In article <4395B8B5.1FE8FE45@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Sawney Beane <beadleXX@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
[...]
> > Seriously. If it's too much to bother to provide the exact error
> > message, there is no reason to expect others to try to help for free.
> >
> > [...]
>
> She's 78 and finds computers confusing. The message has a lot of
> lines. As it makes no sense to her, she would probably make
> mistakes if she copied it on paper, then copied it back to email it
> to me.
I understand, but I dont see how that's an age thing. Sounds like
stubornness to me ;) You don't have to understand text in order to copy
it. Just copy it literally, then hope that someone else understands
something of it.
> I wonder if it's possible to copy a javascript error message to the
> clipboard in order to email it.
She could just make a screenshot, send it to you, then you type the text
and post it here.
I don't recall what keyboard shortcuts OS 9 uses to make screenshots.
I'm guessing it's much like Mac OS X: Cmd-****ft-3 and Cmd-****ft-4.
You can figure that out, tell her where the resulting file ends up
(probably the Desktop Folder) and how to mail that to you. But if making
screenshots and/or sending attachments is new terrain for her, I would
expect age *will* be a factor in getting her to understand what to do.
Just stupidly copying some text will be much simpler.
[...]
> What files can affect
> javascript? For example, I may have a later Carbon extension than
> hers, but that may have nothing to do with javascript.
Indeed it doesn't. Javascript is functionality of a browser and entirely
runs entirely 'inside' that browser. One browser's javascript is not
another's and the OS has nothing to do with it.
[...]
> > From your description it sounds like she is probably using
Communicator
> > under Mac OS 9.1, but it is too vague to be absolutely sure she isn't
> > running Communicator in the Classic Environment of some version of Mac
> > OS X.
>
> How could one be absolutely sure?
In the Finder, type Cmd-n. If the result is a new folder, she is running
Mac OS pre-X. If the result is a new Finder window, she is running Mac
OS X.
(Yeah, I know this is stupid :) I can't think of anything more
'official' right now though.)
> Wouldn't System Profiler say OSX
> was running?
Depends wehether you're running Mac OS X's System profiler or Mac OS
pre-X's...
If you run a 'Classic' application within the Classic Environment, its
Apple Menu lists the 'Classic' System Profiler, which indeed will claim
you're running Mac OS 9.x - competely ignoring that you're in fact using
Mac OS 9.x as Classic Environment under Mac OS X.
So it still seems possible she is in fact using Communicator in Mac OS
X's CLassic Environment. (Not that I see how that would explain a
javascript issue. Just that I'd think that would be a damned good excuse
to use a more modern browser.)
Hm... The way to surely launch the Mac OS X System profiler would be to
go Apple Menu->About This Mac, then in the resulting floating window
click "More Info...". That, or launch it straight from its location:
/Applications/Utilities/System Profiler.
The way to ensure you lauch the Mac OS pre-X System Profiler would be:
Apple menu->Apple System Profiler.
There are more ways, but all I have available to test here with is Mac
OS X 10.4. If she is running Mac OS X it is likely an older version,
which may resemble Mac OS 9 much more than what I see here. For example,
in Mac OS X 10.4 it is called "System Profiler", in Mac OS 9.2.2 it is
"Apple System profiler", so that could be a hint. But it may well be
that in Mac OS X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 it was also called "Apple System
profiler". I just don't remember. So I'm trying to be careful with what
I'm suggesting.
[...]
The rest of this is getting a bit OT here. If you want to continue this
conversation I would suggest you move it to <news:comp.sys.mac.system>.
(For hardware-specific issues there is <news:comp.sys.mac.hardware>,
although I don't frequent that - no idea how alive it is.)
> If I got OSX and ran it with the "Classic Environment", would I be
> unable to use hardware connected to serial ****ts?
Not per se. But you'd be dependant on someone supplying Mac OS X drivers
for that hardware. Many vendors don't offer that, in an attempt to get
you to buy new hardware from them.
That aside there can be technical limitations. Software that under Mac
OS pre-X talked directly to some hardware (instead of via the system)
won't be able to do that from within the Classic Environment. Calls to
hardware from within the Classic Environment are routed though Mac OS X.
So if Mac OS X can't talk to the hardware, something running in the
Classic Environment cannot either. (You'll typically run into this with
scanners.)
Software that under Mac OS pre-X would talk to hardware through the
system, and assuming you have Mac OS X drivers for that same hardware,
will work fine from within the Classic Environment.
In short, most software will work in the Classic Environment, some
hardware won't. Before switching to Mac OS X it makes sense to list what
you have and find out (from vendors or other users)
--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/%7Etekelenb/>
|
