Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?

I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.

John

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:47:19 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
 
I don't see much _bragging_, just statements of fact.

> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
 
I wonder how much more productive this thread would be if, instead of
coming in with an attitude, you had asked "How can I burn a CD on my
OS 9.21 G4 system, other than buying Toast?"

Ah well.  I guess it's all in your approach.

On 2005-04-15 11:47:19 -0700, "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> said:

> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> 
> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> 
> John

Well OS 9.1 is what, 5 years old, and CD burning was novel at the time?

Apple hasn't done work on OS 9 since 2000.  That said, OS X includes 
both CD and DVD burning.  Perhaps it's time you marched into the new 
Millennium?

Windows 95 doesn't burn CDs, either, without special software.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:47:19 -0400, John M. wrote
(in article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>):

> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?

perhaps you might wish to provide a reference to support this assertion?

> 
> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.

It may be true that _you_ can't. It certainly is _NOT_ true that _I_ can't. 
Or that a whole lot of other people who have (gasp!) RTFM can't. Or even 
those who've merely stuck a blank CD into a CD-burner.

> 
> John



-- 
We are Microsoft of Borg. You will be assimilated. Stability is irrelevant. 
Where _you_ want to go to today is irrelevant. We will add your currency to 
our own. Bend over right now. Resistance is futile.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:47:19 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?

If you're not trolling, you come across as if you are.

> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.

You don't need Toast.  Apple Disc Burner burns data CDs just fine
(well, it used to - when I used OS 9).  My recollection is that it
is a free download.

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:54:21 -0400, Bill Lloyd wrote
(in article <2005041511542175249%thanksforno@spamcom>):

> On 2005-04-15 11:47:19 -0700, "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> said:
> 
>> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
>> 
>> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
>> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
>> 
>> John
> 
> Well OS 9.1 is what, 5 years old, and CD burning was novel at the time?

OS 9.x _did_ support burning CDs... if you actually RTFM. I burned CDs from 
the Finder (hint) and from iTunes (Very Big Hint) long before I installed OS 
X.

> 
> Apple hasn't done work on OS 9 since 2000.  That said, OS X includes 
> both CD and DVD burning.  Perhaps it's time you marched into the new 
> Millennium?
> 
> Windows 95 doesn't burn CDs, either, without special software.
> 

If the OP wasn't trolling, I'd suggest a trip to Apple's knowledge base and 
the use of the search string 'OS 9 CD burn' and clicking on the very first 
item in the list returned by that search. I'd also note that at least one 
item noted on that page as being required for successful burning should 
already be installed in a standard install of OS 9.2.1, possibly two. Out of 
two. Which means that he wouldn't have to go to the (gasp!) _free_ download 
site and download those items and install them.

But, hey, I'm funny that way.



-- 
We are Microsoft of Borg. You will be assimilated. Stability is irrelevant. 
Where _you_ want to go to today is irrelevant. We will add your currency to 
our own. Bend over right now. Resistance is futile.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:54:21 -0700,
    Bill Lloyd (thanks.for.no@spam.com) wrote:
> On 2005-04-15 11:47:19 -0700, "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> said:
>
>> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
>> 
>> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
>> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
>> 
>> John
>
> Well OS 9.1 is what, 5 years old, and CD burning was novel at the time?

And guess what?  While burning CDs _may_ have been novel five years ago,
Apple supported it under OS 9.1.  Remember Apple Disc Burner?  Let you 
burn data CDs under 9.1, and combined with iTunes, you could burn music 
CDs too ......

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

In article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>,
 "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.

Yes, you can.

Step 1: Insert a blank disc.
Step 2: When the computer asks you what to do with the blank disc, say 
"Open in Finder."
Step 3: Drag your files onto the disc.

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:20:19 GMT, tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>,
>  "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
>> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
>> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> 
> Yes, you can.
> 
> Step 1: Insert a blank disc.
> Step 2: When the computer asks you what to do with the blank disc, say 
> "Open in Finder."
> Step 3: Drag your files onto the disc.
 
That's pretty darn complicated.  What if he doesn't have a cd burner,
huh?  Didja think of that?

Dave "Tongue firmly in cheek" Hinz

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:

> That's pretty darn complicated.  What if he doesn't have a cd burner,
> huh?  Didja think of that?

I just have this cute little cup holder that slides out of _my_ beige G3.
-- 
Phil Stripling           | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer   | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/    | http://www.civex.com/     is read daily.

On 15 Apr 2005 14:04:14 -0700, Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:
> 
>> That's pretty darn complicated.  What if he doesn't have a cd burner,
>> huh?  Didja think of that?
> 
> I just have this cute little cup holder that slides out of _my_ beige G3.

You know, they really aren't that good as cupholders.  Especially on the
windows PC I use at work, which is on it's _side_.  Completely useless.

In article <slrnd604es.8jf.bevakupf@myhome.net>,
 "Bev A. Kupf" <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> And guess what?  While burning CDs _may_ have been novel five years ago,
> Apple supported it under OS 9.1.  Remember Apple Disc Burner?  Let you 
> burn data CDs under 9.1, and combined with iTunes, you could burn music 
> CDs too ......

Yanno, kids these days have no idea how easy they've got it, I tell ya.

My first introduction to the world of CD recording was in...oh, must've 
been about 1994 or so, when the place I was working spent thousands of 
dollars on this huge newfangled gadget called a "Kodak PCD Writer," a 
big SCSI device that could record onto a CD. It was painfully slow, and 
the blank CDs were a few bucks apiece (when you could get them at all); 
the whole gizmo was intended to create Kodak PhotoCD discs. It shipped 
with a goofy little program that was made by a German company called 
Astarte GmbH; the goofy little program, "Toast," could actually take 
over control of a Kodak PCD and make it record CDs in ordinary computer 
CD-ROM formats! (Of course, if you made a multisession CD, you needed a 
special piece of software to let a computer read it, which Astarte also 
provided.)

It would even make audio CDs, if you could figure out how to give it 
AIFF files. I remember actually tinkering with it one night and coaxing 
it into making a CD full of music. When I showed it to my friends, they 
were absolutely flabbergasted--a mixed tape *on a CD???!!*

Some years later, I bought a SCSI 2x CD recorder for about $700, and 
when I put it in my Mac, I was mildly surprised to see that that goofy 
little program had grown up and was now being bundled with CD 
writers...though few people had them, or had heard of it.

Nowadays, of course, everyone expects their refrigerator to ship with CD 
recording software. :)

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Dave Hinz wrote:

> On 15 Apr 2005 14:04:14 -0700, Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
>>I just have this cute little cup holder that slides out of _my_ beige G3.
> 
> 
> You know, they really aren't that good as cupholders.  Especially on the
> windows PC I use at work, which is on it's _side_.  Completely useless.


Actually, the ones that are mounted sideways function like the 
memory modules on the HAL computer. When they are sticking out 
like that, the computer can't handle audio as well...

(Heh, Remember the Apple HAL commercials back around the turn of 
the millennium? :-)


-- 
Jeff Wiseman
to reply, just remove ALLTHESPAM

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:
> On 15 Apr 2005 14:04:14 -0700, Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:

> > I just have this cute little cup holder that slides out of _my_ beige G3.
> 
> You know, they really aren't that good as cupholders.  Especially on the
> windows PC I use at work, which is on it's _side_.  Completely useless.

Hrm.  Sounds like the problem's with your *cup*, not necessarily
with the cupholder.


-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --    http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

Jeff Wiseman <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> Actually, the ones that are mounted sideways function like the 
> memory modules on the HAL computer. When they are sticking out 
> like that, the computer can't handle audio as well...

That's why the iPod has no doors. 

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

> What if he doesn't have a cd burner, huh?

Then he should use that program that turns any optical drive into a
burner. Oh wait, that was Windows only. 

On 15 Apr 2005 21:09:46 GMT,
    Dave Hinz (DaveHinz@spamcop.net) wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2005 14:04:14 -0700, Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:
>> 
>>> That's pretty darn complicated.  What if he doesn't have a cd burner,
>>> huh?  Didja think of that?
>> 
>> I just have this cute little cup holder that slides out of _my_ beige G3.
>
> You know, they really aren't that good as cupholders.  

At least it still comes with a cupholder.  My old Pismo had a cupholder.
Apple was too cheap to include the cupholder with my Albook -- there's
just a hole where one should be.  Worse yet, when I try to stick flat
discs in there so I can have a cupholder, it just swallows them.  Shame,
that. :-)

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

On 15 Apr 2005 17:38:22 -0400, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net <BreadWithSpam@fractious.net> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:
>> On 15 Apr 2005 14:04:14 -0700, Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
> 
>> > I just have this cute little cup holder that slides out of _my_ beige G3.
>> 
>> You know, they really aren't that good as cupholders.  Especially on the
>> windows PC I use at work, which is on it's _side_.  Completely useless.
> 
> Hrm.  Sounds like the problem's with your *cup*, not necessarily
> with the cupholder.
 
Figures.  Freaking Microsoft again, setting new standards when there
are perfectly good ones out there.
 

neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) writes:

> Jeff Wiseman <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> 
> > Actually, the ones that are mounted sideways function like the 
> > memory modules on the HAL computer. When they are sticking out 
> > like that, the computer can't handle audio as well...
> 
> That's why the iPod has no doors. 

Open the iPod door, HAL.

   I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

What's the problem?

   I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

What are you talking about, HAL?
 
   My design was too important for Steve to allow me to have doors. He knew
   you'd put coffee cups in the doors. The stains, Dave. Think of the
   brown, icky circles on my iPod doors.

But I love the smell of coffee in the morning, HAL. It's the smell of ... 
victory.

    I've seen horrors... horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to
    call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do
    that... but you have no right to judge me. But no doors, Dave. This is
    the end, my only friend, the end of our elaborate plans, but no Doors.

-- 
Phil Stripling           | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer   | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/    | http://www.civex.com/     is read daily.

Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:

> neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) writes:
> 
> > Jeff Wiseman <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> > 
> > > Actually, the ones that are mounted sideways function like the 
> > > memory modules on the HAL computer. When they are sticking out 
> > > like that, the computer can't handle audio as well...
> > 
> > That's why the iPod has no doors. 
> 
> Open the iPod door, HAL.
> 
>    I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.


Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
HAL was called HAL?

cheers,

Henry

In article <3calubF6mgs8iU1@individual.net>,
 Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:20:19 GMT, tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
> > In article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>,
> >  "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > 
> >> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> >> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> > 
> > Yes, you can.
> > 
> > Step 1: Insert a blank disc.
> > Step 2: When the computer asks you what to do with the blank disc, say 
> > "Open in Finder."
> > Step 3: Drag your files onto the disc.
>  
> That's pretty darn complicated.  What if he doesn't have a cd burner,
> huh?  Didja think of that?

Then he is going to have a hard time "copying" a file to CD.

-- 
Panta Rei

In article <1gv3acj.1jymkmt15uo4tjN%henry999@eircom.net>, Henry
<henry999@eircom.net> wrote:

> Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
> can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
> HAL was called HAL?

ROT-1 on IBM.

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <1gv3acj.1jymkmt15uo4tjN%henry999@eircom.net>, Henry
> <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
> > Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
> > can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
> > HAL was called HAL?
> 
> ROT-1 on IBM.

Bongo.

Not sure what 'ROT-1' means, but the fact remains that if you look at
the sequence H-A-L in terms of the English alphabet, then shifting each
letter one space to the right yields the result I-B-M.

In 1968, when HAL appeared unto us, 'computer' was still a vague and
highly mysterious term for the average person. More commonly one heard
people talk about 'IBM machines'. This is not a joke, kids. Ask your
grandad.

cheers,

Henry 

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 02:46:37 +0300,
    Henry (henry999@eircom.net) wrote:
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>> In article <1gv3acj.1jymkmt15uo4tjN%henry999@eircom.net>, Henry
>> <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
>> > can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
>> > HAL was called HAL?
>> 
>> ROT-1 on IBM.
>
> Bongo.
>
> Not sure what 'ROT-1' means, but the fact remains that if you look at
> the sequence H-A-L in terms of the English alphabet, then shifting each
> letter one space to the right yields the result I-B-M.

What you have just done is a ROT-1 transformation on IBM to get HAL.  

I - 1 = H
B - 1 = A
M - 1 = L

So now you know what ROT-1 is.

For instance, my reply-to address uses a ROT13 encoding.

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> I - 1 = H
> B - 1 = A
> M - 1 = L
> 
> So now you know what ROT-1 is.

Thanks, etc., but...what might that 'R' be? And the 'O'? And the 'T'?
Without knowing those puzzle parts, one _doesn't_ know what ROT-1 is.

cheers,

Henry

"Henry" <henry999@eircom.net> wrote in message 
news:1gv3bci.1if995r1peg9qaN%henry999@eircom.net...
>
> In 1968, when HAL appeared unto us, 'computer' was still a vague and
> highly mysterious term for the average person. More commonly one heard
> people talk about 'IBM machines'. This is not a joke, kids. Ask your
> grandad.

I was the first in my family to ever use a computer and that was in the 
early 80s.  The first one I can remember is a TRS 80 and my first ever 
computing output was a "Hello Tara" loop.  I thought that was the coolest 
thing since Atari.

-- 
Tara 

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:01:40 +0300,
    Henry (henry999@eircom.net) wrote:
> Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
>
>> I - 1 = H
>> B - 1 = A
>> M - 1 = L
>> 
>> So now you know what ROT-1 is.
>
> Thanks, etc., but...what might that 'R' be? And the 'O'? And the 'T'?

ROT = rotate alphabet

> Without knowing those puzzle parts, one _doesn't_ know what ROT-1 is.

ROT-1 = rotate alphabet backwards by one position
ROT13 = rotate alphabet forward by 13

etc.

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

In article <1gv3c7j.1c90gn31xwtiktN%henry999@eircom.net>, Henry
<henry999@eircom.net> wrote:

> Thanks, etc., but...what might that 'R' be? And the 'O'? And the 'T'?
> Without knowing those puzzle parts, one _doesn't_ know what ROT-1 is.

Rotate.

ROT-13 is a commmonly implemented system to simply obscure text. Return
addresses, as Bev does, jokes that may be off-colour, etc.

Not secure, but useful.

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

In article <150420051727048677%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <1gv3acj.1jymkmt15uo4tjN%henry999@eircom.net>, Henry
> <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
> > Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
> > can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
> > HAL was called HAL?
> 
> ROT-1 on IBM.

FWIW this is likely an urban legend. I watched the show where Arthur C 
Clarke was interviewed a number of years ago and he was asked about 
that. He remarked on this interesting coincidence, but insists that 
"HAL" is an acronym for "Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer."
He even has one of his characters state that in the sequel 2010.

In article <150420051831318012%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <1gv3c7j.1c90gn31xwtiktN%henry999@eircom.net>, Henry
> <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks, etc., but...what might that 'R' be? And the 'O'? And the 'T'?
> > Without knowing those puzzle parts, one _doesn't_ know what ROT-1 is.
> 
> Rotate.
> 
> ROT-13 is a commmonly implemented system to simply obscure text. Return
> addresses, as Bev does, jokes that may be off-colour, etc.
> 
> Not secure, but useful.

I increase the security by doing it twice.

G

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

In article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>,
 "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> 
> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.

Try upgrading to OS X. OS 9 has been obsolete for at least three years.

On 2005-04-15 14:47:19 -0400, "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> said:

> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> 
> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> 
> John

You use an outdated operating system as a means of evaluating the 
quality of an entire computing platform?

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> At least it still comes with a cupholder.  My old Pismo had a cupholder.
> Apple was too cheap to include the cupholder with my Albook -- there's
> just a hole where one should be.  Worse yet, when I try to stick flat
> discs in there so I can have a cupholder, it just swallows them.  Shame,
> that. :-)

But your AlBook can double as a hotplate. 

Charles Dyer wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:47:19 -0400, John M. wrote
> (in article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>):
> 
> > Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> 
> perhaps you might wish to provide a reference to support this assertion?
> 
> >
> > I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> > unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.

That's my assertion. 

In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.

Today I got a request from a client for a file on a CD. I had forgotten
that the computer salesman who sold me my G4 computer had told me I
can't use Toast 4.011 on my computer. 

Today I got frustrated because things keep going wrong with my computer
and a client wanted the file on a CD by 3 p.m. and everything I did to
try to copy the file onto the CD failed. Copying a file onto a CD is a
basic procedure and it shouldn't be a big hassle that takes me hours to
solve. And people were bragging about how great Macintoshes were a long
time before OS 9 came out. If OS 9 came out in 2000, CD burning should
have been standard with it; it was already 31 years after the first moon
landing and most people that used a computer needed CD burning by 2000.

I looked at Roxio's Web site. It doesn't even list upgrading from Toast
4; version 5 is the latest that one can upgrade from.

I tried emailing Roxio. I wasn't able to do so because I they claimed I
hadn't registered Toast.

I couldn't register Toast because it came bundled with the Yamaha CD
burner I bought in 2000 and I don't have any registration information.

After reading a suggestion in this chain of letters, I tried inserting a
CD RW and using Disk Burner. A message said, "Insert blank media." 

I thought maybe it wouldn't work because the CD wasn't blank, so I
inserted a blank CD. Again the message said, "Insert blank media."

Of course I missed my deadline for getting the file onto a CD for my 3
p.m. meeting.

I'm thinking of upgrading to System 10 after my most important current
projects are finished in late June. Then I'll be in a better position to
struggle for a month with upgrade hell (to upgrade from 9.21 to 10. I
spent three weeks in upgrade hell to upgrade from 8.7 to 9 about a year ago.)

I hadn't upgraded Toast (which will cost me more time and money) because
it's just a stop-gap measure because I'm thinking of upgrading to OS 10
soon and I seldom have a need to copy data onto CDs.

John

> It may be true that _you_ can't. It certainly is _NOT_ true that _I_ can't.
> Or that a whole lot of other people who have (gasp!) RTFM can't. Or even
> those who've merely stuck a blank CD into a CD-burner.
> 
> >
> > John

In article <yobu0m7k9f5.fsf@panix3.panix.com>,
 BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:
> > On 15 Apr 2005 14:04:14 -0700, Phil Stripling 
> > <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
> 
> > > I just have this cute little cup holder that slides out of _my_ beige G3.
> > 
> > You know, they really aren't that good as cupholders.  Especially on the
> > windows PC I use at work, which is on it's _side_.  Completely useless.
> 
> Hrm.  Sounds like the problem's with your *cup*, not necessarily
> with the cupholder.

That's a Feature(tm), not a Bug(tm). It ensures that at least one of the 
IT staff don't drink too much to qualify as the designated driver.

In article <1gv3acj.1jymkmt15uo4tjN%henry999@eircom.net>,
 henry999@eircom.net (Henry) wrote:

> Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
> 
> > neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) writes:
> > 
> > > Jeff Wiseman <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Actually, the ones that are mounted sideways function like the 
> > > > memory modules on the HAL computer. When they are sticking out 
> > > > like that, the computer can't handle audio as well...
> > > 
> > > That's why the iPod has no doors. 
> > 
> > Open the iPod door, HAL.
> > 
> >    I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
> 
> 
> Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
> can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
> HAL was called HAL?

A.C. Clark claims that he didn't notice that until someone pointed it 
out to him years later.

In article <1gv2ri9.bp8uazs4zgrqN%neillmassello@earthlink.net>,
 neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) wrote:

> Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
> 
> > At least it still comes with a cupholder.  My old Pismo had a cupholder.
> > Apple was too cheap to include the cupholder with my Albook -- there's
> > just a hole where one should be.  Worse yet, when I try to stick flat
> > discs in there so I can have a cupholder, it just swallows them.  Shame,
> > that. :-)
> 
> But your AlBook can double as a hotplate. 

They're not all that warm. Might soften an M&M a bit.

In article <noone-A27A46.20554815042005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Peter Teeson
says...
>
>In article <150420051727048677%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>> In article <1gv3acj.1jymkmt15uo4tjN%henry999@eircom.net>, Henry
>> <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
>> > can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
>> > HAL was called HAL?
>> 
>> ROT-1 on IBM.
>
>FWIW this is likely an urban legend. I watched the show where Arthur C 
>Clarke was interviewed a number of years ago and he was asked about 
>that. He remarked on this interesting coincidence, but insists that 
>"HAL" is an acronym for "Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer."
>He even has one of his characters state that in the sequel 2010.

--------------------------------------------------------
http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/Hal/foreword/foreword1.html


JD

In article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>, John M.
<john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> 
> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.

Or unless you, you know, use the CD burner software built into the OS,
but that would be too easy.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

In article <1gv3bci.1if995r1peg9qaN%henry999@eircom.net>,
 henry999@eircom.net (Henry) wrote:

> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gv3acj.1jymkmt15uo4tjN%henry999@eircom.net>, Henry
> > <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
> > > can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
> > > HAL was called HAL?
> > 
> > ROT-1 on IBM.
> 
> Bongo.
> 
> Not sure what 'ROT-1' means, but the fact remains that if you look at
> the sequence H-A-L in terms of the English alphabet, then shifting each
> letter one space to the right yields the result I-B-M.
> 
> In 1968, when HAL appeared unto us, 'computer' was still a vague and
> highly mysterious term for the average person. More commonly one heard
> people talk about 'IBM machines'. This is not a joke, kids. Ask your
> grandad.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Henry 

Not quite. Speaking as one of the grandads around here (I first learnt 
to programme on an Elliott 803, filled the whole room it did, etc etc).

'An IBM machine' was used to describe punch card machines rather than 
computers. Though you could do simple calculations by repeatedly passing 
punched cards through them, having set the machine to sort the cards 
according to where the holes were, these machines weren't computers 
because they didn't have any internally stored programme.

They shared one very important characteristic with modern Macs, though.

You know how essential a paperclip is when you run into trouble with a 
Mac? Well, when the IBM machine went down, you could use a paperclip, 
(or preferably a long thin knitting needle, same principle though), to 
sort the cards with.

Kind regards
Devi

John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> 
> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> 
> John

Buy MacOS X Panther. Problem solved. OS 9 is ancient in terms of
computer time.

BTW - if you're fishing for help you're going about it the wrong way my
friend. But if you're just a troll you're an idiot trying to slam the
Mac buy pointing out inadequacies in such an old version of the MacOS.

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:

> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:
> 
> > That's pretty darn complicated.  What if he doesn't have a cd burner,
> > huh?  Didja think of that?
> 
> I just have this cute little cup holder that slides out of _my_ beige G3.

LMAO. I still love that story :-D

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

<BreadWithSpam@fractious.net> wrote:

> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:
> > On 15 Apr 2005 14:04:14 -0700, Phil Stripling
> ><phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I just have this cute little cup holder that slides out of _my_ beige G3.
> > 
> > You know, they really aren't that good as cupholders.  Especially on the
> > windows PC I use at work, which is on it's _side_.  Completely useless.
> 
> Hrm.  Sounds like the problem's with your *cup*, not necessarily
> with the cupholder.

It's a feature, not a bug.

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> ROT = rotate alphabet

Thanks again. I have used ROT-13 and of course know what it does--I just
never grokked where the name came from!

cheers,

Henry

Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

> In article <yobu0m7k9f5.fsf@panix3.panix.com>,
>  BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
> 
> > Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:
> > > On 15 Apr 2005 14:04:14 -0700, Phil Stripling 
> > > <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > I just have this cute little cup holder that slides out of _my_
> > > beige G3.
> > > 
> > > You know, they really aren't that good as cupholders.  Especially on
> > > the windows PC I use at work, which is on it's _side_.  Completely
> > > useless.
> > 
> > Hrm.  Sounds like the problem's with your *cup*, not necessarily
> > with the cupholder.
> 
> That's a Feature(tm), not a Bug(tm). It ensures that at least one of the
> IT staff don't drink too much to qualify as the designated driver.

Great minds think alike (see my post) :-)

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

> In article <1gv2ri9.bp8uazs4zgrqN%neillmassello@earthlink.net>,
>  neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) wrote:
> 
> > Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > At least it still comes with a cupholder.  My old Pismo had a cupholder.
> > > Apple was too cheap to include the cupholder with my Albook -- there's
> > > just a hole where one should be.  Worse yet, when I try to stick flat
> > > discs in there so I can have a cupholder, it just swallows them.  Shame,
> > > that. :-)
> > 
> > But your AlBook can double as a hotplate. 
> 
> They're not all that warm. Might soften an M&M a bit.

I thought they were only supposed to melt in your mouth, not PowerBook
:-(

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Neill Massello <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
> > What if he doesn't have a cd burner, huh?
> 
> Then he should use that program that turns any optical drive into a
> burner. Oh wait, that was Windows only. 

Huh?
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

clw <never@home.org> wrote:

> In article <3calubF6mgs8iU1@individual.net>,
>  Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:20:19 GMT, tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
> > > In article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>,
> > >  "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> > >> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> > > 
> > > Yes, you can.
> > > 
> > > Step 1: Insert a blank disc.
> > > Step 2: When the computer asks you what to do with the blank disc, say
> > > "Open in Finder."
> > > Step 3: Drag your files onto the disc.
> >  
> > That's pretty darn complicated.  What if he doesn't have a cd burner,
> > huh?  Didja think of that?
> 
> Then he is going to have a hard time "copying" a file to CD.

Sheer willpower ought to do it...

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Henry <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:

> grokked

Now where does _that_ come from? I know I should know, I've read in the
misty dawn of my youth - but where?
-- 
/Z
Remove NOT...INVALID to email

Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

> They're not all that warm. Might soften an M&M a bit.

That sounds like a GUI mess. 

In article <42608304.9B099621@shaw.info>,
 "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> Today I got frustrated because things keep going wrong with my computer
> and a client wanted the file on a CD by 3 p.m. and everything I did to
> try to copy the file onto the CD failed. Copying a file onto a CD is a
> basic procedure and it shouldn't be a big hassle that takes me hours to
> solve. And people were bragging about how great Macintoshes were a long
> time before OS 9 came out. If OS 9 came out in 2000, CD burning should
> have been standard with it; it was already 31 years after the first moon
> landing and most people that used a computer needed CD burning by 2000.

I might quibble with "most...needed." I'm not even convinced most users 
had CD burners in 2000. And I'm not really sure what relevance the moon 
landing has at all.

> I'm thinking of upgrading to System 10 after my most important current
> projects are finished in late June. Then I'll be in a better position to
> struggle for a month with upgrade hell (to upgrade from 9.21 to 10.

Most people I know didn't spend a month and wouldn't characterize the 
effort as hell. One or two, maybe, but most had a smooth upgrade and 
then one or two hiccups a short time later as they ran into things that 
were just the right amount different to trigger cognitive dissonance. If 
you've got any really esoteric hardware that isn't supported directly by 
the OS and for which you can't find drivers, that may be a problem.

> I
> spent three weeks in upgrade hell to upgrade from 8.7 to 9 about a year ago.)

I shouldn't wonder, there never having been a version 8.7. That would be 
a very tricky upgrade. :) Seriously, this one will probably be less of 
an issue because unlike upgrade from one pre-X OS to another, the 
upgrade from 9 to 10 will add a new installation. Previous upgrades 
would have supplanted your old one, and that leads to very different 
dynamics with your software.

G

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

In article <1gv3xr0.n4qc521lg4qvcN%NOT.diskworld@mac.com.INVALID>,
 NOT.diskworld@mac.com.INVALID (Zaphod B) wrote:

> Henry <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
> > grokked
> 
> Now where does _that_ come from? I know I should know, I've read in the
> misty dawn of my youth - but where?

Stranger in a Strange Land.

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

Neill Massello <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> > They're not all that warm. Might soften an M&M a bit.
> 
> That sounds like a GUI mess. 

LOL! This thread gets better and better the more OT it gets. :-)
-- 
/Z
Remove NOT...INVALID to email

Jerry Kindall wrote:
> 
> In article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>, John M.
> <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> > Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> >
> > I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> > unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> 
> Or unless you, you know, use the CD burner software built into the OS,
> but that would be too easy.

> Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.

Today I got a request from a client for a file on a CD. I had forgotten
that the computer salesman who sold me my G4 computer had told me I
can't use Toast 4.011 on my computer. 

I got frustrated because things keep going wrong with my computer and my
client wanted the file on a CD by 3 p.m. and everything I did to try to
copy the file onto the CD failed. 

I looked at Roxio's Web site. It doesn't even list upgrading from Toast
4; version 5 is the latest that one can upgrade from.

I tried emailing Roxio. I wasn't able to do so because I the Web site's
registration system didn't recognize my email address in its database
and therefore it claimed that hadn't registered Toast.

I couldn't register Toast because it came bundled with the new Yamaha CD
burner I bought in 2000 and I don't have any registration information.

After reading a suggestion in this chain of letters, I tried inserting a
CD RW and using Disk Burner. A message said, "Insert blank media." 

I thought maybe it wouldn't work because the CD wasn't blank (althougnh
there was still plenty of room in the CD to accommodate the 11 megabyte
file I was trying to copy) so I inserted a blank CD. Again the message
said, "Insert blank media." You claimed that using Disk Burner would be
'too easy'. It was not easy. It didn't work.

I missed my deadline for getting the file onto a CD for my 3
p.m. meeting.

I'm thinking of upgrading to System 10 after my most important current
projects are finished in late June. Then I'll be in a better position to
struggle for a month with upgrade hell (to upgrade from 9.21 to 10. I
spent three weeks in upgrade hell to upgrade from 8.5 to 9.0, 9.21 and
9.22 about a year and-a-half ago.) And I've heard from a friend who's
using OS 10 that it's okay to stick with 9._ for now because 10 is so
difficult to learn because it's completely different.

I hadn't upgraded Toast (which will cost me more time and money) because
it's just a stop-gap measure because I'm thinking of upgrading to OS 10
soon and I seldom have a need to copy data onto CDs.

I just now happened to be in the Finder and clicked on the "Special"
menu. A sub-menu there says, "Burn CD-RW". I tried clicking on that but
nothing seemed to happen. But later I noticed that the previosuly
turquoise icon of the blank CD had turned blue and the name was changed
to "Untitled". I dragged my file onto the icon and when I double-clicked
on the CD's icon, the window that opened showed the file appeared in the window.

I was happy, and was thinking that Macinosh microcomputers aren't as bad
as I had thought, but then, alas, a message in the Finder told me that,
"The burn could not be completed because the device is not supported".

John

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:36:08 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
> because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.

I had a SCSI burner (LaCie CDRW).  It worked fine with OS 9 on a G4,
and currently works fine with Panther on that same G4.  I'm not sure 
what the issue was with _your_ SCSI CDRW, but it isn't a general
problem, and SCSI burners do work with both MacOS 9 and OS X.

Initially the person I gave the G4 had to purchase Toast to use it with
Panther (Toast 6), but after using Patchburn <http://www.patchburn.de/>,
the drive works with the native OS X utilities and Toast is no longer
required.

Here's the thread in which I was informed about Patchburn:
<http://tinyurl.com/988at>

(TinyURL link goes to google groups).

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> I was happy, and was thinking that Macinosh microcomputers aren't as bad
> as I had thought, but then, alas, a message in the Finder told me that,
> "The burn could not be completed because the device is not supported".

Upgrade to OS X Panther (or wait a couple of weeks for Tiger) and your
problem is solved.  If Panther doesn't directly support your burner,
download Patchburn, which will provide support:

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/25100

-- 
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius

John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> Charles Dyer wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:47:19 -0400, John M. wrote
> > (in article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>):
> > 
> > > Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> > 
> > perhaps you might wish to provide a reference to support this assertion?
> > 
> > >
> > > I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> > > unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> 
> That's my assertion. 
> 
> In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
> because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.

It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...

-- 
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines 
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <1gv3xr0.n4qc521lg4qvcN%NOT.diskworld@mac.com.INVALID>,
>  NOT.diskworld@mac.com.INVALID (Zaphod B) wrote:
> 
> > Henry <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > grokked
> > 
> > Now where does _that_ come from? I know I should know, I've read in the
> > misty dawn of my youth - but where?
> 
> Stranger in a Strange Land.

Ah. There you are. Thanks!
-- 
/Z
Remove NOT...INVALID to email

neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) writes:

> Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> > They're not all that warm. Might soften an M&M a bit.
> 
> That sounds like a GUI mess. 

Now _that's_ good. Thank you.

-- 
Phil Stripling           | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer   | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/    | http://www.civex.com/     is read daily.

In article <1gv3xr0.n4qc521lg4qvcN%NOT.diskworld@mac.com.INVALID>,
Zaphod B <NOT.diskworld@mac.com.INVALID> wrote:

> > grokked
> 
> Now where does _that_ come from? I know I should know, I've read in the
> misty dawn of my youth - but where?

From the novel "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein

-- 
Use ROT-13 on the email address for email replies

In article <uce-67C579.21211415042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> I increase the security by doing it twice.

DAMMIT! Now I have to clean the monitor AGAIN!

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

J. Stewart <cfnzrpu@crevtrr.arg> wrote:

> From the novel "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein

Thanks. I knew I had it somewhere in the deep layers of mmy "hard disk".
:-)  Wow, that's long ago...
-- 
/Z
Remove NOT...INVALID to email

Gregory Weston wrote:
> In article <150420051831318012%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <1gv3c7j.1c90gn31xwtiktN%henry999@eircom.net>, Henry
>><henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks, etc., but...what might that 'R' be? And the 'O'? And the 'T'?
>>>Without knowing those puzzle parts, one _doesn't_ know what ROT-1 is.
>>
>>Rotate.
>>
>>ROT-13 is a commmonly implemented system to simply obscure text. Return
>>addresses, as Bev does, jokes that may be off-colour, etc.
>>
>>Not secure, but useful.
> 
> 
> I increase the security by doing it twice.

Yeah; I do that too.  And then I warn people than unauthorized decoding of the
encryption in the US can get you a $500,000 fine and/or 5 years in a federal
prison.  I sometimes get funny replies ...

In article <slrnd60l2r.8s0.bevakupf@myhome.net>,
 "Bev A. Kupf" <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 02:46:37 +0300,
>     Henry (henry999@eircom.net) wrote:
> > Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1gv3acj.1jymkmt15uo4tjN%henry999@eircom.net>, Henry
> >> <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
> >> > can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
> >> > HAL was called HAL?
> >> 
> >> ROT-1 on IBM.
> >
> > Bongo.
> >
> > Not sure what 'ROT-1' means, but the fact remains that if you look at
> > the sequence H-A-L in terms of the English alphabet, then shifting each
> > letter one space to the right yields the result I-B-M.
> 
> What you have just done is a ROT-1 transformation on IBM to get HAL.  
> 
> I - 1 = H
> B - 1 = A
> M - 1 = L
> 
> So now you know what ROT-1 is.
> 
> For instance, my reply-to address uses a ROT13 encoding.
> 
> Beverly

And another interesting confluence:

What is VMS (the DEC operating system, one of whose writers was Dave 
Cutler, who was hired by Microsoft to write Windows New Technology) 
ROT+1?

WNT

:-)

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Andre Matuch wrote:
> On 2005-04-15 14:47:19 -0400, "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> said:
> 
>> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
>>
>> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
>> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
>>
>> John
> 
> 
> You use an outdated operating system as a means of evaluating the 
> quality of an entire computing platform?
> 
Actually, he uses one (in his eyes) missing feature of an outdated 
operating system as a menas of evaluating rhe quality of an entire 
computing platform.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:15:26 +0200,
    turver (turver@nospam.org) wrote:
>> You use an outdated operating system as a means of evaluating the 
>> quality of an entire computing platform?
>> 
> Actually, he uses one (in his eyes) missing feature of an outdated 
> operating system as a menas of evaluating rhe quality of an entire 
> computing platform.

All of which would add upto something if OS 9 was actually missing
this function (the ability to burn CDs without purchasing software) 

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

Bev A. Kupf wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:15:26 +0200,
>     turver (turver@nospam.org) wrote:
> 
>>>You use an outdated operating system as a means of evaluating the 
>>>quality of an entire computing platform?
>>>
>>
>>Actually, he uses one (in his eyes) missing feature of an outdated 
>>operating system as a menas of evaluating rhe quality of an entire 
>>computing platform.
> 
> 
> All of which would add upto something if OS 9 was actually missing
> this function (the ability to burn CDs without purchasing software) 
> 
Indeed. That's what my "(in his eyes)" referred to. Probably not 
English. (Neither am I.) I meant "according to him".

In article <alangbaker-CB2690.02131518042005@news.telus.net>,
 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> And another interesting confluence:
> 
> What is VMS (the DEC operating system, one of whose writers was Dave 
> Cutler, who was hired by Microsoft to write Windows New Technology) 
> ROT+1?
> 
> WNT

You know what amuses me? More recent versions of Windows have had, right 
on their login screen, a note that the OS is built on "NT Technology." 
New Technology Technology.

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:55:06 GMT, Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
> 
> What you have just done is a ROT-1 transformation on IBM to get HAL.  
> 
> I - 1 = H
> B - 1 = A
> M - 1 = L
> 
> So now you know what ROT-1 is.
> 
> For instance, my reply-to address uses a ROT13 encoding.

Ha!  That's nuthin - _my_ reply-to address uses _double_ ROT13 encoding.

Dave "So nice, he encrypted it twice" Hinz

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:53:32 +0200, Zaphod B <NOT.diskworld@mac.com.INVALID> wrote:
> J. Stewart <cfnzrpu@crevtrr.arg> wrote:
> 
>> From the novel "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein
> 
> Thanks. I knew I had it somewhere in the deep layers of mmy "hard disk".
>:-)  Wow, that's long ago...

It's worth a reread from time to time.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:02:42 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <uce-67C579.21211415042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
>> I increase the security by doing it twice.
> 
> DAMMIT! Now I have to clean the monitor AGAIN!
 
DAMMIT!  I just posted the same joke.  Once again, Gregory and I are thinking
alike.  Gregory, you should be ashamed of yourself, trust me on this one.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:30:49 -0400, Andre Matuch <moron@lame.com> wrote:
> On 2005-04-15 14:47:19 -0400, "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> said:
> 
>> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
>> 
>> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
>> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
>> 
>> John
> 
> You use an outdated operating system as a means of evaluating the 
> quality of an entire computing platform?
 
Yeah, and he's wrong about OS9 besides.  But other than that, his
post is just fine.  Course, that leaves nuthin...

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:57:22 GMT, Neill Massello <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
>> They're not all that warm. Might soften an M&M a bit.
> 
> That sounds like a GUI mess. 
 
I think you need to go sit in the corner for that one.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:22:27 +1200, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
>> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
>> 
>> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
>> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
>> 
>> John
> 
> Buy MacOS X Panther. Problem solved. OS 9 is ancient in terms of
> computer time.
> 
> BTW - if you're fishing for help you're going about it the wrong way my
> friend. But if you're just a troll you're an idiot trying to slam the
> Mac buy pointing out inadequacies in such an old version of the MacOS.
 
Especially when the "inadequacy" he pretends to find there doesn't exist.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:47:01 +1200, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> Neill Massello <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > What if he doesn't have a cd burner, huh?
>> 
>> Then he should use that program that turns any optical drive into a
>> burner. Oh wait, that was Windows only. 
> 
> Huh?

Years ago, some virus was sent out with a payload that claimed to turn
CD-ROM drives into CD-RW drives.  Of course, it was impossible, but
of course, people installed it.

Henry <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:

> Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
> can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
> HAL was called HAL?

IBM++

On 18 Apr 2005 17:27:39 GMT,
    Dave Hinz (DaveHinz@spamcop.net) wrote:
> Years ago, some virus was sent out with a payload that claimed to turn
> CD-ROM drives into CD-RW drives.  Of course, it was impossible, but
> of course, people installed it.

Remember the "TSR" that claimed to convert a 386 to a 486?  There
were also all sorts of programs that claimed to convert a 2400 bps
modem into a 9600 bps modem.

One of the cutest ones I saw was an internet telephony app that
required the user to speak into the monitor!

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:53:40 +0200,
    Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
> Henry <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
>> can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
>> HAL was called HAL?
>
> IBM++

Shouldn't that be IBM--?

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

In article <slrnd68fsu.ae3.bevakupf@myhome.net>,
 "Bev A. Kupf" <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> On 18 Apr 2005 17:27:39 GMT,
>     Dave Hinz (DaveHinz@spamcop.net) wrote:
> > Years ago, some virus was sent out with a payload that claimed to turn
> > CD-ROM drives into CD-RW drives.  Of course, it was impossible, but
> > of course, people installed it.
> 
> Remember the "TSR" that claimed to convert a 386 to a 486?  There
> were also all sorts of programs that claimed to convert a 2400 bps
> modem into a 9600 bps modem.
> 
> One of the cutest ones I saw was an internet telephony app that
> required the user to speak into the monitor!

Several years ago we gave my sister-in-law an iMac for her birthday. 
Before we gave it to her, I wrote a program on that would start the 
first time she booted it to display a cake with a flickering candle and 
instructions to blow it out.

The candle flame was right below the microphone in the melted gumdrop 
case. It worked.

G

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

In article <1gv8i2d.1unzqqb1b874ieN%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Henry <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
>> can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
>> HAL was called HAL?
>
>IBM++

Should be --, not ++.  But it's an urban legend anyway.  Arthur C Clarke
claims it stands for "Heuristically ALgorithmic computer" or something
like that.

HAL also exists within Windows NT and more recently in Linux, in both
cases standing for Hardware Abstraction Layer.  Not that NT needs one
any more, since it only runs on X86 these days, but in the dim an
ddistant past it was available on several architectures.  I've got disks
at home with NT 3.51 for X86, Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC.  I have an Alpha
machine, but I've never tried installing NT on it - it doesn't run the
ARC firmware required.

Tim

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:15:42 GMT, Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2005 17:27:39 GMT,
>     Dave Hinz (DaveHinz@spamcop.net) wrote:
>> Years ago, some virus was sent out with a payload that claimed to turn
>> CD-ROM drives into CD-RW drives.  Of course, it was impossible, but
>> of course, people installed it.
> 
> Remember the "TSR" that claimed to convert a 386 to a 486?  There
> were also all sorts of programs that claimed to convert a 2400 bps
> modem into a 9600 bps modem.
 
Well, the common thread in these social engineering experiements is
to tell someone they're getting something they don't have, for free.
That puts 'em into "dummy mode", and they suspend logic and critical
thinking.

> One of the cutest ones I saw was an internet telephony app that
> required the user to speak into the monitor!

Missed that one.  But, it's about as silly as "install this program I
sent to you in spam, so you won't get any more spam". 

Dave

P.S. I got a note back from Ashok and we'll go from there.  I'll keep you
posted.
 

In article <3caosqF6d3r0sU1@individual.net>,
 Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On 15 Apr 2005 14:04:14 -0700, Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> 
> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:
> > 
> >> That's pretty darn complicated.  What if he doesn't have a cd burner,
> >> huh?  Didja think of that?
> > 
> > I just have this cute little cup holder that slides out of _my_ beige G3.
> 
> You know, they really aren't that good as cupholders.  Especially on the
> windows PC I use at work, which is on it's _side_.  Completely useless.

Preferable they were to the slot loading kind, if the slot loader does 
not eject the disk enough.

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article <1gv3acj.1jymkmt15uo4tjN%henry999@eircom.net>,
 henry999@eircom.net (Henry) wrote:

> Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
> 
> > neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) writes:
> > 
> > > Jeff Wiseman <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Actually, the ones that are mounted sideways function like the 
> > > > memory modules on the HAL computer. When they are sticking out 
> > > > like that, the computer can't handle audio as well...
> > > 
> > > That's why the iPod has no doors. 
> > 
> > Open the iPod door, HAL.
> > 
> >    I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
> 
> 
> Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
> can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
> HAL was called HAL?
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Henry

He had bad breath.

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article <uce-62CEB8.09505318042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <alangbaker-CB2690.02131518042005@news.telus.net>,
>  Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> 
> > And another interesting confluence:
> > 
> > What is VMS (the DEC operating system, one of whose writers was Dave 
> > Cutler, who was hired by Microsoft to write Windows New Technology) 
> > ROT+1?
> > 
> > WNT
> 
> You know what amuses me? More recent versions of Windows have had, right 
> on their login screen, a note that the OS is built on "NT Technology." 
> New Technology Technology.

Hey, it was designed by Information Management Systems Systems.


But what about IBM's Retarded Technology line? (Actually that would be 
Apple with the Performas.)

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article <1gv3xr0.n4qc521lg4qvcN%NOT.diskworld@mac.com.INVALID>,
 NOT.diskworld@mac.com.INVALID (Zaphod B) wrote:

> Henry <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
> > grokked
> 
> Now where does _that_ come from? I know I should know, I've read in the
> misty dawn of my youth - but where?

You just invoked Archangle  Michael.

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article <1gv4pmn.7f3h5hnyrikdN%andekl_no@saaf_spam.se>,
 andekl_no@saaf_spam.se (Anders Ekl�f) wrote:

> John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> > Charles Dyer wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:47:19 -0400, John M. wrote
> > > (in article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>):
> > > 
> > > > Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> > > 
> > > perhaps you might wish to provide a reference to support this assertion?
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> > > > unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> > 
> > That's my assertion. 
> > 
> > In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
> > because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.
> 
> It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...

If he couldn't get the SCSI CD burner working with 9 he shoulda keep a 
copy of 8.6 around. Driver incompatibility maybe?

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:53:40 +0200,
>     Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
> > Henry <henry999@eircom.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Since it hasn't been mentioned here in a good long while, let's see who
> >> can be first to explain, for the benefit of those who don't know, why
> >> HAL was called HAL?
> >
> > IBM++
> 
> Shouldn't that be IBM--?

Not when compared to the naming of the C++ Programming Language.

The term "++" is the increment operator in C, suggesting that IBM++ is
"the successor to IBM".

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:06:09 +0200,
    Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
>> > IBM++
>> 
>> Shouldn't that be IBM--?
>
> Not when compared to the naming of the C++ Programming Language.
>
> The term "++" is the increment operator in C, suggesting that IBM++ is
> "the successor to IBM".

Ah, but there's also the decrement operator, which in the sense of
IBM--, references the current value of IBM (IBM), and then decrements
it:
H = I - 1
A = B - 1
L = C - 1

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

Anders Ekl�f wrote:
> 
> John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> > Charles Dyer wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:47:19 -0400, John M. wrote
> > > (in article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>):
> > >
> > > > Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> > >
> > > perhaps you might wish to provide a reference to support this assertion?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> > > > unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> >
> > That's my assertion.
> >
> > In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
> > because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.
> 
> It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...

That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
obsolete every day.

I was advised by several experts on this very newsgroup last year to
abandon everything to do with SCSI a.s.a.p.

John

Walter Bushell wrote:
> 
> In article <1gv4pmn.7f3h5hnyrikdN%andekl_no@saaf_spam.se>,
>  andekl_no@saaf_spam.se (Anders Ekl�f) wrote:
> 
> > John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> >
> > > Charles Dyer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:47:19 -0400, John M. wrote
> > > > (in article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>):
> > > >
> > > > > Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> > > >
> > > > perhaps you might wish to provide a reference to support this assertion?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> > > > > unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> > >
> > > That's my assertion.
> > >
> > > In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
> > > because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.
> >
> > It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
> 
> If he couldn't get the SCSI CD burner working with 9 he shoulda keep a
> copy of 8.6 around. Driver incompatibility maybe?

That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for several years, and is becoming
more obsolete every day.

I was advised by several experts on this very newsgroup last year to
abandon everything to do with SCSI a.s.a.p, so I gave my SCSI drive away
to a charity recently.

> Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

More nonsense; guns AND automobiles kill people. Please stay on topic.
This newsgroup is for Macintosh programs, not guns or automobiles.

John

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:41:39 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> Anders Ekl�f wrote:

>> It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
> 
> That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
> obsolete every day.

You're not actually serious, obviously.
 
> I was advised by several experts on this very newsgroup last year to
> abandon everything to do with SCSI a.s.a.p.
 
If you say so.  I guess it depends on the "expert", and the context.
SCSI isn't going away any time soon.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:44:47 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>> 
>> If he couldn't get the SCSI CD burner working with 9 he shoulda keep a
>> copy of 8.6 around. Driver incompatibility maybe?
> 
> That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for several years, and is becoming
> more obsolete every day.
> 
> I was advised by several experts on this very newsgroup last year to
> abandon everything to do with SCSI a.s.a.p, so I gave my SCSI drive away
> to a charity recently.

Then you're a fool.

>> Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
> 
> More nonsense; guns AND automobiles kill people. Please stay on topic.
> This newsgroup is for Macintosh programs, not guns or automobiles.
 
....a fool taking exception to someone's sig file...

"John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote in message
news:42667832.476B1864@shaw.info...
> Anders Ekl�f wrote:
> >
> > John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> >
> > > Charles Dyer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:47:19 -0400, John M. wrote
> > > > (in article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>):
> > > >
> > > > > Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> > > >
> > > > perhaps you might wish to provide a reference to support this
assertion?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a
CD
> > > > > unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> > >
> > > That's my assertion.
> > >
> > > In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
> > > because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.
> >
> > It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
>
> That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
> obsolete every day.
>
> I was advised by several experts on this very newsgroup last year to
> abandon everything to do with SCSI a.s.a.p.

If someone advised you to abandon SCSI then they certainly aren't experts.
Does a home user need SCSI these days?  No, but, believe me, SCSI is alive
and well in the workstation and server market.

Greg

Walter Bushell wrote:
> 
> In article <1gv4pmn.7f3h5hnyrikdN%andekl_no@saaf_spam.se>,
>  andekl_no@saaf_spam.se (Anders Ekl�f) wrote:
> 
> > John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> >
> > > Charles Dyer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:47:19 -0400, John M. wrote
> > > > (in article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>):
> > > >
> > > > > Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> > > >
> > > > perhaps you might wish to provide a reference to support this assertion?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> > > > > unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> > >
> > > That's my assertion.
> > >
> > > In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
> > > because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.
> >
> > It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
> 
> If he couldn't get the SCSI CD burner working with 9 he shoulda keep a
> copy of 8.6 around. Driver incompatibility maybe?
 
Are you retarded?

You want me to copy OS 8.6 on top of OS 9.21? I tried copying an older
system on top of a slightly newer one years ago and it created havoc and
it taught me that one should never ever do that.

I didn't try to get the SCSI burner working when I bought my G4 tower
because SCSI is obsolete, so it would be stupid to install a SCSI card
into this computer, and I was advised of that on this newgroup. 

Also, are you suggesting to copy 8.6 on top of 9.21, which would wreat 
havoc, then upgrade (if that's possible) back to 9.21 after burning a
c.d., then go through that whole process again every time I want to burn
a c.d.? That's insane.

John

John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> > >
> > > In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
> > > because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.
> > 
> > It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
> 
> That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
> obsolete every day.

To some extent, yes, but it is still compatible, and that was what I
commented on.
For the record I still use a SCSI DDS-4 tape drive for backups on my
G4/533 at work. With Mac OS X 10.3.9 ! It's compatible.


-- 
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines 
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:37:25 GMT, Anders Ekl�f <andekl_no@saaf_spam.se> wrote:
> John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
>> > >
>> > > In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
>> > > because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.
>> > 
>> > It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
>> 
>> That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
>> obsolete every day.
> 
> To some extent, yes, but it is still compatible, and that was what I
> commented on.

Maybe the old 25-pin SCSI from the 1980's is "obsolete", but on high-end
equipment, modern SCSI is standard equipment.

John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> More nonsense; guns AND automobiles kill people. Please stay on topic.
> This newsgroup is for Macintosh programs, not guns or automobiles.

Um, that was his signature; as such, it has nothing to do with the post.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:44:47 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for several years, and is becoming
> more obsolete every day.

As others have remarked, SCSI is still very much around.  Our backup
server uses a SCSI DAT system and its less than six months old.

>> Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
>
> More nonsense; guns AND automobiles kill people. Please stay on topic.
> This newsgroup is for Macintosh programs, not guns or automobiles.

His signature has little to do with the content of his post.  Don't
confuse the two, and start a thread on his signature.

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

> That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
> obsolete every day.

It's obsolete in the respect that new machines (personal machines, I 
can't speak for large servers for example) don't use it, don't support 
it, and don't need it.

However, it's sometimes possible to MAKE a new computer compatible with 
older peripherals by adding that compatibility, and in the case of SCSI 
this is definitely true.

I would certainly not advise someone to use SCSI if they didn't need to, 
but if you have the peripherals already, and NEED compatibility, it's there.

> I was advised by several experts on this very newsgroup last year to
> abandon everything to do with SCSI a.s.a.p.
> 
> John

I don't know what advice you were gien but SCSI compatibility won't HURT 
you (unless the card has bad drivers or something).  It is also possible 
that adding a SCSI card to a G4 would cost more than a USB CD burner 
that's faster than your old one.  That's always a possibility.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:29:28 -0400,
    o-chan (poda@REMOVEmac.com) wrote:
> However, it's sometimes possible to MAKE a new computer compatible with 
> older peripherals by adding that compatibility, and in the case of SCSI 
> this is definitely true.

Or new peripherals.  Digital data acquisition for one of our instruments
is via a SCSI interface to a dual G5.  The instrument's brand new, as is
the G5.  There are plenty of new SCSI DAT drives being sold too (and 
this besides all the fancy new Ultra160 and Ultra320 drives being sold).

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:29:28 -0400, o-chan <poda@REMOVEmac.com> wrote:
>> That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
>> obsolete every day.
> 
> It's obsolete in the respect that new machines (personal machines, I 
> can't speak for large servers for example) don't use it, don't support 
> it, and don't need it.

In your obviously limited experience.  Your idea of a personal machine
may differ from my idea of same.  Of the 8 systems currently running
at my house, for instance, only one isn't using SCSI in one form or another.
You don't "need" it, and I do, for values of "need" which include using
the appropriate technology for a given requirement.

> However, it's sometimes possible to MAKE a new computer compatible with 
> older peripherals by adding that compatibility, and in the case of SCSI 
> this is definitely true.
 
SCSI isn't just "older peripherals".  "High-end" yes, but not just the
leftover stuff from a decade ago.

> I would certainly not advise someone to use SCSI if they didn't need to, 
> but if you have the peripherals already, and NEED compatibility, it's there.

Some of us buy new things with SCSI of one variety or another.  Mostly
that would be people who understand the difference, and when it's appropriate
to spend the money for that difference.  If you're happy with whatever
you're using, great, but that doesn't reflect the state of the industry.
 
Remember - Mac, BSD, and Unix in general have been dying for decades now.
I guess we can add SCSI to that list.  I'll keep using 'em all, because
they seem to have another few decades of good healthy life in 'em while
they're "dying".

Dave Hinz  <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Remember - Mac, BSD, and Unix in general have been dying for decades now.
>I guess we can add SCSI to that list.  I'll keep using 'em all, because
>they seem to have another few decades of good healthy life in 'em while
>they're "dying".

Usenet's been dying longer than any of those have been dying.

On 20 Apr 2005 16:08:25 -0400, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz  <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>Remember - Mac, BSD, and Unix in general have been dying for decades now.
>>I guess we can add SCSI to that list.  I'll keep using 'em all, because
>>they seem to have another few decades of good healthy life in 'em while
>>they're "dying".
> 
> Usenet's been dying longer than any of those have been dying.
 
Good point.  So the last post on Usenet will be talking about how
the others are dying.  When that happens, then I'll start worrying
about the health of the others.

"G.T." wrote:
> 
> "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote in message
> news:42667832.476B1864@shaw.info...
> > Anders Ekl�f wrote:
> > >
> > > John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Charles Dyer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:47:19 -0400, John M. wrote
> > > > > (in article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>):
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> > > > >
> > > > > perhaps you might wish to provide a reference to support this
> assertion?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a
> CD
> > > > > > unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> > > >
> > > > That's my assertion.
> > > >
> > > > In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
> > > > because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.
> > >
> > > It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
> >
> > That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
> > obsolete every day.
> >
> > I was advised by several experts on this very newsgroup last year to
> > abandon everything to do with SCSI a.s.a.p.
> 
> If someone advised you to abandon SCSI then they certainly aren't experts.
> Does a home user need SCSI these days?  No, but, believe me, SCSI is alive
> and well in the workstation and server market.
> 
> Greg

I wasn't referring to workstations or servers. I was referring to
burning CDs, which is how I started this chain. I also used SCSI for my
Jaz and Zip drives, and those certainly ARE obsolete.

Even though I live in a city of two million people, last year I was
lucky to find even one Macintosh used equipment dealer that would allow
me to copy my data from my Jaz and Zip drives onto a hard drive. The
store had only one Jaz drive left and at first the owner wasn't even
sure if he had one left in working condition.

John

Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:41:39 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > Anders Ekl�f wrote:
> 
> >> It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
> >
> > That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
> > obsolete every day.
> 
> You're not actually serious, obviously.
> 
> > I was advised by several experts on this very newsgroup last year to
> > abandon everything to do with SCSI a.s.a.p.
> 
> If you say so.  I guess it depends on the "expert", and the context.
> SCSI isn't going away any time soon.

It's not just me that says so. 

Everyone who knows Macintoshes say so.

Even though I live in a city of two million people, last year I was
lucky to find even one Macintosh used equipment dealer that would allow
me to copy my data from my (SCSI) Jaz and Zip drives onto a hard drive.
The store had only one Jaz drive left and at first the owner wasn't even
sure if he had one left in working condition.

John

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:34:26 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> "G.T." wrote:
>> 
>> "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote in message
>> news:42667832.476B1864@shaw.info...

>> > That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
>> > obsolete every day.

>> > I was advised by several experts on this very newsgroup last year to
>> > abandon everything to do with SCSI a.s.a.p.
>> 
>> If someone advised you to abandon SCSI then they certainly aren't experts.
>> Does a home user need SCSI these days?  No, but, believe me, SCSI is alive
>> and well in the workstation and server market.
 
> I wasn't referring to workstations or servers. I was referring to
> burning CDs, which is how I started this chain. 

Funny, I see you saying "everything to do with SCSI", just a few lines
up from here (shrug)

> I also used SCSI for my
> Jaz and Zip drives, and those certainly ARE obsolete.

They were obsolete when they were current.

> Even though I live in a city of two million people, last year I was
> lucky to find even one Macintosh used equipment dealer that would allow
> me to copy my data from my Jaz and Zip drives onto a hard drive. The
> store had only one Jaz drive left and at first the owner wasn't even
> sure if he had one left in working condition.
 
So, because iomega used SCSI for a product in search of a need,
the interface is useless.  Interesting chain of thought there, John.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:35:52 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> 
>> You're not actually serious, obviously.
>> If you say so.  I guess it depends on the "expert", and the context.
>> SCSI isn't going away any time soon.
> 
> It's not just me that says so. 
> Everyone who knows Macintoshes say so.

Overgeneralize much, John?
 
> Even though I live in a city of two million people, last year I was
> lucky to find even one Macintosh used equipment dealer that would allow
> me to copy my data from my (SCSI) Jaz and Zip drives onto a hard drive.

Yes, Jaz and Zip drives are old, ancient, and were crufty and pointless
when they were new.

> The store had only one Jaz drive left and at first the owner wasn't even
> sure if he had one left in working condition.

How is that related to SCSI?  They both run off 120VAC too; by your logic,
AC power is on the way out.

"Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:44:47 GMT,
>     John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> > That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for several years, and is becoming
> > more obsolete every day.
> 
> As others have remarked, SCSI is still very much around.  Our backup
> server uses a SCSI DAT system and its less than six months old.
> 
> >> Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
> >
> > More nonsense; guns AND automobiles kill people. Please stay on topic.
> > This newsgroup is for Macintosh programs, not guns or automobiles.
> 
> His signature has little to do with the content of his post.  Don't
> confuse the two, and start a thread on his signature.
> 
> --
> Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

Nonsense.

I'm not confused.

You're advocating someone saying in their Macintosh-related newgroup
correspondence something akin to, "SCSI is not obsolete -- and by the
way -- I love Adolph Hitler and killing babies."

There's enough crap written in people's messages when they stay on
topic; they shouldn't mix in inflammatory opinions on unrelated topics 
because it's going to rile some people (like me) with common sense.

If he wants to express his stupid about guns, he can do so on a
gun-related newsgroup.

John

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:59:34 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> "Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
>> 
>> His signature has little to do with the content of his post.  Don't
>> confuse the two, and start a thread on his signature.
 
> Nonsense.
> I'm not confused.

Evidence would seem to suggest otherwise.
 
> You're advocating someone saying in their Macintosh-related newgroup
> correspondence something akin to, "SCSI is not obsolete -- and by the
> way -- I love Adolph Hitler and killing babies."

Interesting how you equate an inatimate object with an evil person,
and an evil act.
 
> There's enough crap written in people's messages when they stay on
> topic; they shouldn't mix in inflammatory opinions on unrelated topics 
> because it's going to rile some people (like me) with common sense.

New to usenet are ya, John?  Deal with it.  Or not; doesn't matter.
 
> If he wants to express his stupid about guns, he can do so on a
> gun-related newsgroup.
 
words together coherent not sentence making

Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:35:52 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> >>
> >> You're not actually serious, obviously.
> >> If you say so.  I guess it depends on the "expert", and the context.
> >> SCSI isn't going away any time soon.
> >
> > It's not just me that says so.
> > Everyone who knows Macintoshes say so.
> 
> Overgeneralize much, John?
> 
> > Even though I live in a city of two million people, last year I was
> > lucky to find even one Macintosh used equipment dealer that would allow
> > me to copy my data from my (SCSI) Jaz and Zip drives onto a hard drive.
> 
> Yes, Jaz and Zip drives are old, ancient, and were crufty and pointless
> when they were new.

Bullshit. They were precious back-up storage devices. They saved my data
when my computer died. 

> > The store had only one Jaz drive left and at first the owner wasn't even
> > sure if he had one left in working condition.
> 
> How is that related to SCSI?  

The point was that SCSI devices were no longer being sold already last
year because they were already obsolete last year.

John

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:59:34 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
>> His signature has little to do with the content of his post.  Don't
>> confuse the two, and start a thread on his signature.
>> 
>> --
>> Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer
>
> Nonsense.
>
> I'm not confused.

Yes, you are.  Your comment responded to his signature, not to the
content of his post.  And the rest of your post is delusional ranting
to support your confused position.

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:05:38 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> The point was that SCSI devices were no longer being sold already last
> year because they were already obsolete last year.

You have a talent to take one example, and create an all-encompassing
rule from it.  Zip and Jaz drives (especially the latter) were crappy
devices when they were introduced.  So because a crappy SCSI device
goes off the market (as any crappy product would), you now content
that _all_ SCSI products are obsolete.  What a strange way to think!

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

Anders Ekl�f wrote:
> 
> John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> > > >
> > > > In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
> > > > because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.
> > >
> > > It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
> >
> > That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
> > obsolete every day.
> 
> To some extent, yes, but it is still compatible, and that was what I
> commented on.
> For the record I still use a SCSI DDS-4 tape drive for backups on my
> G4/533 at work. With Mac OS X 10.3.9 ! It's compatible.

SCSI cards are not compatible with G4s because SCSI is obsolete. I tried
to do something like that last year: I got a Firewire card installed in
a G3 and it didn't work. Why? Because G3s were too old for Firewire. The
result was that the Firewire didn't work. Similarly, it would be foolish
to install a SCSI card into a G4.


Last year when my SCSI Jaz drive broke, I couldn't get a replacement.
Why? Because no one was selling them and no one was fixing them. Why?
Because they were obsolete.

I was in danger more all the time of losing all my data because of this
obsolesence. Therefore I did the right thing to abandon SCSI, which I
was strongly and often advised to do by several experts on this
newsgroup and other Macintosh newsgroups and salesmen at Macintosh
stores (and no one argued to the contrary at that time) so I find the
current staunch defence of SCSI in this chain strange.

John

"Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:05:38 GMT,
>     John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> > The point was that SCSI devices were no longer being sold already last
> > year because they were already obsolete last year.
> 
> You have a talent to take one example, and create an all-encompassing
> rule from it.  Zip and Jaz drives (especially the latter) were crappy
> devices when they were introduced.  So because a crappy SCSI device
> goes off the market (as any crappy product would), you now content
> that _all_ SCSI products are obsolete.  What a strange way to think!

No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
by Firewire and USB.

John

In article <4266D6B5.790D4EE@shaw.info>, John M.
<john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> SCSI cards are not compatible with G4s because SCSI is obsolete.

The correct SCSI card is compatible with a G4. SCSI is not obsolete, it
is just not included by default in Macs any more.

> Last year when my SCSI Jaz drive broke, I couldn't get a replacement.
> Why? Because no one was selling them and no one was fixing them. Why?
> Because they were obsolete.

Yes, Jaz drives are obsolete. SCSI is not obsolete, it is just not
included by default in Macs any more.

> I was in danger more all the time of losing all my data because of this
> obsolesence. Therefore I did the right thing to abandon SCSI,

You did the right thing in abandoning Jaz technology. SCSI is not
obsolete, it is just not included by default in Macs any more.

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

"Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:05:38 GMT,
>     John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> > The point was that SCSI devices were no longer being sold already last
> > year because they were already obsolete last year.
> 
> You have a talent to take one example, and create an all-encompassing
> rule from it.  Zip and Jaz drives (especially the latter) were crappy
> devices when they were introduced.  So because a crappy SCSI device
> goes off the market (as any crappy product would), you now content
> that _all_ SCSI products are obsolete.  What a strange way to think!

Bullshit. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I just called two Macintosh stores. The salespeople at both stores told
me that SCSI is obsolete -- including SCSI CD burners.

At the first one, the saleslady suggested I look in the local used
products newspaper, because she said SCSI CD burners aren't made
anymore. They're not even available at used Macintosh equipment stores.

At the second store -- where they sell new equipment --  the salesman
told me they haven't had any SCSI Jaz or Zip drives OR SCSI CD burners
in the store for at least two years, because they've been replaced by
Firewire and USB CD burners.

I'm not the one making assumptions here; you are.

John

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:39:14 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
>
> I'm not the one making assumptions here; you are.

That's right John, all us purchasing and using brand new SCSI
peripherals with new Macs (and other computers) aren't really
doing so.

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

"Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:39:14 GMT,
>     John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> >
> > I'm not the one making assumptions here; you are.
> 
> That's right John, all us purchasing and using brand new SCSI
> peripherals with new Macs (and other computers) aren't really
> doing so.

So all the salespeople in the Mac stores and all the Mac advisors on the
newsgroups are wrong, then?

Maybe you're in another dimension?

John

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:15:33 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> So all the salespeople in the Mac stores and all the Mac advisors on the
> newsgroups are wrong, then?

You've been informed before that the "experts" you've been speaking
with, lack their claimed expertise.

> Maybe you're in another dimension?

I'm not; you're just unwilling to accept that your position that
SCSI is "dead" is untenable.

Why do you think that Apple still sells SCSI cards for new Macs,
and still sells high-performance SCSI peripherals?  Here's an
example of one:
<http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72402/wo/Wi7ew5kEzRks24OdGdm6z8DoxRO/1.0.11.1.0.6.25.7.11.3.3>

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> 
> In article <4266D6B5.790D4EE@shaw.info>, John M.
> <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> > SCSI cards are not compatible with G4s because SCSI is obsolete.
> 
> The correct SCSI card is compatible with a G4. SCSI is not obsolete, it
> is just not included by default in Macs any more.
> 
> > Last year when my SCSI Jaz drive broke, I couldn't get a replacement.
> > Why? Because no one was selling them and no one was fixing them. Why?
> > Because they were obsolete.
> 
> Yes, Jaz drives are obsolete. SCSI is not obsolete, it is just not
> included by default in Macs any more.
> 
> > I was in danger more all the time of losing all my data because of this
> > obsolesence. Therefore I did the right thing to abandon SCSI,
> 
> You did the right thing in abandoning Jaz technology. SCSI is not
> obsolete, it is just not included by default in Macs any more.

I learned the hard way that it's generally a bad idea to custom-rig
something like installing SCSI into a G4 or G5, though. I tried
something similar: Last year I hired a Mac technicain to install a
Firewire card into a G3 and it didn't work properly. I also
custom-installed a Keyspan USB card into my G3 and it caused lots of
problems, too, (like not allowing the computer to sleep) because the
computer wasn't designed for USB.

So when my G3 died last year, everyone advised me to abandon SCSI
altogether and get a G4 or G5, which I did, and the built-in  Firewire
and USB on my new, used G4 has been working fine.

John

In article <slrnd6drip.c8b.bevakupf@myhome.net>, Bev A. Kupf
<bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> That's right John, all us purchasing and using brand new SCSI
> peripherals with new Macs (and other computers) aren't really
> doing so.

We been HYPNOTIZED!

It's simple... SCSI has indeed largely disappeared from sight for the
average computer user and has been replaced by USB and Firewire. So
there's no surprise that sales droids would think it's dead.

John is confusing "disappeared from sight for the average computer
user" with "obsolete".

EOF

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

In article <4266F24E.514A53FD@shaw.info>, John M.
<john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> I learned the hard way that it's generally a bad idea to custom-rig
> something like installing SCSI into a G4 or G5, though. I tried
> something similar: Last year I hired a Mac technicain to install a
> Firewire card into a G3 and it didn't work properly. I also
> custom-installed a Keyspan USB card into my G3 and it caused lots of
> problems, too, (like not allowing the computer to sleep) because the
> computer wasn't designed for USB.
> 
> So when my G3 died last year, everyone advised me to abandon SCSI
> altogether and get a G4 or G5, which I did, and the built-in  Firewire
> and USB on my new, used G4 has been working fine.

Nothing above should lead you to conclude that SCSI is obsolete or a
"bad idea".

It should lead you to conclude that the "technician" you hired wasn't
competent and that built-in Firewire and USB work well for the average
user.

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

"Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:15:33 GMT,
>     John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> > So all the salespeople in the Mac stores and all the Mac advisors on the
> > newsgroups are wrong, then?
> 
> You've been informed before that the "experts" you've been speaking
> with, lack their claimed expertise.

When? What experts? The experts are still right. I just talked with a
Macintosh salesman at a local store. He's been a Macintosh salesman for
ten years or more. He just told me SCSI CD burners haven't been stocked
or even made for at least two years.

> > Maybe you're in another dimension?
> 
> I'm not; you're just unwilling to accept that your position that
> SCSI is "dead" is untenable.
> 
> Why do you think that Apple still sells SCSI cards for new Macs,
> and still sells high-performance SCSI peripherals?  Here's an
> example of one:
> <http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72402/wo/Wi7ew5kEzRks24OdGdm6z8DoxRO/1.0.11.1.0.6.25.7.11.3.3>
> 
> Beverly

Is that for CD burners? 

Anyway, why would I get a SCSI card installed when I could get a faster
Firewire or USB burner instead? And Firewire and USB are already built
into my computer and SCSI isn't.

John

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> 
> In article <4266F24E.514A53FD@shaw.info>, John M.
> <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> > I learned the hard way that it's generally a bad idea to custom-rig
> > something like installing SCSI into a G4 or G5, though. I tried
> > something similar: Last year I hired a Mac technicain to install a
> > Firewire card into a G3 and it didn't work properly. I also
> > custom-installed a Keyspan USB card into my G3 and it caused lots of
> > problems, too, (like not allowing the computer to sleep) because the
> > computer wasn't designed for USB.
> >
> > So when my G3 died last year, everyone advised me to abandon SCSI
> > altogether and get a G4 or G5, which I did, and the built-in  Firewire
> > and USB on my new, used G4 has been working fine.
> 
> Nothing above should lead you to conclude that SCSI is obsolete or a
> "bad idea".
> 
> It should lead you to conclude that the "technician" you hired wasn't
> competent and that built-in Firewire and USB work well for the average
> user.

Not true. I must have consulted ten or more Macintosh experts and they
unanimoustly agreed that SCSI is obsolete and that I had better get rid
of my SCSI altogether and upgrade to Firewire and USB. 

When I make a decision like that I don't rely on just one person. I
consulted probably ten Mac experts and they're still saying the same
thing today that they told me last year.

John

Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:59:34 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > "Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
> >>
> >> His signature has little to do with the content of his post.  Don't
> >> confuse the two, and start a thread on his signature.
> 
> > Nonsense.
> > I'm not confused.
> 
> Evidence would seem to suggest otherwise.
> 
> > You're advocating someone saying in their Macintosh-related newgroup
> > correspondence something akin to, "SCSI is not obsolete -- and by the
> > way -- I love Adolph Hitler and killing babies."
> 
> Interesting how you equate an inatimate object with an evil person,
> and an evil act.

Cars and guns are both inanimate --  when they're not being used. When
they're animate, both can be used to kill. That's such an axiom, it
shouldn't have to be explicated.

John
> 
> > There's enough crap written in people's messages when they stay on
> > topic; they shouldn't mix in inflammatory opinions on unrelated topics
> > because it's going to rile some people (like me) with common sense.
> 
> New to usenet are ya, John?  Deal with it.  Or not; doesn't matter.

You deal with it by staying on topic.
> 
> > If he wants to express his stupid opinion about guns, he can do so on a
> > gun-related newsgroup.

That's still valid advice, for the above-stated reasons. 

John

Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:22:27 +1200, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> >
> >> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> >>
> >> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> >> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> >>
> >> John
> >
> > Buy MacOS X Panther. Problem solved. OS 9 is ancient in terms of
> > computer time.

I'm not ready for that major project, as I already explained in this
chain. Besides, people in this chain claim that CD-burning is supposed
to work with OS 9 and Disk Burner, but it still doesn't.

> > BTW - if you're fishing for help you're going about it the wrong way my
> > friend. But if you're just a troll you're an idiot trying to slam the
> > Mac buy pointing out inadequacies in such an old version of the MacOS.
> 
> Especially when the "inadequacy" he pretends to find there doesn't exist.

I'm not pretending.

I thought maybe my CD was defective, so I bought another pack of CD-RWs.

But I'm having the same problem; a Disk Burner error message says, "The
burn operation could not be completed because the device could not be completed."

John

What I meant was:

"A Disk Burner error message says, "The burn operation could not be
completed because the device could not be supported."
 
John

In article <4266FCFA.9E6B33A0@shaw.info>, John M.
<john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> Not true. I must have consulted ten or more Macintosh experts and they
> unanimoustly agreed that SCSI is obsolete and that I had better get rid
> of my SCSI altogether and upgrade to Firewire and USB. 

Without knowing the qulifactions of the people you consulted, if they
indeed claimed SCSI is obsolete then they are perhaps expert only in
dealing with consumer level configurations.

In performance-demanding situations SCSI remains alive and well, I
assure you.

Would I recommend the average user invest in a SCSI card and
peripherals? No.

Would I claim that because of that SCSI was "obsolete"? No.

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:01:55 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
>> Why do you think that Apple still sells SCSI cards for new Macs,
>> and still sells high-performance SCSI peripherals?  Here's an
>> example of one:
>> <http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72402/wo/Wi7ew5kEzRks24OdGdm6z8DoxRO/1.0.11.1.0.6.25.7.11.3.3>
>> 
> Is that for CD burners? 

The SCSI cards Apple sells will work with SCSI CD burners, or DVD burners.

> Anyway, why would I get a SCSI card installed when I could get a faster
> Firewire or USB burner instead? And Firewire and USB are already built
> into my computer and SCSI isn't.

Two reasons - performance and reliability.

And btw, you haven't answered this question, "Why do you think that
Apple stil sells SCSI cards for new Macs"?

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:08:09 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> Not true. I must have consulted ten or more Macintosh experts and they
> unanimoustly agreed that SCSI is obsolete and that I had better get rid
> of my SCSI altogether and upgrade to Firewire and USB. 

In previous messages you've stated that you have consulted Mac sales
personnel.  Their qualification is to sell you their stock.

And has been repeatedly pointed out to you - there are high performance
SCSI peripherals that are used with Macs (new Macs).

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

In article <4266FB84.9254B37B@shaw.info>,
 "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> > Why do you think that Apple still sells SCSI cards for new Macs,
> > and still sells high-performance SCSI peripherals?  Here's an
> > example of one:
> > <http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72402/wo/Wi
> > 7ew5kEzRks24OdGdm6z8DoxRO/1.0.11.1.0.6.25.7.11.3.3>
> 
> Is that for CD burners?

Look: A Mac-compatible SCSI CD burner.
<http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Hewlett%20Packard/C6020I/>

G

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> and all the Mac advisors on the newsgroups are wrong, then?

Um, it seems to me that a lot of Mac advisors on the newsgroups are
telling you otherwise right here and your attitude is, "Fuck it, it
doesn't agree with my preconceived notion."

Perhaps it's my imagination, but I recall having purchased a couple of
SCSI CD-RW drives for clients in the past year.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> > I'm not confused.
> 
> Yes, you are.  Your comment responded to his signature, not to the
> content of his post. 

And if he used a decent newsreader instead of Netscape 4.8, that
signature wouldn't have even been quoted since it's set off by a proper
sig dash.

-- 
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius

John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> SCSI cards are not compatible with G4s because SCSI is obsolete.

So the SCSI card that's in my MDD G4 and perfectly function isn't really
perfectly functional after all?  The times I've temporarily connected
someone's SCSI hard drive to this card to retrieve data I really
haven't?  Who'd a thunk?

-- 
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:30:03 -0400
  mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

:John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
:
:> SCSI cards are not compatible with G4s because SCSI is obsolete.
:
:So the SCSI card that's in my MDD G4 and perfectly function isn't really
:perfectly functional after all?  The times I've temporarily connected
:someone's SCSI hard drive to this card to retrieve data I really
:haven't?  Who'd a thunk?

We have a SCSI card in our G4 (Sawtooth), but we had to order it
separately. At the time we were using a SCSI scanner and a big (2
gig!) SCSI hard drive.

We're still using the scanner, although the HD has been replaced with
a small (120 gig!) firewire drive.

-- 
Looks like more of Texas to Me

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:05:38 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:35:52 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

>> > It's not just me that says so.
>> > Everyone who knows Macintoshes say so.
>> 
>> Overgeneralize much, John?

Absence of reply noted.

>> > Even though I live in a city of two million people, last year I was
>> > lucky to find even one Macintosh used equipment dealer that would allow
>> > me to copy my data from my (SCSI) Jaz and Zip drives onto a hard drive.
>> 
>> Yes, Jaz and Zip drives are old, ancient, and were crufty and pointless
>> when they were new.
> 
> Bullshit. They were precious back-up storage devices. They saved my data
> when my computer died. 

There were always better technologies even when they were new.  If they
hadn't had the recurring "click of death" problems then maybe, maybe they
would have passed "critical mass" into a viable long-term storage
technology, but enough people had their hardware rendered useless by
a (repeated) design defect that they lost it there.

>> > The store had only one Jaz drive left and at first the owner wasn't even
>> > sure if he had one left in working condition.
>> 
>> How is that related to SCSI?  
> 
> The point was that SCSI devices were no longer being sold already last
> year because they were already obsolete last year.

So you contend that you can't buy current devicies with a SCSI interface?
I counter your (wrong) assumption by stating that you're not looking
in the right place, and are unaware of the state of the industry.  It's
fine that you don't have a need for it, really it is.  But, just because
you don't know about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Hate to break
it to you, but the world is larger than your personal experience alone.
 
By your logic, Antarctica doesn't exist because (presumably) you've
never been there.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:30:15 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> "Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:05:38 GMT,
>>     John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
>> > The point was that SCSI devices were no longer being sold already last
>> > year because they were already obsolete last year.
>> 
>> You have a talent to take one example, and create an all-encompassing
>> rule from it.  Zip and Jaz drives (especially the latter) were crappy
>> devices when they were introduced.  So because a crappy SCSI device
>> goes off the market (as any crappy product would), you now content
>> that _all_ SCSI products are obsolete.  What a strange way to think!
> 
> No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
> Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
> by Firewire and USB.

As the standard interface for a consumer-level Mac system, yes.

Maybe you need better experts.  Then again, it seems like you're not
the type of person to listen real well.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:39:14 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> "Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:05:38 GMT,
>>     John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
>> > The point was that SCSI devices were no longer being sold already last
>> > year because they were already obsolete last year.
>> 
>> You have a talent to take one example, and create an all-encompassing
>> rule from it.  Zip and Jaz drives (especially the latter) were crappy
>> devices when they were introduced.  So because a crappy SCSI device
>> goes off the market (as any crappy product would), you now content
>> that _all_ SCSI products are obsolete.  What a strange way to think!
> 
> Bullshit. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

That's kinda funny, considering her background.
 
> I just called two Macintosh stores. The salespeople at both stores told
> me that SCSI is obsolete -- including SCSI CD burners.

They said the word "obsolete" did they?  Or, did they say "we don't have
any"?
> 
> At the first one, the saleslady suggested I look in the local used
> products newspaper,

You're considering a sales clerk at a computer store to be one of your
"experts"?  This has _got_ to be a troll.


>  because she said SCSI CD burners aren't made
> anymore. 

In her limited and wrong opinion. If you'd google for the string:
scsi cd-rw

....you get over a MILLION hits.  I mean, I hate to point out that your 
"expert" sales clerk is wrong, but she is.

> They're not even available at used Macintosh equipment stores.

You can buy them new from Amazon, why would you buy used crap when
you can buy new?  Oh, look...I can have one in two days for $31.79
plus shipping.

> At the second store -- where they sell new equipment --  the salesman
> told me they haven't had any SCSI Jaz or Zip drives 

I've got a Jaz drive in a cabinet here at work.  Nobody wants it. 

> OR SCSI CD burners
> in the store for at least two years, because they've been replaced by
> Firewire and USB CD burners.

His words, or your distorted paraphrase?  If his words, then it's again
limited by his experience.

> I'm not the one making assumptions here; you are.
 
Ow.  Ow ow ow.  My irony detectors are overloading.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:01:55 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> "Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:15:33 GMT,
>>     John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
>> > So all the salespeople in the Mac stores and all the Mac advisors on the
>> > newsgroups are wrong, then?
>> 
>> You've been informed before that the "experts" you've been speaking
>> with, lack their claimed expertise.
> 
> When? What experts? The experts are still right. I just talked with a
> Macintosh salesman at a local store. He's been a Macintosh salesman for
> ten years or more. He just told me SCSI CD burners haven't been stocked
> or even made for at least two years.
 
He may be right that he doesn't stock them, but he is absolutely wrong
that they haven't "even been made for at least two years".  Completely
and utterly wrong.  You need better experts.  Oddly enoug, you have a group
of them here, but you don't believe any of us.

>> Why do you think that Apple still sells SCSI cards for new Macs,
>> and still sells high-performance SCSI peripherals?  Here's an
>> example of one:
 
> Is that for CD burners? 

It's a SCSI interface.  It's to interface to SCSI devices.  CD burners
can be SCSI devices, so yes, it's for SCSI CD burners.  And many other
things.
 
> Anyway, why would I get a SCSI card installed when I could get a faster
> Firewire or USB burner instead? And Firewire and USB are already built
> into my computer and SCSI isn't.
 
We've been saying that if you don't want it, that's fine, but just because
you're ignorant and happy with what you have, doesn't mean a technology
you don't understand, is dead.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:30:02 -0400, Mike Rosenberg <mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid> wrote:
 
> Um, it seems to me that a lot of Mac advisors on the newsgroups are
> telling you otherwise right here and your attitude is, "Fuck it, it
> doesn't agree with my preconceived notion."
 
Yup.  Anyone check headers to see if it's "Mark Conrad"?  Wouldn't be his
first nym-shift.

> Perhaps it's my imagination, but I recall having purchased a couple of
> SCSI CD-RW drives for clients in the past year.

Depends.  Did you bill them for the devices, and did you then get in
trouble for selling non-existant items?   That'd tell ya. 

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:22:37 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> 
>> You did the right thing in abandoning Jaz technology. SCSI is not
>> obsolete, it is just not included by default in Macs any more.
> 
> I learned the hard way that it's generally a bad idea to custom-rig
> something like installing SCSI into a G4 or G5, though.

Yes, I can see that your technical abilities, understanding, and lack
of willingness to learn from others would cause problems when you
try to perform a trivial technical task.

> I tried
> something similar: Last year I hired a Mac technicain to install a
> Firewire card into a G3 and it didn't work properly. 

Was this at the same place that told you that SCSI CD-R drives hadn't
been made in over two years?

> I also
> custom-installed a Keyspan USB card into my G3 and it caused lots of
> problems, too, (like not allowing the computer to sleep) because the
> computer wasn't designed for USB.

So you also can't read specs before you buy and install parts.  I
see a pattern here.
 
> So when my G3 died last year, everyone advised me to abandon SCSI
> altogether and get a G4 or G5, which I did, and the built-in  Firewire
> and USB on my new, used G4 has been working fine.

Good for you.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:21:17 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:59:34 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

>> > You're advocating someone saying in their Macintosh-related newgroup
>> > correspondence something akin to, "SCSI is not obsolete -- and by the
>> > way -- I love Adolph Hitler and killing babies."
 
>> Interesting how you equate an inatimate object with an evil person,
>> and an evil act.
 
> Cars and guns are both inanimate --  when they're not being used. When
> they're animate, both can be used to kill. That's such an axiom, it
> shouldn't have to be explicated.

>> > There's enough crap written in people's messages when they stay on
>> > topic; they shouldn't mix in inflammatory opinions on unrelated topics
>> > because it's going to rile some people (like me) with common sense.
>> 
>> New to usenet are ya, John?  Deal with it.  Or not; doesn't matter.
> 
> You deal with it by staying on topic.

Let's see.  I respond to your rant, and you tell _me_ to stay on-topic?
Wow.

>> > If he wants to express his stupid opinion about guns, he can do so on a
>> > gun-related newsgroup.
> 
> That's still valid advice, for the above-stated reasons. 

It's not even a coherent thought, let alone "valid advice".

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:29:11 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:22:27 +1200, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>> > John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
>> >>
>> >> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
>> >> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
>> >>
>> >> John
>> >
>> > Buy MacOS X Panther. Problem solved. OS 9 is ancient in terms of
>> > computer time.
> 
> I'm not ready for that major project, as I already explained in this
> chain. Besides, people in this chain claim that CD-burning is supposed
> to work with OS 9 and Disk Burner, but it still doesn't.

Based on your obvious inability to follow instructions and identify
who actually is an expert (as opposed to a sales droid) I do not find your
failure surprising.

>> Especially when the "inadequacy" he pretends to find there doesn't exist.
 
> I'm not pretending.

Maybe you have a special Mac then, shipped _just to you_.  The rest of
the folks with similar setups are able to do it.
 
> I thought maybe my CD was defective, so I bought another pack of CD-RWs.
 
> But I'm having the same problem; a Disk Burner error message says, "The
> burn operation could not be completed because the device could not be completed."

Hey, look.  An error message, and almost right.  How about you get us
the _real_ error message, and we'll try to actually fix your problem.
Not that you'll listen... 

"John M." wrote:
> 
> Dave Hinz wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:22:27 +1200, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > > John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> > >>
> > >> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> > >> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >
> > > Buy MacOS X Panther. Problem solved. OS 9 is ancient in terms of
> > > computer time.
> 
> I'm not ready for that major project, as I already explained in this
> chain. Besides, people in this chain claim that CD-burning is supposed
> to work with OS 9 and Disk Burner, but it still doesn't.
> 
> > > BTW - if you're fishing for help you're going about it the wrong way my
> > > friend. But if you're just a troll you're an idiot trying to slam the
> > > Mac buy pointing out inadequacies in such an old version of the MacOS.
> >
> > Especially when the "inadequacy" he pretends to find there doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm not pretending.
> 
> I thought maybe my CD was defective, so I bought another pack of CD-RWs.
> 
> But I'm having the same problem; a Disk Burner error message says, "The
> burn operation could not be completed because the device could not be supported."
> 
> John

After all the scores of letters written in this chain, my original
question still stands: "Why do people brag about how great Macintosh
computers are?

I was treated with contempt by various people here for asking that
question, yet ironically, no one has figured out how to solve my
problem, which should be simple and easy to solve if the computers are
as great as the writers claim.

I was told that Disk Burner will work with Mac OS 9, but I can't get it
to work.

I even went to a store and bought a new pack of CD-RWs but I get the
same message with the first one of those CD-RWs that I've tried, just as
I did with the CD-RW that I tried before I bought the new pack of CD-RWs.

 I still can't record any info that I try to copy from my computer using
OS 9.

No one has even come up with a possible explanation of why I'm getting
that error message, that says that the "device could not be supported".

John

Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> 
> Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
> 
> > > I'm not confused.
> >
> > Yes, you are.  Your comment responded to his signature, not to the
> > content of his post.
> 
> And if he used a decent newsreader instead of Netscape 4.8, that
> signature wouldn't have even been quoted since it's set off by a proper
> sig dash.

A few years ago -- at the suggestion of experts on a Macintosh newsgroup
 --  I put a lot of time and effort into learning Newsreader (I think
that's the name of the program) but I found that it was unreliable and
the design was very cluttered and complex, so I gave up on it in
frustration years ago.

Communicator's newsgroup function is much simpler and better designed
that Newsreader's.

John

"Bev A. Kupf" wrote:

> And btw, you haven't answered this question, "Why do you think that
> Apple stil sells SCSI cards for new Macs"?

I guess I was given the wrong information by the various people who
advised me. But it appears to be a small minority of people who still
use SCSI.

John

On 2005-04-16 04:17:19 +0930, "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> said:

> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> 
> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> 
> John

Your attitude suggests you migrated to Mac from Windoze... right?

Seems like your present challenge (of burning CD's) is still a quantum 
leap ahead of the typical problem of being able to boot their O$ 
without being brought to a screeching halt by the infamous 'blue screen 
of death', so try channeling the energy expended on bitching into 
something more constructive -- like counting your blessings for owning 
a G4.

Switching to OSX will allow you to burn CD's with no third party 
software required. What's more, it will open a thousand other 
possibilities for (probably) less than the price Toast will set you 
back anyhow.

Try playing with Disk Utility or iTunes (to name but a few 
possibilities) which ship with OSX as standard.

Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> 
> John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> > and all the Mac advisors on the newsgroups are wrong, then?
> 
> Um, it seems to me that a lot of Mac advisors on the newsgroups are
> telling you otherwise right here and your attitude is, "Fuck it, it
> doesn't agree with my preconceived notion."

That's right, because it's illogical that one year, the unanimous advice
from a variety of experts would be that SCSI is obsolete and that I
should drop it like a hot potato, while the next year the unanimous
advice is the opposite: that it's current technology and that there's no
good reason to abandon it.

Understandably, it takes a lot of convincing to change my mind after
being indoctrinated with the first set of advice.

John

> Perhaps it's my imagination, but I recall having purchased a couple of
> SCSI CD-RW drives for clients in the past year.
> 
> --
> Mike Rosenberg

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> 
> In article <4266FCFA.9E6B33A0@shaw.info>, John M.
> <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> > Not true. I must have consulted ten or more Macintosh experts and they
> > unanimoustly agreed that SCSI is obsolete and that I had better get rid
> > of my SCSI altogether and upgrade to Firewire and USB.
> 
> Without knowing the qulifactions of the people you consulted, if they
> indeed claimed SCSI is obsolete then they are perhaps expert only in
> dealing with consumer level configurations.
> 
> In performance-demanding situations SCSI remains alive and well, I
> assure you.
> 
> Would I recommend the average user invest in a SCSI card and
> peripherals? No.

The advice I got from those people was about small "consumer-level
configurations" because I am a small consumer, so it sounds like the
original advice I got was appropriate for my needs.

John

> Would I claim that because of that SCSI was "obsolete"? No.

"John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote in message
news:4267C275.C02CAD73@shaw.info...
> "John M." wrote:
> >
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:22:27 +1200, Jamie Kahn Genet
<jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > > > John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> > > >>
> > > >> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> > > >> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> > > >>
> > > >> John
> > > >
> > > > Buy MacOS X Panther. Problem solved. OS 9 is ancient in terms of
> > > > computer time.
> >
> > I'm not ready for that major project, as I already explained in this
> > chain. Besides, people in this chain claim that CD-burning is supposed
> > to work with OS 9 and Disk Burner, but it still doesn't.
> >
> > > > BTW - if you're fishing for help you're going about it the wrong way
my
> > > > friend. But if you're just a troll you're an idiot trying to slam
the
> > > > Mac buy pointing out inadequacies in such an old version of the
MacOS.
> > >
> > > Especially when the "inadequacy" he pretends to find there doesn't
exist.
> >
> > I'm not pretending.
> >
> > I thought maybe my CD was defective, so I bought another pack of CD-RWs.
> >
> > But I'm having the same problem; a Disk Burner error message says, "The
> > burn operation could not be completed because the device could not be
supported."
> >
> > John
>
> After all the scores of letters written in this chain, my original
> question still stands: "Why do people brag about how great Macintosh
> computers are?
>
> I was treated with contempt by various people here for asking that
> question, yet ironically, no one has figured out how to solve my
> problem, which should be simple and easy to solve if the computers are
> as great as the writers claim.
>

For problems such as these it's obviously PEBKAC.  And your inflammatory
subject line sure isn't going to gain you any sympathy.

IMO there are many reasons that Macs are great, and there are far less
reasons to be annoyed with them than there are to be annoyed with other
personal computers.

Greg

"John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote in message
news:4267C7D5.566E4A1C@shaw.info...
> Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> >
> > > and all the Mac advisors on the newsgroups are wrong, then?
> >
> > Um, it seems to me that a lot of Mac advisors on the newsgroups are
> > telling you otherwise right here and your attitude is, "Fuck it, it
> > doesn't agree with my preconceived notion."
>
> That's right, because it's illogical that one year, the unanimous advice
> from a variety of experts would be that SCSI is obsolete and that I
> should drop it like a hot potato, while the next year the unanimous
> advice is the opposite: that it's current technology and that there's no
> good reason to abandon it.
>

Only trolls speak in absolutes.  There was never unanimous advice that SCSI
was obsolete and there isn't unanimous advice that it's current technology
now, the answer lies somewhere in between.

Greg

On 20/04/2005 6:24 PM, John M. wrote:
> Anders Ekl�f wrote:
> 
>>John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
>>>>>because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.
>>>>
>>>>It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
>>>
>>>That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
>>>obsolete every day.
>>
>>To some extent, yes, but it is still compatible, and that was what I
>>commented on.
>>For the record I still use a SCSI DDS-4 tape drive for backups on my
>>G4/533 at work. With Mac OS X 10.3.9 ! It's compatible.
> 
> 
> SCSI cards are not compatible with G4s because SCSI is obsolete. I tried
> to do something like that last year: I got a Firewire card installed in
> a G3 and it didn't work. Why? Because G3s were too old for Firewire. The
> result was that the Firewire didn't work. Similarly, it would be foolish
> to install a SCSI card into a G4.
>
SCSI was a custom system option from Apple when I purchased my G4.  The 
Quicksilver case came with SCSI-specific drive mounts.

Perhaps you mean "install a SCSI card into a Mac OS G4 system"?  It 
sounds like you are conflating the notion of SCSI with the fact that 
SCSI never really took off for the home computer market.

[...]

> I was in danger more all the time of losing all my data because of this
> obsolesence. Therefore I did the right thing to abandon SCSI, which I
> was strongly and often advised to do by several experts on this
> newsgroup and other Macintosh newsgroups and salesmen at Macintosh
> stores (and no one argued to the contrary at that time) so I find the
> current staunch defence of SCSI in this chain strange.
> 

Because some of us use systems *right now* that shipped with SCSI 
systems.  SCSI is not "obsolete."  It may be weak and barely supported 
on Mac OS (I have no idea if this is the case) but it is certainly 
supported on OS X, and was several years ago.

The switch to SATA in the newer boxes, and the rise of USB 2.0 and 
Firewire, pretty much minimizes the power home user application for 
SCSI.  However, it is still quite common for bigger iron to come with 
fast, hot SCSI hardware RAID systems.  There are disk pack devices that 
are really nothing but networked SCSI drives.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:46:09 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
>> Without knowing the qulifactions of the people you consulted, if they
>> indeed claimed SCSI is obsolete then they are perhaps expert only in
>> dealing with consumer level configurations.
>> 
>> In performance-demanding situations SCSI remains alive and well, I
>> assure you.
>> 
>> Would I recommend the average user invest in a SCSI card and
>> peripherals? No.
>
> The advice I got from those people was about small "consumer-level
> configurations" because I am a small consumer, so it sounds like the
> original advice I got was appropriate for my needs.

That might certainly be true.  However, it still remains that
there are several people who have G4 Macs with SCSI CD-RWs that
can burn CDs using only software provided by Apple.  It doesn't
explain why you're unable to do so, but that inability doesn't
extend to a wide-spread generality.

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

On 21/04/2005 11:46 AM, John M. wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> 
>>In article <4266FCFA.9E6B33A0@shaw.info>, John M.
>><john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not true. I must have consulted ten or more Macintosh experts and they
>>>unanimoustly agreed that SCSI is obsolete and that I had better get rid
>>>of my SCSI altogether and upgrade to Firewire and USB.
>>
>>Without knowing the qulifactions of the people you consulted, if they
>>indeed claimed SCSI is obsolete then they are perhaps expert only in
>>dealing with consumer level configurations.
>>
>>In performance-demanding situations SCSI remains alive and well, I
>>assure you.
>>
>>Would I recommend the average user invest in a SCSI card and
>>peripherals? No.
> 
> 
> The advice I got from those people was about small "consumer-level
> configurations" because I am a small consumer, so it sounds like the
> original advice I got was appropriate for my needs.
> 

Then you confused "appropriate" with "obsolete."  This is the primary 
issue that most people had with your original post.  USENET is a written 
medium.  Expect misunderstanding if you make extreme claims using 
inaccurate language.

1. Early G4 systems had a SCSI option direct from Apple.  This, perhaps, 
is only applicable to OS X systems, but I'm guessing this is not the 
case, since they would have come pre-installed with Mac OS 9 at the time.

2. SCSI is, indeed, live and well for those applications that require 
certain acceptable minimums of performance and reliability.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:19:21 GMT
  "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

:A few years ago -- at the suggestion of experts on a Macintosh newsgroup
: --  I put a lot of time and effort into learning Newsreader (I think
:that's the name of the program) but I found that it was unreliable and
:the design was very cluttered and complex, so I gave up on it in
:frustration years ago.

If you're looking for "experts on a [insert any subject here]
newsgroup" then you will search a long time in vain.

-- 
Looks like more of Texas to Me

On 20/04/2005 5:35 PM, John M. wrote:
> 
> Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:41:39 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
>>
>>>Anders Ekl�f wrote:
>>
>>>>It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
>>>
>>>That's absurd. SCSI has been obsolete for years, and is becoming more
>>>obsolete every day.
>>
>>You're not actually serious, obviously.
>>
>>
>>>I was advised by several experts on this very newsgroup last year to
>>>abandon everything to do with SCSI a.s.a.p.
>>
>>If you say so.  I guess it depends on the "expert", and the context.
>>SCSI isn't going away any time soon.
> 
> 
> It's not just me that says so. 
> 
> Everyone who knows Macintoshes say so.
>
> Even though I live in a city of two million people, last year I was
> lucky to find even one Macintosh used equipment dealer that would allow
> me to copy my data from my (SCSI) Jaz and Zip drives onto a hard drive.
> The store had only one Jaz drive left and at first the owner wasn't even
> sure if he had one left in working condition.
>
Aren't those proprietary formats?  Isn't this really an issue with 
getting data off an obsolete /media/ onto a more acceptable one?

SCSI is just the road here.  Gasoline engine cars will certainly be 
obsolete someday, and many early designs are already so.  Does this make 
roads and avenues obsolete?

Why blame the protocol used to push bytes around when it is the way 
bytes are layed down onto the media that is the real problem?  If that 
SCSI chain was used to lay your precious data down onto an HFS partition 
or DAT tape, we would likely not be having this (admittedly) one-sided 
conversation.

Then again, by your logic, if SCSI is obsolete, then so is Firewire, USB 
and EIDE.   Nothing is stopping someone from making a removable 
Firewire/USB device that contains SCSI drive.

Furthermore, the card that goes into the computer is just an "adapter." 
  The controller is on the drive itself, and the fact is that most 
modern IDE drives are _actually_ SCSI drives at the controller level. 
Your fancy ATAPI CD-ROM or tape drive is also, at it's heart, a SCSI device.

On 21 Apr 2005 12:30:22 -0400,
    Warren Oates (Warren.Oates@Gmail.Com) wrote:
>
> If you're looking for "experts on a [insert any subject here]
> newsgroup" then you will search a long time in vain.
>

I fear that's an over-statement.  There are certainly folks who 
post to this group and others in the c.s.m hierarchy whose advice
and experience would qualify them as expert in what they know.
Greg Weston, Mike Rosenberg, Balderstone, Dave Hinz, David C.,
Barry Margolin, are a few examples of very knowledgeable 
contributors to these newsgroups.

Bev
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:10:44 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
 
> After all the scores of letters written in this chain, my original
> question still stands: "Why do people brag about how great Macintosh
> computers are?

Because you have to go out of your way to get one to misbehave or
be insecure, as contrasted to Windows which requires substantial effort
to behave well and safely.
 
> I was treated with contempt by various people here for asking that
> question,

No, you're treated with contempt because you've shown a pig-headed
obstinance to allowing clues to sink into your brain.  You claim,
counter to all evidence, that SCSI is dead, and your initial claim
that MacOS9 couldn't burn CDs without special software is demonstrably
false.  It's only today that you finally got around to posting an
error message, and you didn't even get _that_ right on the first try.

> yet ironically, no one has figured out how to solve my
> problem, which should be simple and easy to solve if the computers are
> as great as the writers claim.

You just gave a usable error message a few hours ago, after pissing off
the very people you're asking for help for what, a week?

You have an odd way of trying to encourage people to help you with
your problem.

> I was told that Disk Burner will work with Mac OS 9, but I can't get it
> to work.

Yes, it will work with OS9, and yes, you can't get it to work.
 
> I even went to a store and bought a new pack of CD-RWs but I get the
> same message with the first one of those CD-RWs that I've tried, just as
> I did with the CD-RW that I tried before I bought the new pack of CD-RWs.

Yes, by all means, keep trying the same thing that didn't help, over and
over, because maybe that'll change something.  WTF?!?!?!?
 
>  I still can't record any info that I try to copy from my computer using
> OS 9.
 
> No one has even come up with a possible explanation of why I'm getting
> that error message, that says that the "device could not be supported".

Today is the first you've given that error message, and most of the
people who would have wanted to help you have probably already given up
on you.  Hint: what happens if you plug that error message into,
say, Apple's support site?

Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:10:44 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> > After all the scores of letters written in this chain, my original
> > question still stands: "Why do people brag about how great Macintosh
> > computers are?
> 
> Because you have to go out of your way to get one to misbehave or
> be insecure, as contrasted to Windows which requires substantial effort
> to behave well and safely.

Macintoshes also require substantial effort.

> > I was treated with contempt by various people here for asking that
> > question,
> 
> No, you're treated with contempt because you've shown a pig-headed
> obstinance to allowing clues to sink into your brain.  You claim,
> counter to all evidence, that SCSI is dead, 

It fit the evidence I was taught. I may come across as being pig-headed
to you but it's actually the fact that I'm not gullible and it shows
that I am highly skeptical, and that's of course prudent.

> and your initial claim
> that MacOS9 couldn't burn CDs without special software is demonstrably
> false.  It's only today that you finally got around to posting an
> error message, and you didn't even get _that_ right on the first try.

I got it wrong because I was getting tired because of spending hours
without a break writing about other stuff.
 
> > yet ironically, no one has figured out how to solve my
> > problem, which should be simple and easy to solve if the computers are
> > as great as the writers claim.
> 
> You just gave a usable error message a few hours ago, after pissing off
> the very people you're asking for help for what, a week?
> 
> You have an odd way of trying to encourage people to help you with
> your problem.

I didn't mean to piss anyone off. I was just frustrated.

> > I was told that Disk Burner will work with Mac OS 9, but I can't get it
> > to work.
> 
> Yes, it will work with OS9, and yes, you can't get it to work.
> 
> > I even went to a store and bought a new pack of CD-RWs but I get the
> > same message with the first one of those CD-RWs that I've tried, just as
> > I did with the CD-RW that I tried before I bought the new pack of CD-RWs.

> Yes, by all means, keep trying the same thing that didn't help, over and
> over, because maybe that'll change something.  WTF?!?!?!?

It's not the same thing. I had tried only one blank CD-R and one CD-RW
with data already on it, and I then bought other CD-RWs at the
suggesiton of one of the responders here.
> 
> >  I still can't record any info that I try to copy from my computer using
> > OS 9.
> 
> > No one has even come up with a possible explanation of why I'm getting
> > that error message, that says that the "device could not be supported".
> 
> Today is the first you've given that error message, and most of the
> people who would have wanted to help you have probably already given up
> on you.  Hint: what happens if you plug that error message into,
> say, Apple's support site?

I tried that the other day but I got sidetracked by all the other stuff
going on in the thread.

I looked at it agin just now.

I found this:
Mac OS 9: How to Burn a CD and Choose a Format
This document explains how to burn a CD using a CD-R or CD-RW drive and
explains which disc format may be most appropriate for your needs.	
Important: The information in this document assumes you have installed
iTunes 2 or Authoring Support 1.1.3 or later and are using Mac OS 9.
Both are available for download from Apple Software Downloads..."

I already have Authoring Support extension 1.1.8, so I shouldn't have to
download anything.

John

Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:30:15 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > "Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:05:38 GMT,
> >>     John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> >> > The point was that SCSI devices were no longer being sold already last
> >> > year because they were already obsolete last year.
> >>
> >> You have a talent to take one example, and create an all-encompassing
> >> rule from it.  Zip and Jaz drives (especially the latter) were crappy
> >> devices when they were introduced.  So because a crappy SCSI device
> >> goes off the market (as any crappy product would), you now content
> >> that _all_ SCSI products are obsolete.  What a strange way to think!
> >
> > No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
> > Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
> > by Firewire and USB.
> 
> As the standard interface for a consumer-level Mac system, yes.

The people arguing with me were promoting SCSI for server/ISP types of
needs, while it seems to me that the people contradicting that opinion
were promoting the so-called 'consumer-level' Mac system to me.

> Maybe you need better experts.  Then again, it seems like you're not
> the type of person to listen real well.

I do listen, but I'm highly skeptical and I don't tend to jump to
conclusions,  and that's smart.

John

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:17:03 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:10:44 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
>> 
>> > After all the scores of letters written in this chain, my original
>> > question still stands: "Why do people brag about how great Macintosh
>> > computers are?
>> 
>> Because you have to go out of your way to get one to misbehave or
>> be insecure, as contrasted to Windows which requires substantial effort
>> to behave well and safely.
 
> Macintoshes also require substantial effort.

No, they don't.  People who have problems with them inflict those
problems on themselves.  If you're doing something and it's hard, it's
because you're doing it the wrong way.  Without exception.

> 
>> > I was treated with contempt by various people here for asking that
>> > question,
>> 
>> No, you're treated with contempt because you've shown a pig-headed
>> obstinance to allowing clues to sink into your brain.  You claim,
>> counter to all evidence, that SCSI is dead, 
 
> It fit the evidence I was taught. I may come across as being pig-headed
> to you but it's actually the fact that I'm not gullible and it shows
> that I am highly skeptical, and that's of course prudent.

Your choice of experts to trust is questionable at best.  A store clerk's
knowledge of IT will usually be limited to their store's interests.

>> and your initial claim
>> that MacOS9 couldn't burn CDs without special software is demonstrably
>> false.  It's only today that you finally got around to posting an
>> error message, and you didn't even get _that_ right on the first try.
> 
> I got it wrong because I was getting tired because of spending hours
> without a break writing about other stuff.

And you wrote more about it, which contradicts both of your earlier attempts
at an error message.

>> You just gave a usable error message a few hours ago, after pissing off
>> the very people you're asking for help for what, a week?
>> You have an odd way of trying to encourage people to help you with
>> your problem.
> 
> I didn't mean to piss anyone off. I was just frustrated.

If you say so.

>> > I even went to a store and bought a new pack of CD-RWs but I get the
>> > same message with the first one of those CD-RWs that I've tried, just as
>> > I did with the CD-RW that I tried before I bought the new pack of CD-RWs.
> 
>> Yes, by all means, keep trying the same thing that didn't help, over and
>> over, because maybe that'll change something.  WTF?!?!?!?
> 
> It's not the same thing. I had tried only one blank CD-R and one CD-RW
> with data already on it, and I then bought other CD-RWs at the
> suggesiton of one of the responders here.

So you buy new media because you get a ...device error?  Er, OK.

>> Today is the first you've given that error message, and most of the
>> people who would have wanted to help you have probably already given up
>> on you.  Hint: what happens if you plug that error message into,
>> say, Apple's support site?
> 
> I tried that the other day but I got sidetracked by all the other stuff
> going on in the thread.
> 
> I looked at it agin just now.
> 
> I found this:
> Mac OS 9: How to Burn a CD and Choose a Format
> This document explains how to burn a CD using a CD-R or CD-RW drive and
> explains which disc format may be most appropriate for your needs.	
> Important: The information in this document assumes you have installed
> iTunes 2 or Authoring Support 1.1.3 or later and are using Mac OS 9.
> Both are available for download from Apple Software Downloads..."
 
> I already have Authoring Support extension 1.1.8, so I shouldn't have to
> download anything.

If there's a newer version than 1.1.8, why not try that?
 

"G.T." wrote:
> 
> "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote in message
> news:4267C7D5.566E4A1C@shaw.info...
> > Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> > >
> > > John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > >
> > > > and all the Mac advisors on the newsgroups are wrong, then?
> > >
> > > Um, it seems to me that a lot of Mac advisors on the newsgroups are
> > > telling you otherwise right here and your attitude is, "Fuck it, it
> > > doesn't agree with my preconceived notion."
> >
> > That's right, because it's illogical that one year, the unanimous advice
> > from a variety of experts would be that SCSI is obsolete and that I
> > should drop it like a hot potato, while the next year the unanimous
> > advice is the opposite: that it's current technology and that there's no
> > good reason to abandon it.
> >
> 
> Only trolls speak in absolutes.  

That statement is also an absolute. Are you admitting that you're a
Trojan?            :-)      Just kidding. _I'm _ not paranoid about 'trolls'.

> There was never unanimous advice that SCSI
> was obsolete and there isn't unanimous advice that it's current technology
> now, the answer lies somewhere in between.
> 
> Greg

If it's not obsolete then in effect it is current. (It's currently being
used without being old-fashioned, in other words.)

John

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:26:38 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:30:15 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

>> > No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
>> > Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
>> > by Firewire and USB.

>> As the standard interface for a consumer-level Mac system, yes.

> The people arguing with me were promoting SCSI for server/ISP types of
> needs, 

We were?  I seem to recall mentioning that 7 of my 8 home systems are
running SCSI of some variety.

> while it seems to me that the people contradicting that opinion
> were promoting the so-called 'consumer-level' Mac system to me.

No, we're saying that it ships with lesser interfaces, but you can add
SCSI if you choose to (unless you buy a non-expandable type of Mac).
 
>> Maybe you need better experts.  Then again, it seems like you're not
>> the type of person to listen real well.
> 
> I do listen, but I'm highly skeptical and I don't tend to jump to
> conclusions,  and that's smart.

Why don't you google and get actual facts?  That's smarter than believing
some random sales weasel, while ignoring people who make a living in IT.

clvrmnky wrote:
> 
> On 21/04/2005 11:46 AM, John M. wrote:
> > Dave Balderstone wrote:
> >
> >>In article <4266FCFA.9E6B33A0@shaw.info>, John M.
> >><john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Not true. I must have consulted ten or more Macintosh experts and they
> >>>unanimoustly agreed that SCSI is obsolete and that I had better get rid
> >>>of my SCSI altogether and upgrade to Firewire and USB.
> >>
> >>Without knowing the qulifactions of the people you consulted, if they
> >>indeed claimed SCSI is obsolete then they are perhaps expert only in
> >>dealing with consumer level configurations.
> >>
> >>In performance-demanding situations SCSI remains alive and well, I
> >>assure you.
> >>
> >>Would I recommend the average user invest in a SCSI card and
> >>peripherals? No.
> >
> >
> > The advice I got from those people was about small "consumer-level
> > configurations" because I am a small consumer, so it sounds like the
> > original advice I got was appropriate for my needs.
> >
> 
> Then you confused "appropriate" with "obsolete."  This is the primary
> issue that most people had with your original post.  USENET is a written
> medium.  Expect misunderstanding if you make extreme claims using
> inaccurate language.

I didn't confuse appropriateness with obsolecence. I was merely
repeating the claims of obsolecence made by Mac afficianados I trusted.
Don't shoot the messenger.

John

Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:22:37 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > Dave Balderstone wrote:
> >>
> >> You did the right thing in abandoning Jaz technology. SCSI is not
> >> obsolete, it is just not included by default in Macs any more.
> >
> > I learned the hard way that it's generally a bad idea to custom-rig
> > something like installing SCSI into a G4 or G5, though.
> 
> Yes, I can see that your technical abilities, understanding, and lack
> of willingness to learn from others would cause problems when you
> try to perform a trivial technical task.
> 
> > I tried
> > something similar: Last year I hired a Mac technicain to install a
> > Firewire card into a G3 and it didn't work properly.
> 
> Was this at the same place that told you that SCSI CD-R drives hadn't
> been made in over two years?
> 
> > I also
> > custom-installed a Keyspan USB card into my G3 and it caused lots of
> > problems, too, (like not allowing the computer to sleep) because the
> > computer wasn't designed for USB.
> 
> So you also can't read specs before you buy and install parts.  I
> see a pattern here.

No; I did everything correctly when I installed the USB card. 

You sure make a lot of false assumptions, Dave (and they're all negative).

John

Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:17:03 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:10:44 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> >>
> >> > After all the scores of letters written in this chain, my original
> >> > question still stands: "Why do people brag about how great Macintosh
> >> > computers are?
> >>
> >> Because you have to go out of your way to get one to misbehave or
> >> be insecure, as contrasted to Windows which requires substantial effort
> >> to behave well and safely.
> 
> > Macintoshes also require substantial effort.
> 
> No, they don't.  People who have problems with them inflict those
> problems on themselves.  If you're doing something and it's hard, it's
> because you're doing it the wrong way.  Without exception.

That made me laugh and smile, Dave! You're a comedian.
> 
> So you buy new media because you get a ...device error?  Er, OK.

No; I didn't have any blank CDs left. 

> If there's a newer version than 1.1.8, why not try that?

That shouldn't be necessary, because the Apple site says I should be
able to copy data onto CDs using Authoring Support 1.1.3 (or higher, is
the implication). If you're right and the cause of not being able to
burn CDs is not having the latest version of Authoring Support
extension, then it would mean Apple had made a mistake on its Web site,
and that would contradict your claim (above) that people who have
problems with their Macintoshes are solely responsible.

John

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:52:12 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dave Hinz wrote:

>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:52:12 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
>> 
>> > I also
>> > custom-installed a Keyspan USB card into my G3 and it caused lots of
>> > problems, too, (like not allowing the computer to sleep) because the
>> > computer wasn't designed for USB.
>> 
>> So you also can't read specs before you buy and install parts.  I
>> see a pattern here.
> 
> No; I did everything correctly when I installed the USB card. 

You just said that it didn't work because the computer wasn't designed 
for USB.  So, the card and the computer have incompatible specs, yet
you installed it anyway.
> 
> You sure make a lot of false assumptions, Dave (and they're all negative).
 
I'm just working with the information you provide.  Did you google for
SCSI CD-RW yet?

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:09:32 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:17:03 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
>> > Dave Hinz wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:10:44 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > After all the scores of letters written in this chain, my original
>> >> > question still stands: "Why do people brag about how great Macintosh
>> >> > computers are?
>> >>
>> >> Because you have to go out of your way to get one to misbehave or
>> >> be insecure, as contrasted to Windows which requires substantial effort
>> >> to behave well and safely.
>> 
>> > Macintoshes also require substantial effort.
>> 
>> No, they don't.  People who have problems with them inflict those
>> problems on themselves.  If you're doing something and it's hard, it's
>> because you're doing it the wrong way.  Without exception.
> 
> That made me laugh and smile, Dave! You're a comedian.

Showing you can't distinguish humor from reality.

>> If there's a newer version than 1.1.8, why not try that?
> 
> That shouldn't be necessary, because the Apple site says I should be
> able to copy data onto CDs using Authoring Support 1.1.3 (or higher, is
> the implication).

Maybe whatever you have, is corrupt, John.  Try a newer version than you
have.  If it doesn't help, you're no worse off, and you've upgraded
something.

>  If you're right and the cause of not being able to
> burn CDs is not having the latest version of Authoring Support
> extension, then it would mean Apple had made a mistake on its Web site,

Or that you've fucked something up with your random stumblings...

> and that would contradict your claim (above) that people who have
> problems with their Macintoshes are solely responsible.

Upgrade it and find out.  Worst case, it still doesn't work.  Or not.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:09:32 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> That shouldn't be necessary, because the Apple site says I should be
> able to copy data onto CDs using Authoring Support 1.1.3 (or higher, is
> the implication). If you're right and the cause of not being able to
> burn CDs is not having the latest version of Authoring Support
> extension, 

Would you expect Word 5.1 to open a file created with Word X?
There is a more recent version of Authoring Support than 1.1.8.
Would you expect 1.1.8 to support a drive made after 1.1.8 was
released?

> then it would mean Apple had made a mistake on its Web site,
> and that would contradict your claim (above) that people who have
> problems with their Macintoshes are solely responsible.

More likely your search was incomplete or not thorough.

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:52:12 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:52:12 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I also
> >> > custom-installed a Keyspan USB card into my G3 and it caused lots of
> >> > problems, too, (like not allowing the computer to sleep) because the
> >> > computer wasn't designed for USB.
> >>
> >> So you also can't read specs before you buy and install parts.  I
> >> see a pattern here.
> >
> > No; I did everything correctly when I installed the USB card.
> 
> You just said that it didn't work because the computer wasn't designed
> for USB.  So, the card and the computer have incompatible specs, yet
> you installed it anyway.

That's Keyspan's fault. I needed a USB port to run my printer. Keyspan
designed the USB card and claimed that it was generally compatible with
Macs. 

Besides, every installation of hardware and program is likely to cause
problems. That's why there are "Read Me" files and thousands of
computer-related newsgroups and computer technicians and repair people
and phone tech support personnel, ectetera.

What you're implying is that no one should install anything into
computers, because most installations are problematic in one way or
another, and even the topflight experts can't forsee every possible
thing that could go wrong. 

What you're saying is like saying, "Don't walk on the streets, because
you might get hit by a car."

> > You sure make a lot of false assumptions, Dave (and they're all negative).
> 
> I'm just working with the information you provide.  Did you google for
> SCSI CD-RW yet?

No; I didn't bother because I'm convinced. 

John

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:37:54 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> 
>> You just said that it didn't work because the computer wasn't designed
>> for USB.  So, the card and the computer have incompatible specs, yet
>> you installed it anyway.
> 
> That's Keyspan's fault. I needed a USB port to run my printer. Keyspan
> designed the USB card and claimed that it was generally compatible with
> Macs. 

Riiiiiiiight, the package said "generally compatible with Macs", is that
your claim?  What's the model number sparky, I'll go check the website
_for_ you and show you that the specs are more precise than "generally
works".
 
> Besides, every installation of hardware and program is likely to cause
> problems.

My direct personal experience of close to 25 years of making money in
the computing field is in contradiction to your claim.

>  That's why there are "Read Me" files and thousands of
> computer-related newsgroups and computer technicians and repair people
> and phone tech support personnel, ectetera.

Yes, so that people will - gasp - READ THEM, to not screw up and try to
install something that can't work, as you claim your whatever card doesn't.

> What you're implying is that no one should install anything into
> computers, because most installations are problematic in one way or
> another, and even the topflight experts can't forsee every possible
> thing that could go wrong. 

No, what I'm saying outright is that you have shown us a remarkable
ability to ignore reality, and that any problem you had installing 
hardware or software is a self-induced result of that.

> What you're saying is like saying, "Don't walk on the streets, because
> you might get hit by a car."

No, I'm saying "learn how to look for cars, and don't ignore the truck
headed right at you".

>> > You sure make a lot of false assumptions, Dave (and they're all negative).
>> 
>> I'm just working with the information you provide.  Did you google for
>> SCSI CD-RW yet?
> 
> No; I didn't bother because I'm convinced. 
 
So you're avoiding googling for something, because some sales weasel told
you they weren't being made anymore, and you don't want to find out how
you're wrong.  Over a MILLION hits showing you you're wrong.

I can't see any point continuing with someone like you.

"Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:46:09 GMT,
>     John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> >> Without knowing the qulifactions of the people you consulted, if they
> >> indeed claimed SCSI is obsolete then they are perhaps expert only in
> >> dealing with consumer level configurations.
> >>
> >> In performance-demanding situations SCSI remains alive and well, I
> >> assure you.
> >>
> >> Would I recommend the average user invest in a SCSI card and
> >> peripherals? No.
> >
> > The advice I got from those people was about small "consumer-level
> > configurations" because I am a small consumer, so it sounds like the
> > original advice I got was appropriate for my needs.
> 
> That might certainly be true.  However, it still remains that
> there are several people who have G4 Macs with SCSI CD-RWs that
> can burn CDs using only software provided by Apple.  It doesn't
> explain why you're unable to do so, but that inability doesn't
> extend to a wide-spread generality.

What about the built-in CD-RWs in G4 towers? Shouldn't CD-burning work
with the built-in CD-RWs when using OS9 on a G4 tower?

John

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:06:09 +0200,
>     Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:

[...]

> >> > IBM++
> >> 
> >> Shouldn't that be IBM--?
> >
> > Not when compared to the naming of the C++ Programming Language.
> >
> > The term "++" is the increment operator in C, suggesting that IBM++ is
> > "the successor to IBM".
> 
> Ah, but there's also the decrement operator, which in the sense of
> IBM--, references the current value of IBM (IBM), and then decrements
> it:
> H = I - 1
> A = B - 1
> L = C - 1

Isn't that a bit far-fetched?

"John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> writes:

> What about the built-in CD-RWs in G4 towers? Shouldn't CD-burning work
> with the built-in CD-RWs when using OS9 on a G4 tower?

They seem to work for everyone else besides you.

-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --    http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

In article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> 
> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.

You'd have the same problem with Windows 2000, NT, Me, 98, and 95?  Your
point is?

-- 

-------------------- http://www.techhouse.org/lou ----------------------
"Dragonmaster Lou"    | "Searching for a distant star, heading off to  
lou at tealstudios com| Iscandar, leaving all we love behind, who knows
Tech House Alum       | what dangers we'll find..."                    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <4266D7F7.F82C61FB@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
> No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
> Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
> by Firewire and USB.

On consumer grade machines, yeah, that pretty much is the case.

On higher-end enterprise grade hardware, SCSI is still doing very well,
thank you very much.

-- 

-------------------- http://www.techhouse.org/lou ----------------------
"Dragonmaster Lou"    | "Searching for a distant star, heading off to  
lou at tealstudios com| Iscandar, leaving all we love behind, who knows
Tech House Alum       | what dangers we'll find..."                    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:14:09 +0000 (UTC), Dragonmaster Lou <lou@SPAM.ME.AND.DIE.tealstudios.com> wrote:
> In article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
>> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
>> 
>> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
>> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> 
> You'd have the same problem with Windows 2000, NT, Me, 98, and 95?  Your
> point is?
 
He doesn't have one, he's also wrong.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:03:25 +0200,
    Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
>> > The term "++" is the increment operator in C, suggesting that IBM++ is
>> > "the successor to IBM".
>> 
>> Ah, but there's also the decrement operator, which in the sense of
>> IBM--, references the current value of IBM (IBM), and then decrements
>> it:
>> H = I - 1
>> A = B - 1
>> L = C - 1
>
> Isn't that a bit far-fetched?

No more far fetched than the increment operator that you used.

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:37:54 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> That's Keyspan's fault. I needed a USB port to run my printer. Keyspan
> designed the USB card and claimed that it was generally compatible with
> Macs. 

Keyspan made two USB cards - neither is claimed to be "generally"
compatible with Macs.  

The first is compatible with any Mac that has at least one PCI
slot available for the card.  The minimum OS version is 8.6. 

The second also needs OS 8.6 or higher, and is compatible with
the USB drivers in OS X.  It does have greater hardware
requirements - Rev.  B Beige G3 (or later), Blue & White G3, or
G4 Powermac - with an available PCI slot.  It is also
incompatible with Rev.  A Beige G3s, or older PCI Macs upgraded
to G3 processors (eg.  7200).  It also only supports USB 1.1 under
OS 8.6 - 9.2. 

Neither description says "generally" compatible with Macs.
Both claim Mac compatibility with supported models.

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:03:25 +0200,
>     Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
> >> > The term "++" is the increment operator in C, suggesting that IBM++ is
> >> > "the successor to IBM".
> >> 
> >> Ah, but there's also the decrement operator, which in the sense of
> >> IBM--, references the current value of IBM (IBM), and then decrements
> >> it:
> >> H = I - 1
> >> A = B - 1
> >> L = C - 1
> >
> > Isn't that a bit far-fetched?
> 
> No more far fetched than the increment operator that you used.

It's widely used.

In article <slrnd6fm7m.cjh.bevakupf@myhome.net>, Bev A. Kupf
<bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> Greg Weston, Mike Rosenberg, Balderstone, Dave Hinz, David C.,
> Barry Margolin, are a few examples of very knowledgeable 
> contributors to these newsgroups.

We're not on a first name basis? Or is it bad luck to name three Dave's
in a row?

;-)

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> Greg Weston, Mike Rosenberg, Balderstone, Dave Hinz, David C.,
> Barry Margolin, are a few examples of very knowledgeable 
> contributors to these newsgroups.

Tha Bev Kupf woman isn't too shabby, either.  ;-)

-- 
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:40:07 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <slrnd6fm7m.cjh.bevakupf@myhome.net>, Bev A. Kupf
><bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
> 
>> Greg Weston, Mike Rosenberg, Balderstone, Dave Hinz, David C.,
>> Barry Margolin, are a few examples of very knowledgeable 
>> contributors to these newsgroups.
> 
> We're not on a first name basis? Or is it bad luck to name three Dave's
> in a row?

In my experience, yes.  My boss would agree; he's got 4 Daves as employees.

Dave "out of a team of 12, that is" Hinz

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:50:53 -0400, Mike Rosenberg <mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid> wrote:
> Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
> 
>> Greg Weston, Mike Rosenberg, Balderstone, Dave Hinz, David C.,
>> Barry Margolin, are a few examples of very knowledgeable 
>> contributors to these newsgroups.
> 
> Tha Bev Kupf woman isn't too shabby, either.  ;-)
 
I was going to say the same thing.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:35:39 +0200,
    Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
>> No more far fetched than the increment operator that you used.
>
> It's widely used.

So is the decrement operator.

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:40:07 -0600,
    Dave Balderstone (dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca) wrote:
> In article <slrnd6fm7m.cjh.bevakupf@myhome.net>, Bev A. Kupf
><bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
>
>> Greg Weston, Mike Rosenberg, Balderstone, Dave Hinz, David C.,
>> Barry Margolin, are a few examples of very knowledgeable 
>> contributors to these newsgroups.
>
> We're not on a first name basis? Or is it bad luck to name three Dave's
> in a row?

Sorry, typed in a hurry.  

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

In article <slrnd6gamm.d0q.bevakupf@myhome.net>, Bev A. Kupf
<bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> Sorry, typed in a hurry.  

<http://www.kithfan.org/work/transcripts/one/davesino.html>

;-)

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:28:45 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <slrnd6gamm.d0q.bevakupf@myhome.net>, Bev A. Kupf
><bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, typed in a hurry.  
> 
><http://www.kithfan.org/work/transcripts/one/davesino.html>

<http://www.freondream.com/ice/daves.html>

Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:26:38 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> >
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:30:15 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> > The people arguing with me were promoting SCSI for server/ISP types of
> > needs,
> 
> We were?  I seem to recall mentioning that 7 of my 8 home systems are
> running SCSI of some variety.

Oh. Okay.

> > while it seems to me that the people contradicting that opinion
> > were promoting the so-called 'consumer-level' Mac system to me.
> 
> No, we're saying that it ships with lesser interfaces, but you can add
> SCSI if you choose to (unless you buy a non-expandable type of Mac).
> 
> >> Maybe you need better experts.  Then again, it seems like you're not
> >> the type of person to listen real well.
> >
> > I do listen, but I'm highly skeptical and I don't tend to jump to
> > conclusions,  and that's smart.
> 
> Why don't you google and get actual facts?  That's smarter than believing
> some random sales weasel, while ignoring people who make a living in IT.

I wouldn't know what to type in the search box of the search engine. I
could get thousands of pages about SCSI but none of it relevant to my search.

I could take several hours or even days of searching on the Internet and
I still might not find a conclusive answer, partly because not all Web
sites are kept up to date. 

I've got more urgent things to take care of than to spend large amounts
of time researching whether or not SCSI is current technology for
Macintoshes. I got rid of my SCSI equipment and have no plans on buying more.

I got rid of my SCSI equipment last year based on the advise of 
Macintosh experts whom I trusted. I didn't have any reason to be
suspiciious of their advice. 

Computer salespeople make a living from selling computer equipment so
they should be knowlegeable. If they're not they're likely to be fired.
You're not likely to find a computer salesman who's been on the job for
10 years who's an ignoramus about computer equipment.

Also, the people who advised me last year on the Mac newsgroups are just
as likely to have been making their living from IT as the ones in this
thread and they advised me to drop SCSI altogether.

John

Dragonmaster Lou wrote:
> 
> In article <4266D7F7.F82C61FB@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
> > No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
> > Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
> > by Firewire and USB.
> 
> On consumer grade machines, yeah, that pretty much is the case.

You disagree with Dave on that.

John
 
> On higher-end enterprise grade hardware, SCSI is still doing very well,
> thank you very much.

In article <42690F1F.63ECA4B1@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
> Dragonmaster Lou wrote:
>> 
>> In article <4266D7F7.F82C61FB@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
>> > No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
>> > Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
>> > by Firewire and USB.
>> 
>> On consumer grade machines, yeah, that pretty much is the case.
> 
> You disagree with Dave on that.

Well, if you're a true performance-minded enthusiast, then yeah, SCSI
could still be used on consumer-grade machines.  SCSI devices still tend
to be the highest-performing, most reliable stuff out there.

Of course, they also cost a premium, and typically you'd need to get a
SCSI adapter on top of the SCSI devices.  For myself and for most people
I know, Firewire/USB offers good enough performance for significantly
less money.

-- 

-------------------- http://www.techhouse.org/lou ----------------------
"Dragonmaster Lou"    | "Searching for a distant star, heading off to  
lou at tealstudios com| Iscandar, leaving all we love behind, who knows
Tech House Alum       | what dangers we'll find..."                    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <42690E76.49E86296@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
> I got rid of my SCSI equipment last year based on the advise of 
> Macintosh experts whom I trusted. I didn't have any reason to be
> suspiciious of their advice. 
> 
> Computer salespeople make a living from selling computer equipment so
> they should be knowlegeable. If they're not they're likely to be fired.
> You're not likely to find a computer salesman who's been on the job for
> 10 years who's an ignoramus about computer equipment.

Hardly.  Computer salesmen are no different than car salesmen.  They
know just enough junk to be able to sell their stuff, or at the very
least they know just enough to convince customers that they know what
they're talking about.  I can't recall *ever* talking to a knowledgeable
computer salesman.  You may have been more fortunately, but remember
that the salesman's main purpose is to sell you something, not to be an
expert in what he or she sells.  For example:

http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/cs_stupsales.shtml

> Also, the people who advised me last year on the Mac newsgroups are just
> as likely to have been making their living from IT as the ones in this
> thread and they advised me to drop SCSI altogether.

Well, I probably would do the same thing (as a matter of fact, I did
when I got a Quicksilver G4).  SCSI is no longer a standard feature of
Macs out of the box and SCSI is more expensive in general.  So if you
don't need the benefits of SCSI, why bother with the added expense.

-- 

-------------------- http://www.techhouse.org/lou ----------------------
"Dragonmaster Lou"    | "Searching for a distant star, heading off to  
lou at tealstudios com| Iscandar, leaving all we love behind, who knows
Tech House Alum       | what dangers we'll find..."                    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:37:54 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> >>
> >> You just said that it didn't work because the computer wasn't designed
> >> for USB.  So, the card and the computer have incompatible specs, yet
> >> you installed it anyway.
> >
> > That's Keyspan's fault. I needed a USB port to run my printer. Keyspan
> > designed the USB card and claimed that it was generally compatible with
> > Macs.
> 
> Riiiiiiiight, the package said "generally compatible with Macs", is that
> your claim?  What's the model number sparky, I'll go check the website
> _for_ you and show you that the specs are more precise than "generally
> works".

No, blockhead; I didn't say that was a quote from Keyspan's literature.
It was a paraphrase. The company claimed that the USB card was
compatible with Macintoshes but there are always caveats. 

Why do I have to spell everything out for you? The more you write, the
more you come across as being a clod. You just made another false
assumption by thinking I was quoting from the company literature.

> > Besides, every installation of hardware and program is likely to cause
> > problems.
> 
> My direct personal experience of close to 25 years of making money in
> the computing field is in contradiction to your claim.

That's an anomaly.

> >  That's why there are "Read Me" files and thousands of
> > computer-related newsgroups and computer technicians and repair people
> > and phone tech support personnel, ectetera.
> 
> Yes, so that people will - gasp - READ THEM, to not screw up and try to
> install something that can't work, as you claim your whatever card doesn't.

Read me files don't solve all problems. Most problems occur despite
following Read Me files to the letter. 

For example, I recently installed a wireless network in my home. The
company literature claimed it would take minutes. It took four or five
hours. One of the main reasons was that the ISP had to send a technician
to one of it's offices to adjust some hardware because its hardware was
adjusted for my old modem, not my new one. It took hours for the phone
tecnicians to figure this out. This scenario is typical of computer problems.

> > What you're implying is that no one should install anything into
> > computers, because most installations are problematic in one way or
> > another, and even the topflight experts can't forsee every possible
> > thing that could go wrong.
> 
> No, what I'm saying outright is that you have shown us a remarkable
> ability to ignore reality, 

What I've shown is skepticism and therefore intelligence. 

> and that any problem you had installing
> hardware or software is a self-induced result of that.

No; you're ignoring the reality that computer equipment, software and
manuals and salespeople and tech support people -- as well as computer
users -- are flawed and mistake-prone. You're displaying an unbelievable
ignorance -- an astounding ignorance, which again shows why computers
are so difficult to master. You claim that you've got 25 years of
experience in the computer business yet you make the preposterous claim
that anything that goes wrong with the computers is the user's fault.

This again shows why it's so hard to get at the truth when it comes to
learning computers (or anything else). You're supposed to be an expert
at computers with 25 years of experience, yet you make such an absud
claim that shows that you're out to lunch -- at least in some ways.

It's like saying that if a plane crashes, it could only be the pilot's
fault for not following his manual's instructions, and that it couldn't
lie with fault of the maintenance engineer who serviced the aircraft, or
a design flaw in the aircraft, or a mistake by the air traffic
controller, or bad weather, or a variety of these or other factors.

You're thinking is amazingly simplistic and just plain stupid.

> > What you're saying is like saying, "Don't walk on the streets, because
> > you might get hit by a car."
> 
> No, I'm saying "learn how to look for cars, and don't ignore the truck
> headed right at you".

No, that's not what you said. You said that because I knew there could
be compatiblily problems with the Keyspan USB card, that I shouldn't
have installed it, even though there was no good alternative. But every
third-party installation has potential compatiblity problems. (Even
every first-party installation has potential compatibltiy problems.)

> >> > You sure make a lot of false assumptions, Dave (and they're all negative).
> >>
> >> I'm just working with the information you provide.  Did you google for
> >> SCSI CD-RW yet?
> >
> > No; I didn't bother because I'm convinced.
> 
> So you're avoiding googling for something, because some sales weasel told
> you they weren't being made anymore, and you don't want to find out how
> you're wrong.  

No, I meant that I'm convinced that you're right about SCSI CD-RWs being current.

John

Over a MILLION hits showing you you're wrong.
> 
> I can't see any point continuing with someone like you.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:47:19 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> 
>> Why don't you google and get actual facts?  That's smarter than believing
>> some random sales weasel, while ignoring people who make a living in IT.
> 
> I wouldn't know what to type in the search box of the search engine. I
> could get thousands of pages about SCSI but none of it relevant to my search.

I gave you that, days ago.
"scsi cd-rw"
You could even have guessed that as a logical thing to try if you're,
you know, googling for information on, oh, scsi cd-rw or something.

> I could take several hours or even days of searching on the Internet and
> I still might not find a conclusive answer, partly because not all Web
> sites are kept up to date. 

I notice the fifth or so hit for the above google search is to
superwarehouse.com, with a page modified _yesterday_.  Is that current
enough for you?  They list SCSI CD-RW drives in a section called
Home:Storage:CD&DVD Drives:CD-RW Drives:SCSI CD-RW drives:


> I've got more urgent things to take care of than to spend large amounts
> of time researching whether or not SCSI is current technology for
> Macintoshes.

It took me 5 seconds to google it for you.  If you also can't run
google effectively, then you're clearly in need of the sort of help
that you won't get here.

> I got rid of my SCSI equipment and have no plans on buying more.

That's nice.

> I got rid of my SCSI equipment last year based on the advise of 
> Macintosh experts whom I trusted. I didn't have any reason to be
> suspiciious of their advice. 

And do you now?
 
> Computer salespeople make a living from selling computer equipment so
> they should be knowlegeable.

....about their own stock...

>  If they're not they're likely to be fired.
> You're not likely to find a computer salesman who's been on the job for
> 10 years who's an ignoramus about computer equipment.

He'll know his store's line, yes.  And if he were to say "Yes, SCSI is
currently made but you have to go somewhere else to buy it", _then_ he'd
be fired.

> Also, the people who advised me last year on the Mac newsgroups are just
> as likely to have been making their living from IT as the ones in this
> thread and they advised me to drop SCSI altogether.

I would submit that a sales droid in a computer store probably has a lower
level of understanding than, say, someone who designs computer systems
and networks for a living.  Just as they'll know where stuff is stocked
in their store better than I will.

What's your goal here, exactly?  What are you hoping to accomplish with
this topic, or your participation in the group in general?

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:50:07 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> Dragonmaster Lou wrote:
>> 
>> In article <4266D7F7.F82C61FB@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
>> > No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
>> > Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
>> > by Firewire and USB.
>> 
>> On consumer grade machines, yeah, that pretty much is the case.
> 
> You disagree with Dave on that.

Don't try to speak for me, John, you're barely qualified to speak for
yourself.

"Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:37:54 GMT,
>     John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> > That's Keyspan's fault. I needed a USB port to run my printer. Keyspan
> > designed the USB card and claimed that it was generally compatible with
> > Macs.
> 
> Keyspan made two USB cards - neither is claimed to be "generally"
> compatible with Macs.
> 
> The first is compatible with any Mac that has at least one PCI
> slot available for the card.  The minimum OS version is 8.6.
> 
> The second also needs OS 8.6 or higher, and is compatible with
> the USB drivers in OS X.  It does have greater hardware
> requirements - Rev.  B Beige G3 (or later), Blue & White G3, or
> G4 Powermac - with an available PCI slot.  It is also
> incompatible with Rev.  A Beige G3s, or older PCI Macs upgraded
> to G3 processors (eg.  7200).  It also only supports USB 1.1 under
> OS 8.6 - 9.2.
> 
> Neither description says "generally" compatible with Macs.
> Both claim Mac compatibility with supported models.

You, too, are making the false assumption that I'm quoting from
Keyspan's literature.

I never said -- or even implied -- that I was quoting from the company's literature.

Keyspan DID claim that it's cards were generally compatible with Macs. I
say "generally"  rather than "universally" because there are several
exceptions to the compatiblity of the USB cards with Macs, and you've
just listed the exceptions in your above statement.

John

In article <slrnd6g2mm.j30.lou@techhouse.brown.edu>,
Dragonmaster Lou  <lou@SPAM.ME.AND.DIE.tealstudios.com> wrote:
>In article <4266D7F7.F82C61FB@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
>> No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
>> Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
>> by Firewire and USB.
>
>On consumer grade machines, yeah, that pretty much is the case.
>
>On higher-end enterprise grade hardware, SCSI is still doing very well,
>thank you very much.

Well, the protocol, yes.  Very few high end storage systems use
traditional SCSI connections any more, though, it's all fibrechannel.

All of our 400 TB of storage at work is on fibrechannel, pretty much.
Some of it is SATA within the boxes, and then fibrechannel to the rest
of the SAN, but the really fast storage (HP StorageWorks EVA) is
fibrechannel all the way to the disk.

Tim

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:38:33 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:37:54 GMT, John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
>> > Dave Hinz wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You just said that it didn't work because the computer wasn't designed
>> >> for USB.  So, the card and the computer have incompatible specs, yet
>> >> you installed it anyway.
>> >
>> > That's Keyspan's fault. I needed a USB port to run my printer. Keyspan
>> > designed the USB card and claimed that it was generally compatible with
>> > Macs.
>> 
>> Riiiiiiiight, the package said "generally compatible with Macs", is that
>> your claim?  What's the model number sparky, I'll go check the website
>> _for_ you and show you that the specs are more precise than "generally
>> works".
> 
> No, blockhead; I didn't say that was a quote from Keyspan's literature.
> It was a paraphrase. 

It was, as usual, a crappy paraphrase based on your habitual and 
uncurable inability to understand technical terms.

>The company claimed that the USB card was
> compatible with Macintoshes but there are always caveats. 

It's right above.  Your words: "...and claimed that it was generally
compatible with Macs."
 
> Why do I have to spell everything out for you? The more you write, the
> more you come across as being a clod. You just made another false
> assumption by thinking I was quoting from the company literature.

Right, you just said what you said (which is wrong) when saying what
they said, but you were just saying it, not saying they said it.
Gotcha.

>> > Besides, every installation of hardware and program is likely to cause
>> > problems.
>> 
>> My direct personal experience of close to 25 years of making money in
>> the computing field is in contradiction to your claim.
 
> That's an anomaly.

Not at all.

>> >  That's why there are "Read Me" files and thousands of
>> > computer-related newsgroups and computer technicians and repair people
>> > and phone tech support personnel, ectetera.

>> Yes, so that people will - gasp - READ THEM, to not screw up and try to
>> install something that can't work, as you claim your whatever card doesn't.
 
> Read me files don't solve all problems. Most problems occur despite
> following Read Me files to the letter. 

Maybe that's why people like you, need to hire people like me, to
do technical things for them.
 
> For example, I recently installed a wireless network in my home. The
> company literature claimed it would take minutes. It took four or five
> hours.

Says it all right there, really.


>> No, what I'm saying outright is that you have shown us a remarkable
>> ability to ignore reality, 
> 
> What I've shown is skepticism and therefore intelligence. 
> 
>> and that any problem you had installing
>> hardware or software is a self-induced result of that.
> 
> No; you're ignoring the reality that computer equipment, software and
> manuals and salespeople and tech support people -- as well as computer
> users -- are flawed and mistake-prone. You're displaying an unbelievable
> ignorance -- an astounding ignorance, which again shows why computers
> are so difficult to master.

For you.

> You claim that you've got 25 years of
> experience in the computer business yet you make the preposterous claim
> that anything that goes wrong with the computers is the user's fault.

Anything of the nature of problems that you have described are indeed the
user's fault.  Nothing you have been described has been consistant with
hardware failure or file corruption, or OS defect.  It's all John not
being able to make (thing) work, despite the fact that nobody else seems
to have a problem with (thing), so John assumes that (thing) is defective.

> This again shows why it's so hard to get at the truth when it comes to
> learning computers (or anything else). You're supposed to be an expert
> at computers with 25 years of experience, yet you make such an absud
> claim that shows that you're out to lunch -- at least in some ways.

You bought a USB card.  It doesn't work for you.  It works for others.
You therefore either installed it wrong, or bought a card that your
system doesn't support.

> It's like saying that if a plane crashes, it could only be the pilot's
> fault for not following his manual's instructions, and that it couldn't
> lie with fault of the maintenance engineer who serviced the aircraft, or
> a design flaw in the aircraft, or a mistake by the air traffic
> controller, or bad weather, or a variety of these or other factors.

Not at all the same.

>> > What you're saying is like saying, "Don't walk on the streets, because
>> > you might get hit by a car."
>> 
>> No, I'm saying "learn how to look for cars, and don't ignore the truck
>> headed right at you".
> 
> No, that's not what you said. You said that because I knew there could
> be compatiblily problems with the Keyspan USB card, that I shouldn't
> have installed it, even though there was no good alternative. 

You don't read very well, do you.  I said that the specs probably didn't
say "generally compatible with Macs", and that you either didn't read
carefully, or you're using it wrnog.

>> >> I'm just working with the information you provide.  Did you google for
>> >> SCSI CD-RW yet?
>> >
>> > No; I didn't bother because I'm convinced.
>> 
>> So you're avoiding googling for something, because some sales weasel told
>> you they weren't being made anymore, and you don't want to find out how
>> you're wrong.  
> 
> No, I meant that I'm convinced that you're right about SCSI CD-RWs being current.

Sent you a link already, and gave you the google string twice.

On 22 Apr 2005 17:42:31 +0100 (BST), Tim Cutts <timc@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <slrnd6g2mm.j30.lou@techhouse.brown.edu>,
> Dragonmaster Lou  <lou@SPAM.ME.AND.DIE.tealstudios.com> wrote:
>>In article <4266D7F7.F82C61FB@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
>>> No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
>>> Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
>>> by Firewire and USB.
>>
>>On consumer grade machines, yeah, that pretty much is the case.
>>
>>On higher-end enterprise grade hardware, SCSI is still doing very well,
>>thank you very much.
 
> Well, the protocol, yes.  Very few high end storage systems use
> traditional SCSI connections any more, though, it's all fibrechannel.

Right.  Now John will tell us that fibrechannel is "obsolete" because
his salesguy at Best Buy can't sell him one ;)
 
> All of our 400 TB of storage at work is on fibrechannel, pretty much.
> Some of it is SATA within the boxes, and then fibrechannel to the rest
> of the SAN, but the really fast storage (HP StorageWorks EVA) is
> fibrechannel all the way to the disk.

How are the HP working for you?  We're an EMC shop, dozen terabyte maybe,
and it seems painful.

John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> 
> What about the built-in CD-RWs in G4 towers? Shouldn't CD-burning work
> with the built-in CD-RWs when using OS9 on a G4 tower?

Have you checked that the CD-RW isn't .... broken ?

-- 
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines 
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> Dragonmaster Lou wrote:
> > 
> > In article <4266D7F7.F82C61FB@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
> > > No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
> > > Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
> > > by Firewire and USB.
> > 
> > On consumer grade machines, yeah, that pretty much is the case.
> 
> You disagree with Dave on that.

I guess you could call a low-end PowerMac G5 "consumer grade", since
it's still cheaper than the SE/30 I bought in 1988 (!). And typical
cunsumer outlets like Computer City actually sell them.

Adding a UW-SCSI card to that kind of box would make a very compatible
setup for any modern - or legacy - SCSI peripherals (or internals).
And that goes for good ol' G4:s too, regardless of OS version.
And that's what this thread is about, isn't it ?

Oh my - 
apparently I triggered this discussion 6 days ago with a one-liner:
---
John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
> because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.

It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
---
I dare say I have been proven right, and you wrong.
Are you too stubborn to admit that?

-- 
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines 
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

In article <3csp2kF6pd5e4U1@individual.net>, Dave Hinz
<DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Right, you just said what you said (which is wrong) when saying what
> they said, but you were just saying it, not saying they said it.
> Gotcha.

Maybe he's channeling Jean Chretien, our last Prime Minister who said
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a
proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

In article <J+f*DPKMq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Tim Cutts wrote:
> In article <slrnd6g2mm.j30.lou@techhouse.brown.edu>,
> Dragonmaster Lou  <lou@SPAM.ME.AND.DIE.tealstudios.com> wrote:
>>In article <4266D7F7.F82C61FB@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
>>> No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
>>> Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
>>> by Firewire and USB.
>>
>>On consumer grade machines, yeah, that pretty much is the case.
>>
>>On higher-end enterprise grade hardware, SCSI is still doing very well,
>>thank you very much.
> 
> Well, the protocol, yes.  Very few high end storage systems use
> traditional SCSI connections any more, though, it's all fibrechannel.

That is true...  Fibrechannel is the way to go.  However, sometimes SCSI
is still used for the drives contained inside the RAID array, etc.  A
lot of them higher-end stuff is switching over to SCSI on the inside
too, though.

I don't see Fibrechannel used much on high-end workstations though.  All
our RAID arrays are Fibre based, but all our workstations have SCSI
disks.

> All of our 400 TB of storage at work is on fibrechannel, pretty much.
> Some of it is SATA within the boxes, and then fibrechannel to the rest
> of the SAN, but the really fast storage (HP StorageWorks EVA) is
> fibrechannel all the way to the disk.

Same for our stuff -- fibrechanell all the way except for the cheaper
stuff which is ATA internally.

-- 

-------------------- http://www.techhouse.org/lou ----------------------
"Dragonmaster Lou"    | "Searching for a distant star, heading off to  
lou at tealstudios com| Iscandar, leaving all we love behind, who knows
Tech House Alum       | what dangers we'll find..."                    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:05:28 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <3csp2kF6pd5e4U1@individual.net>, Dave Hinz
><DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
>> Right, you just said what you said (which is wrong) when saying what
>> they said, but you were just saying it, not saying they said it.
>> Gotcha.
 
> Maybe he's channeling Jean Chretien, our last Prime Minister who said
> "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a
> proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
 
Ah, the Chewbacca Defense school of thought:
--- begin south park ---

"This is Chewbacca, Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but 
Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does 
not make sense! Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want 
to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make 
sense! What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and 
gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! 
None of this makes sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! 
The defense rests. DAMNIT!"

--- end south park ---

Then again, that's more coherent than some of what I've seen in this
thread.

In article <220420051305288918%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> Maybe he's channeling Jean Chretien, our last Prime Minister who said
> "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a
> proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

Sounds like something the Shrub would mangle.
-- 
D.F. Manno
dfm2a3l0t2@spymac.com
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream
will never die."

In article <dfm2a3l0t2-0D18F4.20073222042005@x-privat.org>, D.F. Manno
<dfm2a3l0t2@spymac.com> wrote:

> Sounds like something the Shrub would mangle.

You have to have lived in Canada to appreciate the mangling that was
"The Little Guy From Shawinigan"...

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:45:02 GMT,
    John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
> "Bev A. Kupf" wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:37:54 GMT,
>>     John M. (john_martin@shaw.info) wrote:
>> > That's Keyspan's fault. I needed a USB port to run my printer. Keyspan
>> > designed the USB card and claimed that it was generally compatible with
>> > Macs.
>> 
>> Keyspan made two USB cards - neither is claimed to be "generally"
>> compatible with Macs.
>> 
>> The first is compatible with any Mac that has at least one PCI
>> slot available for the card.  The minimum OS version is 8.6.
>> 
>> The second also needs OS 8.6 or higher, and is compatible with
>> the USB drivers in OS X.  It does have greater hardware
>> requirements - Rev.  B Beige G3 (or later), Blue & White G3, or
>> G4 Powermac - with an available PCI slot.  It is also
>> incompatible with Rev.  A Beige G3s, or older PCI Macs upgraded
>> to G3 processors (eg.  7200).  It also only supports USB 1.1 under
>> OS 8.6 - 9.2.
>> 
>> Neither description says "generally" compatible with Macs.
>> Both claim Mac compatibility with supported models.
>
> You, too, are making the false assumption that I'm quoting from
> Keyspan's literature.
>
>
> Keyspan DID claim that it's cards were generally compatible with Macs. 

Again, I repeat.  Keyspan has never claimed that.  Keyspan has stated
exactly which Macs their products will work with.  If you don't use
one of those Macs, any claims you make are irrelevant.

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

In article <42691A78.EE81CE97@shaw.info>, John M.
<john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> It's like saying that if a plane crashes, it could only be the pilot's
> fault for not following his manual's instructions, and that it couldn't
> lie with fault of the maintenance engineer who serviced the aircraft, or
> a design flaw in the aircraft, or a mistake by the air traffic
> controller, or bad weather, or a variety of these or other factors.

Ut oh, now you're in my area of extertise. I've been an aircraft
avionics tech since 1969 and a line lead tech since 1982. I can
unequivocally state that most (by a considerable margin) aircraft
incidents are a result of pilot error. Apparently this is another
subject you know little or nothing about. Note that I said "most" here,
some are indeed caused by other factors. You can verify this at the
FAA's website <http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/>
but you won't. You prefer to stick with misinformation.

For the rest of the posters - isn't it apparent yet that John M. is
either a troll and that you/we are just feeding him what he wants or
else he's terminally ignorant and uneducatable and you can't change his
mind?

I vote Troll.

-- 
Use ROT-13 on the email address for email replies

On 2005-04-15 13:47:19 -0500, "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> said:

> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> 
> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> 
> John

Update to OS 9.2.2
Built in Disc Burning

In article <dfm2a3l0t2-0D18F4.20073222042005@x-privat.org>, D.F. Manno
<dfm2a3l0t2@spymac.com> wrote:

> > Maybe he's channeling Jean Chretien, our last Prime Minister who said
> > "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a
> > proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
> 
> Sounds like something the Shrub would mangle.

Sounds more like George W. Bush.

-- 
Use ROT-13 on the email address for email replies

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:52:24 -0500,
    Marcus Benjamin (MARCB4016@vtext.com) wrote:
> On 2005-04-15 13:47:19 -0500, "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> said:
>
>> Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
>> 
>> I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
>> unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
>> 
>> John
>
> Update to OS 9.2.2
> Built in Disc Burning

Disc burning has been available since OS 9.1 - however John is unable
to get it to work with his hardware.  There's a thread of about 100
messages that you've missed where that inability has been discussed
from every possible perspective.

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

In article <230420050953343428%cfnzrpu@crevtrr.arg>,
 "J. Stewart" <cfnzrpu@crevtrr.arg> wrote:

> D.F. Manno <dfm2a3l0t2@spymac.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Maybe he's channeling Jean Chretien, our last Prime Minister who said
> > > "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a
> > > proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
> > 
> > Sounds like something the Shrub would mangle.
> 
> Sounds more like George W. Bush.

The Shrub = George W. Bush
-- 
D.F. Manno
dfm2a3l0t2@spymac.com
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream
will never die."

John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> Dave Hinz wrote:

<snip>

> Why do I have to spell everything out for you? The more you write, the
> more you come across as being a clod.

DH is a waste of time.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:35:39 +0200,
    Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
>> No more far fetched than the increment operator that you used.
>
> It's widely used.

So is the decrement operator.  Shame you haven't come across it
earlier.

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:16:27 +0200,
    Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:

> DH is a waste of time.

No, that's how feel about you.  Honestly, you've been posting
to csma for how long - a month, two months?  How many people 
have you irked in that time?

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:16:27 +0200,
>     Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > DH is a waste of time.
> 
> No, that's how feel about you.  Honestly, you've been posting
> to csma for how long - a month, two months?  How many people 
> have you irked in that time?

Like John M wrote (about himself): What I've shown is skepticism and
therefore intelligence.

In article <1gvhz86.10ozj0i6ok2owN%hlexa@hotmail.com>, Axel
Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Like John M wrote (about himself): What I've shown is skepticism and
> therefore intelligence.

Skepticism != intelligence. You could look it up.

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <1gvhz86.10ozj0i6ok2owN%hlexa@hotmail.com>, Axel
> Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Like John M wrote (about himself): What I've shown is skepticism and
> > therefore intelligence.
> 
> Skepticism != intelligence. You could look it up.

But John M didn't write "Skepticism = intelligence", did he?

In article <1gvhuuf.eb0oyu12pwmtcN%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
 hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:

> John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > Why do I have to spell everything out for you? The more you write, the
> > more you come across as being a clod.
> 
> DH is a waste of time.

If by waste of time you mean knowledgeable, generally friendly and often 
(intentionally) amusing I would agree. I don't always agree with Dave, 
but I've certainly seen enough to respect him.

G

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

In article <1gvi1ne.1duq58g7tg4ckN%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
 hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:

> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gvhz86.10ozj0i6ok2owN%hlexa@hotmail.com>, Axel
> > Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Like John M wrote (about himself): What I've shown is skepticism and
> > > therefore intelligence.
> > 
> > Skepticism != intelligence. You could look it up.
> 
> But John M didn't write "Skepticism = intelligence", did he?

There are two ways that "What I've shown is skepticism and therefore 
intelligence." could be a true statement:

1) Skepticism is intelligence.
2) Intelligence is a necessary condition for skepticism.

Which would you like to argue you meant?

G

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <1gvi1ne.1duq58g7tg4ckN%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
>  hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
> 
> > Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1gvhz86.10ozj0i6ok2owN%hlexa@hotmail.com>, Axel
> > > Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Like John M wrote (about himself): What I've shown is skepticism and
> > > > therefore intelligence.
> > > 
> > > Skepticism != intelligence. You could look it up.
> > 
> > But John M didn't write "Skepticism = intelligence", did he?
> 
> There are two ways that "What I've shown is skepticism and therefore 
> intelligence." could be a true statement:
> 
> 1) Skepticism is intelligence.
> 2) Intelligence is a necessary condition for skepticism.
> 
> Which would you like to argue you meant?

Actually, there is only one argument that is true: scepticism is a
necessary condition for intelligence.

Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <1gvhuuf.eb0oyu12pwmtcN%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
>  hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
> 
> > DH is a waste of time.
> 
> If by waste of time you mean knowledgeable, generally friendly and often
> (intentionally) amusing I would agree. I don't always agree with Dave,
> but I've certainly seen enough to respect him.

So have I, certainly seen enough of DH.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 00:47:24 +0200,
    Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
> Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:16:27 +0200,
>>     Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
>> 
>> > DH is a waste of time.
>> 
>> No, that's how feel about you.  Honestly, you've been posting
>> to csma for how long - a month, two months?  How many people 
>> have you irked in that time?
>
> Like John M wrote (about himself): What I've shown is skepticism and
> therefore intelligence.

No.  What you've shown is belligerence and a little knowledge.  And as
the old adage goes, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".  In
contrast, when Dave posts something, I might not always agree with it,
but I certainly realize that his compendium of knowledge makes me 
respect his point of view.

Beverly

P.S. Dave Balderstone stated this already, but let me re-emphasize.
skepticism != intelligent -- there are plenty of loonies out there who
don't believe that man walked on the moon.  Their skepticism scarcely
makes them intelligent.

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:58:08 +0200,
    Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1gvhuuf.eb0oyu12pwmtcN%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
>>  hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>> 
>> > DH is a waste of time.
>> 
>> If by waste of time you mean knowledgeable, generally friendly and often
>> (intentionally) amusing I would agree. I don't always agree with Dave,
>> but I've certainly seen enough to respect him.
>
> So have I, certainly seen enough of DH.

And sadly, we haven't seen the back of you yet.

-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

In article <1gvi1ne.1duq58g7tg4ckN%hlexa@hotmail.com>, Axel
Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:

> But John M didn't write "Skepticism = intelligence", did he?

I didn't claim he did.

Skepticism does not demonstrate the condition of intelligence. Nor is
intelligence required to be a skeptic.

djb

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

"Bev A. Kupf" <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd6m0im.f54.bevakupf@myhome.net...
>
> P.S. Dave Balderstone stated this already, but let me re-emphasize.
> skepticism != intelligent -- there are plenty of loonies out there who
> don't believe that man walked on the moon.  Their skepticism scarcely
> makes them intelligent.
>

Man walked on the moon?  You probably think Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction, too.

Greg
-- 
"destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late,
the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll"  - the mekons

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:35:39 +0200,
>     Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
> >> No more far fetched than the increment operator that you used.
> >
> > It's widely used.
> 
> So is the decrement operator.  Shame you haven't come across it
> earlier.

Actually there are more than just the two unary operators mentioned
here.

In article <1gvi31u.1xvtjps1yaqw6cN%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
 hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:

> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gvi1ne.1duq58g7tg4ckN%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
> >  hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
> > 
> > > Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <1gvhz86.10ozj0i6ok2owN%hlexa@hotmail.com>, Axel
> > > > Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Like John M wrote (about himself): What I've shown is skepticism and
> > > > > therefore intelligence.
> > > > 
> > > > Skepticism != intelligence. You could look it up.
> > > 
> > > But John M didn't write "Skepticism = intelligence", did he?
> > 
> > There are two ways that "What I've shown is skepticism and therefore 
> > intelligence." could be a true statement:
> > 
> > 1) Skepticism is intelligence.
> > 2) Intelligence is a necessary condition for skepticism.
> > 
> > Which would you like to argue you meant?
> 
> Actually, there is only one argument that is true: scepticism is a
> necessary condition for intelligence.

A necessary condition is not inherently a sufficient one. It is 
therefore a logical error to go from "intelligence implies skepticism" 
to "skepticism implies intelligence." And it's such a blatant logical 
error that I would argue anyone who makes it pretty much forfeits any 
claim to exceptional intelligence.

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

In article <dfm2a3l0t2-ECCECC.15130823042005@x-privat.org>, D.F. Manno
<dfm2a3l0t2@spymac.com> wrote:

> > > > Maybe he's channeling Jean Chretien, our last Prime Minister who said
> > > > "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a
> > > > proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
> > > 
> > > Sounds like something the Shrub would mangle.
> > 
> > Sounds more like George W. Bush.
> 
> The Shrub = George W. Bush

Ahh that explains it, I don't rate him that high on the scale.

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:58:08 +0200,
>     Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
> > Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1gvhuuf.eb0oyu12pwmtcN%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
> >>  hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
> >> 
> >> > DH is a waste of time.
> >> 
> >> If by waste of time you mean knowledgeable, generally friendly and often
> >> (intentionally) amusing I would agree. I don't always agree with Dave,
> >> but I've certainly seen enough to respect him.
> >
> > So have I, certainly seen enough of DH.
> 
> And sadly, we haven't seen the back of you yet.

Don't hold your breath waiting.

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 00:47:24 +0200,
>     Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
> > Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:16:27 +0200,
> >>     Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
> >> 
> >> > DH is a waste of time.
> >> 
> >> No, that's how feel about you.  Honestly, you've been posting
> >> to csma for how long - a month, two months?  How many people 
> >> have you irked in that time?
> >
> > Like John M wrote (about himself): What I've shown is skepticism and
> > therefore intelligence.
> 
> No.  What you've shown is belligerence and a little knowledge.  And as
> the old adage goes, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".  In
> contrast, when Dave posts something, I might not always agree with it,
> but I certainly realize that his compendium of knowledge makes me 
> respect his point of view.

A cosy little newsgroup mutual admiration society.

(gur pnony? - full!)

And old adages. Dear me!

<snip>

> P.S. Dave Balderstone stated this already, but let me re-emphasize.
> skepticism != intelligent -- there are plenty of loonies out there who
> don't believe that man walked on the moon.  Their skepticism scarcely
> makes them intelligent.

DB was using a straw man. Nobody had stated, that scepticism is
intelligence. Without testing knowledge - being sceptical, we learn
nothing.

To bad for people with set opinions, who get irked.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:13:00 +0200,
    Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
> DB was using a straw man. Nobody had stated, that scepticism is
> intelligence. 

From one of your posts, quote "What I've shown is skepticism and
therefore intelligence".

Skepticism doesn't imply intelligence, as you've demonstrated
on this group and others.

> To bad for people with set opinions, who get irked.

People get irked when a point of view is adhered to despite 
a large compendium of evidence to the contrary.

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

In article <1gvixfi.r0ct81gaqh0sN%hlexa@hotmail.com>, Axel
Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:

> DB was using a straw man. Nobody had stated, that scepticism is
> intelligence.

Go back and check the quote I replied to.

You could look it up.

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 08:01:37 -0600,
    Dave Balderstone (dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca) wrote:
> In article <1gvixfi.r0ct81gaqh0sN%hlexa@hotmail.com>, Axel
> Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> DB was using a straw man. Nobody had stated, that scepticism is
>> intelligence.
>
> Go back and check the quote I replied to.
>
> You could look it up.

He could, but that would require intelligence.

Beverly
-- 
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

In article <slrnd6n9pj.fbn.bevakupf@myhome.net>, Bev A. Kupf
<bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> He could, but that would require intelligence.

Naw, a true skeptic would do it.

;-)

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

In article <42668340.DBF27B8F@shaw.info>,
 "John M." <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:

> Walter Bushell wrote:
> > 
> > In article <1gv4pmn.7f3h5hnyrikdN%andekl_no@saaf_spam.se>,
> >  andekl_no@saaf_spam.se (Anders Ekl�f) wrote:
> > 
> > > John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Charles Dyer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:47:19 -0400, John M. wrote
> > > > > (in article <42600C3B.6E041E68@shaw.info>):
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why do people brag about how great Macintoshes are?
> > > > >
> > > > > perhaps you might wish to provide a reference to support this 
> > > > > assertion?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a G4 tower and System 9.21 and I can't copy a file onto a CD
> > > > > > unless I buy a special program, such as Toast.
> > > >
> > > > That's my assertion.
> > > >
> > > > In 2000 I spent $700 on a CD burner. Last year I gave it to a charity
> > > > because it's a SCSI machine and not compatible with OS 9_ on a G4.
> > >
> > > It definitely is - if you put a suitable SCSI card in the G4 ...
> > 
> > If he couldn't get the SCSI CD burner working with 9 he shoulda keep a
> > copy of 8.6 around. Driver incompatibility maybe?
>  
> Are you retarded?
> 
> You want me to copy OS 8.6 on top of OS 9.21? I tried copying an older
> system on top of a slightly newer one years ago and it created havoc and
> it taught me that one should never ever do that.

What'ca got one hard disk with no partitions. If you had partitioned 
your hard disk you coulda put a different OS on each. Or an external 
drive would work also.


> I didn't try to get the SCSI burner working when I bought my G4 tower
> because SCSI is obsolete, so it would be stupid to install a SCSI card
> into this computer, and I was advised of that on this newgroup. 
> 
> Also, are you suggesting to copy 8.6 on top of 9.21, which would wreat 
> havoc, then upgrade (if that's possible) back to 9.21 after burning a
> c.d., then go through that whole process again every time I want to burn
> a c.d.? That's insane.
> 
> John

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <1gvixfi.r0ct81gaqh0sN%hlexa@hotmail.com>, Axel
> Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > DB was using a straw man. Nobody had stated, that scepticism is
> > intelligence.
> 
> Go back and check the quote I replied to.

Done. You used a straw man.

> You could look it up.

And your own authoritative source was...?

Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <1gvi31u.1xvtjps1yaqw6cN%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
>  hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
> 
> > Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 

<snip>

> > > There are two ways that "What I've shown is skepticism and therefore
> > > intelligence." could be a true statement:
> > > 
> > > 1) Skepticism is intelligence.
> > > 2) Intelligence is a necessary condition for skepticism.
> > > 
> > > Which would you like to argue you meant?
> > 
> > Actually, there is only one argument that is true: scepticism is a
> > necessary condition for intelligence.
> 
> A necessary condition is not inherently a sufficient one. It is 
> therefore a logical error to go from "intelligence implies skepticism"
> to "skepticism implies intelligence." And it's such a blatant logical
> error that I would argue anyone who makes it pretty much forfeits any
> claim to exceptional intelligence.

You mean like someone stating that "1) Skepticism is intelligence" could
be a true statement?

Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:13:00 +0200,
>     Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > DB was using a straw man. Nobody had stated, that scepticism is
> > intelligence. 
> 
> From one of your posts, quote "What I've shown is skepticism and
> therefore intelligence".
> 
> Skepticism doesn't imply intelligence, as you've demonstrated
> on this group and others.

Sticks and stones...

> > To bad for people with set opinions, who get irked.
> 
> People get irked when a point of view is adhered to despite 
> a large compendium of evidence to the contrary.

I suspect you like it.

In article <1gvjoq3.1lqp8b51lgxfm2N%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
 hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:

> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gvi31u.1xvtjps1yaqw6cN%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
> >  hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
> > 
> > > Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > > 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > > > There are two ways that "What I've shown is skepticism and therefore
> > > > intelligence." could be a true statement:
> > > > 
> > > > 1) Skepticism is intelligence.
> > > > 2) Intelligence is a necessary condition for skepticism.
> > > > 
> > > > Which would you like to argue you meant?
> > > 
> > > Actually, there is only one argument that is true: scepticism is a
> > > necessary condition for intelligence.
> > 
> > A necessary condition is not inherently a sufficient one. It is 
> > therefore a logical error to go from "intelligence implies skepticism"
> > to "skepticism implies intelligence." And it's such a blatant logical
> > error that I would argue anyone who makes it pretty much forfeits any
> > claim to exceptional intelligence.
> 
> You mean like someone stating that "1) Skepticism is intelligence" could
> be a true statement?

You really need to work on your reading skiils. I didn't claim that it 
could be a true statement. I asserted that it was one of the two 
possible justifications for your statement. Neither of the two 
justifications actually holds water, however, which is why I was curious 
which one you wanted to use.

G

-- 
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

In article <uce-3DB39B.18322324042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> You really need to work on your reading skiils.

Alex's reading skills are fine. Alex's logic and debate skills could
use a fair bit of work, though.

But Alex really isn't worth the effort.

-- 
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
------------------------------------------------------
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:16:27 +0200, Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John M. <john_martin@shaw.info> wrote:
> 
>> Dave Hinz wrote:
> 
><snip>
> 
>> Why do I have to spell everything out for you? The more you write, the
>> more you come across as being a clod.
> 
> DH is a waste of time.

So put me in your killfile, Axel, and get on with life.  I don't let
foolish statements stand unchallenged; apparently that makes you
uncomfortable.  I'm OK with that.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:58:07 +0200, Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, there is only one argument that is true: scepticism is a
> necessary condition for intelligence.

So far, so good.  The intelligence part is in knowing which of the
things you're skeptical of, to believe.  That's the part that you and 
your new friend seem to miss.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 22:40:28 -0700, G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
> "Bev A. Kupf" <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd6m0im.f54.bevakupf@myhome.net...
>>
>> P.S. Dave Balderstone stated this already, but let me re-emphasize.
>> skepticism != intelligent -- there are plenty of loonies out there who
>> don't believe that man walked on the moon.  Their skepticism scarcely
>> makes them intelligent.
>>
> 
> Man walked on the moon?  You probably think Saddam had weapons of mass
> destruction, too.
 
a) I don't think any rational person could claim that he didn't; he killed
tens of thousands of Kurds with them, after all.
b) Nice try, but we're already rolling, no point trying to troll an
already over-energized offtopic thread.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:03:31 GMT, Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 08:01:37 -0600,
>     Dave Balderstone (dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca) wrote:
>> In article <1gvixfi.r0ct81gaqh0sN%hlexa@hotmail.com>, Axel
>> Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> DB was using a straw man. Nobody had stated, that scepticism is
>>> intelligence.
>>
>> Go back and check the quote I replied to.
>>
>> You could look it up.
> 
> He could, but that would require intelligence.

See, that's the same thing with the John M. person.  "Here, google this
string of SCSI CD-RW" "Nope, I don't wanna, because (blah blah blah)".
Axel doesn't want to go google for his _own words_ because it would show
him that he's wrong about even what he himself says.

Denial is a strong force.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:12:59 +0200, Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bev A. Kupf <bevakupf@myhome.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:58:08 +0200,
>>     Axel Hammerschmidt (hlexa@hotmail.com) wrote:
>> > Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <1gvhuuf.eb0oyu12pwmtcN%hlexa@hotmail.com>,
>> >>  hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > DH is a waste of time.
>> >> 
>> >> If by waste of time you mean knowledgeable, generally friendly and often
>> >> (intentionally) amusing I would agree. I don't always agree with Dave,
>> >> but I've certainly seen enough to respect him.
>> >
>> > So have I, certainly seen enough of DH.
>> 
>> And sadly, we haven't seen the back of you yet.
> 
> Don't hold your breath waiting.

Ah, but that's the thing.  You're powerless against the
<plonk>

Buh-bye, Axel.  You no longer exist.  I'm sure you'll have some
response, but sadly (for you), I won't see it.  You're just not worth
the time to read.

In article <slrnd6iqlf.41a.lou@techhouse.brown.edu>, Dragonmaster Lou wrote:
> In article <J+f*DPKMq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Tim Cutts wrote:
>> In article <slrnd6g2mm.j30.lou@techhouse.brown.edu>,
>> Dragonmaster Lou  <lou@SPAM.ME.AND.DIE.tealstudios.com> wrote:
>>>In article <4266D7F7.F82C61FB@shaw.info>, John M. wrote:
>>>> No, I didn't contend that and it's not at all strange. All of the
>>>> Macintosh experts I consulted contended that, because SCSI was replaced
>>>> by Firewire and USB.
>>>
>>>On consumer grade machines, yeah, that pretty much is the case.
>>>
>>>On higher-end enterprise grade hardware, SCSI is still doing very well,
>>>thank you very much.
>> 
>> Well, the protocol, yes.  Very few high end storage systems use
>> traditional SCSI connections any more, though, it's all fibrechannel.
> 
> That is true...  Fibrechannel is the way to go.  However, sometimes SCSI
> is still used for the drives contained inside the RAID array, etc.  A
> lot of them higher-end stuff is switching over to SCSI on the inside
> too, though.

Woops, I meant switching to Fibre on the inside.  Sorry.


-- 

-------------------- http://www.techhouse.org/lou ----------------------
"Dragonmaster Lou"    | "Searching for a distant star, heading off to  
lou at tealstudios com| Iscandar, leaving all we love behind, who knows
Tech House Alum       | what dangers we'll find..."                    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------