It would appear as though WCG is down, again.

I've not been able to get new WUs for a bit, uploads are failing, their feeder service seems to be down, reporting WUs doesn't seem to remove them from my machines, and their forums are a 503.

That transition hasn't gone well.

It would appear as though WCG is down, again.

The did have an announcement about this but it went down about 36 hours before the planned outage.

@SolarSyonyk,

It would appear as though WCG is down, again.

I've not been able to get new WUs for a bit, uploads are failing, their feeder service seems to be down, reporting WUs doesn't seem to remove them from my machines, and their forums are a 503.

WCG's host provider seems to be SHARCNET¹, which appears to be the Graham cluster and Graham Cloud sited at University of Waterloo.

Those facilities appear to have been having the occasional problem during July, and (as noted by Dave Jackson in a reply that landed before mine) there is a planned outage of two days scheduled for 25th..27th July; I think the problems of 21st July caused the initial WCG outage and the systems didn't recover fully enough to make it worth restarting before said outage then having to shut everything down again...

I'm not convinced WCG can be blamed for this outage (or other hardware-related problems), and I sometimes wonder what sort of [software] bag of nails IBM handed over :-)

For more information about the Alliance (in English) see https://alliancecan.ca/en and for [general] service status² see https://status.alliancecan.ca/

Cheers - Al.

¹ Part of Digital Research Alliance of Canada (formerly Compute Canada).

² If some of the status reporting is the best that WCG are getting I'm not surprised that they can't give proper status updates :-)

[Edited to note Dave's short response that got in before mine!]

---

Anything made by IBM is proprietary crap not compatible with anything else. Nobody should have ever used them in the first place.

Rule 1: Don't reinvent the wheel.

Anything made by IBM is proprietary crap not compatible with anything else. Nobody should have ever used them in the first place.

Only ever used one IBM machine, a PS2 model 56 from the days before the abbreviation meant, "Play Station." I found it as reliable as anything else around at the time though this was a work machine, Even then anything with the letters IBM was way out of my price range.

What I will say is that WCG ran with very few problems when IBM were funding and hosting it and I am not sure it is going to survive the move to Krembil which is sad as they do some good science.

I guess IBM did make the first PC as we know it. Thankfully it got copied and improved and made cheaper.

It did work well with IBM, presumably they were throwing money at it and no longer wanted to. But I think they made everything so proprietary half the problems have been converting everything to work on normal servers.

It should work with Krembil. There are projects with even less money surely? Although they do ask for donations. Is Krembil a private company or a research group with no cash?

Anything made by IBM is proprietary crap not compatible with anything else. Nobody should have ever used them in the first place.

Only ever used one IBM machine, a PS2 model 56 from the days before the abbreviation meant, "Play Station." I found it as reliable as anything else around at the time though this was a work machine, Even then anything with the letters IBM was way out of my price range.

What I will say is that WCG ran with very few problems when IBM were funding and hosting it and I am not sure it is going to survive the move to Krembil which is sad as they do some good science.

Typical response from Mr Hucker making it obvious he's never worked seriously with IBM kit.

ECMWF had a long run of IBM Power high performance computers which I worked with for many years. They were very fast and stable. Their storage array solution was particularly performant. When we switched to Cray and Lustre as the storage solution we had a lot of problems initially with Lustre unable to keep up with rate at which the system was producing data.

There's nothing wrong with proprietary -- look at Apple, all their kit is proprietary yet they produce very good machines which last years (my iMac is still going strong after 11 yrs). There's alot to be said for proprietary.

Apple, that has to be the worst example you can come up with. For decades they've been making incompatible overpriced stuff and ruining the computing world. We should all be using the same OS. Programmers have to write for three different platforms, files aren't properly standardised between them. I just got given an old Mac with no OS on it. Can I download a DVD in Windows and write it? No. ISO not compatible with Mac, they use some nonsense called DMG, so I need special software to fudge it. I wonder if I can just install Linux on it?

You may well have had powerful IBM kit (at great expense), but because they're different to everyone else, switching over is a hassle, which is why WCG is in a mess.

And then there's the Iphones. I tried to bluetooth some photos from my Android phone to my Aunt's Iphone. Not allowed. Apple not talk to other phones. And it's worse than screwing up the bluetooth standard, they actually did it deliberately to prevent people using a service other than Itunes. I was trying to move photos!! My own photos! Annoy your customers, they leave.

I did enjoy working out her Iphone was the same specs as my Android but cost over double the amount, and the battery ran down much faster. We spent the day taking similar amounts of photos, yet when we got home, hers read 15%, mine read 60%. Something terribly wrong there, especially as they had the same 3.3Ah battery!

For decades they've been making incompatible overpriced stuff and ruining the computing world.

Seems that an awful lot of people think their stuff is reasonably priced for what it is, and that it's an improvement over the state of things. The performance to power ratio on the M series chips is pretty well bonkers compared to most of the rest of the computing world.

We should all be using the same OS.

It's bad enough that a single bit of malware can compromise an entire Windows network in some short amount of time. I rather miss the old diversity of OSes from the 90s and early 2000s, when you genuinely did have a wide range of options, and they were mostly interoperable, but all different in their own ways.

I just got given an old Mac with no OS on it. Can I download a DVD in Windows and write it? No. ISO not compatible with Mac, they use some nonsense called DMG, so I need special software to fudge it.

Depending on the age of the machine, it can pull a current OS down from the internet. Look at the recovery mode - though going too old and it doesn't have that. However, if it's that old, Linux should flow on with no problems at all - it's well supported on the Intel hardware, and the M series ones have some usable daily driver Linux support too.

Annoy your customers, they leave.

Empirically, a lot of people aren't annoyed, and Apple seems to be doing just fine.

Seems that an awful lot of people think their stuff is reasonably priced for what it is, and that it's an improvement over the state of things. The performance to power ratio on the M series chips is pretty well bonkers compared to most of the rest of the computing world.

Yeah, I work in IT and Mac lovers when asking me for a new machine, I show them the prices of PCs, and many converted simply on price alone. Not to mention being the most common OS, Windows is much easier to get programs for, and you're compatible with most of the world.

It's bad enough that a single bit of malware can compromise an entire Windows network in some short amount of time.

Only if the admin is a fool.

I rather miss the old diversity of OSes from the 90s and early 2000s, when you genuinely did have a wide range of options, and they were mostly interoperable, but all different in their own ways.

I prefer to spend my time using the systems rather than getting them to work with each other.

Depending on the age of the machine, it can pull a current OS down from the internet. Look at the recovery mode - though going too old and it doesn't have that.

It's a 2007 laptop. Two Mac owning friends told me about the internet reload thing, but it doesn't work. It was given to me as "securely wiped" - perhaps it needs a recovery partition on the hard disk to perform this internet boot? I just get the very unhelpful (thanks Apple for not using English in the error message) flashing folder with a question mark on it (I'd expect that sort of thing from a kid's toy). From what I can tell that means "can't find OS". It does the same when trying the recovery modes off the net.

It was suggested by one friend I should buy (for £25!?!) a Mac OS DVD, install it, then resell the DVD (after duplicating it of course).

However, if it's that old, Linux should flow on with no problems at all - it's well supported on the Intel hardware, and the M series ones have some usable daily driver Linux support too.

As much as I hate Linux, it's 10 times better than MacOS. Can I put Windows on it? It's an Intel chip....

Empirically, a lot of people aren't annoyed, and Apple seems to be doing just fine.

There's one born every minute. They buy them because they're shiny. I want function not form.

We all have our own prejudices. There are good reasons why Macs are first choice for so many doing graphics work but I suspect that while some Linux users make an ideological choice most choose what suits their needs best rather than what the man in a computer shop tells them suits their needs best. I don't see myself ever going back to Windows having swapped to Linux over twenty years ago.

We all have our own prejudices. There are good reasons why Macs are first choice for so many doing graphics work but I suspect that while some Linux users make an ideological choice most choose what suits their needs best rather than what the man in a computer shop tells them suits their needs best. I don't see myself ever going back to Windows having swapped to Linux over twenty years ago.

Linux = free. Windows = compatible and easy to use. Mac = (can't think of anything useful). Graphics work is not magically better on Macs. And since Macs are so astronomically expensive, you can buy a much higher end PC for the same money and run Linux or Windows on it. Or Hackintosh!

https://uk.crucial.com/articles/about-graphic-design/mac-vs-pc-which-is-better-for-graphic-design

Only if the admin is a fool.

Then, empirically, just about every company with a large Windows network is admin'd by fools, because just about all of them have run copious amounts of malware at various points.

It's a 2007 laptop.

Which model? I do believe that predates internet recovery.

As much as I hate Linux, it's 10 times better than MacOS. Can I put Windows on it? It's an Intel chip....

Should be able to. I recently dual booted Windows and Linux on a 2008 era MacBook, I don't think yours is substantially older - you might try the same path. The warning is that you'll need to install Windows from a DVD - the USB installers don't work, because the install cabinet file size on Windows is too large for FAT32 anymore. But try this and see if you can get anything working:

https://www.sevarg.net/2023/04/22/dual-boot-win10-ubuntu-2008-macbook/

They buy them because they're shiny. I want function not form.

Clearly you've never used any of Apple's M series chips.

Also, Apple's color reproduction is almost perfect out of the box on anything that ships with a monitor, and color profile stuff is a first class citizen in the OS. A random iPhone or iPad has far, far more accurate color reproduction out of the box than just about any PC that hasn't had a full monitor calibration run with dedicated calibration hardware.

Then, empirically, just about every company with a large Windows network is admin'd by fools, because just about all of them have run copious amounts of malware at various points.

None I've worked for.

Which model? I do believe that predates internet recovery.

Impossible to tell with a Mac. I can give you a code under the battery which seems to be a list of specs: 2.2/2X512/120/SD-DL:WHITE

Should be able to. I recently dual booted Windows and Linux on a 2008 era MacBook, I don't think yours is substantially older - you might try the same path. The warning is that you'll need to install Windows from a DVD - the USB installers don't work, because the install cabinet file size on Windows is too large for FAT32 anymore. But try this and see if you can get anything working:

I know it's possible to put Windows on with bootcamp etc, but that involves putting MacOS on first, which I don't need to do. I want it for Boinc, and Windows or Linux is better for that, more projects support them. And Windows is my preferred interface, and would be the same as all my other PCs, hence communication between them like remote desktop becomes easier.

Why can I not install Windows from a USB drive? FAT32 takes up to 4GB files. Surely the installer isn't using files bigger than that? You can tell Windows to install TO a FAT32 disk, so why can it not install FROM one? And why would a DVD magically change the file size limit?

Clearly you've never used any of Apple's M series chips.

I have, it's just another chip. Apple vs Intel vs AMD is silly. They just keep overtaking each other.

Also, Apple's color reproduction is almost perfect out of the box on anything that ships with a monitor, and color profile stuff is a first class citizen in the OS. A random iPhone or iPad has far, far more accurate color reproduction out of the box than just about any PC that hasn't had a full monitor calibration run with dedicated calibration hardware.

ROFL! Colour reproduction. Why are Apple fanboys obsessed with colours? Women do that when buying curtains.

ROFL! Colour reproduction. Why are Apple fanboys obsessed with colours? Women do that when buying curtains.

Because, they are working in areas where it is important. You or I might not notice if the colour in a magazine or brochure is off. But enough people will and some of those people will be the clients of the Mac owner.

ROFL! Colour reproduction. Why are Apple fanboys obsessed with colours? Women do that when buying curtains.

Because, they are working in areas where it is important. You or I might not notice if the colour in a magazine or brochure is off. But enough people will and some of those people will be the clients of the Mac owner.

The problem is with rubbish printers and monitors. Nothing to do with the OS. Get a decent monitor and printer, calibrate the monitor if necessary, and away you go. I've worked where they wanted exact colours printed - facial recognition research etc. We used Windows.

Back in the days of CRT monitors, there was another problem, a lack of linearity across the screen. Place three squares on the screen side by side, the middle one would be square and the edge two would be rectangles. Utterly useless when asking a subject to compare three faces, two of them looked butcher than the others. Except on an Iiyama monitor, which is what we used. Luckily the local computer shop had a shipload of shop damaged (just some scratches on the casing) Iiyamas at half price, so I walked in and bought the lot. They were so excited they delivered them for me in a van.

Impossible to tell with a Mac. I can give you a code under the battery which seems to be a list of specs: 2.2/2X512/120/SD-DL:WHITE

Your inability to tell what generation Mac you have doesn't mean it's impossible. It just means you don't know how to do it. There should be an A code somewhere around there, if it's not worn off, with four digits - that serves as a model number, and the spec string you list identifies the rest. It's probably badly short on RAM for a modern OS, though, unless someone's upgraded it - and I don't think they take that much to start with.

Though I expect it's this one: http://apple-history.com/mb_mid_07 - or one of the near variants, and pre-unibody (the white/black options went away with the transition to the bare aluminum chassis).

I know it's possible to put Windows on with bootcamp etc, but that involves putting MacOS on first, which I don't need to do. I want it for Boinc, and Windows or Linux is better for that, more projects support them. And Windows is my preferred interface, and would be the same as all my other PCs, hence communication between them like remote desktop becomes easier.

I'm sorry, but would you be so kind as to actually read the blog post I linked before going off on how it's "impossible without installing MacOS first"?

Let me try this again: https://www.sevarg.net/2023/04/22/dual-boot-win10-ubuntu-2008-macbook/

In that post, I talk about how to install both Windows and Linux on a only barely newer MacBook (the 2008 unibody style), without using MacOS at all. I did this roughly a year ago, and I go through the steps in somewhat decent detail, though I don't handhold every click - I assume some competence if you're trying to do it. You do not need to install MacOS to install Windows on a machine of that era, and, as I further point out, the Bootcamp installer method does not work on machines of that era anymore. I also talk about using a tool to download the various Windows drivers needed without having to bother with the Bootcamp utility. But you'd know that, if you'd read it.

Why can I not install Windows from a USB drive? FAT32 takes up to 4GB files. Surely the installer isn't using files bigger than that? You can tell Windows to install TO a FAT32 disk, so why can it not install FROM one? And why would a DVD magically change the file size limit?

Because it doesn't work, because you're wrong. Machines of that era from Apple could only boot from a FAT32 formatted USB stick (they don't support the shims into exfat or NFTS, for reasons that go deeper into UEFI than I care to investigate), and, yes, in fact, the installer is using files bigger than that. Surely, you thought to check an ISO before making confidently wrong assertions about file sizes?

Win10_22H2_English_x64v1.iso mounted on /tmp/win

user@server:/tmp/win/sources$ ls -l *.wim
-r-xr-xr-x 1 nobody nogroup  677539713 May  5 07:51 boot.wim
-r-xr-xr-x 1 nobody nogroup 5181270654 May  5 07:52 install.wim

user@server:/tmp/win/sources$ du -sm *.wim
647	boot.wim
4942	install.wim

There's a big file on the install disk that is, in fact, larger than 4GB - which means it can't be stored on a FAT32 USB drive. I understand there are some ways to go about slicing that up with some tools, and you're welcome to try that method if you want, but I just used a dual layer DVD and went on my way. As for why a DVD can fit a bigger file, it's because the CD/DVD/etc filesystem isn't FAT32, it's something different that does support larger files (UDF?).

But I think I've made the mistaken assumption that your goal here is to get an OS installed on this machine, and I've tried to be helpful along those lines. If your goal is to use this old bit of Apple hardware to simply complain about Apple hardware, I won't stand in your way - feel free to go back to complaining about how stuff "should work" based on your assumptions, instead of figuring out what does and doesn't actually work, based on actual reality of the hardware support and how things are distributed. It's only fairly recently that the Win10 installer ISOs went past the 4GB limit on files, so it used to work just fine on USB. Simply doesn't, anymore - at least on this hardware. And no, I don't know and I don't care why Microsoft distributes such a large file on the Windows install media.

I have, it's just another chip. Apple vs Intel vs AMD is silly. They just keep overtaking each other.

Yeah. Apple just gets their performance on a whole lot less platform power than anyone else right now.

ROFL! Colour reproduction. Why are Apple fanboys obsessed with colours? Women do that when buying curtains.

Because a wide range of industries do care about it, to include web developers. That you don't care doesn't mean other people don't care.

Your inability to tell what generation Mac you have doesn't mean it's impossible. It just means you don't know how to do it.

Why should I have to know how to do it? Decent laptops have the model written clearly on them, go look at a Dell. I thought Apple fanboys liked to boast about them having a newer machine than their friends? That's how Apple make their money, ripping off the same people over and over again. They even queue overnight for the new Iphone, it's pathetic. So that model number needs to be easily showoffable.

It's probably badly short on RAM for a modern OS, though, unless someone's upgraded it - and I don't think they take that much to start with.

It was 0.5GB, it's been upgraded to 4GB, so 2GB per core, enough for Boinc.

(the white/black options went away with the transition to the bare aluminum chassis).

Ah, the next fashion statement.

I'm sorry, but would you be so kind as to actually read the blog post I linked before going off on how it's "impossible without installing MacOS first"?

Let me try this again: https://www.sevarg.net/2023/04/22/dual-boot-win10-ubuntu-2008-macbook/

Judging by the length of that blog it ain't worth trying. And I said I only want one OS.

In that post, I talk about how to install both Windows and Linux on a only barely newer MacBook (the 2008 unibody style), without using MacOS at all. I did this roughly a year ago, and I go through the steps in somewhat decent detail, though I don't handhold every click - I assume some competence if you're trying to do it. You do not need to install MacOS to install Windows on a machine of that era, and, as I further point out, the Bootcamp installer method does not work on machines of that era anymore. I also talk about using a tool to download the various Windows drivers needed without having to bother with the Bootcamp utility. But you'd know that, if you'd read it.

The bloody thing won't even boot from the Windows DVD.

Because it doesn't work, because you're wrong.

Don't you threaten me in italics.

Machines of that era from Apple could only boot from a FAT32 formatted USB stick (they don't support the shims into exfat or NFTS, for reasons that go deeper into UEFI than I care to investigate), and, yes, in fact, the installer is using files bigger than that. Surely, you thought to check an ISO before making confidently wrong assertions about file sizes?

Of course I don't look inside the ISO. I'm not that sad.

There's a big file on the install disk that is, in fact, larger than 4GB - which means it can't be stored on a FAT32 USB drive. I understand there are some ways to go about slicing that up with some tools, and you're welcome to try that method if you want, but I just used a dual layer DVD and went on my way. As for why a DVD can fit a bigger file, it's because the CD/DVD/etc filesystem isn't FAT32, it's something different that does support larger files (UDF?).

It never ceases to amaze me when designers come to a disk size limit and make a new limit which will annoy folk again in a few years. Nobody ever looks ahead, you'd think they were politicians.

But I think I've made the mistaken assumption that your goal here is to get an OS installed on this machine, and I've tried to be helpful along those lines. If your goal is to use this old bit of Apple hardware to simply complain about Apple hardware, I won't stand in your way - feel free to go back to complaining about how stuff "should work" based on your assumptions, instead of figuring out what does and doesn't actually work, based on actual reality of the hardware support and how things are distributed. It's only fairly recently that the Win10 installer ISOs went past the 4GB limit on files, so it used to work just fine on USB. Simply doesn't, anymore - at least on this hardware. And no, I don't know and I don't care why Microsoft distributes such a large file on the Windows install media.

I've not had a problem installing on similar aged PC hardware.

Yeah. Apple just gets their performance on a whole lot less platform power than anyone else right now.

Until tomorrow. It's just three big chip companies spending lots of money making more efficient designs and incorporating new tech. They're all achieving the same thing, the only reason to have three doing it is so there's competition, so people like you get all excited about one being momentarily better.

Because a wide range of industries do care about it, to include web developers. That you don't care doesn't mean other people don't care.

Girly industries.

Judging by the length of that blog it ain't worth trying. And I said I only want one OS.

Then don't do the parts involving Linux and create a single partition that fills the whole drive.

Did you try holding down "C" on power-on to boot from the Windows DVD? If not, give it a shot. That's Apple's "Boot from optical media" incantation. Also, if you've only tried with a 64-bit Windows 10 ISO, try a 32-bit one. It should be a 64-bit capable CPU, but I think your era only boots 32-bit media - the transition to a 64-bit UEFI was with the transition to unibody, if I remember properly.

But you don't seem to care about actually accomplishing the task you've stated you want to accomplish. Just whining about Apple hardware and being smug about how you're so much better than Apple users. So good luck.

It never ceases to amaze me when designers come to a disk size limit and make a new limit which will annoy folk again in a few years. Nobody ever looks ahead, you'd think they were politicians.

FAT32 was a Microsoft filesystem. Unixes of the time had things pretty well sorted out.

FAT32 showed up with Windows 95, in 1996, and has the 4GB file size limit.

XFS, SGI's 64-bit filesystem, was introduced in 1994 (several years before FAT32), and had an 8EB file size limit (same as the volume size limit).

EXT2 showed up in 1993, and depending on cluster size, supports 16GB-2TB maximum file sizes.

Sorry. Microsoft is the one who, rather late to the game, created the filesystem you're whining about. Nobody else thought it was a decent filesystem, either - at the time or at any time since.

I've not had a problem installing on similar aged PC hardware.

Likely because they're booting in legacy BIOS modes, not UEFI. Different boot methods, different ways of dealing with volumes. Apple's approach works fine for their OS installers, and generally worked fine for Windows until the installs got too massive (which, in 2008, was north of a decade away from being a problem, and as I've noted, there are several workarounds).