Thank you very much

man pmset

It's free and it's the proper way of stopping your external drives from spinning down.

For example, sudo pmset -c spindown 0, will stop external drives from spinning down when you are connected to AC. Even options to allow for spindown when using UPS. Oh, and it's free...

Spin down your HD the right way.

Another "Developer" related solution to the problem. I don't think you are getting this at all. How many people do you think will open up "Terminal" and do this? Especially once they are prompted for their admin username and password. You are obviously a developer, and as such, it makes you blind to the real situation that requires "No Spin".

You are paying for the interface and also, something that will survive reboots, and firmware updates.

pmset will not survive a firmware change. It won't even survive a "RAM configuration" change (meaning if you add or remove RAM from your machine, all will be lost, and you will have to do it again.).

As a developer... I could have developed a fix for my problem (my stupid external kept falling asleep, freezing my "finder") very easily using the Daemon or pmset or whatever. The goal was to develop a solution for everybody who experienced anything related to the same problem. A solution, that anybody with any experience could execute and not think twice about it.

And... Finally, How many system admins do you think will actually let their employees install something into the "System" folder? Not a single one. Let alone give you access to the Terminal.

As a developer, you should know that you don't need to touch the System folder to make a launch agent. You can just as easily put them in the LaunchAgents folder in the Library folder in your home folder.

Knock it off with the FUD.

Yeah I know that. My point is that Nobody else does. Not every Mac user is a developer. And I am not developing this app for other developers, who obviously could figure out how to get their drives to stay awake.

P.S. A Launch Agent in your users folder would not correctly work on a volume that needs admin permissions to write to it. Only if you were an admin or if you knew the password and hardcoded it into your agent... or spent so much time developing it the right way, that you would have to charge for it. I guess you could "Ignore Permissions" on your Drives, but once again... There would be circumstances in which you won't want to do that.

No Spin, again, is an app that wraps an interface around this process and gives you more user friendly controls. For example, I could get Postfix up and running and turn a machine into a full-fledged mail-server using nothing but a text editor. However, I will just pay the $10 bucks for "MailServe", an interface that simply let's you click and type and it configures Postfix for you.

'Nuff said

Hi there, Dev!

Here's a thought, why don't you put a button in for the user to choose where to put the LaunchAgent (in User/Library or /Library, perhaps with even an explanation why the option exist in the docs)?

Maybe then it would have something worth $10 above the normal freely accessible commands and options!!

Until then I see no reason for anything higher than the "AppStore" $1. ;)

Well, that would work... if No Spin was actually a LaunchAgent. It is not... not since version 2.0

Wait a minute. You wanted to make a program that everyone could use. You don't think non-developers can handle commandline? Asking for a password is too much?

First, your program does require the account password. Moreover, sudo does not need the account name, just the password. It's exactly the same sequence as your program. No different. What kind of dev are you? 'Cause you are not filling me with confidence over your programming skills.

Secondly, if you wanted to make an intuitive program that everyone could use, perhaps you should spend more time working on your program and less on MacUpdate spreading FUD, hoping to sell your program that can be accomplished with one line and is built into OS X natively. It is littered with poor and confusing wordin (e.g., Drag the volumes you wish to affect), awkward configuration parameters (e.g., Intervals; what's an interval? Is that minutes, seconds, hours?), and a ridiculous layout (e.g., the purchase button is smashed in with the rest of the UI; is this a must have button? Does it have to clutter the interface?).

Face it. You are charging far too much for a poorly made program. And by the looks of it, you don't seem to have a problem trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the general user to do it. But based on the negative ratings your comments have pulled, I'd say that people are onto you.

Sorry buddy. At the end of the day, your program should be free. And even in that case, I wouldn't recommend it. Using the pmset parameter is the proper way of doing it. No need to drag down your system running another process. That is just poor form. And if you were any kind of developer you wouldn't employ hacks the way you do...

If even one person decides to save their money as a result of my comments, then I am thrilled. I hate watching people get milked out of their hard earned cash through lies and deceit.

Lockheed, you keep suggesting pmset. But does that let you keep one drive awake while letting others sleep?

That's what some of us need to do. I have one drive (Seagate FreeAgent) that, as far as I have been able to check, just does not wake up properly once it has gone to sleep. So a way of keeping just that one drive awake is useful, and I don't see that can be done with pmset.

The real question is the argument between the developer of this program and the developer of Keep Drive Spinning. I haven't evaluated the programs yet, but it looks as though the objections raised to Keep Drive Spinning were all answered in version 1.1.