factor; when a drive seeks is largely beyond your control.

[If you’re annoyed by waiting for all those custom icons to appear from a CD-ROM, check out Fabrizio Oddone’s <[email protected]> version of Quinn and Peter Lewis’s CDIconKiller, which suppresses display of custom icons on CD-ROM’s, floppies, and network volumes. The performance increase is astounding!]

ftp://mirrors.aol.com//pub/info-mac/disk/cd- icon-killer-133.hqx

It’s important to note that while most quad-speed drives have respectable seek times, the term "quad-speed" only applies to the rate at which the drive can deliver data to your computer, not the seek time. It’s perfectly possible – and perfectly valid advertising – to have a quad-speed drive with a horrendously slow seek time.

Sports Cars and Dirt Roads — So, having a quad-speed drive means your CD-ROM multimedia titles and games will go faster and perform better, right? Not necessarily, and, actually, probably not. The common statement heard from CD-ROM vendors, software developers, and dealers is that the CD-ROMs must be engineered to take advantage of the quad-speed capabilities. What exactly does that mean?

One common confusion is that these specially-engineered disks are somehow physically different than other CD-ROMs. This is untrue. The physical format of the CD-ROM doesn’t care whether the drive is single-speed, double-speed, quad-speed, or whatever. The real question is whether the software used to access that disk is capable of taking advantage of a quad-speed drive’s improved data-delivery capability.

QuickTime video is the most commonly-used example when talking about these issues, so I’ll use it here too. A quad-speed CD-ROM drive has the potential to smoothly play back larger and more complex QuickTime movies because it can deliver data to the computer faster. Does this mean a quad-speed drive will improve all QuickTime performance from CD-ROM? No. Here’s why: a given QuickTime movie has a minimum data throughput requirement for smooth playback. This rate is determined by the capture and/or production of the QuickTime movie prior to being put on CD-ROM (using tools like Adobe Premiere). Once set, this minimum throughput requirement isn’t changed by your computer or your CD-ROM drive.

For example: say a certain QuickTime movie requires a throughput of 220K per second for smooth playback. All else being equal, a double-speed CD-ROM drive will be able to play the movie smoothly (double-speed drives are rated around 300K per second, remember), whereas a single-speed CD-ROM drive would cause QuickTime to drop frames and maybe stutter in order to put the video on screen. Now, a more macho QuickTime movie – say 320 by 240 pixels (quarter-screen), 24-bit, at 12 frames per second – might require 550K per second for smooth playback. In this case (all other things being equal, remember) a quad-speed drive would be likely to play the movie back smoothly, whereas that double-speed drive would cause QuickTime to drop frames or give interrupted playback.

So what’s the problem? The QuickTime video used in most multimedia titles – from games like Myst to reference works like Grolier’s Encyclopedia or Cinemania – does not have throughput requirements in the range of quad-speed drives. In fact, most of these titles are only now beginning to include videos with throughput requirements greater than 120K per second. That’s right: all this time and they’re still including videos produced to play back on single-speed CD-ROMs! Why? Because a large enough subset of their customers have single-speed drives and would complain or demand refunds if the video was choppy. Since the CD-ROM industry has a very high return rate, these companies don’t take many chances with ticking off their customer base. They don’t like it either – they want to put cool videos on there – but it’s just not that simple. By the same token, you can bet it’s going to take a while – at least two years – before mainstream CD-ROM applications will assume a user has a quad-speed or better CD-ROM drive. And by then, CD-ROM as a media might well be going the way of the 800K floppy.

Game developers, on the other hand, often don’t have qualms about requiring high-end hardware. In the DOS/Windows world, there are already games appearing which require quad-speed CD-ROMs for optimal play. You can expect the same thing in the Mac world if it’s not happening already, especially with arcade-style and action games that make heavy use of QuickTime and graphics.

Want to see what other flies are in the ointment? OK: some disks developed with single-speed or double-speed CD-ROM drives in mind can be slower on quad-speed drives than on double-speed or even single-speed drives, especially on some mid-range and low-end machines. Why? Software, memory, and seek time. Say the computer asks for a 120K chunk of data at the beginning of a QuickTime movie. The CD-ROM drive seeks out to the file and starts pumping data in. While the computer is happily thinking about the data, the quad-speed drive runs off into the tumbleweeds, whereas the pokier double-speed and single-speed drives stay in the neighborhood. The result is that when the computer asks for the next 120K of the same file, the single-speed and double-speed drives can sometimes deliver it, whereas the quad-speed drive might have to re-seek to get back to the right location on disk, and that will be slower. This is an over-generalization – the specifics vary on a case by case basis – but you get the idea.

Cache or Charge? Purists will note the example above is technically inaccurate. "Wrong," they say, "that material is in the cache – the drive might not have to seek at all." Well, yes: but that’s not true in all situations because – let’s face it – caches aren’t all that smart.

What are caches? Since CD-ROM drives are notoriously slow, most if not all drives have a bit of onboard memory they use to stash material for quicker access. The amount of memory varies, but is generally between 64K (older, single-speed drives) and 256K (typical quad-speed drives). On-board cache implementations vary, but generally they’re sector-based: when the computer asks for information at a particular sector of the CD-ROM, the disk reads and caches material around that location, figuring it’s pretty likely the computer’s next request will be for some of that adjacent material. If the caching mechanism is right, the next set of requested data is rapidly transferred out of the cache without the drive having to seek for it (or, more likely, covering for the drive while it’s seeking and reading yet more data). On the other hand, if the next request is for some file off in the CD’s unexplored linen closet, the material in the cache is discarded and the drive has to seek and read as it would without the cache. Bottom line: these caches can help, sometimes.

There are also third-party software products like Casa Blanca’s DriveCD and FWB’s CD-ROM ToolKit that implement smarter caching schemes using your hard disk and RAM. Since the Mac’s RAM and hard disk are significantly faster than the CD-ROM, these products transfer material from the CD-ROM and stash it in RAM and/or on your hard disk. When your Mac asks the CD drive for some of that material, the caching system politely intercepts the call and says "Why, I have that information right here." These systems typically want about 1 MB of RAM and between 2 and 5 MB of hard disk space. They generally deliver measurable performance improvements, particularly with typical multimedia titles and games. Also, the intelligence built into these products can be helpful with some CD-ROMs. For instance, if a particular reference CD-ROM always asks for the same file over and over again, the caching system might make sure that file is always on your hard disk so the program never had to get it from the CD-ROM. This can be far more helpful than the simple, blind sector caching that CD-ROM drives do on their own.

On the other hand, these products do have a price. For one thing, on lower-end Macs (like LCs and LC II’s), the overhead of managing and sustaining a caching system on your Macintosh often takes enough time away from your processor to significantly hinder the performance of a typical CD-ROM title. For another, losing 1 MB or more of RAM and a few megabytes of your hard disk isn’t an option for some Macintosh users: sure, these caching products might help, but they can be resource-intensive.

Also, there are certain CD-ROM applications where these caching products won’t help much, for all their intelligence. The classic example is a set of CD-ROMs with compressed U.S. Census data I have to work with every once in a while. With those disks, I rarely seek: I just read about 100 megabytes of straight, contiguous data, then pop in the next disk. A caching product would actually slow me down as it tries to adjust to all the disk-swapping and analyze what I’m doing. In this case (which is admittedly pretty specialized), I don’t want my Mac spending time analyzing my CD drive’s behavior: I want it reading and decompressing that information as fast as possible.

In summary: third-party CD-ROM caching products can often boost the performance of typical CD-ROM titles on mid-range and high-end Macs, if you’re willing to sacrifice some RAM and hard disk space.

Filling the Gap — Let’s review the points above one by one:

• Quad-speed CD-ROM drives are not going to be a panacea for slow CD-ROM titles, and you shouldn’t necessarily expect a CD-ROM title to perform better just because it’s in a faster drive.
• There’s no physical difference between CD-ROMs that take advantage of quad-speed drives and those that do not: it’s all in the content of the CDs and the software which accesses it.
• Seek time is an important factor in the perceived performance of a CD-ROM. Shoddy preparation of a disk can humble even the fastest drives.
• Most consumer CD-ROMs will not explicitly take advantage of quad-speed drives for some time to come, although games will lead the way.
• CD-ROM caching products can significantly improve the perceived performance of typical CD-ROM applications, although they have a cost and don’t help in all cases.

Should you spring for a quad-speed CD-ROM drive now, or take advantage of the reduced prices on double-speed drives? As always, the answer is "it depends." For some groups of users, the performance difference between a double-speed and quad-speed CD-ROM drive will be negligible; for people working with high-quality video, games, and other bandwidth-intensive projects, the quad-speed drives are an absolute godsend.

However, here’s one thing to bear in mind when purchasing: the industry is gravitating away from the double-speed CD-ROM standard, and that trend will accelerate with time. If you’re looking to buy a drive to use for the next few years, it makes sense to go for a technology that will be less obsolete as time passes. If money is a big factor in your decision, a double-speed drive will be adequate for some time to come.

Casa Blanca Works — 415/461-2227 — 415/461-2249 (fax)
<[email protected]>
FWB — 415/474-8055 — 415/775-2125 (fax)
<[email protected]>