OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now, how much
software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical collection -- Office '04,
typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command line
stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much from the
Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within hours of me.
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Brian Gordon     -->briang@panix.com<--     brian dot gordon at cox dot net |
+ brianggordon@hotmail.com   Bass: Lexington "Main Street Harmonizers" chorus +
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

In article <jahjid$a89$1@panix1.panix.com>,
 briang@panix.com (Brian Gordon) wrote:

> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now, how 
> much
> software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical collection -- Office 
> '04,
> typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command line
> stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much from the
> Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within hours of me.

Office 04 won't work with Lion. Need newest version of Office, or else 
iWork (which is actually quite capable and less expensive than MS 
Office).

You will still have Terminal available.

The Apple FAX modem does not work with Lion. However, I understand there 
are other FAX modems that will work with Lion.

Basically, any software that is PowerPC will not work in Lion, because 
Appel discontinued support for Rosetta, which is what made PowerPC 
applications work on an Intel machine. MS Office 04 is a PowerPC 
application and so will not work in Lion.

Mac Intel applications should work fine.

briang@panix.com (Brian Gordon) writes:

> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now, how much
> software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical collection -- Office '04,
> typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command line
> stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much from the
> Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within hours of me.

It's hard to know what you'll spend without knowing what specific
software you need.  If you need to buy PhotoShop, for example, you'll
need to spend what that costs.  Same thing if you need to buy MS Office.


I think I've spent $25 on software.  But I don't need PhotoShop, or MS
Office.

In article <jahjid$a89$1@panix1.panix.com>,
 briang@panix.com (Brian Gordon) wrote:

> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now, 
> how much software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical 
> collection -- Office '04,

You realize it's almost 2012, right? It's about time to upgrade Office 
or do without, I' say.

> typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command line
> stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much from the
> Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within hours of me.

The only thing you've mentioned so far that isn't built in is fax 
software. Google is your friend here, but you might start with this:

<http://tidbits.com/article/12431>

If you want to see what software is compatible with Lion, there's a neat 
database with just that sort of information here:

<http://roaringapps.com/apps:table>

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <jahjid$a89$1@panix1.panix.com>, Brian Gordon
<briang@panix.com> wrote:

> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now, how much
> software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical collection -- Office
> '04,
> typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command line
> stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much from the
> Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within hours of me.

Office 2004 is over seven years old.

In article <221120111955499358%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
 "Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> Office 2004 is over seven years old.

Wow!  That is an amazing perception!

In article 
<none-15017C.20451922112011@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
 Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

> In article <221120111955499358%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
>  "Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> 
> > Office 2004 is over seven years old.
> 
> Wow!  That is an amazing perception!

With some of these Mac usenet guys, if anything is more than a 
week old, you should throw it out and rush off to an Apple store 
or some other cool new store and buy the latest. 

When I was young and foolish enough, under their influence, I 
sold my own daughter, she got to be more then 5 years old. As it 
happened, in this particular case, it worked out and she says she 
is much happier without me.  

But some of the software I replaced, like Photoshop 5 and 6, it 
was terrible. The software kept coming back to me and nagging me 
and being jealous of the CS versions. I would fire up CS or CS4 
and a notice would come screaming across the screen saying how I 
had abandoned them and what is so damn great about CS considering 
that most of the things I do can be done just as well in the 
older 5 or 6 (especially 6). I had to call the police once. I got 
an AVO against Microsoft QuickBasic when it objected to my going 
to FutureBasic and got a bit violent.

-- 
dorayme

On 11-22-2011 22:55, Mr. Strat wrote:
> Office 2004 is over seven years old.

Are you assuming that the numbers MS tacks on these things
accurately represent the year of release?

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Be spontaneous … today
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/BlindDog?itemid=3984

Mr. Strat wrote:
> Office 2004 is over seven years old.


There are times when I need to open a document in "word" just to make
sure I get all the stuff (such as paragraph numbers which may or may not
appear in text edit and/or pages.

Last week, I was at an important lockdown where a CRTC decision was
unveiled. We were given a USB stick to copy the documents. They were
..doc unfortunatly. I double clicked and what I got did not have
paragraph numbers and this is really bad when you are discussing with
peers about such and such a part of the CRTC decision.

I try not to use MS products, but this is one time where in hindsight,
MS Word should have been the default application to open those documebts
because I would have seen the paragrpah numbers.

I don't ever use Office 2004 to create stuff, but I do use it from time
to time to open existing stuff others were too lazy to give me in .pdf.


One should note that while this was labeled "2004" there have been
add-ons since then to open more recent versions of Microsoft,s
proprietary file formats.

On 23/11/2011 in message 
<jollyroger-098949.21482522112011@news.individual.net> Jolly Roger wrote:

>You realize it's almost 2012, right? It's about time to upgrade Office
>or do without, I' say.

Why?

I have Office 97 and Office 2007, they have the same functionality and the 
Office 97 apps are easier to use without the moronic MSFT Ribbon.

I got Office 2011 for my Mac, about half price on eBay. The great 
advantage of Office on the Mac is you can turn the ribbon off.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
If it's not broken, mess around with it until it is

In article <xn0hlxzg412r3dh002@news.individual.net>,
 "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23/11/2011 in message 
> <jollyroger-098949.21482522112011@news.individual.net> Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
> >You realize it's almost 2012, right? It's about time to upgrade Office
> >or do without, I' say.
> 
> Why?

Compatibility, of course.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-098949.21482522112011@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> You realize it's almost 2012, right? It's about time to upgrade Office 
> or do without, I' say.

Why would you say that? If you need a newer version to run on Lion 
because Office 2004 won't, then that's one thing. Upgrading just because 
a specific number of years have passed is just silly. We still use 
Office 2004 (we're still on Leopard, too) because it works for us, and 
we see no reason to send extra money to Microsoft to feel up-to-date.
-- 

.... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

In article <4eccfca8$0$2100$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-098949.21482522112011@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > You realize it's almost 2012, right? It's about time to upgrade Office 
> > or do without, I' say.
> 
> Why would you say that? If you need a newer version to run on Lion 
> because Office 2004 won't, then that's one thing. Upgrading just because 
> a specific number of years have passed is just silly. We still use 
> Office 2004 (we're still on Leopard, too) because it works for us, and 
> we see no reason to send extra money to Microsoft to feel up-to-date.

Of course, for compatibility:

<http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2586538>

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-5EFEE3.08041523112011@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <4eccfca8$0$2100$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-098949.21482522112011@news.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > You realize it's almost 2012, right? It's about time to upgrade Office 
> > > or do without, I' say.
> > 
> > Why would you say that? If you need a newer version to run on Lion 
> > because Office 2004 won't, then that's one thing. Upgrading just because 
> > a specific number of years have passed is just silly. We still use 
> > Office 2004 (we're still on Leopard, too) because it works for us, and 
> > we see no reason to send extra money to Microsoft to feel up-to-date.
> 
> Of course, for compatibility:
> 
> <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2586538>

Well, that's the bit about Lion that I mentioned. We probably won't 
"upgrade" to Lion until we get new Macs.

We've always had trouble getting .docx stuff to open in Word 2004, but 
it will open happily in TextEdit, so that's not so important.
-- 

.... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

briang@panix.com (Brian Gordon) writes:

> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now,
> how much software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical
> collection -- Office '04, typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use

If you already have software, most of it should still work.
Office '04 is one of the exceptions - it's PowerPC, not Intel.

Most software which you bought in the last 5 years should still
be okay, though.  The main issue is that Lion no longer has
Rosetta, the layer which allows Intel chips to run software
which was written for the old PowerPC hardware.

And if you really want to keep using that ancient software,
with only a couple of exceptions (we just discussed this -
google is your friend), almost all of the current Apple
hardware can still run 10.6.x Snow Leopard instead of Lion
and Snow Leopard still runs old PowerPC apps.

(Moreover, for perhaps a limited time, the current version
of VMWare Fusion 4.1 allows one to install Snow Leopard
(the non-server version) to run in a virtual machine)

> Terminal a lot, do some command line stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking
> at a big hit?  I can't tell much from the Apple site, and there is no
> actual Apple Store within hours of me.

Most software comes from the 'net and, now, the Mac App Store,
not an actual Apple Store.  

I'm not sure what help a Store would be, anyway.  You need to
look at the individual software publisher's sites, not an
Apple Store or the Apple site.

You might get some mileage out of MacUpdate.com, too - a very
helpful resource regarding current versions and compatibility
for lots of Mac software.


-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.

In article <4eccfebb$0$2100$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-5EFEE3.08041523112011@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <4eccfca8$0$2100$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com>,
> >  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <jollyroger-098949.21482522112011@news.individual.net>,
> > >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > You realize it's almost 2012, right? It's about time to upgrade Office 
> > > > or do without, I' say.
> > > 
> > > Why would you say that? If you need a newer version to run on Lion 
> > > because Office 2004 won't, then that's one thing. Upgrading just because 
> > > a specific number of years have passed is just silly. We still use 
> > > Office 2004 (we're still on Leopard, too) because it works for us, and 
> > > we see no reason to send extra money to Microsoft to feel up-to-date.
> > 
> > Of course, for compatibility:
> > 
> > <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2586538>
> 
> Well, that's the bit about Lion that I mentioned. We probably won't 
> "upgrade" to Lion until we get new Macs.
> 
> We've always had trouble getting .docx stuff to open in Word 2004, but 
> it will open happily in TextEdit, so that's not so important.

That's all well and good, but this thread is about upgrading to Lion.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

On 2011-11-22 20:51 , Brian Gordon wrote:
> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now, how much
> software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical collection -- Office '04,
> typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command line
> stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much from the
> Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within hours of me.

Most Apps work fine - you may need to DL updates for some.

Nix for Office '04 - I run '08 on it - though the installation tools 
might not run properly - I have to rely on backups (TM) or eventually 
upgrade to '11.

The most recent ('11) of course will run. Get the "student" edition. 
Check Microsoft's site for that.

I believe it comes with 3 licenses.

-- 
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 2011-11-22 22:55 , Mr. Strat wrote:
> In article<jahjid$a89$1@panix1.panix.com>, Brian Gordon
> <briang@panix.com>  wrote:
>
>> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now, how much
>> software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical collection -- Office
>> '04,
>> typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command line
>> stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much from the
>> Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within hours of me.
>
> Office 2004 is over seven years old.

So what?  I was running a version of MS Office on one of my Windows 
system for well over 10 years.

-- 
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

In article <none-15017C.20451922112011@earthlink.us.supernews.com>, Joe
<none@given.now> wrote:

> In article <221120111955499358%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
>  "Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> 
> > Office 2004 is over seven years old.
> 
> Wow!  That is an amazing perception!

Well, you can't expect a piece of software to be compatible with future
file formats and future operating systems forever. It's the nature of
the business...you gotta keep up or you'll be SOL some day.

In article <kvydnW2XRY9rnlDTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2011-11-22 22:55 , Mr. Strat wrote:
> > In article<jahjid$a89$1@panix1.panix.com>, Brian Gordon
> > <briang@panix.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now, how 
> >> much
> >> software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical collection -- Office
> >> '04,
> >> typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command 
> >> line
> >> stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much from 
> >> the
> >> Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within hours of me.
> >
> > Office 2004 is over seven years old.
> 
> So what?  I was running a version of MS Office on one of my Windows 
> system for well over 10 years.

Apple moves faster than Microsoft; Mac software requirements sometimes 
change more frequently as a result. Apple transitioned from the PowerPC 
architecture to the Intel architecture almost ten years ago, and 
recently dropped support for PowerPC emulation in Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion). 
The OP is running Lion on a new MacBook Pro. Office 2004, being 
PowerPC-based, will not run on Lion. Therefore the OP will need to 
update it to run it.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

On 23/11/2011 in message 
<jollyroger-738F9E.07570023112011@news.individual.net> Jolly Roger wrote:

>In article <xn0hlxzg412r3dh002@news.individual.net>,
>"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 23/11/2011 in message
>><jollyroger-098949.21482522112011@news.individual.net> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>>You realize it's almost 2012, right? It's about time to upgrade Office
>>>or do without, I' say.
>>
>>Why?
>
>Compatibility, of course.

Compatibility with what? I have no problems running Office 97 on Windows 7.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
(Bill Gates, 1981)

In article <xn0hly9t81gvog5004@news.individual.net>,
 "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23/11/2011 in message 
> <jollyroger-738F9E.07570023112011@news.individual.net> Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
> >In article <xn0hlxzg412r3dh002@news.individual.net>,
> >"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>On 23/11/2011 in message
> >><jollyroger-098949.21482522112011@news.individual.net> Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>
> >>>You realize it's almost 2012, right? It's about time to upgrade Office
> >>>or do without, I' say.
> >>
> >>Why?
> >
> >Compatibility, of course.
> 
> Compatibility with what? I have no problems running Office 97 on Windows 7.

Perhaps you should read the title of this thread.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

On 23/11/2011 in message 
<jollyroger-83DE7D.10055623112011@news.individual.net> Jolly Roger wrote:

>Perhaps you should read the title of this thread.

Or perhaps you should read my original post again, you snipped the main 
point about Office on Windows...

-- 
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.

In article <jollyroger-F38BD9.09012823112011@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <kvydnW2XRY9rnlDTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
> > On 2011-11-22 22:55 , Mr. Strat wrote:
> > > In article<jahjid$a89$1@panix1.panix.com>, Brian Gordon
> > > <briang@panix.com>  wrote:
> > >
> > >> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now, 
> > >> how 
> > >> much
> > >> software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical collection -- 
> > >> Office
> > >> '04,
> > >> typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command 
> > >> line
> > >> stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much from 
> > >> the
> > >> Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within hours of me.
> > >
> > > Office 2004 is over seven years old.
> > 
> > So what?  I was running a version of MS Office on one of my Windows 
> > system for well over 10 years.
> 
> Apple moves faster than Microsoft; Mac software requirements sometimes 
> change more frequently as a result. Apple transitioned from the PowerPC 
> architecture to the Intel architecture almost ten years ago, and 
> recently dropped support for PowerPC emulation in Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion). 
> The OP is running Lion on a new MacBook Pro. Office 2004, being 
> PowerPC-based, will not run on Lion. Therefore the OP will need to 
> update it to run it.

I think your math may be a bit off. Apple transitioned to Intel in 2006, 
which is 5 to 5 and a half years ago.

In article <dfritzin-1C177B.11311923112011@news.eternal-september.org>,
 David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-F38BD9.09012823112011@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <kvydnW2XRY9rnlDTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 2011-11-22 22:55 , Mr. Strat wrote:
> > > > In article<jahjid$a89$1@panix1.panix.com>, Brian Gordon
> > > > <briang@panix.com>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in 
> > > >> itself.  Now, how much software must I buy again?  I've got a 
> > > >> pretty typical collection -- Office '04, typical utilities and 
> > > >> tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command line stuff, 
> > > >> Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much 
> > > >> from the Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within 
> > > >> hours of me.
> > > >
> > > > Office 2004 is over seven years old.
> > > 
> > > So what?  I was running a version of MS Office on one of my Windows 
> > > system for well over 10 years.
> > 
> > Apple moves faster than Microsoft; Mac software requirements sometimes 
> > change more frequently as a result. Apple transitioned from the PowerPC 
> > architecture to the Intel architecture almost ten years ago, and 
> > recently dropped support for PowerPC emulation in Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion). 
> > The OP is running Lion on a new MacBook Pro. Office 2004, being 
> > PowerPC-based, will not run on Lion. Therefore the OP will need to 
> > update it to run it.
> 
> I think your math may be a bit off. Apple transitioned to Intel in 2006, 
> which is 5 to 5 and a half years ago.

That may be when it was officially announced, but Apple had Mac OS X 
running on Intel long before that. ; ) I guess if you wanna be anal 
retentive about it, sure: it was announced officially around five years 
ago. 

None of this changes any of my above statements, though. The point is 
Apple moves faster than Microsoft; therefore software changes more 
drastically; therefore software may need to be updated more frequently 
then Windows counterparts in some cases.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <xn0hlya931hdh8b006@news.individual.net>,
 "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23/11/2011 in message 
> <jollyroger-83DE7D.10055623112011@news.individual.net> Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
> >Perhaps you should read the title of this thread.
> 
> Or perhaps you should read my original post again, you snipped the main 
> point about Office on Windows...

Whatever you've mumbled about Windows is completely irrelevant. 

This thread is about Mac OS X - not Windows. In particular, the OP 
specifically said he owns Office 2004 for Mac, and that he is running 
Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion). 

Office 2004 for Mac does not run in Lion. Period. End of story. 

If the OP wants to run Office, he will need to upgrade to something 
newer than Office 2004.

Clear enough for you?

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

On 23/11/2011 in message 
<jollyroger-52EB6B.11084823112011@news.individual.net> Jolly Roger wrote:

>This thread is about Mac OS X - not Windows. In particular, the OP
>specifically said he owns Office 2004 for Mac, and that he is running
>Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion).

This sub-thread originated with your comment about updating software just 
because it is 'X' years old which is rubbish.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
All things being equal, fat people use more soap

In article <xn0hlycck1k9fpm007@news.individual.net>,
 "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23/11/2011 in message 
> <jollyroger-52EB6B.11084823112011@news.individual.net> Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
> >This thread is about Mac OS X - not Windows. In particular, the OP
> >specifically said he owns Office 2004 for Mac, and that he is running
> >Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion).
> 
> This sub-thread originated with your comment about updating software just 
> because it is 'X' years old which is rubbish.

Nice try at putting your own words into my mouth, but that's not what I 
said. So you have failed. What I said in the context of the OP running 
Lion is:

"You realize it's almost 2012, right? It's about time to upgrade Office 
or do without"

Again, Office 2004 for Mac does not run in Lion. If the OP wants to run 
Office, he will need to upgrade to something newer than Office 2004.

I'm done arguing with you. Feel free to continue making yourself look 
like a fool though.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote:

> That may be when it was officially announced, but Apple had Mac OS X 
> running on Intel long before that. ; ) I guess if you wanna be anal 
> retentive about it, sure: it was announced officially around five years 
> ago. 


According to he Bible (the Book of Jobs), this is not mentioned. Once
the decision was made to go Intel, Apple put in herculean efforts to
port to Intel. There was no mention of OS-X running on Intel prior to
the decision.

Yes, freeBSD was available on x86, but that does not mean that OS-X had
been built for x86 before.  What it means is that Apple would have
already had compilers and tools to target x86. But it still had to
change much in the kernel, and adapt to the EFI bootloader which would
not have existed before etc.

Porting to Intel meant an change in endianness. While for many
applications, this may not be a big deal because compilers take care of
this, this is not the case at the OS and kernel level nor at te driver
level.

And it also required Apple develop Rosetta which was an extremely clever
piece of software that handled the endianness differences very well.

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Office 2004 for Mac does not run in Lion. Period. End of story. 


Could you run Sheepshaver and boot Tiger for PowerPC ?

In article <jollyroger-ADF315.11022823112011@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-1C177B.11311923112011@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-F38BD9.09012823112011@news.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <kvydnW2XRY9rnlDTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > >  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 2011-11-22 22:55 , Mr. Strat wrote:
> > > > > In article<jahjid$a89$1@panix1.panix.com>, Brian Gordon
> > > > > <briang@panix.com>  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in 
> > > > >> itself.  Now, how much software must I buy again?  I've got a 
> > > > >> pretty typical collection -- Office '04, typical utilities and 
> > > > >> tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command line stuff, 
> > > > >> Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much 
> > > > >> from the Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within 
> > > > >> hours of me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Office 2004 is over seven years old.
> > > > 
> > > > So what?  I was running a version of MS Office on one of my Windows 
> > > > system for well over 10 years.
> > > 
> > > Apple moves faster than Microsoft; Mac software requirements sometimes 
> > > change more frequently as a result. Apple transitioned from the PowerPC 
> > > architecture to the Intel architecture almost ten years ago, and 
> > > recently dropped support for PowerPC emulation in Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion). 
> > > The OP is running Lion on a new MacBook Pro. Office 2004, being 
> > > PowerPC-based, will not run on Lion. Therefore the OP will need to 
> > > update it to run it.
> > 
> > I think your math may be a bit off. Apple transitioned to Intel in 2006, 
> > which is 5 to 5 and a half years ago.
> 
> That may be when it was officially announced, but Apple had Mac OS X 
> running on Intel long before that. ; ) I guess if you wanna be anal 
> retentive about it, sure: it was announced officially around five years 
> ago. 

Being anal again, wasn't it announced before that. ISTR that the Intel 
transition was announced at WWDC in 2005, to give developers a chance to 
develop for the new platform. 

(Does google search...) Yeah, I was right. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple's_transition_to_Intel_processors
> 
> None of this changes any of my above statements, though. The point is 
> Apple moves faster than Microsoft; therefore software changes more 
> drastically; therefore software may need to be updated more frequently 
> then Windows counterparts in some cases.

Agreed, wrt Apple and MS.

On 2011-11-23 10:01 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article<kvydnW2XRY9rnlDTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Alan Browne<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>  wrote:
>
>> On 2011-11-22 22:55 , Mr. Strat wrote:
>>> In article<jahjid$a89$1@panix1.panix.com>, Brian Gordon
>>> <briang@panix.com>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now, how
>>>> much
>>>> software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical collection -- Office
>>>> '04,
>>>> typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command
>>>> line
>>>> stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much from
>>>> the
>>>> Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within hours of me.
>>>
>>> Office 2004 is over seven years old.
>>
>> So what?  I was running a version of MS Office on one of my Windows
>> system for well over 10 years.
>
> Apple moves faster than Microsoft; Mac software requirements sometimes
> change more frequently as a result. Apple transitioned from the PowerPC
> architecture to the Intel architecture almost ten years ago, and

6.4 years ago.

> recently dropped support for PowerPC emulation in Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion).
> The OP is running Lion on a new MacBook Pro. Office 2004, being
> PowerPC-based, will not run on Lion. Therefore the OP will need to
> update it to run it.

I don't disagree.  I was reacting to Strat's statement that someone 
would consider running s/w that is 7 years "old".

-- 
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

In article <4ecd36b1$0$19601$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
> > That may be when it was officially announced, but Apple had Mac OS X 
> > running on Intel long before that. ; ) I guess if you wanna be anal 
> > retentive about it, sure: it was announced officially around five years 
> > ago. 
> 
> 
> According to he Bible (the Book of Jobs), this is not mentioned. Once
> the decision was made to go Intel, Apple put in herculean efforts to
> port to Intel. There was no mention of OS-X running on Intel prior to
> the decision.
> 
> Yes, freeBSD was available on x86, but that does not mean that OS-X had
> been built for x86 before.  What it means is that Apple would have
> already had compilers and tools to target x86. But it still had to
> change much in the kernel, and adapt to the EFI bootloader which would
> not have existed before etc.
> 
> Porting to Intel meant an change in endianness. While for many
> applications, this may not be a big deal because compilers take care of
> this, this is not the case at the OS and kernel level nor at te driver
> level.
> 
> And it also required Apple develop Rosetta which was an extremely clever
> piece of software that handled the endianness differences very well.

I don't remember where I heard this (could it have been during the 2005 
WWDC Keynote?), but I recall reading that Apple said they developed 
every new version of OSX for both PPC and Intel. Does someone else 
remember this?

In article <4ecd36fc$0$19601$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
> > Office 2004 for Mac does not run in Lion. Period. End of story. 
> 
> 
> Could you run Sheepshaver and boot Tiger for PowerPC ?

You can certainly try. Good luck with that.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <4ecd36b1$0$19601$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
> > That may be when it was officially announced, but Apple had Mac OS X 
> > running on Intel long before that. ; ) I guess if you wanna be anal 
> > retentive about it, sure: it was announced officially around five years 
> > ago. 
> 
> According to he Bible (the Book of Jobs), this is not mentioned. Once
> the decision was made to go Intel, Apple put in herculean efforts to
> port to Intel. There was no mention of OS-X running on Intel prior to
> the decision.

The absence of mention of it in some book does not mean it didn't exist.  
; )

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-5A9866.12562823112011@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <4ecd36b1$0$19601$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Jolly Roger wrote:
> > 
> > > That may be when it was officially announced, but Apple had Mac OS X 
> > > running on Intel long before that. ; ) I guess if you wanna be anal 
> > > retentive about it, sure: it was announced officially around five years 
> > > ago. 
> > 
> > According to he Bible (the Book of Jobs), this is not mentioned. Once
> > the decision was made to go Intel, Apple put in herculean efforts to
> > port to Intel. There was no mention of OS-X running on Intel prior to
> > the decision.
> 
> The absence of mention of it in some book does not mean it didn't exist.  
> ; )

You'd have to be quite naive to think that Apple didn't have Mac OS X up 
and running on Intel processors long before the official announcement. 

Here's an article from 2002 showing others knew about Apple's work with 
Intel long before it was officially announced in 2006:

<http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Apple/Apple-Keeps-x86-Torch-Lit-with-Marklar/>

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <dfritzin-68708B.13371523112011@news.eternal-september.org>,
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> I don't remember where I heard this (could it have been during the 2005 
> WWDC Keynote?), but I recall reading that Apple said they developed 
> every new version of OSX for both PPC and Intel. Does someone else 
> remember this?

nextstep/openstep had been running on intel since the early 1990s,
along with mips and 68k, long before the apple/next merger. when apple
ported openstep to powerpc in the late 1990s and then went on to create
os x, they secretly maintained the intel build. only a few people knew
about it.

that does *not* mean apple had a complete os x ready to roll on intel
any time they wanted. it was little more than it compiled without
errors. it still took apple quite a while to finish porting os x to
intel and even longer to port their apps such as ilife and iwork. there
was a *lot* of work that had to be done.

On 2011-11-23 14:01 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article<jollyroger-5A9866.12562823112011@news.individual.net>,
>   Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>
>> In article<4ecd36b1$0$19601$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.com>,
>>   JF Mezei<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>  wrote:
>>
>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>
>>>> That may be when it was officially announced, but Apple had Mac OS X
>>>> running on Intel long before that. ; ) I guess if you wanna be anal
>>>> retentive about it, sure: it was announced officially around five years
>>>> ago.
>>>
>>> According to he Bible (the Book of Jobs), this is not mentioned. Once
>>> the decision was made to go Intel, Apple put in herculean efforts to
>>> port to Intel. There was no mention of OS-X running on Intel prior to
>>> the decision.
>>
>> The absence of mention of it in some book does not mean it didn't exist.
>> ; )
>
> You'd have to be quite naive to think that Apple didn't have Mac OS X up
> and running on Intel processors long before the official announcement.
>
> Here's an article from 2002 showing others knew about Apple's work with
> Intel long before it was officially announced in 2006:

I do recall hearing something about such back a couple years before the 
intel announcement.  At the time I didn't care either way.

But if Apple were to switch processors again soon, I'd be mighty pissed! 
  This is why I was nervous on hearing of an ARM based laptop in the 
works.  But if you look at the ARM architecture it is seriously lacking 
in some powerful microprocessor features and to date there is no 64 bit 
version.

-- 
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

In article <231120111103587734%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-68708B.13371523112011@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I don't remember where I heard this (could it have been during the 2005 
> > WWDC Keynote?), but I recall reading that Apple said they developed 
> > every new version of OSX for both PPC and Intel. Does someone else 
> > remember this?
> 
> nextstep/openstep had been running on intel since the early 1990s,
> along with mips and 68k, long before the apple/next merger. when apple
> ported openstep to powerpc in the late 1990s and then went on to create
> os x, they secretly maintained the intel build. only a few people knew
> about it.

Does anyone remember if that was announced somewhere during the 
introduction of Intel Macs, or just prior? 
> 
> that does *not* mean apple had a complete os x ready to roll on intel
> any time they wanted. it was little more than it compiled without
> errors. it still took apple quite a while to finish porting os x to
> intel and even longer to port their apps such as ilife and iwork. there
> was a *lot* of work that had to be done.

No doubt it was a lot of work-I'm certainly not underestimating that. 
Plus, they had to write Rosetta so PPC applications would work, and 
write the tools (Carbon) for developers to port applications to Intel.

In article <dfritzin-03232F.15040623112011@news.eternal-september.org>,
 David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> No doubt it was a lot of work-I'm certainly not underestimating that. 
> Plus, they had to write Rosetta so PPC applications would work, and 
> write the tools (Carbon) for developers to port applications to Intel.

Actually, Rosetta was based on QuickTransit, so it did not have to be 
written from scratch.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickTransit>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)>

-- Michelle

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On 11/22/2011 10:55 PM, Mr. Strat wrote:
> In article<jahjid$a89$1@panix1.panix.com>, Brian Gordon
> <briang@panix.com>  wrote:
>
>> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now, how much
>> software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical collection -- Office
>> '04,
>> typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command line
>> stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much from the
>> Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within hours of me.
>
> Office 2004 is over seven years old.

And this is truly ludicrous.

On 11/23/2011 09:53 AM, Mr. Strat wrote:

> Well, you can't expect a piece of software to be compatible with future
> file formats and future operating systems forever.

Absolutely. Now it works, then it doesn't.

> It's the nature of
> the business...you gotta keep up or you'll be SOL some day.

Absolutely. What you must care about is the nature of business and 
Strat-o-spheric prices.

On 11/23/2011 12:49 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 11-22-2011 22:55, Mr. Strat wrote:
>> Office 2004 is over seven years old.
>
> Are you assuming that the numbers MS tacks on these things
> accurately represent the year of release?

Absolutely. They repackaged in 2004.

On 11/23/2011 12:02 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article<dfritzin-1C177B.11311923112011@news.eternal-september.org>,
>   David Fritzinger<dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> In article<jollyroger-F38BD9.09012823112011@news.individual.net>,
>>   Jolly Roger<jollyroger@pobox.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> In article<kvydnW2XRY9rnlDTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>   Alan Browne<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2011-11-22 22:55 , Mr. Strat wrote:
>>>>> In article<jahjid$a89$1@panix1.panix.com>, Brian Gordon
>>>>> <briang@panix.com>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in
>>>>>> itself.  Now, how much software must I buy again?  I've got a
>>>>>> pretty typical collection -- Office '04, typical utilities and
>>>>>> tools, etc.  I use Terminal a lot, do some command line stuff,
>>>>>> Faxing, etc.  Am I looking at a big hit?  I can't tell much
>>>>>> from the Apple site, and there is no actual Apple Store within
>>>>>> hours of me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Office 2004 is over seven years old.
>>>>
>>>> So what?  I was running a version of MS Office on one of my Windows
>>>> system for well over 10 years.
>>>
>>> Apple moves faster than Microsoft; Mac software requirements sometimes
>>> change more frequently as a result. Apple transitioned from the PowerPC
>>> architecture to the Intel architecture almost ten years ago, and
>>> recently dropped support for PowerPC emulation in Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion).
>>> The OP is running Lion on a new MacBook Pro. Office 2004, being
>>> PowerPC-based, will not run on Lion. Therefore the OP will need to
>>> update it to run it.
>>
>> I think your math may be a bit off. Apple transitioned to Intel in 2006,
>> which is 5 to 5 and a half years ago.
>
> That may be when it was officially announced, but Apple had Mac OS X
> running on Intel long before that. ; ) I guess if you wanna be anal
> retentive about it, sure: it was announced officially around five years
> ago.

Anal retentive! That's the term I was looking for! 5 or 10 years ago, 
what's the difference?

> None of this changes any of my above statements, though. The point is
> Apple moves faster than Microsoft; therefore software changes more
> drastically;

Well, of course! I mean you can't expect software to remain compatible 
for 5 years. Take Linux people, for instance. They even have to throw 
away their computer every second year because software has changed.

Sheeee! This discussion is so interesting I believe I'll have to 
leave... soon.

On 11-23-2011 13:37, David Fritzinger wrote:
> I don't remember where I heard this (could it have been during the 2005
> WWDC Keynote?), but I recall reading that Apple said they developed
> every new version of OSX for both PPC and Intel. Does someone else
> remember this?

Not I.  However, I noticed LONG before Intel was announced that
..apps contained their executable in a directory called MacOS.

There were also clues in the output of 'file' though
I don't recall the exact format.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Be spontaneous … today
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/BlindDog?itemid=3984

In article <xn0hly9t81gvog5004@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Compatibility with what? I have no problems running Office 97 on Windows 7.

Reading those DOCX files pretty well, are you? Why not run Windows 95
or 98 if you're going to stay stuck that far in the past?

In article <jajlmd$kng$1@dont-email.me>, Zen <zen@zzzazen.com> wrote:

> > It's the nature of
> > the business...you gotta keep up or you'll be SOL some day.
> 
> Absolutely. What you must care about is the nature of business and 
> Strat-o-spheric prices.

Office X won't work with Lion, and neither will Office 98. How far back
do you want to go. Before upgrading, it might be a good idea to read
the system requirements and other relevant details.

On 24/11/2011 in message <241120110921436322%rag@nospam.techline.com> Mr. 
Strat wrote:

>In article <xn0hly9t81gvog5004@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Compatibility with what? I have no problems running Office 97 on Windows 
>>7.
>
>Reading those DOCX files pretty well, are you? Why not run Windows 95
>or 98 if you're going to stay stuck that far in the past?

I cannot understand this pre-occupation with mindless upgrading.

All the people I communicate with use Word 97 doc files as the standard 
because pretty well any word processor on any platform can read them. Word 
2007 adds nothing to Word 97, it still only produces letters/documents etc.

As far as the OS is concerned Windows 2000 Pro was the best of Windows in 
my view, it screams along on modern kit. It was Windows 7 that eventually 
drove me to a Mac and OS X Snow Leopard. I use Word 2011 on that and it's 
set up to save documents in Word 97 format so others can work on them.

Having made the move to a Mac I must admit I found Lion a bit worrying as 
it implies to me that Apple may end up making the mistakes that MSFT did, 
mind you it's not as bad as the Win8 beta.

This news reader is Windows only and runs on XP in VirtualBox on my Mac, I 
cannot find an OS X news reader to touch it.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
There are 3 types of people in this world. Those who can count, and those 
who can't.

"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> All the people I communicate with use Word 97 doc files as the
> standard because pretty well any word processor on any platform can
> read them. Word 2007 adds nothing to Word 97, it still only produces
> letters/documents etc.

Unfortunately, we don't all have the luxury of choosing to
communicate only with people who use older and/or wider
standards.  Given the choice, I'd never use any Word doc,
'97 or .docx except in the very rare case where only that
format could actually communicate what I needed.

Somehow, Word97 became something of a de-facto standard,
as people simply assumed that everyone uses Word.  And
similarly sadly, .docx is quickly taking its place as the
same people just continue to make that assumption.

You may be getting by with Word97 for a while, but don't
count on it lasting too much longer.  You are almost
certainly going to need to be able to deal with .docx
files soon.

For what it's worth, I recently bought Office 2011 and
it's a vast improvement over '08.

> eventually drove me to a Mac and OS X Snow Leopard. I use Word 2011 on
> that and it's set up to save documents in Word 97 format so others can
> work on them.

Most people aren't so careful.

> Having made the move to a Mac I must admit I found Lion a bit worrying
> as it implies to me that Apple may end up making the mistakes that
> MSFT did, mind you it's not as bad as the Win8 beta.

Lion's biggest nominal fault is the loss of Rosetta and
as annoying as that is to me (I'm stuck with one app
which requires it and will be for a while), it's really
hard to argue that Apple didn't go way out of their way
to support old-architecture software for a very long
time.


-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.

In article <xn0hlzrak307rzr009@news.individual.net>,
 "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> This news reader is Windows only and runs on XP in VirtualBox on my Mac, I 
> cannot find an OS X news reader to touch it.


MT-NW works well for me and is compatible with Lion (with a small bit of 
tweaking).

-- 
m-m
Photo Gallery:
http://www.mhmyers.com

On 11/22/2011 11:36 PM, Zen wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 05:36 PM, Davoud wrote:
>> Doug Anderson:
>>> Yes, this gets into the "comparable machines" discussion.
>>>
>>> An all in one iMac has both advantages and disadvantages next to a
>>> generic tower PC. One of the advantages...
>>
>>> One of the disadvantages...
>>
>> This misses the point. There is one overwhelming, overarching advantage
>> to the Mac. It runs the Mac OS. Everything else is secondary to me;

Well, of course! Who needs anything but a home server. except Weird 
Mezei whose AAPL shares are dropping like crazy these days.

>> even if there were another brand that could match Apple's reputation
>> for quality,

leaking cooling systems, capacitor plagues, overheating, pissy Lucky 
Goldstar screens, draining batteries, etc.


>> and customer satisfaction, it wouldn't be
>> running the Mac OS and it wouldn't be worth my consideration.

I certainly understand. I mean, with a BSD licence, it isn't as if OS X 
was one of those open source lamies. No workspaces here. Just ethereal 
Spaces!

And they're soooo smaaaal! 2 months ago, I decided to buy my beer in 24 
packs. Now my cat has to live between the dryer and the stove. When both 
are on, he makes a funny face.

On 11/24/2011 12:23 PM, Mr. Strat wrote:
> In article<jajlmd$kng$1@dont-email.me>, Zen<zen@zzzazen.com>  wrote:
>
>>> It's the nature of
>>> the business...you gotta keep up or you'll be SOL some day.
>>
>> Absolutely. What you must care about is the nature of business and
>> Strat-o-spheric prices.
>
> Office X won't work with Lion, and neither will Office 98. How far back
> do you want to go. Before upgrading, it might be a good idea to read
> the system requirements and other relevant details.

Listen, I have to be honest: I'm a troll here. You know, somebody who 
doesn't give a damn about all this squirrel wheel moron nonsense.

3 years ago, for the price of a Mini, I bought a shop assembled PC and 
it's still twice as powerful as a Mini. I installed Ubuntu LTS and 
sometimes a flash appears on the screen asking if I want to update. Next 
April, it will ask if I want to upgrade but I'll probably wait until 
June or July, just to make sure everything is stable.

So, whenever I see Morons having paid a fortune for their always broken 
down piece of iCrap and having to pay for renewing their software 
because Apple feels it needs some extra cash since they're so poor, I'm 
ROTFLOL.

When I see the Occidental world trying to stay afloat and Apple's shares 
dipping no faster than NASDAQ, I wonder if Jobs' heirs haven't been 
forced to buy APPl shares after he's dead.

How long do you believe this nonsense might last?

You Moron "elite" are so discouraging, all that's left is laughing.

In article <janci3$7j4$1@dont-email.me>, Zen <zen@zzzazen.com> wrote:

> On 11/24/2011 12:23 PM, Mr. Strat wrote:
> > In article<jajlmd$kng$1@dont-email.me>, Zen<zen@zzzazen.com>  wrote:
> >
> >>> It's the nature of
> >>> the business...you gotta keep up or you'll be SOL some day.
> >>
> >> Absolutely. What you must care about is the nature of business and
> >> Strat-o-spheric prices.
> >
> > Office X won't work with Lion, and neither will Office 98. How far back
> > do you want to go. Before upgrading, it might be a good idea to read
> > the system requirements and other relevant details.
> 
> Listen, I have to be honest: I'm a troll here.

Fuck off then.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:21:42 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 23/11/2011 in message
> <jollyroger-098949.21482522112011@news.individual.net> Jolly Roger
> wrote:
> 
>>You realize it's almost 2012, right? It's about time to upgrade Office
>>or do without, I' say.
> 
> Why?
> 
> I have Office 97 and Office 2007, they have the same functionality and
> the Office 97 apps are easier to use without the moronic MSFT Ribbon.

Ah yes, but does Mac version of Office 97 have that wretched paperclip?

Getting rid of that might have me reaching for my wallet ;-)

> I got Office 2011 for my Mac, about half price on eBay. The great
> advantage of Office on the Mac is you can turn the ribbon off.

That's good.



-- 
Paul Sture

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:51:09 -0500, Brian Gordon wrote:

> OK, so I buy a MacBook Pro, which is a walloet shock in itself.  Now,
> how much software must I buy again?  I've got a pretty typical
> collection -- Office '04, typical utilities and tools, etc.  I use
> Terminal a lot, do some command line stuff, Faxing, etc.  Am I looking
> at a big hit?  I can't tell much from the Apple site, and there is no
> actual Apple Store within hours of me.

On the Office front, you might like to see how you get on with Libre 
Office:

<http://www.libreoffice.org/>

or as others have mentioned, iWork. The spreadsheet which comes with iWork 
is a bit of a toy in comparison with Excel, but KeyNote is definitely 
superior to PowerPoint, and I personally find Pages easier to work with 
than Word.

With the popularity of PDF files as a distribution medium nowadays, the 
compatibility issues presented by Word document formats are a thing of 
the past, for me at least.

-- 
Paul Sture

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:47:25 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> I cannot understand this pre-occupation with mindless upgrading.

I wish it wasn't so, but unfortunately many have this.

> All the people I communicate with use Word 97 doc files as the standard
> because pretty well any word processor on any platform can read them.
> Word 2007 adds nothing to Word 97, it still only produces
> letters/documents etc.

My worst experience was when someone sent me a Word 2000 format document 
containing a licence key.  That was a complete swine to extract.

But as I pointed out in my reply to the OP, I am finding PDF files more 
common as a distribution medium nowadays, so am experiencing a lot less 
pain than I used to.

-- 
Paul Sture

Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> writes:

> <http://www.libreoffice.org/>

I've found that short of Excel, LibreOffice does a passable job
of opening some spreadsheets that Numbers and others have failed.

> or as others have mentioned, iWork. The spreadsheet which comes with iWork 
> is a bit of a toy in comparison with Excel, but KeyNote is definitely 

In comparison to Excel, yes.  In comparion to what some 95% or more
users of spreadsheets actually do with them, it's more than adequate.
In my experience, the vast majority of users of spreadsheets do
little more than organize data, and maybe run some sums.

And as for organizing, Numbers actually has some significant
advantages, aside from being very much easier to use.

I use both - Excel for the times when Numbers can't do what I
need, but Numbers at least as often.

> superior to PowerPoint, and I personally find Pages easier to work with 
> than Word.

One very slick thing is that in Pages, if you insert a Table, it's
actually a live spreadsheet with much of the computational abilities
of Numbers.

> With the popularity of PDF files as a distribution medium nowadays, the 
> compatibility issues presented by Word document formats are a thing of 
> the past, for me at least.

If only that were the case.  I never send Word docs unless the
recipients specifically either ask for Word, or are going to be
collaborating with me by editing the document, yes, I send PDF.

But that doesn't change the fact that some huge percentage of
the world out there seems to think that Word docs are some form
of good standard for sending documents and I *receive* them way
more often that I'd like.  Actually, I receive .xls docs way
too often, too, especially when csv or tab-delimited would work
just as well or better.


-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:47:25 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> This news reader is Windows only and runs on XP in VirtualBox on my Mac,
> I cannot find an OS X news reader to touch it.

Thanks for that tip.  I've downloaded it and given it a whirl, and it 
offers features I have missed ever since I moved off Windows at home a 
decade ago; the ability to search for replies to your own messages is 
really useful.

It's also blazingly fast.



-- 
Paul Sture

On 25/11/2011 in message <a8p4q8-lqj2.ln1@news.sture.ch> Paul Sture wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:47:25 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>>This news reader is Windows only and runs on XP in VirtualBox on my Mac,
>>I cannot find an OS X news reader to touch it.
>
>Thanks for that tip.  I've downloaded it and given it a whirl, and it
>offers features I have missed ever since I moved off Windows at home a
>decade ago; the ability to search for replies to your own messages is
>really useful.
>
>It's also blazingly fast.

Glad you like it :-)

If you got the original from Colin Wilson's site you can find an upgrade 
to 1.19.1.320 here:

http://xananews.techtips.com.br/

Colin disappeared into the World of Warcraft and hasn't been seen since 
and somebody else did some updates of the executable.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant

On 2011-11-24 12:47 , Jeff Gaines wrote:

> This news reader is Windows only and runs on XP in VirtualBox on my Mac,
> I cannot find an OS X news reader to touch it.

Have you tried Thunderbird? (Free) (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux)


-- 
"I see!" said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.

On 2011-11-25 06:09 , Paul Sture wrote:

> My worst experience was when someone sent me a Word 2000 format document
> containing a licence key.  That was a complete swine to extract.
>
> But as I pointed out in my reply to the OP, I am finding PDF files more
> common as a distribution medium nowadays, so am experiencing a lot less
> pain than I used to.

We've distributed in PDF for years as policy.  It prevents clients and 
partners from "suggesting change by edit".

This is most important on specs/agreements and contracts, although in 
the later we'd use change tracking as well with some clients.

-- 
"I see!" said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.

On 2011-11-25 05:49 , Paul Sture wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:21:42 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>> On 23/11/2011 in message
>> <jollyroger-098949.21482522112011@news.individual.net>  Jolly Roger
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You realize it's almost 2012, right? It's about time to upgrade Office
>>> or do without, I' say.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> I have Office 97 and Office 2007, they have the same functionality and
>> the Office 97 apps are easier to use without the moronic MSFT Ribbon.
>
> Ah yes, but does Mac version of Office 97 have that wretched paperclip?
>
> Getting rid of that might have me reaching for my wallet ;-)
>
>> I got Office 2011 for my Mac, about half price on eBay. The great
>> advantage of Office on the Mac is you can turn the ribbon off.
>
> That's good.

I find Office for Mac (2008) to have a cartoonish, bloated appearance.

But it is Office.  I've had no file exchange issues other than having to 
write older formats (97) out for some clinging to the past.

-- 
"I see!" said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.

On 2011-11-25 15:13:28 +0000, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net said:

> In comparison to Excel, yes.  In comparion to what some 95% or more
> users of spreadsheets actually do with them, it's more than adequate.
> In my experience, the vast majority of users of spreadsheets do
> little more than organize data, and maybe run some sums.
> 
> And as for organizing, Numbers actually has some significant
> advantages, aside from being very much easier to use.

In the Macintosh user group I attend we had a special interest group 
that for a time concentrated on Excel. Interestingly nothing was ever 
presented that couldn't be done easily in Numbers.

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

On 2011-11-25 12:00 , TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On 2011-11-25 15:13:28 +0000, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net said:
>
>> In comparison to Excel, yes. In comparion to what some 95% or more
>> users of spreadsheets actually do with them, it's more than adequate.
>> In my experience, the vast majority of users of spreadsheets do
>> little more than organize data, and maybe run some sums.
>>
>> And as for organizing, Numbers actually has some significant
>> advantages, aside from being very much easier to use.
>
> In the Macintosh user group I attend we had a special interest group
> that for a time concentrated on Excel. Interestingly nothing was ever
> presented that couldn't be done easily in Numbers.

One reason I abandoned Numbers (though I still have it licensed on my 
machine) is that it cannot do a 'solve' where you're trying to get a 
particular value in a cell by modifying another.  When the equation 
leading to the output cell is non-linear this can be daunting.  Excel 
does it instantly (or in some cases it may take a second or 2 to converge).

Excel has done this for 20 years.  Not numbers.

When doing pricing (one example) the above is an invaluable time saver.

When sending a spreadsheet to another co. there is nothing like doing 
and sending it to them in the same format.  No worries about 
lost-in-translation issues.  (Usually formatting is the culprit as the 
fonts in an Apple suite do not match those in a Windows suite very well 
- but formula errors also occur).

-- 
"I see!" said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.

On 25/11/2011 in message <h6ydnQDmEatWIlLTnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@giganews.com> 
Alan Browne wrote:

>On 2011-11-24 12:47 , Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>>This news reader is Windows only and runs on XP in VirtualBox on my Mac,
>>I cannot find an OS X news reader to touch it.
>
>Have you tried Thunderbird? (Free) (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux)

I have. It used to be excellent for news with colouring to match XanaNews 
but it seems to concentrate on email nowadays. Perhaps I should look again.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it.

In article <h6ydnQPmEav5XVLTnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2011-11-25 06:09 , Paul Sture wrote:
> 
> > My worst experience was when someone sent me a Word 2000 format document
> > containing a licence key.  That was a complete swine to extract.
> >
> > But as I pointed out in my reply to the OP, I am finding PDF files more
> > common as a distribution medium nowadays, so am experiencing a lot less
> > pain than I used to.
> 
> We've distributed in PDF for years as policy.  It prevents clients and 
> partners from "suggesting change by edit".
> 
> This is most important on specs/agreements and contracts, although in 
> the later we'd use change tracking as well with some clients.

It also avoids the problem of embarrassment when some bugger forgets to 
"accept all changes and edits" or whatever it is, so smarty-pants 
promptly undoes them and discovers what Jim in their Design Dept 
*really* thinks of your boss.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:57:59 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

> In article <h6ydnQPmEav5XVLTnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
>> On 2011-11-25 06:09 , Paul Sture wrote:
>> 
>> > My worst experience was when someone sent me a Word 2000 format
>> > document containing a licence key.  That was a complete swine to
>> > extract.
>> >
>> > But as I pointed out in my reply to the OP, I am finding PDF files
>> > more common as a distribution medium nowadays, so am experiencing a
>> > lot less pain than I used to.
>> 
>> We've distributed in PDF for years as policy.  It prevents clients and
>> partners from "suggesting change by edit".
>> 
>> This is most important on specs/agreements and contracts, although in
>> the later we'd use change tracking as well with some clients.
> 
> It also avoids the problem of embarrassment when some bugger forgets to
> "accept all changes and edits" or whatever it is, so smarty-pants
> promptly undoes them and discovers what Jim in their Design Dept
> *really* thinks of your boss.

We had a great example about 10 years ago, where we could see the full 
history of a Word document, including authors' names.

Now, Word itself may have hidden that from prying eyes, but the 
equivalent of "hexdump -C" revealed plenty :-)





-- 
Paul Sture

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:56:54 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 25/11/2011 in message <h6ydnQDmEatWIlLTnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@giganews.com>
> Alan Browne wrote:
> 
>>On 2011-11-24 12:47 , Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>>This news reader is Windows only and runs on XP in VirtualBox on my
>>>Mac, I cannot find an OS X news reader to touch it.
>>
>>Have you tried Thunderbird? (Free) (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux)
> 
> I have. It used to be excellent for news with colouring to match
> XanaNews but it seems to concentrate on email nowadays. Perhaps I should
> look again.

The last time I looked, the news side of Thunderbird seemed to be the 
poor cousin to email.  Maybe they have put more effort in since.



-- 
Paul Sture

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:15:19 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 25/11/2011 in message <a8p4q8-lqj2.ln1@news.sture.ch> Paul Sture
> wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:47:25 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>>This news reader is Windows only and runs on XP in VirtualBox on my
>>>Mac, I cannot find an OS X news reader to touch it.
>>
>>Thanks for that tip.  I've downloaded it and given it a whirl, and it
>>offers features I have missed ever since I moved off Windows at home a
>>decade ago; the ability to search for replies to your own messages is
>>really useful.
>>
>>It's also blazingly fast.
> 
> Glad you like it :-)
> 
> If you got the original from Colin Wilson's site you can find an upgrade
> to 1.19.1.320 here:
> 
> http://xananews.techtips.com.br/

Thanks for the link.

> Colin disappeared into the World of Warcraft and hasn't been seen since
> and somebody else did some updates of the executable.

That has me scratching my head.  Working with WoW, playing it, or 
swallowed by it? ;-)

<http://www.sture.ch/images/millenium-bug.gif>

-- 
Paul Sture

On 11/25/2011 05:04 AM, Tim Streater wrote:

>> Listen, I have to be honest: I'm a troll here.
>
> Fuck off then.

Well, surely you'll understand that what I'm stating here is M&Ms' 
opinion that anybody who's not quitting reality to sing the Apple Gospel 
is a troll.

On 11/25/2011 02:43 PM, Paul Sture wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:57:59 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> In article<h6ydnQPmEav5XVLTnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>   Alan Browne<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-11-25 06:09 , Paul Sture wrote:
>>>
>>>> My worst experience was when someone sent me a Word 2000 format
>>>> document containing a licence key.  That was a complete swine to
>>>> extract.
>>>>
>>>> But as I pointed out in my reply to the OP, I am finding PDF files
>>>> more common as a distribution medium nowadays, so am experiencing a
>>>> lot less pain than I used to.
>>>
>>> We've distributed in PDF for years as policy.  It prevents clients and
>>> partners from "suggesting change by edit".
>>>
>>> This is most important on specs/agreements and contracts, although in
>>> the later we'd use change tracking as well with some clients.
>>
>> It also avoids the problem of embarrassment when some bugger forgets to
>> "accept all changes and edits" or whatever it is, so smarty-pants
>> promptly undoes them and discovers what Jim in their Design Dept
>> *really* thinks of your boss.
>
> We had a great example about 10 years ago, where we could see the full
> history of a Word document, including authors' names.
>
> Now, Word itself may have hidden that from prying eyes, but the
> equivalent of "hexdump -C" revealed plenty :-)

Hey, Stury,

When you buy commercial crapware, it's the kind of dirty trick you must 
learn to rejoice to.

Let's sing teh Gospel, kids! Here's some Kool-Aid for you.

On 2011-11-25 12:56 , Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 25/11/2011 in message <h6ydnQDmEatWIlLTnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@giganews.com>
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> On 2011-11-24 12:47 , Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>> This news reader is Windows only and runs on XP in VirtualBox on my Mac,
>>> I cannot find an OS X news reader to touch it.
>>
>> Have you tried Thunderbird? (Free) (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux)
>
> I have. It used to be excellent for news with colouring to match
> XanaNews but it seems to concentrate on email nowadays. Perhaps I should
> look again.

It just works well as a news reader.  No bells and whistles.  Handles 
binary, including yEnc, okay - but does not (AFAIK) assemble files from 
rars.  Strips sigs correctly.

But for poking around discussion newsgroups, it's fine.

-- 
"I see!" said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.

In article <jap6dn$639$1@dont-email.me>, Zen <zen@zzzazen.com> wrote:

> On 11/25/2011 05:04 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
> 
> >> Listen, I have to be honest: I'm a troll here.
> >
> > Fuck off then.
> 
> Well, surely you'll understand that what I'm stating here is M&Ms' 
> opinion that anybody who's not quitting reality to sing the Apple Gospel 
> is a troll.

Since you're a troll, run away and play. Or dance a hornpipe, your 
choice.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In article <dfritzin-03232F.15040623112011@news.eternal-september.org>,
 David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <231120111103587734%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > nextstep/openstep had been running on intel since the early 1990s,
> > along with mips and 68k, long before the apple/next merger. when apple
> > ported openstep to powerpc in the late 1990s and then went on to create
> > os x, they secretly maintained the intel build. only a few people knew
> > about it.
> 
> Does anyone remember if that was announced somewhere during the 
> introduction of Intel Macs, or just prior? 

I certainly "seem" to remember. I think Steve Jobs said as much during 
his announcement of processor switch.
Here's what I got: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghdTqnYnFyg>. Does 
this help?

leo

Leonard Blaisdell wrote:

> I certainly "seem" to remember. I think Steve Jobs said as much during 
> his announcement of processor switch.
> Here's what I got: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghdTqnYnFyg>. Does 
> this help?


Interesting. But I suspect there is some "reality distortion" field in
that.

It is quite possible that this "secret lab" was really just the test lab
for the IDE/compiler group and they maintained Xcode,s ability to target
multiple platforms.

Also, consider that EFI didn't come into being until after 2001
(Itanium's Merced was first with it in 2001). My guess is that they used
NeXT boxes to boot OS-X, using the boot loader that NeXT had developped.

It isn't clear when Apple would have started to build an EFI console and
boot loader to replace whatever NeXT had been using (I suspect they used
BIOS ?) That was probably negotiated with Intel when Apple pondered the
switch. By the time Jobs made the announcement in 2005, development
would have been well underway.

And it also doesn't mean that Apple would have built a full OS-X with
all of the apps bacl then.

I would be curoius though of when work on Rosetta started.

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> 
> > I certainly "seem" to remember. I think Steve Jobs said as much during
> > his announcement of processor switch.
> > Here's what I got: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghdTqnYnFyg>. Does
> > this help?
> 
> 
> Interesting. But I suspect there is some "reality distortion" field in
> that.
> 
> It is quite possible that this "secret lab" was really just the test lab
> for the IDE/compiler group and they maintained Xcode,s ability to target
> multiple platforms.
> 
> Also, consider that EFI didn't come into being until after 2001
> (Itanium's Merced was first with it in 2001). My guess is that they used
> NeXT boxes to boot OS-X, using the boot loader that NeXT had developped.

NeXT computers had 68030 or 68040 processors, so that doesn't seem
likely. NeXT stopped selling them in 1993, and switched to selling
NeXTSTEP/OpenStep as a software platform for computers made by other
companies (normally with x86 processors). Apple bought NeXT three years
later.

EFI wouldn't have a been a factor in maintaining a version of Mac OS X
which ran Intel hardware.

In fact, the developer preview Intel Macs in 2005 didn't have EFI (they
were a Pentium 4 with BIOS).

<http://www.maconintel.com/news.php?article=20>

EFI on Intel Macs was introduced with the first public models in 2006.

> It isn't clear when Apple would have started to build an EFI console and
> boot loader to replace whatever NeXT had been using (I suspect they used
> BIOS ?) That was probably negotiated with Intel when Apple pondered the
> switch. By the time Jobs made the announcement in 2005, development
> would have been well underway.
> 
> And it also doesn't mean that Apple would have built a full OS-X with
> all of the apps bacl then.
> 
> I would be curoius though of when work on Rosetta started.

According to Wikipedia, QuickTransit was first introduced in 2004, for
SGI to do MIPS to Itanium code translation. Apple licensed it in 2005 or
2006 and marketed it under the name Rosetta. Transitive would have
needed to write the PowerPC to x86 code translation engine somewhere
between late 2004 and late 2005, if they didn't have one already.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In article <6n75q8-gek2.ln1@news.sture.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:57:59 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
> 
> > In article <h6ydnQPmEav5XVLTnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2011-11-25 06:09 , Paul Sture wrote:
> >> 
> >> > My worst experience was when someone sent me a Word 2000 format
> >> > document containing a licence key.  That was a complete swine to
> >> > extract.
> >> >
> >> > But as I pointed out in my reply to the OP, I am finding PDF files
> >> > more common as a distribution medium nowadays, so am experiencing a
> >> > lot less pain than I used to.
> >> 
> >> We've distributed in PDF for years as policy.  It prevents clients and
> >> partners from "suggesting change by edit".
> >> 
> >> This is most important on specs/agreements and contracts, although in
> >> the later we'd use change tracking as well with some clients.
> > 
> > It also avoids the problem of embarrassment when some bugger forgets to
> > "accept all changes and edits" or whatever it is, so smarty-pants
> > promptly undoes them and discovers what Jim in their Design Dept
> > *really* thinks of your boss.
> 
> We had a great example about 10 years ago, where we could see the full 
> history of a Word document, including authors' names.
> 
> Now, Word itself may have hidden that from prying eyes, but the 
> equivalent of "hexdump -C" revealed plenty :-)

An entity making that mistake can lose billions and never know it. The 
old why do we keep losing contracts or our customers and suppliers know 
exactly how much to bid?

Worth going through all those Word documents to find these gems. Perhaps 
a job you can assign to the interns, as it would be an educational 
experience.

-- 
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:16:06 -0500, Walter Bushell wrote:

> In article <6n75q8-gek2.ln1@news.sture.ch>,
>  Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:57:59 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <h6ydnQPmEav5XVLTnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> >  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On 2011-11-25 06:09 , Paul Sture wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > My worst experience was when someone sent me a Word 2000 format
>> >> > document containing a licence key.  That was a complete swine to
>> >> > extract.
>> >> >
>> >> > But as I pointed out in my reply to the OP, I am finding PDF files
>> >> > more common as a distribution medium nowadays, so am experiencing
>> >> > a lot less pain than I used to.
>> >> 
>> >> We've distributed in PDF for years as policy.  It prevents clients
>> >> and partners from "suggesting change by edit".
>> >> 
>> >> This is most important on specs/agreements and contracts, although
>> >> in the later we'd use change tracking as well with some clients.
>> > 
>> > It also avoids the problem of embarrassment when some bugger forgets
>> > to "accept all changes and edits" or whatever it is, so smarty-pants
>> > promptly undoes them and discovers what Jim in their Design Dept
>> > *really* thinks of your boss.
>> 
>> We had a great example about 10 years ago, where we could see the full
>> history of a Word document, including authors' names.
>> 
>> Now, Word itself may have hidden that from prying eyes, but the
>> equivalent of "hexdump -C" revealed plenty :-)
> 
> An entity making that mistake can lose billions and never know it. The
> old why do we keep losing contracts or our customers and suppliers know
> exactly how much to bid?

In the case I am thinking of it could well have influenced corporate 
buying strategies.
 
> Worth going through all those Word documents to find these gems. Perhaps
> a job you can assign to the interns, as it would be an educational
> experience.

That's a good idea.  We get youngsters on job experience exercise 
occasionally and it's sometimes hard to find them something appropriate 
to do.

-- 
Paul Sture