[DM-MUG] Tiger without Appletalk issues

[pegleg]

Thanks to both Alan and Bryan for your feedback and ideas.

> Subject: Re: [DM-MUG] Tiger without Appletalk issues
> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:52:11 -0500
> From: Alan Hansen <alan at gohaddock.com>
> Reply-To: Des Moines Mac Users Group <dmmug at dmmug.org>
> To: "ColonelPanik at mchsi.com, Des Moines Mac Users Group" <dmmug at dmmug.org>
>
> Bob,
>
> I think you got some bad information on AppleTalk.  I use MacOS X 10.4 Tiger
> with LaserWriter 16/600PS and LaserWriter Pro 630's every day.  AppleTalk
> printers with Ethernet are not affected at all and work just fine.

It was my assumption that everything that used traditional Appletalk would be
affected that led me to the wrong conclusion. Thanks for the additional information

> There is probably a GIMP Print driver available for your StyleWriter 1500
> the open source group has written some great drivers for just about
> everything for Mac OS X.

Another list told me that a Color StyleWriter 1500 was just a rebadged Canon
printer (don't know the model yet) and so the driver might work with my printer. I
will have to try it when I can find out more.

Which brings up another question, I have that StyleWriter hooked to my Ethernet
network with an Apple brand Ethernet/Appletalk bridge called the "StyleWriter
Ethernet adapter". I am guessing that the Canon version of the driver will not see
that bridge and therefore won't see the printer if it is hooked to it. If anyone
has any educated guesses as to why that should/shouldn't work, I would like to
here. Otherwise I will have to hook it directly to one machine, not as flexible.

> You will have problems when networking Mac OS 10.4 machines to systems that
> do not support AppleTalk over TCPIP but this was discontinued in Panther
> 10.3 I am pretty sure.

Panther would transfer files just fine. Tiger sees the old Macs but will not mount
a drive so I can no longer transfer files.

>  So if you are connecting to Mac OS 8 machines you
> will have some issues but there are solutions out there if you really need
> to connect so something that old.

Anything besides Shareway IP? I have one Amiga computer that is connected to my
network though Mac emulation and AppleTalk. It won't run Appleshare IP on Mac OS
7.1 and any newer version of the Mac OS is unstable on it. B.T.W. the old Amiga can
still do some unique things

> Thanks,
> Alan

Thanks again for your help, Alan.

> Subject: Re: [DM-MUG] Tiger without Appletalk issues
> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:44:38 -0500
> From: Bryan Baker <ka_klick at mac.com>
> Reply-To: Des Moines Mac Users Group <dmmug at dmmug.org>
> To: Des Moines Mac Users Group <dmmug at dmmug.org>
> References: <list-332889460 at mail.maclaunch.com> <42B3450B.EAA5A589 at mchsi.com>
>
> On Jun 17, 2005, at 4:48 PM, pegleg wrote:
> [first part omitted to save space]
> > Lastly I have several Macs that do not support Appletalk IP. One
> > the Quadra
> > 630(ATA), I have been using as a file server (small Mac that uses
> > little power
> > when left on 24/7.) I would really like to see these in Tiger. Is
> > there
> > software that will help: Timbuktu, VNC or another that will allow
> > me to see
> > the hard drive and transfer files? Any suggestions may be helpful?
>
> I mentioned this before, but have you thought about some sort of
> bridge machine?
> Something still running Jaguar should handle both fine, or a minimal
> PC running linux could be made into a bridge/router you may need to
> use separate zones though.

That is a good idea. Can PPC Linux run this Netatalk? How about 68k Linux? Can you
point me in the right direction here?

> > Opinion and gripe coming.
> >
> > Ok, why did Apple decide to leave AppleTalk out of Tiger? I know it
> > is an old
> > and wordy protocol but it has been the networking standard on Macs
> > for 20
> > years. This legacy solves many a problem for small business and
> > home owners. I
> > can understand that Apple wouldn't want to support third party
> > legacy products
> > but these are all Apple brand and Apple created equipment and
> > protocols.
> > Leaving Appletalk out is a slap in the face to long time Apple
> > users who have
> > supported them with purchases over the years.
>
> IIRC Apple has been making noises about trying to ditch "classic"
> appletalk for at least 5 years now (since OSX came out, in fact I
> think early betas disabled it, but I've slept since then). I know a
> lot of net admins that absolutely HATE classic appletalk, and this
> may be part of Apple's moves to gain more IT acceptance.

Yes, I was one of the ones who bitched when they disabled it. :-)

I know that Appletalk slows down the network. But Colleges and Universities hold
onto their old computers a very long time. As you probably know old Mac hardware
lasts forever. In a College setting they get passed down from board member to
administrator to faculty member to secretary to work study student. The fact that
Macs just keep on ticking. can justify their higher cost in such a setting. Even an
old SE or Mac Plus can still work as a word processor.

One size dose not fit all when it comes to networks. If Apple makes the IT people
in one setting happy then they will give nightmares to others. A better choice
would be to give people more options not take them away.

> > Personally, I think Apple should keep straight AppleTalk as an
> > option as a
> > show of support for their long time supporters and businesses.
>
> But if you /have/ to use it, you aren't buying current gear. ;-)

That is right and there is a good reason for that. I don't find Apple's current
lineup of hardware very attractive. iMac and Mac Mini hardware isn't flexible
enough for my purposes. In the beige days every Mac from the "Mac SE" on had at
least one slot for upgrade purposes. It might have been a COMM slot or a PDS slot
or a PCI slot but they all had at least one. Many had two or more. iMacs did away
with this flexibility.

I have a Quadra 630 which has both a COMM and a PDS slot. I could put a Etherent
card in each slot and use it as a network bridge if it could run Appletalk IP. ;-)

You couldn't do that with an iMac.

> > At the very least Apple should release Appletalk into the public
> > domain so
> > someone can write an open source implementation for those who need it.
>
> No need - the reason I mention linux is, that there has been an open
> source implementation for 7 or 8 years now called netatalk. A PC you
> could get for free should be capable of creating a route from IP
> based appletalk to "classic". If you want to stay "pure" mac maybe
> try the aforementioned Jaguar box.

That is an idea worth considering. I know there are some PPC versions of Linux.
Could I run Linux with netatalk on Mac hardware as a bridge on the network? I don't
have any PC boxes so would like to stick to 68k/PPC hardware.

I haven't gotten into linux yet, but I am beginning to see the wider range of
options available.

Thanks Bryan for your help also.

Bob Titus

.