f



PPC Macs better than Intel Macs.

That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new 
technology.  Why do these fools keep buying? 


0
igwif (121)
9/7/2009 12:12:24 AM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

32 Replies
896 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 53

In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
 "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:

> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new 
> technology.  Why do these fools keep buying? 

It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later, 
drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite 
the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was using 
them, of course.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
9/7/2009 4:00:14 PM
"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message 
news:znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET...
> In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
> "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
>
>> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new
>> technology.  Why do these fools keep buying?
>
> It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later,
> drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite
> the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was using
> them, of course.


Well JO,  Fa-groon and Tim Murray disagree with you.  They claim the PPC's 
are much better, and they are true Mac advocates.

From Fa-groon;

"Well stated, Tim. I'd like to add to your comments that from what I see, 
the
PPC Macs (possibly due to their maturity) SEEM to be more reliable than the
Intel Macs. I have lots of friends with Intel Macs and I see them having a
lot more issues than do friends who are still using PPC machines. There is,
after all, something to be said for mature technologies. when one commits
oneself to the "latest" they very often leave the "greatest" behind them."




0
igwif (121)
9/7/2009 4:50:23 PM
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 09:50:23 -0700, Jimmyjohn wrote
(in article <iRapm.121759$nL7.8169@newsfe18.iad>):

> 
> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET...
>> In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
>> "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new
>>> technology.  Why do these fools keep buying?
>> 
>> It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later,
>> drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite
>> the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was using
>> them, of course.
> 
> 
> Well JO,  Fa-groon and Tim Murray disagree with you.  They claim the PPC's 
> are much better, and they are true Mac advocates.
> 
> From Fa-groon;
> 
> "Well stated, Tim. I'd like to add to your comments that from what I see, 
> the
> PPC Macs (possibly due to their maturity) SEEM to be more reliable than the
> Intel Macs. I have lots of friends with Intel Macs and I see them having a
> lot more issues than do friends who are still using PPC machines. There is,
> after all, something to be said for mature technologies. when one commits
> oneself to the "latest" they very often leave the "greatest" behind them."

I fail to see in the above post ANYWHERE that I claimed that PPCs were MUCH 
better. I did say that PPCs SEEMED to be more reliable than the Intel Macs. I 
have friends with both and the ones with Intel Macs seem to have more 
problems than do friends with PPC Macs. Those friends and acquaintances who 
have one or more of each have made this same observation. Of course, no one 
really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware or the 
Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability issues with 
the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions of OSX, but 
if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we still won't 
know whether its hardware or OS related. 

0
fa-groon (1448)
9/7/2009 8:07:44 PM
"Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C6CAB620000D98A6F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 09:50:23 -0700, Jimmyjohn wrote
> (in article <iRapm.121759$nL7.8169@newsfe18.iad>):
>
>>
>> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET...
>>> In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
>>> "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new
>>>> technology.  Why do these fools keep buying?
>>>
>>> It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later,
>>> drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite
>>> the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was using
>>> them, of course.
>>
>>
>> Well JO,  Fa-groon and Tim Murray disagree with you.  They claim the 
>> PPC's
>> are much better, and they are true Mac advocates.
>>
>> From Fa-groon;
>>
>> "Well stated, Tim. I'd like to add to your comments that from what I see,
>> the
>> PPC Macs (possibly due to their maturity) SEEM to be more reliable than 
>> the
>> Intel Macs.  There is,
>> after all, something to be said for mature technologies. when one commits
>> oneself to the "latest" they very often leave the "greatest" behind 
>> them."
>
> I fail to see in the above post ANYWHERE that I claimed that PPCs were 
> MUCH
> better. I did say that PPCs SEEMED to be more reliable than the Intel 
> Macs. I
> have friends with both and the ones with Intel Macs seem to have more
> problems than do friends with PPC Macs. Those friends and acquaintances 
> who
> have one or more of each have made this same observation. Of course, no 
> one
> really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware or the
> Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability issues with
> the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions of OSX, 
> but
> if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we still won't
> know whether its hardware or OS related.

It's hard to rewrite history, no matter how many words you put into it. 
You are a stupid shit. 


0
igwif (121)
9/7/2009 8:40:04 PM
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:40:04 -0700, Jimmyjohn wrote
(in article <Bcepm.169307$0e4.91746@newsfe19.iad>):

> 
> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message 
> news:0001HW.C6CAB620000D98A6F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 09:50:23 -0700, Jimmyjohn wrote
>> (in article <iRapm.121759$nL7.8169@newsfe18.iad>):
>> 
>>> 
>>> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET...
>>>> In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
>>>> "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new
>>>>> technology.  Why do these fools keep buying?
>>>> 
>>>> It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later,
>>>> drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite
>>>> the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was using
>>>> them, of course.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Well JO,  Fa-groon and Tim Murray disagree with you.  They claim the 
>>> PPC's
>>> are much better, and they are true Mac advocates.
>>> 
>>> From Fa-groon;
>>> 
>>> "Well stated, Tim. I'd like to add to your comments that from what I see,
>>> the
>>> PPC Macs (possibly due to their maturity) SEEM to be more reliable than 
>>> the
>>> Intel Macs.  There is,
>>> after all, something to be said for mature technologies. when one commits
>>> oneself to the "latest" they very often leave the "greatest" behind 
>>> them."
>> 
>> I fail to see in the above post ANYWHERE that I claimed that PPCs were 
>> MUCH
>> better. I did say that PPCs SEEMED to be more reliable than the Intel 
>> Macs. I
>> have friends with both and the ones with Intel Macs seem to have more
>> problems than do friends with PPC Macs. Those friends and acquaintances 
>> who
>> have one or more of each have made this same observation. Of course, no 
>> one
>> really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware or the
>> Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability issues with
>> the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions of OSX, 
>> but
>> if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we still won't
>> know whether its hardware or OS related.
> 
> It's hard to rewrite history, no matter how many words you put into it. 
> You are a stupid shit. 
> 
> 

See. No one can discuss anything with you. I've tried being civil. I've tried 
using logic, I've tried to avoid purposely insulting you. Nothing works. You 
are simply not interested in discussing any real issues. Maybe you''re 
incapable of it, I don't know. But I'm certainly not going to expend any more 
time or energy trying to find out. 

0
fa-groon (1448)
9/8/2009 12:14:12 AM
Fa-groon stated in post 0001HW.C6CAEFE400023676F01846D8@news.giganews.com on
9/7/09 5:14 PM:

>>> I fail to see in the above post ANYWHERE that I claimed that PPCs were MUCH
>>> better. I did say that PPCs SEEMED to be more reliable than the Intel Macs.
>>> I have friends with both and the ones with Intel Macs seem to have more
>>> problems than do friends with PPC Macs. Those friends and acquaintances who
>>> have one or more of each have made this same observation. Of course, no one
>>> really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware or the
>>> Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability issues with
>>> the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions of OSX,
>>> but if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we still
>>> won't know whether its hardware or OS related.
>>> 
>> It's hard to rewrite history, no matter how many words you put into it. You
>> are a stupid shit.
>> 
>> 
> 
> See. No one can discuss anything with you. I've tried being civil. I've tried
> using logic, I've tried to avoid purposely insulting you. Nothing works. You
> are simply not interested in discussing any real issues. Maybe you''re
> incapable of it, I don't know. But I'm certainly not going to expend any more
> time or energy trying to find out.

Welcome to CSMA.  Sadly, what you describe is all too common in these parts.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/8/2009 12:16:06 AM
In article <0001HW.C6CAEFE400023676F01846D8@news.giganews.com>,
 Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:40:04 -0700, Jimmyjohn wrote
> (in article <Bcepm.169307$0e4.91746@newsfe19.iad>):

> > You are a stupid shit. 

Why would you think Fa-groon is stupid shit? At least I don't post under 
names like "Jimmyjohn." The names I post under can be real life names.
Who knows, there may be a real life men named Chance Furlong, Nigel 
Ratburn, or Jake Clawson out there somewhere. "Jimmyjohn" sounds like 
what a lamer would use.
0
t-bone2 (2779)
9/8/2009 2:50:06 AM
In article <0001HW.C6CAEFE400023676F01846D8@news.giganews.com>,
 Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:

Please disregard my last post, it was intended for Jimmyjohn.
0
t-bone2 (2779)
9/8/2009 2:51:59 AM
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 19:51:59 -0700, Chance Furlong wrote
(in article <T-Bone-F5955D.21515907092009@news.giganews.com>):

> In article <0001HW.C6CAEFE400023676F01846D8@news.giganews.com>,
>  Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
> 
> Please disregard my last post, it was intended for Jimmyjohn.

I realize that. No need to apologize. 

0
fa-groon (1448)
9/8/2009 3:09:01 AM
"Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C6CAEFE400023676F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:40:04 -0700, Jimmyjohn wrote
> (in article <Bcepm.169307$0e4.91746@newsfe19.iad>):
>
>>
>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C6CAB620000D98A6F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 09:50:23 -0700, Jimmyjohn wrote
>>> (in article <iRapm.121759$nL7.8169@newsfe18.iad>):
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET...
>>>>> In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
>>>>> "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new
>>>>>> technology.  Why do these fools keep buying?
>>>>>
>>>>> It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later,
>>>>> drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite
>>>>> the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was 
>>>>> using
>>>>> them, of course.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well JO,  Fa-groon and Tim Murray disagree with you.  They claim the
>>>> PPC's
>>>> are much better, and they are true Mac advocates.
>>>>
>>>> From Fa-groon;
>>>>
>>>> "Well stated, Tim. I'd like to add to your comments that from what I 
>>>> see,
>>>> the
>>>> PPC Macs (possibly due to their maturity) SEEM to be more reliable than
>>>> the
>>>> Intel Macs.  There is,
>>>> after all, something to be said for mature technologies. when one 
>>>> commits
>>>> oneself to the "latest" they very often leave the "greatest" behind
>>>> them."
>>>
>>> I fail to see in the above post ANYWHERE that I claimed that PPCs were
>>> MUCH
>>> better. I did say that PPCs SEEMED to be more reliable than the Intel
>>> Macs. I
>>> have friends with both and the ones with Intel Macs seem to have more
>>> problems than do friends with PPC Macs. Those friends and acquaintances
>>> who
>>> have one or more of each have made this same observation. Of course, no
>>> one
>>> really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware or the
>>> Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability issues 
>>> with
>>> the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions of 
>>> OSX,
>>> but
>>> if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we still 
>>> won't
>>> know whether its hardware or OS related.
>>
>> It's hard to rewrite history, no matter how many words you put into it.
>> You are a stupid shit.
>>
>>
>
> See. No one can discuss anything with you. I've tried being civil.

Bullshit.

>I've tried  using logic

Bullshit.

> I've tried to avoid purposely insulting you.

Bullshit

> Nothing works.

The above three do work.  Unfortunately you were never civil, from day one.
You never used logic, you only used lies and distortions, from day one.
You also insulted me,  from day one.

Now you whine.  You are the classic Maccie Shithead who has created enemies 
where none existed.  Now you get paid back. 


0
igwif (121)
9/8/2009 11:33:11 AM
On Sep 7, 6:16=A0pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Fa-groon stated in post 0001HW.C6CAEFE400023676F0184...@news.giganews.com=
 on
> 9/7/09 5:14 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> I fail to see in the above post ANYWHERE that I claimed that PPCs wer=
e MUCH
> >>> better. I did say that PPCs SEEMED to be more reliable than the Intel=
 Macs.
> >>> I have friends with both and the ones with Intel Macs seem to have mo=
re
> >>> problems than do friends with PPC Macs. Those friends and acquaintanc=
es who
> >>> have one or more of each have made this same observation. Of course, =
no one
> >>> really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware or =
the
> >>> Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability issues=
 with
> >>> the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions of =
OSX,
> >>> but if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we sti=
ll
> >>> won't know whether its hardware or OS related.
>
> >> It's hard to rewrite history, no matter how many words you put into it=
.. You
> >> are a stupid shit.
>
> > See. No one can discuss anything with you. I've tried being civil. I've=
 tried
> > using logic, I've tried to avoid purposely insulting you. Nothing works=
.. You
> > are simply not interested in discussing any real issues. Maybe you''re
> > incapable of it, I don't know. But I'm certainly not going to expend an=
y more
> > time or energy trying to find out.
>
> Welcome to CSMA. =A0Sadly, what you describe is all too common in these p=
arts.

And the irony of that statement is that you are widely known as one of
the worst offenders when it comes to "not interested in discussing any
real issues" as you're often found in the middle of some personal BS
that you've started and obsessively cling to while trolling people
with it for years. Nice to know that you recognize the environment
you've been doing it in, though... even if you won't admit that you're
one of the worst offenders in this regard. Perhaps it has escaped your
attention that Fa-groon never responds to you:

Fa-groon: "I don't read Snit period. He's been killfiled
since the first day I posted here. [....] I don't want to 'do
like Snit'. As far as I'm concerned, Snit doesn't even exist."
15 Aug 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/527cee8cbd40e225?h=
l=3Den&dmode=3Dsource

So, while you can deny that you've been doing what you've  been
doing... and while you can pretend you are an innocent victim... what
you can't do is make the evidence disappear that you are one of the
most shunned posters this newsgroup has ever seen and the reasons why
you are shunned.
0
fretwizz (2823)
9/8/2009 1:31:00 PM
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:aa21eaa8-6c4b-4833-9f20-3501582efb8d@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 7, 6:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Fa-groon stated in post 0001HW.C6CAEFE400023676F0184...@news.giganews.com 
> on
> 9/7/09 5:14 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> I fail to see in the above post ANYWHERE that I claimed that PPCs were 
> >>> MUCH
> >>> better. I did say that PPCs SEEMED to be more reliable than the Intel 
> >>> Macs.
> >>> I have friends with both and the ones with Intel Macs seem to have 
> >>> more
> >>> problems than do friends with PPC Macs. Those friends and 
> >>> acquaintances who
> >>> have one or more of each have made this same observation. Of course, 
> >>> no one
> >>> really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware or 
> >>> the
> >>> Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability issues 
> >>> with
> >>> the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions of 
> >>> OSX,
> >>> but if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we 
> >>> still
> >>> won't know whether its hardware or OS related.
>
> >> It's hard to rewrite history, no matter how many words you put into it. 
> >> You
> >> are a stupid shit.
>
> > See. No one can discuss anything with you. I've tried being civil. I've 
> > tried
> > using logic, I've tried to avoid purposely insulting you. Nothing works. 
> > You
> > are simply not interested in discussing any real issues. Maybe you''re
> > incapable of it, I don't know. But I'm certainly not going to expend any 
> > more
> > time or energy trying to find out.
>
> Welcome to CSMA. Sadly, what you describe is all too common in these 
> parts.

And the irony of that statement is that you are widely known as one of
the worst offenders when it comes to "not interested in discussing any
real issues" as you're often found in the middle of some personal BS
that you've started and obsessively cling to while trolling people
with it for years. Nice to know that you recognize the environment
you've been doing it in, though... even if you won't admit that you're
one of the worst offenders in this regard. Perhaps it has escaped your
attention that Fa-groon never responds to you:

Fa-groon: "I don't read Snit period. He's been killfiled
since the first day I posted here. [....] I don't want to 'do
like Snit'. As far as I'm concerned, Snit doesn't even exist."
15 Aug 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/527cee8cbd40e225?hl=en&dmode=source

What a guy.  He made a judgment on his first day here! And he broke my chops 
his first day here also!  Sounds like Bullshit to me.  Maybe the noxious air 
from the industrial park that he lives in is taking more of a toll. He 
always had a screw loose. 


0
igwif (121)
9/8/2009 2:30:40 PM
On Sep 8, 8:30=A0am, "Jimmyjohn" <ig...@verizon.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:aa21eaa8-6c4b-4833-9f20-3501582efb8d@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 7, 6:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fa-groon stated in post 0001HW.C6CAEFE400023676F0184...@news.giganews.c=
om
> > on
> > 9/7/09 5:14 PM:
>
> > >>> I fail to see in the above post ANYWHERE that I claimed that PPCs w=
ere
> > >>> MUCH
> > >>> better. I did say that PPCs SEEMED to be more reliable than the Int=
el
> > >>> Macs.
> > >>> I have friends with both and the ones with Intel Macs seem to have
> > >>> more
> > >>> problems than do friends with PPC Macs. Those friends and
> > >>> acquaintances who
> > >>> have one or more of each have made this same observation. Of course=
,
> > >>> no one
> > >>> really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware o=
r
> > >>> the
> > >>> Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability issu=
es
> > >>> with
> > >>> the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions o=
f
> > >>> OSX,
> > >>> but if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we
> > >>> still
> > >>> won't know whether its hardware or OS related.
>
> > >> It's hard to rewrite history, no matter how many words you put into =
it.
> > >> You
> > >> are a stupid shit.
>
> > > See. No one can discuss anything with you. I've tried being civil. I'=
ve
> > > tried
> > > using logic, I've tried to avoid purposely insulting you. Nothing wor=
ks.
> > > You
> > > are simply not interested in discussing any real issues. Maybe you''r=
e
> > > incapable of it, I don't know. But I'm certainly not going to expend =
any
> > > more
> > > time or energy trying to find out.
>
> > Welcome to CSMA. Sadly, what you describe is all too common in these
> > parts.
>
> And the irony of that statement is that you are widely known as one of
> the worst offenders when it comes to "not interested in discussing any
> real issues" as you're often found in the middle of some personal BS
> that you've started and obsessively cling to while trolling people
> with it for years. Nice to know that you recognize the environment
> you've been doing it in, though... even if you won't admit that you're
> one of the worst offenders in this regard. Perhaps it has escaped your
> attention that Fa-groon never responds to you:
>
> Fa-groon: "I don't read Snit period. He's been killfiled
> since the first day I posted here. [....] I don't want to 'do
> like Snit'. As far as I'm concerned, Snit doesn't even exist."
> 15 Aug 2009http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/527ce=
e8cbd40...
>
> What a guy. =A0He made a judgment on his first day here! And he broke my =
chops
> his first day here also! =A0Sounds like Bullshit to me. =A0Maybe the noxi=
ous air
> from the industrial park that he lives in is taking more of a toll. He
> always had a screw loose.

The point was, as trollish as many of your comments have been (and
they have been trollish) ... Fa-groon  kf'd Snit and, notably, not
you... right off the bat.  What do you mean he broke your chops on his
first day here?

0
fretwizz (2823)
9/8/2009 3:26:48 PM
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:2add7884-aa93-4f33-baad-929e33926a25@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 8, 8:30 am, "Jimmyjohn" <ig...@verizon.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:aa21eaa8-6c4b-4833-9f20-3501582efb8d@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 7, 6:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fa-groon stated in post 
> > 0001HW.C6CAEFE400023676F0184...@news.giganews.com
> > on
> > 9/7/09 5:14 PM:
>
> > >>> I fail to see in the above post ANYWHERE that I claimed that PPCs 
> > >>> were
> > >>> MUCH
> > >>> better. I did say that PPCs SEEMED to be more reliable than the 
> > >>> Intel
> > >>> Macs.
> > >>> I have friends with both and the ones with Intel Macs seem to have
> > >>> more
> > >>> problems than do friends with PPC Macs. Those friends and
> > >>> acquaintances who
> > >>> have one or more of each have made this same observation. Of course,
> > >>> no one
> > >>> really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware or
> > >>> the
> > >>> Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability 
> > >>> issues
> > >>> with
> > >>> the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions of
> > >>> OSX,
> > >>> but if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we
> > >>> still
> > >>> won't know whether its hardware or OS related.
>
> > >> It's hard to rewrite history, no matter how many words you put into 
> > >> it.
> > >> You
> > >> are a stupid shit.
>
> > > See. No one can discuss anything with you. I've tried being civil. 
> > > I've
> > > tried
> > > using logic, I've tried to avoid purposely insulting you. Nothing 
> > > works.
> > > You
> > > are simply not interested in discussing any real issues. Maybe you''re
> > > incapable of it, I don't know. But I'm certainly not going to expend 
> > > any
> > > more
> > > time or energy trying to find out.
>
> > Welcome to CSMA. Sadly, what you describe is all too common in these
> > parts.
>
> And the irony of that statement is that you are widely known as one of
> the worst offenders when it comes to "not interested in discussing any
> real issues" as you're often found in the middle of some personal BS
> that you've started and obsessively cling to while trolling people
> with it for years. Nice to know that you recognize the environment
> you've been doing it in, though... even if you won't admit that you're
> one of the worst offenders in this regard. Perhaps it has escaped your
> attention that Fa-groon never responds to you:
>
> Fa-groon: "I don't read Snit period. He's been killfiled
> since the first day I posted here. [....] I don't want to 'do
> like Snit'. As far as I'm concerned, Snit doesn't even exist."
> 15 Aug 
> 2009http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/527cee8cbd40...
>
> What a guy. He made a judgment on his first day here! And he broke my 
> chops
> his first day here also! Sounds like Bullshit to me. Maybe the noxious air
> from the industrial park that he lives in is taking more of a toll. He
> always had a screw loose.

The point was, as trollish as many of your comments have been (and
they have been trollish) ... Fa-groon  kf'd Snit and, notably, not
you... right off the bat.  What do you mean he broke your chops on his
first day here?

Let me clarify;  on his 'new" first day here.  Not his "original" first day 
years ago.


0
igwif (121)
9/8/2009 6:20:21 PM
On Sep 8, 12:20=A0pm, "Jimmyjohn" <ig...@verizon.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2add7884-aa93-4f33-baad-929e33926a25@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 8, 8:30 am, "Jimmyjohn" <ig...@verizon.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Steve Carroll" <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:aa21eaa8-6c4b-4833-9f20-3501582efb8d@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com..=
..
> > On Sep 7, 6:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fa-groon stated in post
> > > 0001HW.C6CAEFE400023676F0184...@news.giganews.com
> > > on
> > > 9/7/09 5:14 PM:
>
> > > >>> I fail to see in the above post ANYWHERE that I claimed that PPCs
> > > >>> were
> > > >>> MUCH
> > > >>> better. I did say that PPCs SEEMED to be more reliable than the
> > > >>> Intel
> > > >>> Macs.
> > > >>> I have friends with both and the ones with Intel Macs seem to hav=
e
> > > >>> more
> > > >>> problems than do friends with PPC Macs. Those friends and
> > > >>> acquaintances who
> > > >>> have one or more of each have made this same observation. Of cour=
se,
> > > >>> no one
> > > >>> really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware=
 or
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability
> > > >>> issues
> > > >>> with
> > > >>> the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions=
 of
> > > >>> OSX,
> > > >>> but if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we
> > > >>> still
> > > >>> won't know whether its hardware or OS related.
>
> > > >> It's hard to rewrite history, no matter how many words you put int=
o
> > > >> it.
> > > >> You
> > > >> are a stupid shit.
>
> > > > See. No one can discuss anything with you. I've tried being civil.
> > > > I've
> > > > tried
> > > > using logic, I've tried to avoid purposely insulting you. Nothing
> > > > works.
> > > > You
> > > > are simply not interested in discussing any real issues. Maybe you'=
're
> > > > incapable of it, I don't know. But I'm certainly not going to expen=
d
> > > > any
> > > > more
> > > > time or energy trying to find out.
>
> > > Welcome to CSMA. Sadly, what you describe is all too common in these
> > > parts.
>
> > And the irony of that statement is that you are widely known as one of
> > the worst offenders when it comes to "not interested in discussing any
> > real issues" as you're often found in the middle of some personal BS
> > that you've started and obsessively cling to while trolling people
> > with it for years. Nice to know that you recognize the environment
> > you've been doing it in, though... even if you won't admit that you're
> > one of the worst offenders in this regard. Perhaps it has escaped your
> > attention that Fa-groon never responds to you:
>
> > Fa-groon: "I don't read Snit period. He's been killfiled
> > since the first day I posted here. [....] I don't want to 'do
> > like Snit'. As far as I'm concerned, Snit doesn't even exist."
> > 15 Aug
> > 2009http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/527cee8cbd=
40...
>
> > What a guy. He made a judgment on his first day here! And he broke my
> > chops
> > his first day here also! Sounds like Bullshit to me. Maybe the noxious =
air
> > from the industrial park that he lives in is taking more of a toll. He
> > always had a screw loose.
>
> The point was, as trollish as many of your comments have been (and
> they have been trollish) ... Fa-groon =A0kf'd Snit and, notably, not
> you... right off the bat. =A0What do you mean he broke your chops on his
> first day here?
>
> Let me clarify; =A0on his 'new" first day here. =A0Not his "original" fir=
st day
> years ago.

LOL!  So who do you believe he is?
0
fretwizz (2823)
9/8/2009 6:23:17 PM
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:60809c8e-a270-4fa9-be79-6afb1541766c@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 8, 12:20 pm, "Jimmyjohn" <ig...@verizon.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2add7884-aa93-4f33-baad-929e33926a25@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 8, 8:30 am, "Jimmyjohn" <ig...@verizon.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Steve Carroll" <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:aa21eaa8-6c4b-4833-9f20-3501582efb8d@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 7, 6:16 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fa-groon stated in post
> > > 0001HW.C6CAEFE400023676F0184...@news.giganews.com
> > > on
> > > 9/7/09 5:14 PM:
>
> > > >>> I fail to see in the above post ANYWHERE that I claimed that PPCs
> > > >>> were
> > > >>> MUCH
> > > >>> better. I did say that PPCs SEEMED to be more reliable than the
> > > >>> Intel
> > > >>> Macs.
> > > >>> I have friends with both and the ones with Intel Macs seem to have
> > > >>> more
> > > >>> problems than do friends with PPC Macs. Those friends and
> > > >>> acquaintances who
> > > >>> have one or more of each have made this same observation. Of 
> > > >>> course,
> > > >>> no one
> > > >>> really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware 
> > > >>> or
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability
> > > >>> issues
> > > >>> with
> > > >>> the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions 
> > > >>> of
> > > >>> OSX,
> > > >>> but if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we
> > > >>> still
> > > >>> won't know whether its hardware or OS related.
>
> > > >> It's hard to rewrite history, no matter how many words you put into
> > > >> it.
> > > >> You
> > > >> are a stupid shit.
>
> > > > See. No one can discuss anything with you. I've tried being civil.
> > > > I've
> > > > tried
> > > > using logic, I've tried to avoid purposely insulting you. Nothing
> > > > works.
> > > > You
> > > > are simply not interested in discussing any real issues. Maybe 
> > > > you''re
> > > > incapable of it, I don't know. But I'm certainly not going to expend
> > > > any
> > > > more
> > > > time or energy trying to find out.
>
> > > Welcome to CSMA. Sadly, what you describe is all too common in these
> > > parts.
>
> > And the irony of that statement is that you are widely known as one of
> > the worst offenders when it comes to "not interested in discussing any
> > real issues" as you're often found in the middle of some personal BS
> > that you've started and obsessively cling to while trolling people
> > with it for years. Nice to know that you recognize the environment
> > you've been doing it in, though... even if you won't admit that you're
> > one of the worst offenders in this regard. Perhaps it has escaped your
> > attention that Fa-groon never responds to you:
>
> > Fa-groon: "I don't read Snit period. He's been killfiled
> > since the first day I posted here. [....] I don't want to 'do
> > like Snit'. As far as I'm concerned, Snit doesn't even exist."
> > 15 Aug
> > 2009http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/527cee8cbd40...
>
> > What a guy. He made a judgment on his first day here! And he broke my
> > chops
> > his first day here also! Sounds like Bullshit to me. Maybe the noxious 
> > air
> > from the industrial park that he lives in is taking more of a toll. He
> > always had a screw loose.
>
> The point was, as trollish as many of your comments have been (and
> they have been trollish) ... Fa-groon kf'd Snit and, notably, not
> you... right off the bat. What do you mean he broke your chops on his
> first day here?
>
> Let me clarify; on his 'new" first day here. Not his "original" first day
> years ago.

LOL!  So who do you believe he is?

It doesn't matter.  He knows that I know, that he knows, that I know who he 
is. And you do also.  But he thinks that I'm someone else.  Actually several 
someone else's. But I'm not.  I'm only me.  Not  Me, but rather me myself, a 
whole separate person.  But it's amusing watching him and Dim ( Polly ) 
Murray speculate. 


0
igwif (121)
9/8/2009 7:50:25 PM
In article <_Mtpm.32818$Y83.1665@newsfe21.iad>,
 "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:

> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message 
> news:0001HW.C6CAEFE400023676F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
> >
> > See. No one can discuss anything with you. I've tried being civil.
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> >I've tried  using logic
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> > I've tried to avoid purposely insulting you.
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> > Nothing works.
> 
> The above three do work. Unfortunately, you were never civil, from day one.
> You never used logic, you only used lies and distortions, from day one.
> You also insulted me, from day one.
> 
> Now you whine. You are the classic Mac using shithead who has created enemies 
> where none existed. Now you get paid back. 

Keep your coprophilia private, zara.
0
t-bone2 (2779)
9/8/2009 8:23:46 PM
Jimmyjohn wrote:
> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new 
> technology.  Why do these fools keep buying? 
> 
> 

Odd isn't it.  When I query os x on an intel imac for its architecture 
under Leopard I get i386.  Not very good.
That is why it takes two intel processors to do the same job of one G5. 
  Doing a compile on a simple C code
and getting the assembler output to look at all you see is the old i386 
form.  Doing a 64-bit compile on the same
C code and looking at the assembler listing and you see a much more 
modern and compact code.  Comparing
the ia64 with ppc code are pretty comparable.  Too bad Apple didn't 
stick with IBM, as IBM now is producing
the G7 architecture that is far superior to anything that Intel has.

-- 
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
0
cumulus (7752)
9/8/2009 10:37:11 PM
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:33:11 -0400, Jimmyjohn wrote:
>  Now you get paid back. 

Oooooooo....

0
no-spam2 (6830)
9/9/2009 6:57:44 AM
In article <znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
>  "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
> 
> > That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new 
> > technology.  Why do these fools keep buying? 
> 
> It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later, 
> drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite 
> the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was using 
> them, of course.

Apple switched to Intel mainly so that Mac users could run Windows and 
so that Windows users could get a Mac and still run Windows.  
That and the fact that since Apple insists packing their boxes so 
tightly that the G5 was overheating in everything including the 
PowerMac.  
I wish they'd stayed with the G series because I like them better and no 
doubt the G7 with 4 GB ram would be a speedy combo.
0
macuser4 (15)
9/9/2009 10:31:07 AM
> > Of course, no 
> > one
> > really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware or the
> > Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability issues with
> > the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions of OSX, 
> > but
> > if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we still won't
> > know whether its hardware or OS related.

The hardware is definitely of lesser quality in the Intel machines.  
Ever since Apple hardware has been made in China and the far East, the 
quality is lower than when the hw was manufactured in the US.
0
macuser4 (15)
9/9/2009 10:35:01 AM
In article <0001HW.C6CCCA28000F6B6CF0182648@nntp.charter.net>,
 Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:33:11 -0400, Jimmyjohn wrote:
> >  Now you get paid back. 
> 
> Oooooooo....

It must be true that the majority of Mac users are either female, 
homosexual or lesbian - the last few catfight posts proves it.
That must be why only the first few posts in a thread contain any useful 
information before they degenerate into catfights, arguments, 
name-calling and other childish wastes of time.
0
macuser4 (15)
9/9/2009 10:38:31 AM
In article <4aa783ec$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
 mac user <macuser@selah.net> wrote:

> In article <znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
> >  "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand 
> > > new technology.  Why do these fools keep buying? 
> > 
> > It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or 
> > later, drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were 
> > better. Despite the fact that they spent years arguing against this 
> > when Apple was using them, of course.
> 
> Apple switched to Intel mainly so that Mac users could run Windows 
> and so that Windows users could get a Mac and still run Windows.  
> That and the fact that since Apple insists packing their boxes so 
> tightly that the G5 was overheating in everything including the 
> PowerMac.  I wish they'd stayed with the G series because I like them 
> better and no doubt the G7 with 4 GB ram would be a speedy combo.

Hmm... I'm beginning to smell a troll.

Apple switched to Intel because building processors for the personal 
computer market was no longer a primary focus for either Motorola or 
IBM. The switch came after a series of high-profile screw-ups over a 
period of years: Motorola's initial inability to push the G4 over 400 
MHz, late adoption of DDR, IBM's inability to scale G5 speeds as quickly 
as promised, and the general inability or unwillingness of either 
company to actually make a processor suitable for a high-end laptop.

The G5 was reasonably competitive in the high-end tower market, and its 
successors probably would have been as well. Few people buy high-end 
towers, and the direction the PPC line was developing in (with Motorola 
focused on the embedded market and IBM focused on the server market) was 
leaving Apple high and try across the rest of its model lines.

With Intel, Apple gets two very important things. First, they get a 
processor vendor who actually cares about making processors for their 
market. And secondly, they can be sure they'll always be on a level 
playing field with their competitors with respect to the processors they 
have access to, which lets them stop worrying so much about processor 
performance and focus on overall user experience, which has always been 
the real defining characteristic of the Mac.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
9/9/2009 4:37:30 PM
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 03:38:31 -0700, mac user wrote
(in article <4aa785a8$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>):

> In article <0001HW.C6CCCA28000F6B6CF0182648@nntp.charter.net>,
>  Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:33:11 -0400, Jimmyjohn wrote:
>>> Now you get paid back. 
>> 
>> Oooooooo....
> 
> It must be true that the majority of Mac users are either female, 
> homosexual or lesbian - the last few catfight posts proves it.
> That must be why only the first few posts in a thread contain any useful 
> information before they degenerate into catfights, arguments, 
> name-calling and other childish wastes of time.

And I guess your posts somehow are NOT a waster of time? 

0
fa-groon (1448)
9/9/2009 6:04:56 PM
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 03:35:01 -0700, mac user wrote
(in article <4aa784d6$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>):

>>> Of course, no 
>>> one
>>> really has any way of knowing whether the problem is the hardware or the
>>> Intel version of the OS. If Snow Leopard fixes the reliability issues with
>>> the Intel Macs, then we'll know it was the earlier Intel versions of OSX, 
>>> but
>>> if Snow Leopard doesn't fix the reliability problems, then we still won't
>>> know whether its hardware or OS related.
> 
> The hardware is definitely of lesser quality in the Intel machines.  
> Ever since Apple hardware has been made in China and the far East, the 
> quality is lower than when the hw was manufactured in the US.

Macs have been made in the Far East for almost 20 years. My G5 Tower was 
built in the Far East (Taiwan, I believe) and you've never seen a better 
built desktop computer. It makes no difference WHERE a machine is made, what 
matters is what the company contracting their manufacturing overseas wants in 
the way of quality. IOW, are Florsheim shoes any less well made because the 
factory is in India? No. Florsheim requires that the Indian factory maintain 
the same high standards as when the shoes were made in the USA. Same with 
Apple. If Apple's Intel Macs are less reliable than the PPC Macs, and it 
turns out not to be an OS teething problem, then it's not the build quality 
or the parts quality that's at fault, its that the Intel processors and chip 
set architecture aren't as good as the PPC's.  

0
fa-groon (1448)
9/9/2009 6:13:46 PM
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 03:31:07 -0700, mac user wrote
(in article <4aa783ec$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>):

> In article <znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
>> "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new 
>>> technology.  Why do these fools keep buying? 
>> 
>> It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later, 
>> drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite 
>> the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was using 
>> them, of course.
> 
> Apple switched to Intel mainly so that Mac users could run Windows and 
> so that Windows users could get a Mac and still run Windows.  
> That and the fact that since Apple insists packing their boxes so 
> tightly that the G5 was overheating in everything including the 
> PowerMac. 

Well, that's wrong in about every way that it could be wrong. Apple switched 
to Intel because IBM/Motorola couldn't get the G5's power consumption low 
enough for laptops and the G4 was getting long in the tooth. It had nothing 
whatsoever to do with running Windows (which was an afterthought and a 
serendipity). 

 
> I wish they'd stayed with the G series because I like them better and no 
> doubt the G7 with 4 GB ram would be a speedy combo.

I agree with you there. 


0
fa-groon (1448)
9/9/2009 6:17:01 PM
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:37:30 -0700, ZnU wrote
(in article <znu-22B395.12373009092009@Port80.Individual.NET>):

> In article <4aa783ec$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
>  mac user <macuser@selah.net> wrote:
> 
>> In article <znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
>>> "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand 
>>>> new technology.  Why do these fools keep buying? 
>>> 
>>> It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or 
>>> later, drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were 
>>> better. Despite the fact that they spent years arguing against this 
>>> when Apple was using them, of course.
>> 
>> Apple switched to Intel mainly so that Mac users could run Windows 
>> and so that Windows users could get a Mac and still run Windows.  
>> That and the fact that since Apple insists packing their boxes so 
>> tightly that the G5 was overheating in everything including the 
>> PowerMac.  I wish they'd stayed with the G series because I like them 
>> better and no doubt the G7 with 4 GB ram would be a speedy combo.
> 
> Hmm... I'm beginning to smell a troll.

Beginning???!!!

0
fa-groon (1448)
9/9/2009 6:17:51 PM
ZnU wrote:
> In article <4aa783ec$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
>  mac user <macuser@selah.net> wrote:
> 
>> In article <znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
>>>  "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand 
>>>> new technology.  Why do these fools keep buying? 
>>> It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or 
>>> later, drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were 
>>> better. Despite the fact that they spent years arguing against this 
>>> when Apple was using them, of course.
>> Apple switched to Intel mainly so that Mac users could run Windows 
>> and so that Windows users could get a Mac and still run Windows.  
>> That and the fact that since Apple insists packing their boxes so 
>> tightly that the G5 was overheating in everything including the 
>> PowerMac.  I wish they'd stayed with the G series because I like them 
>> better and no doubt the G7 with 4 GB ram would be a speedy combo.
> 
> Hmm... I'm beginning to smell a troll.
> 
> Apple switched to Intel because building processors for the personal 
> computer market was no longer a primary focus for either Motorola or 
> IBM. The switch came after a series of high-profile screw-ups over a 
> period of years: Motorola's initial inability to push the G4 over 400 
> MHz, late adoption of DDR, IBM's inability to scale G5 speeds as quickly 
> as promised, and the general inability or unwillingness of either 
> company to actually make a processor suitable for a high-end laptop.
> 
> The G5 was reasonably competitive in the high-end tower market, and its 
> successors probably would have been as well. Few people buy high-end 
> towers, and the direction the PPC line was developing in (with Motorola 
> focused on the embedded market and IBM focused on the server market) was 
> leaving Apple high and try across the rest of its model lines.
> 
> With Intel, Apple gets two very important things. First, they get a 
> processor vendor who actually cares about making processors for their 
> market. And secondly, they can be sure they'll always be on a level 
> playing field with their competitors with respect to the processors they 
> have access to, which lets them stop worrying so much about processor 
> performance and focus on overall user experience, which has always been 
> the real defining characteristic of the Mac.



Well put, ZnU.  Its refreshing to see an occasional true 'advocacy' 
post here in csma for a change...


Flint

0
agent001 (54)
9/9/2009 6:42:40 PM
Fa-groon wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 03:31:07 -0700, mac user wrote
> (in article <4aa783ec$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>):
> 
>> In article <znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
>>> "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new 
>>>> technology.  Why do these fools keep buying? 
>>> It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later, 
>>> drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite 
>>> the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was using 
>>> them, of course.

>> Apple switched to Intel mainly so that Mac users could run Windows and 
>> so that Windows users could get a Mac and still run Windows.  
>> That and the fact that since Apple insists packing their boxes so 
>> tightly that the G5 was overheating in everything including the 
>> PowerMac. 
> 
> Well, that's wrong in about every way that it could be wrong. Apple switched 
> to Intel because IBM/Motorola couldn't get the G5's power consumption low 
> enough for laptops and the G4 was getting long in the tooth. It had nothing 
> whatsoever to do with running Windows (which was an afterthought and a 
> serendipity). 

Considering that Boot Camp appeared not long after the MacIntels first 
   appeared, one could surmise that Apple did indeed have Windows 
compatibility in mind.  I would agree that such compatibility wasn't 
the *primary* factor in Apple's decision to switch architectures, but 
neither it is correct to marginalize this simply as an 'afterthought' 
or 'serendipity'.

The primary consideration was TDP/scalability of the Cell architecture 
   in *conjunction* with (a very important consideration here) WHO was 
going to PAY for continued research & development into scaling the 
Cell architecture.

As I recall, Apple simply wasn't willing to foot the expense to do so 
(rightly, or wrongly) and opted to go with Intel instead.  Apple was 
looking at all available architectures at the time, and decided on 
Intel simply because x86 still had much life in it as the premiere ISA 
  *with* a realistic future roadmap.

At the time, Intel had run into problems with it's Netburst 
architecture, and although AMD was whooping on Intel's arse with their
Athlon64 architecture, AMD had no real workable long term roadmap to 
deal with the infamous 'power wall' problem that Intel had already 
slammed into (an AMD was only a couple of years away from hitting 
themselves), but had already undertaken serious measures (Hi-K gate 
technology) to deal with the problem.  Consequently, Intel had 
convinced Jobs that they had a realistic solution and a workable 
processor roadmap which gave Apple a long-term alternative/future 
direction.  Although at the time I thought it odd that Apple dismissed 
AMD as an OEM partner, but in hindsight, it turns out Apple was right 
to go the way they did.

This is perfect example of the natural consequence (or downside) to 
building on a technology that is conceived in and developed "by 
committee" as the Cell architecture was.  Once various coop partners 
individually get what they want from a jointly developed technology, 
thats when the individual interests of the developing coop partners 
tend to take over, and divergences in marketing/business directions 
tend to occur.  This is simply a case of marketing darwinism.

In this case, Motorola was the first to bail when they spun off 
Freescale, and IBM and Freescale decided to take the fruit of their 
work and move in what they perceived to be a more profitable 
direction: servers & consoles.  Apple *could* have continued R&D on 
the Cell architecture, and perhaps even pushed the architecture 
further along, but the question then becomes at what cost?  Apple, 
while building great computers, is still primarily a *software* 
innovator/developer with OS develpment as it's primary strength, not 
CPU architecture development.

So, while IBM & Freescale, AMD, and Intel all saw the impending 
divergence of processor power requirements coming, Apple simply had to 
reposition itself and base its future direction on the most promising 
'speciation' branch of the technological evolutionary 'tree'...


>> I wish they'd stayed with the G series because I like them better and no 
>> doubt the G7 with 4 GB ram would be a speedy combo.
> 
> I agree with you there. 

I said the same thing about the Amiga technology, but it turns out 
that I was wrong.  No point in waxing nostalgic on old technology...


Flint
0
agent001 (54)
9/9/2009 7:49:17 PM
In article <4aa80610$0$26558$ce5e7886@news-radius.ptd.net>,
 Flint <agent001@section31.org> wrote:

> Fa-groon wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 03:31:07 -0700, mac user wrote
> > (in article <4aa783ec$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>):
> > 
> >> In article <znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET>,
> >>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
> >>> "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new 
> >>>> technology.  Why do these fools keep buying? 
> >>> It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later, 
> >>> drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite 
> >>> the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was using 
> >>> them, of course.
> 
> >> Apple switched to Intel mainly so that Mac users could run Windows and 
> >> so that Windows users could get a Mac and still run Windows.  
> >> That and the fact that since Apple insists packing their boxes so 
> >> tightly that the G5 was overheating in everything including the 
> >> PowerMac. 
> > 
> > Well, that's wrong in about every way that it could be wrong. Apple 
> > switched 
> > to Intel because IBM/Motorola couldn't get the G5's power consumption low 
> > enough for laptops and the G4 was getting long in the tooth. It had nothing 
> > whatsoever to do with running Windows (which was an afterthought and a 
> > serendipity). 
> 
> Considering that Boot Camp appeared not long after the MacIntels first 
> appeared, one could surmise that Apple did indeed have Windows 
> compatibility in mind.  I would agree that such compatibility wasn't 
> the *primary* factor in Apple's decision to switch architectures, but 
> neither it is correct to marginalize this simply as an 'afterthought' 
> or 'serendipity'.
> 
> The primary consideration was TDP/scalability of the Cell architecture 
> in *conjunction* with (a very important consideration here) WHO was 
> going to PAY for continued research & development into scaling the 
> Cell architecture.
> 
> As I recall, Apple simply wasn't willing to foot the expense to do so 
> (rightly, or wrongly) and opted to go with Intel instead.  Apple was 
> looking at all available architectures at the time, and decided on 
> Intel simply because x86 still had much life in it as the premiere ISA 
>*with* a realistic future roadmap.

Cell (even in contrast with continuing to use normal PPC chips) would 
have likely ended up being a nightmare for Apple, since it would have 
basically forced all developers on the platform to write Cell-specific 
code (or at least use something like OpenCL) to get credible 
performance. It would have been a huge uphill battle, and there would 
have been a bunch of companies that didn't bother and just ported 
straight cross-platform C code, resulting in apps that ran much faster 
on Wintel than on the Cell Macs.

> At the time, Intel had run into problems with it's Netburst 
> architecture, and although AMD was whooping on Intel's arse with their
> Athlon64 architecture, AMD had no real workable long term roadmap to 
> deal with the infamous 'power wall' problem that Intel had already 
> slammed into (an AMD was only a couple of years away from hitting 
> themselves), but had already undertaken serious measures (Hi-K gate 
> technology) to deal with the problem.  Consequently, Intel had 
> convinced Jobs that they had a realistic solution and a workable 
> processor roadmap which gave Apple a long-term alternative/future 
> direction.  Although at the time I thought it odd that Apple dismissed 
> AMD as an OEM partner, but in hindsight, it turns out Apple was right 
> to go the way they did.

It's worth noting that Apple never used a NetBust processor in a 
publicly released Mac. Even through they had to actually raise the price 
of the Mac mini when switching to Intel to avoid NetBust.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
9/9/2009 9:58:28 PM
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:49:17 -0700, Flint wrote
(in article <4aa80610$0$26558$ce5e7886@news-radius.ptd.net>):

> Fa-groon wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 03:31:07 -0700, mac user wrote
>> (in article <4aa783ec$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>):
>> 
>>> In article <znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>,
>>>> "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> That is truly sad,  The obsolete model is better than the brand new 
>>>>> technology.  Why do these fools keep buying? 
>>>> It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later, 
>>>> drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite 
>>>> the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was using 
>>>> them, of course.
> 
>>> Apple switched to Intel mainly so that Mac users could run Windows and 
>>> so that Windows users could get a Mac and still run Windows.  
>>> That and the fact that since Apple insists packing their boxes so 
>>> tightly that the G5 was overheating in everything including the 
>>> PowerMac. 
>> 
>> Well, that's wrong in about every way that it could be wrong. Apple 
>> switched 
>> to Intel because IBM/Motorola couldn't get the G5's power consumption low 
>> enough for laptops and the G4 was getting long in the tooth. It had nothing 
>> whatsoever to do with running Windows (which was an afterthought and a 
>> serendipity). 
> 
> Considering that Boot Camp appeared not long after the MacIntels first 
>    appeared, one could surmise that Apple did indeed have Windows 
> compatibility in mind.  I would agree that such compatibility wasn't 
> the *primary* factor in Apple's decision to switch architectures, but 
> neither it is correct to marginalize this simply as an 'afterthought' 
> or 'serendipity'.

The Serendipity is that Windows runs on Intel Macs without much ado. But I 
doubt if it was more than an afterthought. Apple needed to change processor 
families and for a variety of reasons Intel was the best and most logical 
choice. I mean who else were they going to choose? It's not like there a lot 
of choices out there. Sure, they could have gone with AMD or any of the Asian 
Intel knockoffs, but Intel was the safest. 
> 
> The primary consideration was TDP/scalability of the Cell architecture 
>    in *conjunction* with (a very important consideration here) WHO was 
> going to PAY for continued research & development into scaling the 
> Cell architecture.

The primary consideration was that G5s couldn't be used in laptops due to 
their power requirements and heat output. The other considerations, while 
important, were not as dire in their consequences as this one. 
> 
> As I recall, Apple simply wasn't willing to foot the expense to do so 
> (rightly, or wrongly) and opted to go with Intel instead.  Apple was 
> looking at all available architectures at the time, and decided on 
> Intel simply because x86 still had much life in it as the premiere ISA 
>   *with* a realistic future roadmap.
> 
> At the time, Intel had run into problems with it's Netburst 
> architecture, and although AMD was whooping on Intel's arse with their
> Athlon64 architecture, AMD had no real workable long term roadmap to 
> deal with the infamous 'power wall' problem that Intel had already 
> slammed into (an AMD was only a couple of years away from hitting 
> themselves), but had already undertaken serious measures (Hi-K gate 
> technology) to deal with the problem.  Consequently, Intel had 
> convinced Jobs that they had a realistic solution and a workable 
> processor roadmap which gave Apple a long-term alternative/future 
> direction.  Although at the time I thought it odd that Apple dismissed 
> AMD as an OEM partner, but in hindsight, it turns out Apple was right 
> to go the way they did.
> 
> This is perfect example of the natural consequence (or downside) to 
> building on a technology that is conceived in and developed "by 
> committee" as the Cell architecture was.  Once various coop partners 
> individually get what they want from a jointly developed technology, 
> thats when the individual interests of the developing coop partners 
> tend to take over, and divergences in marketing/business directions 
> tend to occur.  This is simply a case of marketing darwinism.
> 
> In this case, Motorola was the first to bail when they spun off 
> Freescale, and IBM and Freescale decided to take the fruit of their 
> work and move in what they perceived to be a more profitable 
> direction: servers & consoles.  Apple *could* have continued R&D on 
> the Cell architecture, and perhaps even pushed the architecture 
> further along, but the question then becomes at what cost?  Apple, 
> while building great computers, is still primarily a *software* 
> innovator/developer with OS develpment as it's primary strength, not 
> CPU architecture development.
> 
> So, while IBM & Freescale, AMD, and Intel all saw the impending 
> divergence of processor power requirements coming, Apple simply had to 
> reposition itself and base its future direction on the most promising 
> 'speciation' branch of the technological evolutionary 'tree'...
> 
> 
>>> I wish they'd stayed with the G series because I like them better and no 
>>> doubt the G7 with 4 GB ram would be a speedy combo.
>> 
>> I agree with you there. 
> 
> I said the same thing about the Amiga technology, but it turns out 
> that I was wrong.  No point in waxing nostalgic on old technology...

Yeah, that's true. 

0
fa-groon (1448)
9/10/2009 12:48:18 AM
On 9/9/2009 5:58 PM, ZnU wrote:

> It's worth noting that Apple never used a NetBust processor in a
> publicly released Mac. Even through they had to actually raise the price
> of the Mac mini when switching to Intel to avoid NetBust.


That's right... I forgot about that.  Apple was paying a bit of a 
"preferred partner" premium there for a while, no?


Flint
0
agent001 (54)
9/10/2009 1:31:14 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

To Mac or not to Mac?
What ho, pre-pressers! Long time no post, or view, come to that. No doubt some of you will remember me as I see that many of same crowd are **STILL** here after all these years. Grettings to Aandi, Ted, Lee, Allen...well, to you all, not forgetting Mr Shagnasty, who I am gratified can still find something to say after all this time. Right, greetings over, down to brass tacks. My early retirement plan has sadly fallen through and I find myself back at the coal face possessed of some pretty antideluvian equipment with which to earn a crust for the Tree family. So I'm looking for **SE...

Mac to mac
I just remembered these groups and wondered if someone here could tell me whether what I'd like to do is possible. (NO ONE around here knows anything about Macs) I have a G4 that was the top of the line in 1998. It will die one of these days. It's currently running OS 9.2.2. Someone else(who now lives far away) installed the internal modem, SCSI for my scanner, and my floppy drive (so I didn't have to go through hundreds of them for the bits and pieces I might someday want again). I still have the floppies and a number of Zips, all of which this computer can read. Install...

When is a Mac not a Mac?
This was posted in a forum recently and I thought it brought up some very interesting points relating to the Eula. For reference: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=105546 ------ This question is related to licensing OS X on a machine. The EULA says it has to be an Apple computer, before the Apple License will apply, which means Apple will only support OS X on Apple machines. So, I'm wondering, when is a machine considered an Apple Mac, for the purposes of Licensing and recieving support? Say I buy a Mac from Apple. Then the hard drive fails, and I replace that with an ...

Old PPC Macs ran better than new intel Macs.
Every Mac user I know who have run both, says it. The Apple "glory days" are gone. And some Morons here are happy they had to send their POS Macs back twice, only to have them sent back broke twice. Apple needs jerks like this. In article <LZ8jn.53397$0N3.38494@newsfe09.iad>, "Kid Carson" <Kcarson7058@verizon.com> wrote: > Every Mac user I know who have run both, says it. > > The Apple glory days are gone. > > And some morons here are happy they had to send their piece of shit Macs back twice, > only to have the...

Help! iSync mac to mac
Am I right in saying that with iSync, if you want to sync 2 macs together (address book, iCal etc.) the only way to do this is via a ..Mac account, even if those computers are sitting not 5 feet from each other, both Airport equipped? If this is the case, I've never heard anything so ridiculous. Is this just part of another apple scam to get more money out of us? Does anyone know if this is indeed the case, and can you recommend any other sync software out there? I'm setting up an iMac, eMac and powerbook g4 for a friend's office, all running OSX Panther, and you'd think basi...

Office:Mac / Intel Macs
Hi everybody. Please forgive me if this material has been previously covered. However, I would like to get some information from trustworthy sources, and I think this is one place to start. Basically, I am wondering about the performance of Office:Mac on Intel Macs (in Rosetta). Is it responsive? Please let me know how it runs, with as much detail is warranted. I'm considering an Intel Mac, but there's no way I'm going to buy one if I have to use my PowerPC MS Office in emulation that slogs along. Thanks much for your help. Brad wrote: > Hi everybody. > > Please f...

Anyone got Mac classic Mac emulation running well on their Intel Mac?
Despite switching to DOSBox and VMware's Fusion with WinXP to handle my classic gaming needs, there are still a bunch of classic MacOS games I'm desperate to run on my Intel Mac. I've tried and failed to get Ballisk and SheepShaver running. Mini vMac runs but has a nasty, nasty habbit of corrupting disk images opened in both it and OSX. *sigh* Has anyone had any sucess? Why is classic Mac emulation so way behind other emulation efforts? With Amiga emulation running it's surprising classic Mac emulation is so far behind :-( TIA, Jamie Kahn Genet -- If you&...

It's a Mac, Mac, Mac World
I wonder how the Windows users would like my (ab)normal Microsoft-free world: My business: all Mac, no PCs. My dentist, family physician and urologist are all Mac. No PCs. Went to Sir Speedy today for more bus. cards and some binding: all Mac (no surprise there). My daughter's three new college room mates have emailed her. Two have PowerBooks and one has an eMac. (She has a G5 iMac.) I never even see a PC unless I am at the public library or a store using a Windows POS unit. It never was intentional. I don't scout a place to see what frickin' computer they use. Jus...

bmp-mac, mac and xmms-mac ports
Hello, I can't find these in the ports collections, so i've downloaded and compiled mac and xmms-mac successfully and have confirmed that they work on FreeBSD. I was looking for an APE (Monkey Audio) plug-in for XMMS in the ports collection but wasn't able to find one. I had a bit of trouble with compiling xmms-mac to start off with. The compilation would fail with the following: g++ -I/usr/X11R6/include -I/usr/X11R6/include/xmms -I/usr/local/include/gtk12 -I/usr/local/include/glib12 -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -s -O3 -Wall -pedantic -DBUILD_CROSS_PLATFORM -g -O2 -o fileinfo fileinfo.o -Wl,-E -L/usr/X11R6/lib -L/usr/local/lib -lgtk-12 -lgdk-12 -lgmodule-12 -lglib-12 /usr/local/lib/libintl.so /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so -lXi -lXext -lX11 -lm -lxmms /usr/lib/libmac.so -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/lib -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/lib /usr/local/lib/libgthread-12.so.3: undefined reference to `pthread_cond_timedwait' *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/home/net147/xmms-mac-0.3.1/src. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/home/net147/xmms-mac-0.3.1. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/home/net147/xmms-mac-0.3.1. However i've managed to fix this by deleting the extracts files, re-extracting the files again, adding -lpthread to the configure.in file and then running autoconf to regenerate the configure script before compiling. # diff starts here --- configure.in.old Sun Dec 10 14:24:01 2006 +++ configure.in Sun Dec 10 14:24:...

Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn 3 for Mac, MapleSoft Maple 11.01.303882 Pro for Mac, other Mac Stuff CDs, A to Z, updated 2007/10/15, and Win & Mac programs, 'WinMac', 'PC/ MaC', 'Win-Mac', 'Multi', 'Multi-Platform', 'MultiFormat', 'MULTIOS', 'HYBRID' please send e-mail to : ola 'AT' mail 'DOT' gr , ola3 'AT' mailbox 'DOT' gr ...

Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio P
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn 3 for Mac, MapleSoft Maple 11.01.303882 Pro for Mac, other Mac Stuff CDs, A to Z, updated 2007/10/15, and Win & Mac programs, 'WinMac', 'PC/ MaC', 'Win-Mac', 'Multi', 'Multi-Platform', 'MultiFormat', 'MULTIOS', 'HYBRID' please send e-mail to : ola 'AT' mail 'DOT' gr , ola3 'AT' mailbox 'DOT' gr ...

Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn 3 for Mac, MapleSoft Maple 11.01.303882 Pro for Mac, other Mac Stuff CDs, A to Z, updated 2007/10/15, and Win & Mac programs, 'WinMac', 'PC/ MaC', 'Win-Mac', 'Multi', 'Multi-Platform', 'MultiFormat', 'MULTIOS', 'HYBRID' please send e-mail to : ola 'AT' mail 'DOT' gr , ola3 'AT' mailbox 'DOT...

Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio P #2
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn 3 for Mac, MapleSoft Maple 11.01.303882 Pro for Mac, other Mac Stuff CDs, A to Z, updated 2007/10/15, and Win & Mac programs, 'WinMac', 'PC/ MaC', 'Win-Mac', 'Multi', 'Multi-Platform', 'MultiFormat', 'MULTIOS', 'HYBRID' please send e-mail to : ola 'AT' mail 'DOT' gr , ola3 'AT' mailbox 'DOT' gr ...

networking mac to mac???
Hello, Can someone out there tell me the best (easy) way to network a ibook running os.9??? possibly to a new imac running osx 5wak <rosscoism@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, Can someone out there tell me the best (easy) way to network a > ibook running os.9??? possibly to a new imac running osx Put an ethernet cable between them, enable tcp/ip and file sharing on one and log on from the other, seems to be what you are asking for? And you do not need a cross-over cable between modern Macs. -- /Jon For contact info, run the following in Terminal: echo 361993718603049801070734...

Mac-to-Mac VPN?
Years ago, I set up a Mac network (under OS9) with a VPN router and some software on a remote PowerBook that allowed VPN access. I'm not terribly familiar with OSX yet, but I understand that much of this functionality is now built in. Can anybody steer me in the right direction as far as hardware, software and configuration? Here's the setup I envision: - Small LAN running two Macs and a printer with a DSL connection through a router. - Remote PowerBook connected to the net varyingly with dial-up, DSL (wired), and AirPort. - Use the PowerBook to securely connect to at l...

mac to mac connection
Hi, PBG3 400 OS 10.3 I connect a crossover cable between my PB, and other macs running OS9, and can not mount see the other mac on my PB. Have followed the Help, but must be doing something wrong somewhere. I can however see/connect to my PB from the peripheral mac via the Chooser. I have not been able to connect to windoze machines either, but maybe that will rsolve if I can get mac to mac sharing happening. Can someone suggest what I may be overlooking or a relevant site... ? thanks indeed Chris Brown Neurosurgery University of Adelaide In article <400da705$1@yorrell.saard.net>, Chris Brown <cbrown@medicine.adelaide.edu.au> wrote: > Hi, > > > PBG3 400 OS 10.3 > > I connect a crossover cable between my PB, and other macs running OS9, > and can not mount see the other mac on my PB. Have followed the Help, > but must be doing something wrong somewhere. I can however see/connect > to my PB from the peripheral mac via the Chooser. > > I have not been able to connect to windoze machines either, but maybe > that will rsolve if I can get mac to mac sharing happening. > > Can someone suggest what I may be overlooking or a relevant site... ? > > > thanks indeed > > Chris Brown > Neurosurgery > University of Adelaide > Chris, things won't necessarily connect automagically. First, you have to turn on "File Sharing" on both machines. If you have an OS 9 box, when y...

Mac Miail on .mac
I have my own domain name. Is there a way to get msil under .mac to set this as the reply to address. It seems that I am forced to use the @mac address but I could well be missing something. Thanks Colin Countryman wrote: > I have my own domain name. Is there a way to get msil under .mac to set this > as the reply to address. It seems that I am forced to use the @mac address > but I could well be missing something. > > Thanks > Colin Open a new Mail message - press Command-Alt-R to display the Reply-To field. Chu -- chuenginsberg at mac dot com On Sun, 21 Jan 2...

MAC to MAC over Internet
Hi All, First I will tell you that I am not a MAC user or owner so please be patient :) I have a friend who runs a small business and they have two MAC computers in the office that are networked together and share files. The main MAC has approx 20,000 files that they share and update. One of the people will be moving away and they want to be able to connect over the Internet to the main MAC and share the files just like they do in the office today. They need to be able to have the master files on the main MAC in the office and allow the other person to easily access and update the master ...

When is a Mac no longer a Mac?
OK, so Apple's going to go to Intel CPUs. Now Macs are no longer differentiated by a slow clock and superior instruction set--we've got the same hackjob clusterfuck on speed PCs have been using for decades now. And over the last few years Apple's gone away from SCSI, NuBus, ADB, Localtalk, etc. And PCs have picked up USB, dropped floppies, and colored their cases. The hardware's basically merging between the two platforms. On the software side, the classic MacOS is gone, replaced by Unixy stuff. And like it or not, higher up on the UI level lots of Windows-li...

MAC to MAC connectivity
Hi, As part of a design that I'm investigating, I am looking at connecting a number of FPGA based MACs to a dedicated broadcom switch chip. The difficulty with this is that to interface both chips, I need to have two closely coupled and redundant PHY . Is it possible to connect two MAC (SGMII) directly point-to-point, bypassing the PHY completely? Or is it necessary to have at least some PHY functionality, even if it is a point to point link? Kind regards, Stephen Steve wrote: > Hi, > > As part of a design that I'm investigating, I am looking at connecting > a number...

Mac to MAc Firewire
Hey all Looking for some help. I am trying to use a 6-6pin 1394 cable to connect two iBooks together and transfer some large files. iBook 1 dual USB 'white' iBook OS 9.2 iBook 2 G4 OSx 10.2 I boot iBook 1 into 'target drive' mode and get the firewire icon dancing about the screen then connect it to iBook 2 but the drive does not appear on the desktop. I have tried all combinations of rebooting/ connecting before and after rebooting but nothing seams to work. When the firewire is plugged in the target disk makes a short noise then nothing the host does not appear to react at ...

Psystar Macs Better Than Apple Macs?
Some of these people seem to think so. They have the right idea, a Mac that you can internally expand with hard drives and expansion cards to add functionality like USB 3.0 when it comes out. http://store.psystar.com/review/product/list/id/106/category/39/ John In article <h88s9j$8gm$1@news.eternal-september.org>, John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote: > Some of these people seem to think so. They have the right > idea, a Mac that you can internally expand with hard drives and > expansion cards to add functionality like USB 3.0 when it comes out. > > http://store.psystar.com/review/product/list/id/106/category/39/ > > > John LOL! Reviews at the mfg site? Regardless of who's site it is, those are usually useless. What the hell would you think reviews of Pystar on Pystar's site would say? Lloyd Parsons wrote: > In article <h88s9j$8gm$1@news.eternal-september.org>, > John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> Some of these people seem to think so. They have the right >> idea, a Mac that you can internally expand with hard drives and >> expansion cards to add functionality like USB 3.0 when it comes out. >> >> http://store.psystar.com/review/product/list/id/106/category/39/ >> >> >> John > > LOL! Reviews at the mfg site? Regardless of who's site it is, those > are usually useless. What the hell would...

Mac advocacy again: Springer changes to Mac
Here's a bit of Mac advocacy for the US Independence Day. http://tinyurl.com/68ajad =46rom the article: In a YouTube video, posted below the fold, CEO Mathias D=F6pfner lists four reasons for the change: Most of the company=92s layout work was already being done on Macs Macs are more user friendly than other computers Apple creates the most elegant computers Macs are cheaper to buy and easier to maintain than they were in the past -- Dave Fritzinger Honolulu, HI Dave Fritzinger wrote: > Here's a bit of Mac advocacy for the US Independence Day. > > http://tinyurl.com/68ajad > > From the article: > > In a YouTube video, posted below the fold, CEO Mathias D�pfner lists > four reasons for the change: > > Most of the company�s layout work was already being done on Macs > Macs are more user friendly than other computers > Apple creates the most elegant computers > Macs are cheaper to buy and easier to maintain than they were in the > past > -- > Dave Fritzinger > Honolulu, HI It also said they'll be running OS X, Windows Vista and Windows XP on these machines, so basically they have just added an additonal OS to support. "Apple creates the most elegant computers". Wow, I'm glad he's not the CEO of my company. Steve In article <baidnd-wU5XcKPPVnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote: > Dave Fritzinger wrote: > > Here's a bit...

Poll (Intel Macs, PowerPC Macs)
For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next year or earlier. 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and check it out and be prepared? 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the current Mac you use? 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the current Mac you use? 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a desktop? -- Andrew J. Brehm Marx Brothers Fan PowerPC/Macintosh User Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches 5. I will load OS X and dual boot...

Web resources about - PPC Macs better than Intel Macs. - comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Warriors win record 45th straight NBA game at home
Los Angeles (AFP) - The NBA champion Golden State Warriors set a league record with their 45th straight regular-season home victory.

Justice Department appeals pro-Apple decision in New York iPhone case
Authorities in New York have taken the first step to appealing a judge’s ruling last month that denied a request for information held on an iPhone. ...

Mac ransomware caught before large number of computers infected
(Reuters) – The first known ransomware attack on Apple Mac computers, which was discovered over the weekend , was downloaded more than 6,000 ...

Kanye West Twitter: ‘Why Do People Not Want Me To Be Me?’ — Understanding Kanye
Kanye West’s Twitter has been ground zero for much of the media’s West family headlines. It’s obvious that people have a problem with Kanye’s ...

Hum Writing First New Music In 18 Years
Although Illinois space-rock heroes Hum haven't released any new music since 1998's Downward Is Heavenward, they've continued to perform together ...

Suicide attack kills 13 in Pakistan's northwest
Bomber strikes outside court in the northwest, killing at least 13 people including two women and a child.

Sharapova confirms failed drug test, sanction uncertain
The former world number one from Russia said a change in the World Anti-Doping Agency's banned list for 2016 led to an inadvertent violation, ...

Google Project Fi free to join, but will seem expensive outside USA
Project Fi, the Google mobile phone service, no longer needs an invitation to join. And in an aggressive pricing move, Google is slashing the ...

Microsoft ends work on 'Fable Legends' video game
Microsoft on Monday announced it has stopped work on the long-delayed "Fable Legends" action video game and is mulling the closure of the British-based ...

Mystery Cancers Emerge In Children Years After Catastrophic Fukushima Disaster: Study
An astonishingly high occurrence of thyroid cancers in children have been reported years after the catastrophic Fukushima Nuclear Disaster struck ...

Resources last updated: 3/8/2016 7:39:10 AM