What is keeping my upgrades from being straight forward ?

I have looked and looked here and have not found similar cases to ours. Could some body direct me to a discussion or other info?
Trying to upgrade my first gen MacBook Air from Leopard 10.5.8 to Snow Leopard.
I bought the disc kit from the online Apple store.
The instructions make it sound simple; back up, click upgrade, follow the prompts etc.
Well let me tell you. About a year ago we went through this on our iMac. It appeared that we got a bad disc. Got notices that the disc was partially unreadable etc. Sent the disc back and got another. Same problem. I gave up. My partner called Apple and was talked through a complex bunch of malarqui that included erasing the hard drive and reinstalling software a handful at a time and restarting and restarting and getting updates etc.
All manual manipulation.
Why can't this be straight forward ? We don't mess with our Macs and hack them etc.
When she did all this low and behold the drive could continue to read the Snow Leopard upgrade disc during the install. Before it would cycle for like twenty minutes in one spot beating the **** out of the optical drive.
Huh ! Unreadable ?
What is going on ?
The exact same thing is going on with my MacBook air. Cycles and cycles and cycles and says unreadable damaged optical disc or process stopped etc. etc.
I have used a very trust worthy iomega "Super DVD" external drive and then when that didn't work (stopped part way through upgrade ) I used disc sharing from my Mac Mini running Snow Leopard and the same thing happened.
Some how I think if I call Apple care and go through all the nonsense the external drives won't give me the unreadable disc prompt.
I don't really like or trust the Time machine back up system. I would much rather keep the internal drive loaded and tweak it.
Is there any way I can just do an upgrade without erasing my Air hard drive. I like it as it is. I have my Time Machine back up but I fear messing up my Air just to do this Booo Sheet upgrade. All I want really is for my Air to go to sleep as fast as it used to and to prepare for Lion. From what I have read since I have been searching for info here the Lion or Mountain Lion may not even work well with my older Air so am I just going to mess up my Air royally for no real benefit ?
Thanks for any enlightenment you may give.

Have you tried using a cd/dvd drive cleaner?
barkingmad wrote:
bump
Very unnecessary.
Your post - Jul 10, 2012 12:24 AM
A response - Jul 10, 2012 6:19 AM
Your bump - Jul 10, 2012 12:24 PM

Similar Messages

VERIZON - What's keeping the Bootloader from being unlocked.

I speak for a growing mass of consumers concerned over the Bootloader still being locked for the RAZR
I purchased my RAZR under the impression that it'd be unlocked by the end of 2011..."where operator and channel partners will allow it." - as told by a sales rep and confirmed on various online sources, HTC, Samsung and even OTHER Motorola phones all have unlocked bootloaders. So, unlocking the bootloader for the RAZR doesn't really seem that far-fetched of a concept.
Like many others out there, I do base my buying decision based on the open-source and flexibility of the device. I left Apple for the very facts that A) their hardware is subpar and B) a combination of CARRIERS and MANUFACTURERS constricting device usage to that of a drone-like state.
I want to know WHEN and IF you're planning on unlocking the bootloader. And if not - what are you going to do to compensate myself and a huge community that was falsely led into thinking that we were getting a device that would have an unlocked bootloader. I would gladly have waited for the Galaxy Nexus for such privlidges. But I was mislead into buying a phone that's turning out to be a deadend for me.
"Wouldn't it be great if Motorola has the same committment to the open source nature of Android and the requests of their customers. I am going to be trading in my Droid RAZR (3rd replacement) for the HTC so I can enjoy an unlocked bootloader (among other technical issues), and support a company that actually listens to its customers. I am hoping with the acquisitions of Motorola by Google the devices release by Motorola will support open source, and the developer community.
The Droid RAZR is a great phone (aside from the data drops I have experienced), and with an unlocked bootloader this phone would surpass the Galaxy Nexus easily. Motorola needs to realize that when they meant this phone is too powerful to fall into the wrong hands it shouldn't have meant the developer communtiy. Those would be the right hands that would save this device. " - Chris
I agree with the above quote - while aimed at Motorola, I think the same holds true to Verizon. I've always considered Verizon superior in customer service and quality. And I would like to think they'd work with their customers to provide the same service I've grown to love.

This is a quote from "Droid Life" forums. It sums it up better than I ever can say it.
First let’s look at what the piece of this open access provision states that has everyone all heated:
“Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee’s C Block network, except…”
And that exception reads as follows:
Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee’s network…
So this may just be my negativity, but I would put money on Verizon arguing and producing a document having to do with security and bootloader unlocking. You see, it states right there that they cannot limit the use of one’s phone unless they deem that service to be a liability to the protection of their network. Since we all know that “security” seems to be the reason for locking up a phone, then there is your exception to the rule. Remember that these things are vague and companies like Verizon use that to their advantage.
The second part of this story has to do with “locking” of phones and reads as follows:
Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee’s standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers’ networks.
I hate to break this to everyone, but “locking” in this scenario has nothing to do with bootloaders. We are talking network access here which means they are referencing a phone that can access multiple frequencies or another carrier’s network. “Locking” and “unlocked” mean two different things these days. For most people, an unlocked phone has to do with one that works on another carrier’s network (like my Euro Galaxy S2 that works on U.S. AT&T). To hackers and ROM developers, it means a bootloader. Everyone is just confused here. An “unlocked” phone in this situation falls under that first category and means that Verizon cannot lock its phones from working on another network (this is not a bootloader situation). Since their are currently no other networks to my knowledge that have access to their LTE frequency, they shouldn’t have a problem doing that.
Everyone follow that? Now, as I stated above, these things are vague and I’m pretty sure my interpretation is about the 4th or 5th different take. What I would say, is that if you are angry with the whole situation, then feel free to submit a complaint to the FCC as has been suggested. Who knows, maybe they will end up siding with the bootloader crowd at some point.

Re: How do I keep an application from being started morethan once?

Here are some quick ideas. None of them should be too hard to implement,
although each has some drawbacks.
1. Have a login server track who is logged on, and if there is already a
logon for a given user or a given machine, then deny the application
startup. The nice thing about this is that a user will not be able to have
multiple logins even by going to another machine. Then again, this may not
be so nice, and you also get a possible single point of failure on the
login server for which you will have to prepare.
2. Drop to the operating system, and get a list of processes for the client
machine. If the name of one of them matches the name of application that
is being run, then deny startup. This avoids a network hit, but requires
some OS specific code. Also, a clever user could change the name of an
executable to get around this. Note that a user could have another login
on another machine.
3. Write to a file on the local machine. You can hide the file in some
suitable place, and can also scramble some information so that a user
cannot get around having this file present by reading from the file at
startup and then writing to it. Based on the state of your application,
the file will have some scrambled information indicating if an instance of
an application can be started. If you retain the write lock (i.e. do not
close) the file for the duration of the application, you increase your
security at the risk of a confused user if the application gets terminated
without releasing the lock. Depending on the OS where the client will run,
this could be an issue. If you like this option, perform some experiments
first on all configurations of an example client machine to determine the
behavior. Again, this only works to prevent an extra login on a single
machine, not system wide.
If you are not concerned about your users hacking around too much and don't
care about a login on another machine, I would opt for some version of
number 3. Otherwise, I would venture number 1.
Regards
CSB
At 07:47 AM 2/18/98 -0500, Martin G Nystrom wrote:
A user can launch an application, then launch it again. How do we make it so
that the user can only run one instance of the application?
Martin Nystrom
Eli Lilly and Company
([email protected])
Curtis Bragdon, Senior Consultant, Forte Software
[email protected]
Voice Mail: (510) 986-3807
Paging: (888) 687-6723
"I've seen dozens of triggering towns." - Richard Hugo

Yet another quick and dirty solution is to use local ExternalConnections.
This is a single instance per machine solution.
Example is attached.
(See attached file: TestOne.pex)
[email protected] on 02/18/98 10:01:07 PM
Please respond to [email protected]
To: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How do I keep an application from being started more than
once?
Martin,
there are two ways to read your question
(a) no more than one instance of an application per machine
(b) no more than one instance of an application per "user"
now if a user has only one machine, and your system has "userids" and you
only want
one active "session" per "user" then the distinction is irrelevant.
However, many systems
let people share logins, so a token based thing enforcing one login will be
problematic.
The downside of #1 approach suggested by Curtis happens when a machine gets
hosed without "logging" the user off the security system, then they can't
get in until their ticket expires or a sysadmin gets involved. Should be
manageable, however. But this enforces one application
instance per user, unless you check both for the presence of an active
token for that user as well as the presence of a token tied to that
particular node name. Otherwise there is nothing to prevent the same user
from launching the app again and logging in as a different user. This is
definitely the best approach of the bunch, and can be adapted for either
(a) or (b).
Suggestion # 2 won't work unless the application is built as a compiled
client,
since the process name will be 'ftexec' and not the "name" of the
application. And it doesn't
prevent a user from launching the app from a different machine (or people
sharing logins). So again it depends on what you are trying to achieve.
#3 also only prevents multiple instances per machine, not necessarily by
user. Of course
most people don't have multiple machines. The point is that you may be
trying to
prevent your users from sharing logins. In which case the file thing won't
do it.
Some other ideas:
1. You could, however, enforce one application per machine using the
installed partition agent's ExecutingPartition instrument name. As long as
the user doesn't run the app in a different environment, you can have the
app check at startup time if there is another
ActivePartition running under the same InstalledPartition name.
(ActivePartitions are child agents
of InstalledPartitions).
2. use the ObjectLocationManager and bind a simple object into the naming
system using a naming scheme such as
/MyApplication/MyNode or
/MyApplication/MyUserId
the presence of either one would indicate that another instance of that
application is running on either that machine or that user. Of course
these have to be cleaned out, and subject to similar downside as
alternative #1. So you'd essentially be using the forte naming system as a
distributed lock manager (ouch).
3. Have the application remove the shortcut to launch it upon startup, and
recreate it when it is finished, or move it to a hidden place. There it
is - the worst idea I've ever come up with. Don't
do this!
Regards,
John
From: Curtis Bragdon <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 16:36:58 -0500
Subject: Re: How do I keep an application from being started more than
once?
Here are some quick ideas. None of them should be too hard to implement,
although each has some drawbacks.
1. Have a login server track who is logged on, and if there is already a
logon for a given user or a given machine, then deny the application
startup. The nice thing about this is that a user will not be able to have
multiple logins even by going to another machine. Then again, this may not
be so nice, and you also get a possible single point of failure on the
login server for which you will have to prepare.
2. Drop to the operating system, and get a list of processes for the client
machine. If the name of one of them matches the name of application that
is being run, then deny startup. This avoids a network hit, but requires
some OS specific code. Also, a clever user could change the name of an
executable to get around this. Note that a user could have another login
on another machine.
3. Write to a file on the local machine. You can hide the file in some
suitable place, and can also scramble some information so that a user
cannot get around having this file present by reading from the file at
startup and then writing to it. Based on the state of your application,
the file will have some scrambled information indicating if an instance of
an application can be started. If you retain the write lock (i.e. do not
close) the file for the duration of the application, you increase your
security at the risk of a confused user if the application gets terminated
without releasing the lock. Depending on the OS where the client will run,
this could be an issue. If you like this option, perform some experiments
first on all configurations of an example client machine to determine the
behavior. Again, this only works to prevent an extra login on a single
machine, not system wide.
If you are not concerned about your users hacking around too much and don't
care about a login on another machine, I would opt for some version of
number 3. Otherwise, I would venture number 1.
Regards
CSB
At 07:47 AM 2/18/98 -0500, Martin G Nystrom wrote:
A user can launch an application, then launch it again. How do we make itso
that the user can only run one instance of the application?
Martin Nystrom
Eli Lilly and Company
([email protected])
Curtis Bragdon, Senior Consultant, Forte Software
[email protected]
Voice Mail: (510) 986-3807
Paging: (888) 687-6723
"I've seen dozens of triggering towns." - Richard Hugo
John Jamison
Vice President of Technology
Sage IT Partners, Inc.
415 392 7243 x 306
[email protected]

What would make YOU upgrade from a 2011 to a 2012 MBA?

What would make you upgrade from a 2011 MBA to a 2012 MBA?
For me, the following woud be important for an 13'' MBA upgrade:
keep the low weight or even improve it
do not sacrifice battery life
offer an 8 GB memory option
offer USB 3.0 in addition to Thunderbolt
Pretty simple, isn't it?

carl wolf wrote:
There is no "2012 MBA".
True, but expecting a similar cycle of time between revisions is no more "strange" than expecting 2013 to arrive. I call it confidence in Apple's innovation cycles.
Yes, I suppose it is "speculating" in the harsh sense of the word, but so would talk about Apple's mere existence in the future. Right?

How do I keep my Imessages from being viewed on other devices under my apple ID?

How do I keep my Imessages from being viewed on other devices under my apple ID?

No, you can authorize any number of email addresses on your Apple Id and then select one of those to use as an alternate Send and Recieve for Messages. It isn't necessary to use seperate AppleIDs. I use my phone number on my iPhone and an email address on the iPad.

Trouble with slow Macbook Air. I have first generation MacBook Air and have a hard time keeping hard drive from being full. Right now, I have almost 5 gigs available, but mac is slow and I keep getting color wheel when I use Mail. Any suggestions?

Trouble with slow Macbook Air. I have first generation MacBook Air and have a hard time keeping hard drive from being full. After trashing many docs, I have almost 5 gigs available, but mac is slow and I keep getting color wheel when I use Mail. I'd like to install Lion, but now I'm afraid it will slow down my machine even further. Do I have enough free hard disc space? Is Mail problem related to free hard disc space? Thanks for your help!

7gb of free disc space is required to install Lion. Read this about how to free up disc space: http://pondini.org/OSX/DiskSpace.html. Also, advice on how to speed up your mac: http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/25_ways_speed_your_mac

HT4906 Is there a way to keep certain pictures from being sent to iCloud?

Is there a way to keep certain pictures from being sent to iCloud?

Sorry, I meant from my Mac. I have pictures on my Mac that I don't want sent to my other devices.

Is internet security required to keep my email from being hacked?

Is any type of Internet Security required to keep my email from being hacked?

No not needed for a non jailbroken apple device.

What is the next upgrade from snow leopard 10.6

what is the next upgrade from snow leopard 10.6

maryellenfromkemah wrote:
what is the next upgrade from snow leopard 10.6
Apple has been updating OS X 10.6 with security updates, although the version is still 10.6.8 max.
OS X 10.4/10.5 need to upgrade, 10.6.8 ok still
Depending upon what your machine is and it's RAM amount if it can go to 10.7 or 10.8
We need to know the Model Identifier and the RAM amount.
Older machines that came with 10.5 or 10.4 originally are not advised to proceed any further than 10.6.8 due to age and performance issues on the newer OS X versions of 10.7 and 10.8. Best buy a new machine if you want 10.8, doesn't make sense to buy software and have a slow machine with a older box. Either sell/donate it or use it for backup.
Also 10.7 and above will NOT run your PPC based software your currently running.
So before you upgrade, it's best to take stock of all your third party software and if they will run on the newer OS X verison. This site can assist.
http://roaringapps.com/apps:table

Keeping my applet from being downloaded

Hello. I have a question. In order to put an applet in my web page, I have to link to my applet. This works great for normal people viewing my page, and they can use my applet just fine. However, I don't like the idea of people being able to look at the source code, get the link to the applet location, enter it into their browser, and then download my jar file because then they can hack into the jar, decompile, and steal my code (not that it is worth stealing, but still). How can I keep people from being able to download my jar file? My guess is to have the applet some kind of folder options that only allow web-server be able to access it if that is possible. I tried messing with the folder security settings but either the jar was still able to downloaded by entering the link in the browser, or the jar file wasn't able to be read by the web-server. Please help me out. Thank you.

Code obfuscators can help. But that would only rename the methods and fields and stuff, such that it makes the decompiled code hard to read. Anyone determined enough would figure it out.
But you should honestly ask yourself one question: Would someone really bother? Cuz it many cases, the answer is no. Except maybe for learning reasons, and not so much for theft.
Of course, certainly hackers could look for vulnerabilities in your website via your applet code, depending on what your applet does. Which is probably why most banks don't provide applet interfaces to their systems. But then again, a properly secure system would be able to publish the applet code without fear of it being hacked into.
You should absolutely not include the source itself in the compiled jar file. But otherwise, you can't hide the jar files or class files... Unless you don't want people to see the applet... in which case, don't waste time creating said applet in the first place and go fishing instead.

How do i keep certain songs from being uploaded from my library to my ipod

how do i keep certain songs form being uploaded from itunes to my ipod the check button does nothing
30gig ipod Windows 98

Set your iPod so you can manually manage your songs, see here for details:http://www.apple.com/support/ipod/tutorial/ipgettingstartedt3.html

Keeping flash player from being uninstalled

I thimk that registry Mechanic is causing me to have to
reinstall Flash Player everytime I use it. They say I can add a key
or number to exclude it from being changed or erased each time-
What do I use to identify and add to their exclude list?I am
running Flash Player 9 active x-

Flash Player is a plugin, and typically used by browsers (and sometimes other software.) Flash, by itself, won't open flv files. Instead you'd load those files into your web browser and it would load Flash to render them.
I don't know if Rhapsody uses the ActiveX or NPAPI versions of Flash Player. Which do you have installed? You can check this by going into the Programs and Features control panel and looking for the Adobe Flash Player entry(s). It'll say NPAPI, PPAPI, or ActiveX at the end.

How to keep a subject from being affected by a mask

i have a shot in an office where i have a subject walking in front of some really bright windows. i added an adjustment layer and made 6 mask squares over the windows and brought down the brightness a bit. of course when the subject walks in front of those windows you can see the shaded mask on him.
im not sure what you call it but what do i do to him to keep the mask from showing on him?
not sure if i should make another thread but ill ask this as well in here...in the same shot because of the bright windows originally the rest of the scene inside the office is dark. how do i brighten the rest of the scene without affecting the windows? i tried duplicating the adjustment layer with the 6 masks and inverting them so i can brighten everything but windows but no matter what i did i couldnt get it to work.
TIA

think layers... you need to separate the person from the background on another layer with an animated mask. This is called Rotoscoping. RotoBrush is a tool that may work.
Same thing for your second question, LAYERS, not duplicate adjustment layers, but duplicate your scene, do your masking, apply adjustments and you will be OK.

What will keep a system from sleeping, other than user activity?

If I'm, say, running a long video transcode, will that prevent automatic sleep, or might sleep kick in anyway in the middle of things and possibly screw them up? I think this may have happened, so I'm considering disabling automatic sleep if it presents this sort of liability. TIA... Mark

Programs actively writing to disk should keep a system from sleeping. That said, I've always turned off sleep on my systems when doing important processing, just to be sure. Some software can pause for significant amounts of time and while they should still be keeping the processor working and so prevent sleep, it's not foolproof, so I err on the side of caution and set my systems not to sleep other than the monitor when they're going to be processing for a while.
Regards.

Ipod touch 4's files are deleted whenever i add a new file into it through itunes (the files i have on my ipod touch aren't in my itunes before hand) and i don't know what to do to keep these files from being erased. PLEASE HELP :(

my ipod touch 4th generation has files that i didnt back up because i didnt know i was supposed to. the when i tried to add one new file to my EMPTY itunes, all files are deleted, yes because i know i didnt back the files up and the files on my ipod arent in my itunes. so i cancelled adding the new file and all files
are back again, like i didnt press the sync button when it showed the deletion. what am i supposed to do about this? i dont want my ipod files to be deleted, i just wanna add new files freely without losing any of my old files. please help.

You want to transfer purchases from the iPod to your iTunes account.
Connect the device to iTunes but do not sync.
Select File > Transfer Purchases.
This will copy the content purchased via iTunes on the iPod to your iTunes account.

What is keeping my upgrades from being straight forward ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for