I am currently running 10.3.9

I have seen and briefly used Tiger - there are 2 things I want to turn 
OFF - not just remove from the dock, or put out of sight - I want the 
deamons, application and other 'noise' off.

1 - spotlight indexing - I DO NOT want anything indexed.

probably harder

2 - absolutely NO widgets, I want the entire application layer that 
widgets run in - OFF.

any help here?

thanks!

"Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote in 
message news:6padnQVUp63E54DYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>I am currently running 10.3.9
>
> I have seen and briefly used Tiger - there are 2 things I want to turn 
> OFF - not just remove from the dock, or put out of sight - I want the 
> deamons, application and other 'noise' off.
>
> 1 - spotlight indexing - I DO NOT want anything indexed.

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/26842

"Spotless also includes an on/off switch for Spotlight."

> probably harder
>
> 2 - absolutely NO widgets, I want the entire application layer that 
> widgets run in - OFF.
>
> any help here?
>
> thanks! 

"Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote in 
message news:6padnQVUp63E54DYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>I am currently running 10.3.9
>
> I have seen and briefly used Tiger - there are 2 things I want to turn 
> OFF - not just remove from the dock, or put out of sight - I want the 
> deamons, application and other 'noise' off.
>
> 1 - spotlight indexing - I DO NOT want anything indexed.
>
> probably harder
>
> 2 - absolutely NO widgets, I want the entire application layer that 
> widgets run in - OFF.

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2005/08/disabledashboard/index.php!

Steve

In article <6padnQVUp63E54DYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Fetch, Rover,
Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:

> I am currently running 10.3.9
> 
> I have seen and briefly used Tiger 

Make sure to check the Apple Support site for Firmware updates for your
computer before updating. Requires Mac OS 9.x. And get at least 512 MB
RAM. 20 GB hard disk is also good.

> - there are 2 things I want to turn 
> OFF - not just remove from the dock, or put out of sight - I want the 
> deamons, application and other 'noise' off.
> 
> 1 - spotlight indexing - I DO NOT want anything indexed.

Various methods to turn it off has been discussed in the thread "spotlight
index". One is to go to System Preferences/Spotlight/Privacy, and put in
the volumes that should not be indexed.

Spotlight is though very useful to some.

> probably harder
> 
> 2 - absolutely NO widgets, I want the entire application layer that 
> widgets run in - OFF.
> 
> any help here?

Just don't worry about it.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <R56dnfWYYsKUCIDYnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Steven de
Mena" <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> > 2 - absolutely NO widgets, I want the entire application layer that 
> > widgets run in - OFF.
> 
>
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2005/08/disabledashboard/index.php!

I checked this activity monitor thing in Mac OS X.4.8, and the widgets did
not use any RAM before I brought Dashboard to the foreground. So it seems
disabling to save RAM isn't needed: just don't use Dashboard. And they
take up 0% CPU time, when in the background. If in the background, if the
RAM they use is needed, I gather it will be virtual memory swapped.

Thanks for the link, though.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> Make sure to check the Apple Support site for Firmware updates for your
> computer before updating. 

He's already running Panther.  The updates you mention were required
before he installed that.

> Requires Mac OS 9.x.

I assume you're talking about the abovementioned firmware updates, since
OS 9 isn't required unless he wants to run Classic apps, of course.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

In article <1hmfxa4.vyc1hrln5hvkN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > Make sure to check the Apple Support site for Firmware updates for your
> > computer before updating. 
> 
> He's already running Panther.  The updates you mention were required
> before he installed that.

I don't think so, because I think I made it between X.3 and X.4.

> > Requires Mac OS 9.x.
> 
> I assume you're talking about the abovementioned firmware updates, since
> OS 9 isn't required unless he wants to run Classic apps, of course.

Sure.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <haberg-3009060128320001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > Make sure to check the Apple Support site for Firmware updates 
> > > for your computer before updating. 
> > 
> > He's already running Panther.  The updates you mention were 
> > required before he installed that.
> 
> I don't think so, because I think I made it between X.3 and X.4.

You're wrong.  The firmware updates were required to run OS X in the 
first place.  Besides, you have no idea of what computer he's running 
now--nor do I, but I don't assume anything.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <6padnQVUp63E54DYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:

[...]

> 1 - spotlight indexing - I DO NOT want anything indexed.

$ man mdutil

-- 
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!"
PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!"

Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <6padnQVUp63E54DYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Fetch, Rover,
> Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:
> 
>> I am currently running 10.3.9
>>
>> I have seen and briefly used Tiger 
> 
> Make sure to check the Apple Support site for Firmware updates for your
> computer before updating. Requires Mac OS 9.x. And get at least 512 MB
> RAM. 20 GB hard disk is also good.

not a problem - i'm running a Dual 2.5 G5


>> - there are 2 things I want to turn 
>> OFF - not just remove from the dock, or put out of sight - I want the 
>> deamons, application and other 'noise' off.
>>
>> 1 - spotlight indexing - I DO NOT want anything indexed.
> 
> Various methods to turn it off has been discussed in the thread "spotlight
> index". One is to go to System Preferences/Spotlight/Privacy, and put in
> the volumes that should not be indexed.
> 
> Spotlight is though very useful to some.
> 

not to me - and putting a set of volumes into a plist does NOT resolve 
the issue of network mounted volumes, CDs, DVDs, or Flash drives

>> probably harder
>>
>> 2 - absolutely NO widgets, I want the entire application layer that 
>> widgets run in - OFF.
>>
>> any help here?
> 
> Just don't worry about it.
> 

Steven de Mena wrote:
> "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote in 
> message news:6padnQVUp63E54DYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> I am currently running 10.3.9
>>
>> I have seen and briefly used Tiger - there are 2 things I want to turn 
>> OFF - not just remove from the dock, or put out of sight - I want the 
>> deamons, application and other 'noise' off.
>>
>> 1 - spotlight indexing - I DO NOT want anything indexed.
>>
>> probably harder
>>
>> 2 - absolutely NO widgets, I want the entire application layer that 
>> widgets run in - OFF.
> 
> http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2005/08/disabledashboard/index.php!
> 
> Steve
> 
> 

THANKS!!

In article <michelle-B5B4B9.18313829092006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > > Make sure to check the Apple Support site for Firmware updates 
> > > > for your computer before updating. 
> > > 
> > > He's already running Panther.  The updates you mention were 
> > > required before he installed that.
> > 
> > I don't think so, because I think I made it between X.3 and X.4.
> 
> You're wrong.  The firmware updates were required to run OS X in the 
> first place.  Besides, you have no idea of what computer he's running 
> now--nor do I, but I don't assume anything.

From what I recall, certain exotic components would fail under Mac OS X.3,
but it would not be required, the latter I think is the case for Mac OS
X.4.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> > He's already running Panther.  The updates you mention were required
> > before he installed that.
> 
> I don't think so, because I think I made it between X.3 and X.4

Nope.  The firmware update was required for the slot loading iMacs (and
_only_ the slot loading iMacs) before installing OS X at least as far
back as Jaguar, and failure to do that would result in loss of video.
Jaguar would let you do the installation nonetheless, while Panther
would warn you of the need and make you restart back in OS 9.

Logistically, they couldn't possibly require people to do firmware
upgrades requiring OS 9 on Macs already running OS X, because once OS X
is installed and up and running, there's no requirement to even keep OS
9 at all.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <R56dnfWYYsKUCIDYnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Steven de
> Mena" <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
>>> 2 - absolutely NO widgets, I want the entire application layer that 
>>> widgets run in - OFF.
>>
> http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2005/08/disabledashboard/index.php!

Did this and I get no indication that dashboard is active any more,
but the dock icon still has the little black triangle under it.
Is this normal?

> I checked this activity monitor thing in Mac OS X.4.8, and the widgets did
> not use any RAM before I brought Dashboard to the foreground. So it seems
> disabling to save RAM isn't needed: just don't use Dashboard. And they
> take up 0% CPU time, when in the background. If in the background, if the
> RAM they use is needed, I gather it will be virtual memory swapped.
> 

Interesting...

-- 
Clem
"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
              - Fudd's first law of opposition

In article <R56dnfWYYsKUCIDYnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
 "Steven de Mena" <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote in 
> message news:6padnQVUp63E54DYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >I am currently running 10.3.9
> >
> > I have seen and briefly used Tiger - there are 2 things I want to turn 
> > OFF - not just remove from the dock, or put out of sight - I want the 
> > deamons, application and other 'noise' off.
> >
> > 1 - spotlight indexing - I DO NOT want anything indexed.
> >
> > probably harder
> >
> > 2 - absolutely NO widgets, I want the entire application layer that 
> > widgets run in - OFF.
> 
> http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2005/08/disabledashboard/index.php
> !
>

That url produces:
 
"We're sorry, the page you're looking for is no longer here."

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <1hmh08e.sqg8enzi1j28N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > > He's already running Panther.  The updates you mention were required
> > > before he installed that.
> > 
> > I don't think so, because I think I made it between X.3 and X.4
> 
> Nope.  The firmware update was required for the slot loading iMacs (and
> _only_ the slot loading iMacs) before installing OS X at least as far
> back as Jaguar, and failure to do that would result in loss of video.
> Jaguar would let you do the installation nonetheless, while Panther
> would warn you of the need and make you restart back in OS 9.
> 
> Logistically, they couldn't possibly require people to do firmware
> upgrades requiring OS 9 on Macs already running OS X, because once OS X
> is installed and up and running, there's no requirement to even keep OS
> 9 at all.

I am not sure what you are saying here, because if the Firmware update
hasn't been run, one has to install a Mac OS 9, and then restart from it
to do it.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> I am not sure what you are saying here, because if the Firmware update
> hasn't been run, one has to install a Mac OS 9, and then restart from it
> to do it.

Your correct, if the firmware update that's required before installing
OS X on a slot loading iMac has not been run, you must be running OS 9
to install it.

The OP was asking about upgrading from Panther to Tiger, so that's not
relevant, _if_ it ever was since we don't have any indication he's
running a slot loading iMac at all.  And _if_ he is, he already had to
have upgraded the firmware prior to installing OS X anyway.

In other words, you gave a warning that only applies to a slot loading
iMac that's never had OS X installed.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

In article <haberg-3009061932420001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > Logistically, they couldn't possibly require people to do firmware 
> > upgrades requiring OS 9 on Macs already running OS X, because once 
> > OS X is installed and up and running, there's no requirement to 
> > even keep OS 9 at all.
> 
> I am not sure what you are saying here, because if the Firmware 
> update hasn't been run, one has to install a Mac OS 9, and then 
> restart from it to do it.

He is saying that if the Mac is running OS X, any firmware upgrade 
that's necessary has already been installed.

He also said that the only Macintosh computers that need a firmware 
upgrade to run OS X is the Slot-loading iMac G3.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article 
<paul.sture.nospam-79F83E.18022030092006@mac.sture.homeip.net>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> > http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2005/08/disabledashboard/index.p
> > hp
> > !
> >
> 
> That url produces:
>  
> "We're sorry, the page you're looking for is no longer here."

The URL worked for me.  Make sure there's no line wrapping error and 
that you didn't include that exclamation point.

Here it is again, within brackets.  That might help.

<http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2005/08/disabledashboard/ind
ex.php>

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article 
<paul.sture.nospam-79F83E.18022030092006@mac.sture.homeip.net>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> > http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2005/08/disabledashboard
> > /index.p hp !
> >
> 
> That url produces:
>  
> "We're sorry, the page you're looking for is no longer here."

Oh, even better, here are the instructions from that page:

Open Terminal, and then type this command, followed by the Return key:

defaults write com.apple.dashboard mcx-disabled -boolean YES

This tells the system that you no longer wish to have Dashboard 
available. However, the Dashboard task is actually �owned� by the Dock, 
so to make your changes take effect, you need to restart the Dock. The 
easiest way to do that is to type this command into the Terminal (and 
press Return when done):

killall Dock

After the Dock restarts, hit F12 and you�ll see�nothing at all. If you 
run Activity Monitor, you also won�t find any Dashboard widgets in the 
list of tasks, even if you had several open when you ran the above 
command. Dashboard has been eliminated from your system, and won�t 
return until you tell it to do so. You can do just that by opening 
Terminal again, and typing this command:

defaults write com.apple.dashboard mcx-disabled -boolean NO

Once again, you�ll have to use the killall Dock command to make the 
changes take effect. Once you do, though, you�ll find that Dashboard is 
back as usual�and any widgets you had opened on the Dashboard will still 
be open.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> He is saying that if the Mac is running OS X, any firmware upgrade 
> that's necessary has already been installed.
> 
> He also said that the only Macintosh computers that need a firmware 
> upgrade to run OS X is the Slot-loading iMac G3.

I'm not sure I can take both being quoted correctly _and_ understood,
all in one post.  ;-)

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

Mike Rosenberg wrote:

> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>He is saying that if the Mac is running OS X, any firmware upgrade 
>>that's necessary has already been installed.
>>
>>He also said that the only Macintosh computers that need a firmware 
>>upgrade to run OS X is the Slot-loading iMac G3.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I can take both being quoted correctly _and_ understood,
> all in one post.  ;-)
> 
especially on Usenet.
lol
GW

In article <michelle-8E5A5C.12484930092006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > Logistically, they couldn't possibly require people to do firmware 
> > > upgrades requiring OS 9 on Macs already running OS X, because once 
> > > OS X is installed and up and running, there's no requirement to 
> > > even keep OS 9 at all.
> > 
> > I am not sure what you are saying here, because if the Firmware 
> > update hasn't been run, one has to install a Mac OS 9, and then 
> > restart from it to do it.
> 
> He is saying that if the Mac is running OS X, any firmware upgrade 
> that's necessary has already been installed.

Well, there is a G3 here running X.3, with no Firmware update, and the Mac
OS 9 discs lost.

> He also said that the only Macintosh computers that need a firmware 
> upgrade to run OS X is the Slot-loading iMac G3.

Well, a G4 here required a Firmware update.

Please, get quotes from the Apple site, instead of just making things up -
I read them once, but I have forgotten the links.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <1hmhgcp.krehyzga7jeuN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> 
> > I am not sure what you are saying here, because if the Firmware update
> > hasn't been run, one has to install a Mac OS 9, and then restart from it
> > to do it.
> 
> Your correct, if the firmware update that's required before installing
> OS X on a slot loading iMac has not been run, you must be running OS 9
> to install it.

There is a G3 here running X.3, with not Firmware update, and Mac OS 9
install discs lost.

> The OP was asking about upgrading from Panther to Tiger, so that's not
> relevant, _if_ it ever was since we don't have any indication he's
> running a slot loading iMac at all.  

I don't know where you got this slotloadingh stuff from - a G4 PowerMac
here needed Firmware update.

> And _if_ he is, he already had to
> have upgraded the firmware prior to installing OS X anyway.
> 
> In other words, you gave a warning that only applies to a slot loading
> iMac that's never had OS X installed.

No, you are freely making things up. Check the doc's at the Apple site - I
once read them but I forgot the links.

What I said is that X.3 may accept without Firmware updates, but certain
exotic components may fail. I recall it had to do something with
networiking and the like.

X.4 may though refuse to install without Firmware update.

I do not know these things for sure.

But rather than making things freely up, check the Apple doc's, and return
here with citations.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> > He is saying that if the Mac is running OS X, any firmware upgrade 
> > that's necessary has already been installed.
> 
> Well, there is a G3 here running X.3, with no Firmware update, and the Mac
> OS 9 discs lost.

I haven't said anything to the contrary.

> > He also said that the only Macintosh computers that need a firmware
> > upgrade to run OS X is the Slot-loading iMac G3.
> 
> Well, a G4 here required a Firmware update.
> 
> Please, get quotes from the Apple site, instead of just making things up -
> I read them once, but I have forgotten the links.

Here's everything Apple has to say about firmware updates and OS X:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117

Okay, I see you're correct about some G4s requiring an update, but the
point remains that these updates were required to install OS X 10.2 or
later on Macs currently running OS 9.  We're talking about upgrading
from 10.3.9 to Tiger, and if his Mac needed a firmware upgrade, he would
already have had to have installed it.
 
-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

In article <1hmho2m.1fxnbz8jij0p7N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Here's everything Apple has to say about firmware updates and OS X:
> 
> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117
> 
> Okay, I see you're correct about some G4s requiring an update, but the
> point remains that these updates were required to install OS X 10.2 or
> later on Macs currently running OS 9.  We're talking about upgrading
> from 10.3.9 to Tiger, and if his Mac needed a firmware upgrade, he would
> already have had to have installed it.

There is a difference: without the Firmware update, will the Mac OS X.x, x
= 3, 4, install and some components fail, or will the the install itself
fail? I remember reading a document detailing some of this stuff; I do not
which it was. But I do not know the answer to the question. I think that
X.4 may refuse to install. But:

There is, however, here, a slotloading G3 here running X.3, and I think
there is Firmware update available for it, but it has not been run on the
computer. I can't check, because all Mac OS 9 G3 install discs around here
have been dumped.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <1hmho2m.1fxnbz8jij0p7N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Here's everything Apple has to say about firmware updates and OS X:
>
> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117

If a computer is on those lists, the only way to find out whether the
Firmware is up-do-date is to run the software. It could well be
up-to-date.�One�computer I ran it on, needed an update; another�turned out
to be up-to-date, even though no Firmware update had been run on it
before.

So the safest thing, if one is not positively sure, check for Firmware
updates of your�computer model, and run it, if available.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> If a computer is on those lists, the only way to find out whether the
> Firmware is up-do-date is to run the software.

The entire point of this, which you've missed, despite having had it
explained to you several times, is that the original poster is already
running 10.3.9.  You said that he may need firmware updates that
_require_ OS 9 to run.  There are no such updates.  That's it, period,
end of story.  You can go on and on trying to explain this away, and
your posting history strongly suggests you will, but that won't change
that things.

I'm done here.  See you in another thread.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

In article <haberg-3009062348580001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> I do not know these things for sure.
> 
> But rather than making things freely up, check the Apple doc's, and 
> return here with citations.

LOL.  You admit that you don't know for sure, and then want someone else 
to research it for you.

But since you wanted citations, here they are.  Mike was wrong about 
only slot-loading iMacs needing firmware updates for OS X.

But you were totally wrong about OS X 10.4 needing a firmware update 
even if OS X 10.3 could run without it.  If runs Panther, it doesn't 
need a firmware update to run Tiger, period!

<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117-de>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117-fr>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117-ja>

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <haberg-3009062342380001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > He is saying that if the Mac is running OS X, any firmware upgrade 
> > that's necessary has already been installed.
> 
> Well, there is a G3 here running X.3, with no Firmware update, and 
> the Mac OS 9 discs lost.

Then it doesn't need a firmware update to run Tiger.

> Please, get quotes from the Apple site, instead of just making things 
> up -

Take your own advice.  You make up things here more than anyone else 
does, even more than Bible John does, and more than Mark Conrad does.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <1hmho2m.1fxnbz8jij0p7N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Here's everything Apple has to say about firmware updates and OS X:
> 
> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117

Oh, you found it too, I see.

> Okay, I see you're correct about some G4s requiring an update, but 
> the point remains that these updates were required to install OS X 
> 10.2 or later on Macs currently running OS 9.  We're talking about 
> upgrading from 10.3.9 to Tiger, and if his Mac needed a firmware 
> upgrade, he would already have had to have installed it.

And that's what we've been telling him all along.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <haberg-0110060007380001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> There is a difference: without the Firmware update, will the Mac OS 
> X.x, x = 3, 4, install and some components fail, or will the the 
> install itself fail?

It will not install.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <haberg-0110060007380001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> There is, however, here, a slotloading G3 here running X.3, and I 
> think there is Firmware update available for it, but it has not been 
> run on the computer. I can't check, because all Mac OS 9 G3 install 
> discs around here have been dumped.

How do you know that the firmware update has not been run on it?  The 
fact is that if the firmware had not been updated, you wouldn't be able 
to install OS X on it.  Not even 10.0 because according to the read-me 
files, if you tried to install OS X, you'd get a message saying that you 
needed to update the firmware.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <haberg-0110060020240001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> If a computer is on those lists, the only way to find out whether the 
> Firmware is up-do-date is to run the software. It could well be 
> up-to-date.�One�computer I ran it on, needed an update; 
> another�turned out to be up-to-date, even though no Firmware update 
> had been run on it before.

If the computer is on the list, and the updater says that no update is 
needed, that means that the update has been installed.

> So the safest thing, if one is not positively sure, check for 
> Firmware updates of your�computer model, and run it, if available.

Gee, that's exactly what Apple says.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <1hmhj4k.1klnlvf19hw55nN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > He is saying that if the Mac is running OS X, any firmware upgrade 
> > that's necessary has already been installed.
> > 
> > He also said that the only Macintosh computers that need a firmware 
> > upgrade to run OS X is the Slot-loading iMac G3.
> 
> I'm not sure I can take both being quoted correctly _and_ understood, 
> all in one post.  ;-)

Well, don't worry; I didn't quote you.  I paraphrased you.  But you were 
wrong about the slot loading iMac being the only Mac that needed the 
upgrade.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <1hmhqj0.w8g5lq16nenp4N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> 
> > If a computer is on those lists, the only way to find out whether the
> > Firmware is up-do-date is to run the software.
> 
> The entire point of this, which you've missed, despite having had it
> explained to you several times, is that the original poster is already
> running 10.3.9.  

When I mentioned it, it was not clear what model he had, but it later
became clear he had a model which does not require Firware update.

> You said that he may need firmware updates that
> _require_ OS 9 to run.  There are no such updates.  

All Firmware updates require Mac OS 9. They cannot be run under Mac OS X,
whatever version.

> That's it, period,
> end of story.  You can go on and on trying to explain this away, and
> your posting history strongly suggests you will, but that won't change
> that things.
> 
> I'm done here.  See you in another thread.

I have no idea what you are insisiting on.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-4039EA.16295430092006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <haberg-3009062348580001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
>  haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:
> 
> > I do not know these things for sure.
> > 
> > But rather than making things freely up, check the Apple doc's, and 
> > return here with citations.
> 
> LOL.  You admit that you don't know for sure, and then want someone else 
> to research it for you.
> 
> But since you wanted citations, here they are.  Mike was wrong about 
> only slot-loading iMacs needing firmware updates for OS X.
> 
> But you were totally wrong about OS X 10.4 needing a firmware update 
> even if OS X 10.3 could run without it.  If runs Panther, it doesn't 
> need a firmware update to run Tiger, period!
> 
> <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117>
> <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117-de>
> <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117-fr>
> <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117-ja>

It does not tell.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-CEF088.16420530092006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <haberg-0110060007380001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
>  haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:
> 
> > There is a difference: without the Firmware update, will the Mac OS 
> > X.x, x = 3, 4, install and some components fail, or will the the 
> > install itself fail?
> 
> It will not install.

How do you know?

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-E98F16.16323730092006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > He is saying that if the Mac is running OS X, any firmware upgrade 
> > > that's necessary has already been installed.
> > 
> > Well, there is a G3 here running X.3, with no Firmware update, and 
> > the Mac OS 9 discs lost.
> 
> Then it doesn't need a firmware update to run Tiger.
> 
> > Please, get quotes from the Apple site, instead of just making things 
> > up -
> 
> Take your own advice.  You make up things here more than anyone else 
> does, even more than Bible John does, and more than Mark Conrad does.

???

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-2635C6.16333130092006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1hmho2m.1fxnbz8jij0p7N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > Here's everything Apple has to say about firmware updates and OS X:
> > 
> > http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117
> 
> Oh, you found it too, I see.
> 
> > Okay, I see you're correct about some G4s requiring an update, but 
> > the point remains that these updates were required to install OS X 
> > 10.2 or later on Macs currently running OS 9.  We're talking about 
> > upgrading from 10.3.9 to Tiger, and if his Mac needed a firmware 
> > upgrade, he would already have had to have installed it.
> 
> And that's what we've been telling him all along.

The document does not anwer the question.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-026134.16442330092006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <haberg-0110060007380001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
>  haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:
> 
> > There is, however, here, a slotloading G3 here running X.3, and I 
> > think there is Firmware update available for it, but it has not been 
> > run on the computer. I can't check, because all Mac OS 9 G3 install 
> > discs around here have been dumped.
> 
> How do you know that the firmware update has not been run on it?  

I know the history of the computer, and those who used it.

> The 
> fact is that if the firmware had not been updated, you wouldn't be able 
> to install OS X on it.  Not even 10.0 because according to the read-me 
> files, if you tried to install OS X, you'd get a message saying that you 
> needed to update the firmware.

How do you know?

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-33EEEA.16455030092006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <haberg-0110060020240001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
>  haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:
> 
> > If a computer is on those lists, the only way to find out whether the 
> > Firmware is up-do-date is to run the software. It could well be 
> > up-to-date.�One�computer I ran it on, needed an update; 
> > another�turned out to be up-to-date, even though no Firmware update 
> > had been run on it before.
> 
> If the computer is on the list, and the updater says that no update is 
> needed, that means that the update has been installed.

No.

> > So the safest thing, if one is not positively sure, check for 
> > Firmware updates of your�computer model, and run it, if available.
> 
> Gee, that's exactly what Apple says.

And?

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-D47CBC.12523230092006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <paul.sture.nospam-79F83E.18022030092006@mac.sture.homeip.net>,
>  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
> > > http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2005/08/disabledashboard
> > > /index.p hp !
> > >
> > 
> > That url produces:
> >  
> > "We're sorry, the page you're looking for is no longer here."
> 
> Oh, even better, here are the instructions from that page:
> 
> Open Terminal, and then type this command, followed by the Return key:
> 
> defaults write com.apple.dashboard mcx-disabled -boolean YES

<remainder snipped>

Thanks for the info.

-- 
Paul Sture

Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> When I mentioned it, it was not clear what model he had, but it later
> became clear he had a model which does not require Firware update.

Okay, I said I'm done here in my previous post, but I'll say this one
last time:

The OP clearly stated he's already running OS X 10.3.9.  That means
that, whichever Mac he talking about, even a slot-loading iMac G3 or on
of the listed G4 models, already had the firmware upgrade done since it
was required before he could have installed 10.3 or even 10.2.
Therefore, going from 10.3.9 to Tiger couldn't possibly require a
firmware update that needs to run under OS 9.  I can't see why you don't
understand this.

> All Firmware updates require Mac OS 9. They cannot be run under Mac OS X,
> whatever version.

Now who's making things up?  The page I previously cited, the one you
couldn't be bothered looking up even to prove your point that I was
wrong about a G4 update, lists a Power Mac G5 Firmware Update V 5.1.4
and a Power Mac G5 Uniprocessor Firmware Update 5.1.5f1.  Is it your
contention that these require OS 9, on Macs that cannot boot OS 9?
There have also been some Intel Mac firmware updates.  Do they require
OS 9 on Macs that cannot even run Classic?

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <1hmhqj0.w8g5lq16nenp4N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
>>
>> I'm done here.  See you in another thread.
> 
> I have no idea what you are insisiting on.

It might be helpful to recognize than Hans has never been wrong.

-- 
John McWilliams

"Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like 
Norman Einstein."
	
	- Football commentator and former player Joe Theismann 1996

John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> It might be helpful to recognize than Hans has never been wrong.

LOL!  You're right, I'm just wasting my time in this thread.  This
tangent has never been relevant to the OP, or to anyone upgrading from
Jaguar or later, anyway.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

In article <haberg-0110061149500001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > The fact is that if the firmware had not been updated, you wouldn't 
> > be able to install OS X on it.  Not even 10.0 because according to 
> > the read-me files, if you tried to install OS X, you'd get a 
> > message saying that you needed to update the firmware.
> 
> How do you know?

Because I read the read-me files.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <haberg-0110061148420001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > Okay, I see you're correct about some G4s requiring an update, 
> > > but the point remains that these updates were required to install 
> > > OS X 10.2 or later on Macs currently running OS 9.  We're talking 
> > > about upgrading from 10.3.9 to Tiger, and if his Mac needed a 
> > > firmware upgrade, he would already have had to have installed it.
> > 
> > And that's what we've been telling him all along.
> 
> The document does not anwer the question.

Yes it does.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <haberg-0110061147250001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > There is a difference: without the Firmware update, will the Mac 
> > > OS X.x, x = 3, 4, install and some components fail, or will the 
> > > the install itself fail?
> > 
> > It will not install.
> 
> How do you know?

I am all seeing and all knowing.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <haberg-0110061145190001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > You said that he may need firmware updates that _require_ OS 9 to 
> > run.  There are no such updates.  
> 
> All Firmware updates require Mac OS 9. They cannot be run under Mac 
> OS X, whatever version.

THERE ARE NO SUCH UPDATES FOR HIS COMPUTER!  THERE ARE NO SUCH UPDATES 
FOR A COMPUTER THAT IS ALREADY RUNNING OS X!!!

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <CoGdnQnT7K4VVoLYnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> It might be helpful to recognize than Hans has never been wrong.

Except for almost everything he writes.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <1hmiwtm.hfusvw1r4ntogN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > All Firmware updates require Mac OS 9. They cannot be run under Mac 
> > OS X, whatever version.
> 
> Now who's making things up?  The page I previously cited, the one you 
> couldn't be bothered looking up even to prove your point that I was 
> wrong about a G4 update, lists a Power Mac G5 Firmware Update V 5.1.4 
> and a Power Mac G5 Uniprocessor Firmware Update 5.1.5f1.  Is it your 
> contention that these require OS 9, on Macs that cannot boot OS 9? 
> There have also been some Intel Mac firmware updates.  Do they 
> require OS 9 on Macs that cannot even run Classic?

I'm eagerly awaiting his rationalization for this.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> I am all seeing and all knowing.

Is that you, Karnak the Magnificent?

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> I'm eagerly awaiting his rationalization for this.

I'm not.  As John McWilliams pointed out, in his mind, Hans is always
right, so I expect that he'll contend that by "all firmware updates" he
only meant "all" the updates that fit his description.  You know, the
ones that have nothing to do in the first place with someone upgrading
from OS X 10.3.9 to Tiger.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

In article <1hmj0n1.iai247142yjeN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > I'm eagerly awaiting his rationalization for this.
> 
> I'm not.

I was being sarcastic. <g>

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <1hmiwtm.hfusvw1r4ntogN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> 
> > When I mentioned it, it was not clear what model he had, but it later
> > became clear he had a model which does not require Firware update.
> 
> Okay, I said I'm done here in my previous post, but I'll say this one
> last time:
> 
> The OP clearly stated he's already running OS X 10.3.9.  That means
> that, whichever Mac he talking about, even a slot-loading iMac G3 or on
> of the listed G4 models, already had the firmware upgrade done since it
> was required before he could have installed 10.3 or even 10.2.

Where do you get that from?

> Therefore, going from 10.3.9 to Tiger couldn't possibly require a
> firmware update that needs to run under OS 9.  I can't see why you don't
> understand this.
> 
> > All Firmware updates require Mac OS 9. They cannot be run under Mac OS X,
> > whatever version.
> 
> Now who's making things up?  The page I previously cited, the one you
> couldn't be bothered looking up even to prove your point that I was
> wrong about a G4 update, lists a Power Mac G5 Firmware Update V 5.1.4
> and a Power Mac G5 Uniprocessor Firmware Update 5.1.5f1.  Is it your
> contention that these require OS 9, on Macs that cannot boot OS 9? There
have > also been some Intel Mac firmware updates.  Do they require
> OS 9 on Macs that cannot even run Classic?

All PPC updates I have encountered requires Mac OS 9 - that is all.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-7CF755.07530001102006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > The fact is that if the firmware had not been updated, you wouldn't 
> > > be able to install OS X on it.  Not even 10.0 because according to 
> > > the read-me files, if you tried to install OS X, you'd get a 
> > > message saying that you needed to update the firmware.
> > 
> > How do you know?
> 
> Because I read the read-me files.

Citation, please.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-F9038A.07534201102006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > > Okay, I see you're correct about some G4s requiring an update, 
> > > > but the point remains that these updates were required to install 
> > > > OS X 10.2 or later on Macs currently running OS 9.  We're talking 
> > > > about upgrading from 10.3.9 to Tiger, and if his Mac needed a 
> > > > firmware upgrade, he would already have had to have installed it.
> > > 
> > > And that's what we've been telling him all along.
> > 
> > The document does not anwer the question.
> 
> Yes it does.

Quote, please.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-B74231.07544501102006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <haberg-0110061147250001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
>  haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:
> 
> > > > There is a difference: without the Firmware update, will the Mac 
> > > > OS X.x, x = 3, 4, install and some components fail, or will the 
> > > > the install itself fail?
> > > 
> > > It will not install.
> > 
> > How do you know?
> 
> I am all seeing and all knowing.

So you are just making it up, again.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-E24162.07564501102006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > You said that he may need firmware updates that _require_ OS 9 to 
> > > run.  There are no such updates.  
> > 
> > All Firmware updates require Mac OS 9. They cannot be run under Mac 
> > OS X, whatever version.
> 
> THERE ARE NO SUCH UPDATES FOR HIS COMPUTER!  

We all know this.

> THERE ARE NO SUCH UPDATES 
> FOR A COMPUTER THAT IS ALREADY RUNNING OS X!!!

Citation, please.

BTW, your caps lock seems stuck

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-E99237.07571901102006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > It might be helpful to recognize than Hans has never been wrong.
> 
> Except for almost everything he writes.

I am not making things freely up and claiming it to be true, like you all
the time.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-7D02CB.07590901102006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1hmiwtm.hfusvw1r4ntogN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > > All Firmware updates require Mac OS 9. They cannot be run under Mac 
> > > OS X, whatever version.
> > 
> > Now who's making things up?  The page I previously cited, the one you 
> > couldn't be bothered looking up even to prove your point that I was 
> > wrong about a G4 update, lists a Power Mac G5 Firmware Update V 5.1.4 
> > and a Power Mac G5 Uniprocessor Firmware Update 5.1.5f1.  Is it your 
> > contention that these require OS 9, on Macs that cannot boot OS 9? 
> > There have also been some Intel Mac firmware updates.  Do they 
> > require OS 9 on Macs that cannot even run Classic?
> 
> I'm eagerly awaiting his rationalization for this.

I'm am eagerly awaitng your reading the thread before replying.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <1hmj06g.18f4ro6xaigwdN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > I am all seeing and all knowing.
> 
> Is that you, Karnak the Magnificent?

Like to know ths one.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <CoGdnQnT7K4VVoLYnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com>,
jpmcw@comcast.net wrote:

> It might be helpful to recognize than Hans has never been wrong.

Thank you. Then there is no need for replies.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <haberg-0110061842360001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > It might be helpful to recognize than Hans has never been wrong.
> > 
> > Except for almost everything he writes.
> 
> I am not making things freely up and claiming it to be true, like you 
> all the time.

LOL  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha  chortle snicker giggle  ROTFLMAO

Thanks Hans, I really needed a laugh this morning.

HAHAHAHA

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <michelle-D426CA.09453001102006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > I am not making things freely up and claiming it to be true, like you 
> > all the time.
> 
> LOL  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha  chortle snicker giggle  ROTFLMAO
> 
> Thanks Hans, I really needed a laugh this morning.
> 
> HAHAHAHA

You are welcome. Just stop making things freely up and claiming it to be
true, to get me something to smile about.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <haberg-0110061841400001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > > You said that he may need firmware updates that _require_ OS 9 
> > > > to run.  There are no such updates.  
> > > 
> > > All Firmware updates require Mac OS 9. They cannot be run under 
> > > Mac OS X, whatever version.
> > 
> > THERE ARE NO SUCH UPDATES FOR HIS COMPUTER!  
> 
> We all know this.

Well, until now, you certainly didn't.

> > THERE ARE NO SUCH UPDATES FOR A COMPUTER THAT IS ALREADY RUNNING OS 
> > X!!!
> 
> Citation, please.

Already provided.  It is strange to see you asking for citations, 
considering that you have never, so far as I can recall, ever provided 
any relevant citations.

> BTW, your caps lock seems stuck

Nope; it worked as it should.  I pressed it and it stayed on until I 
pressed it again.  I did so deliberately because I was shouting at you.  
I thought that, perhaps, by shouting, I could get through to you.

But you seem to be oblivious to anything--logic, fact, whatever--that 
contradicts your cherished fantasies of being 100% correct 100% of the 
time.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <haberg-0110061840390001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > > > There is a difference: without the Firmware update, will the 
> > > > > Mac OS X.x, x = 3, 4, install and some components fail, or 
> > > > > will the the install itself fail?
> > > > 
> > > > It will not install.
> > > 
> > > How do you know?
> > 
> > I am all seeing and all knowing.
> 
> So you are just making it up, again.

Not again, not ever.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <haberg-0110061840180001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > > > Okay, I see you're correct about some G4s requiring an 
> > > > > update, but the point remains that these updates were 
> > > > > required to install OS X 10.2 or later on Macs currently 
> > > > > running OS 9.  We're talking about upgrading from 10.3.9 to 
> > > > > Tiger, and if his Mac needed a firmware upgrade, he would 
> > > > > already have had to have installed it.
> > > > 
> > > > And that's what we've been telling him all along.
> > > 
> > > The document does not anwer the question.
> > 
> > Yes it does.
> 
> Quote, please.

You have already been given the URLs; there is no need to waste time 
quoting it to you when you can read the original for yourself.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <haberg-0110061839560001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> 
> > > > The fact is that if the firmware had not been updated, you 
> > > > wouldn't be able to install OS X on it.  Not even 10.0 because 
> > > > according to the read-me files, if you tried to install OS X, 
> > > > you'd get a message saying that you needed to update the 
> > > > firmware.
> > > 
> > > How do you know?
> > 
> > Because I read the read-me files.
> 
> Citation, please.

You have already been given the URLs; if you're too lazy to read them, 
that's too damn bad.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <michelle-9C0E50.09501201102006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > THERE ARE NO SUCH UPDATES FOR A COMPUTER THAT IS ALREADY RUNNING OS 
> > > X!!!
> > 
> > Citation, please.
> 
> Already provided.  

No, the document you gave contains no such information. I read only the
English version - perhaps if you reread it in your native language it
might help.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-2B7E51.09514501102006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > > > > Okay, I see you're correct about some G4s requiring an 
> > > > > > update, but the point remains that these updates were 
> > > > > > required to install OS X 10.2 or later on Macs currently 
> > > > > > running OS 9.  We're talking about upgrading from 10.3.9 to 
> > > > > > Tiger, and if his Mac needed a firmware upgrade, he would 
> > > > > > already have had to have installed it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And that's what we've been telling him all along.
> > > > 
> > > > The document does not anwer the question.
> > > 
> > > Yes it does.
> > 
> > Quote, please.
> 
> You have already been given the URLs; ...

The URL's given do not contain any such information.

> ...there is no need to waste time 
> quoting it to you when you can read the original for yourself.

I of course looked it up.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <haberg-0110061839030001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > The OP clearly stated he's already running OS X 10.3.9.  That means 
> > that, whichever Mac he talking about, even a slot-loading iMac G3 
> > or on of the listed G4 models, already had the firmware upgrade 
> > done since it was required before he could have installed 10.3 or 
> > even 10.2.
> 
> Where do you get that from?

He got it from the URLs that have been provided to you.

> > Now who's making things up?  The page I previously cited, the one 
> > you couldn't be bothered looking up even to prove your point that I 
> > was wrong about a G4 update, lists a Power Mac G5 Firmware Update V 
> > 5.1.4 and a Power Mac G5 Uniprocessor Firmware Update 5.1.5f1.  Is 
> > it your contention that these require OS 9, on Macs that cannot 
> > boot OS 9? There have also been some Intel Mac firmware updates.  
> > Do they require OS 9 on Macs that cannot even run Classic?
> 
> All PPC updates I have encountered requires Mac OS 9 - that is all.

You have been shown where some G5 (which are PPC) Macs required a 
firmware update, so you were wrong.  Further, you did not limit your 
assertion to PPC.  But you are so self-centered as to believe that if 
you haven't encountered it, it doesn't exist.  It may surprise you to 
learn that the universe does not revolve around you, and that you are 
not infallible.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <michelle-532A76.09523801102006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > > > The fact is that if the firmware had not been updated, you 
> > > > > wouldn't be able to install OS X on it.  Not even 10.0 because 
> > > > > according to the read-me files, if you tried to install OS X, 
> > > > > you'd get a message saying that you needed to update the 
> > > > > firmware.
> > > > 
> > > > How do you know?
> > > 
> > > Because I read the read-me files.
> > 
> > Citation, please.
> 
> You have already been given the URLs; ...

It does not contain any such info.

> if you're too lazy to read them, 

Of course I did.

> that's too damn bad.

You are too lazy reading your own citations.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <haberg-0110061849310001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > I am not making things freely up and claiming it to be true, like 
> > > you all the time.
> > 
> > LOL  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha  chortle snicker giggle  ROTFLMAO
> > 
> > Thanks Hans, I really needed a laugh this morning.
> > 
> > HAHAHAHA
> 
> You are welcome. Just stop making things freely up and claiming it to 
> be true, to get me something to smile about.

I can't stop doing what I haven't been doing in the first place.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <michelle-210FEE.09564601102006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > The OP clearly stated he's already running OS X 10.3.9.  That means 
> > > that, whichever Mac he talking about, even a slot-loading iMac G3 
> > > or on of the listed G4 models, already had the firmware upgrade 
> > > done since it was required before he could have installed 10.3 or 
> > > even 10.2.
> > 
> > Where do you get that from?
> 
> He got it from the URLs that have been provided to you.

Nope. The don't say anything such.

> > > Now who's making things up?  The page I previously cited, the one 
> > > you couldn't be bothered looking up even to prove your point that I 
> > > was wrong about a G4 update, lists a Power Mac G5 Firmware Update V 
> > > 5.1.4 and a Power Mac G5 Uniprocessor Firmware Update 5.1.5f1.  Is 
> > > it your contention that these require OS 9, on Macs that cannot 
> > > boot OS 9? There have also been some Intel Mac firmware updates.  
> > > Do they require OS 9 on Macs that cannot even run Classic?
> > 
> > All PPC updates I have encountered requires Mac OS 9 - that is all.
> 
> You have been shown where some G5 (which are PPC) Macs required a 
> firmware update, so you were wrong.  Further, you did not limit your 
> assertion to PPC.  

I didn't tell the limit. The OP later mentioned he had a G5 and didn't
need it, so it was obvious all the time. Read the thread before replying.
But you are obviously too lazy for that.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-36AB25.09575501102006@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > > I am not making things freely up and claiming it to be true, like 
> > > > you all the time.
> > > 
> > > LOL  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha  chortle snicker giggle  ROTFLMAO
> > > 
> > > Thanks Hans, I really needed a laugh this morning.
> > > 
> > > HAHAHAHA
> > 
> > You are welcome. Just stop making things freely up and claiming it to 
> > be true, to get me something to smile about.
> 
> I can't stop doing what I haven't been doing in the first place.

Just apply what you just said onto yourself:

> > > LOL  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha  chortle snicker giggle  ROTFLMAO
> > > 
> > > Thanks ..., I really needed a laugh this morning.
> > > 
> > > HAHAHAHA

-- 
  Hans Aberg

Never argue with a fool - people might not know the difference  : )

Fetch, Rover, Fetch <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:

> Never argue with a fool - people might not know the difference 

Thanks.  I _try_ to resist the temptation to keep these things going,
and all too often I find myself yielding.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

In article <BP2dnXxQ7tXhyr3YnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com>,
 "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:

> Never argue with a fool - people might not know the difference  : )

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the 
pig"--Lazarus Long

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...

In article <michelle-722D37.08304401102006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1hmj0n1.iai247142yjeN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > > I'm eagerly awaiting his rationalization for this.
> > 
> > I'm not.
> 
> I was being sarcastic. <g>

But look on the bright side. At least this thread hasn't included 
endless quotes from Wikipedia.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article 
<paul.sture.nospam-0E7B12.12043102102006@mac.sture.homeip.net>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> > > > I'm eagerly awaiting his rationalization for this.
> > > 
> > > I'm not.
> > 
> > I was being sarcastic. <g>
> 
> But look on the bright side. At least this thread hasn't included 
> endless quotes from Wikipedia.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia>

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <michelle-25C8EE.06363702102006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <paul.sture.nospam-0E7B12.12043102102006@mac.sture.homeip.net>,
>  Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
> > > > > I'm eagerly awaiting his rationalization for this.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not.
> > > 
> > > I was being sarcastic. <g>
> > 
> > But look on the bright side. At least this thread hasn't included 
> > endless quotes from Wikipedia.
> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia>

That was a truly despicable act!

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <paul.sture.nospam-56E4D5.16052102102006@mac.sture.homeip.net>,
Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> > > ... this thread hasn't included 
> > > [...] quotes from Wikipedia.
> > 
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia>
> 
> That was a [...] act!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia

-- 
  Hans Aberg

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:05:21 -0600, Paul Sture wrote
(in article <paul.sture.nospam-56E4D5.16052102102006@mac.sture.homeip.net>):

> In article <michelle-25C8EE.06363702102006@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> In article 
>> <paul.sture.nospam-0E7B12.12043102102006@mac.sture.homeip.net>,
>> Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> I'm eagerly awaiting his rationalization for this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm not.
>>>> 
>>>> I was being sarcastic. <g>
>>> 
>>> But look on the bright side. At least this thread hasn't included 
>>> endless quotes from Wikipedia.
>> 
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia>
> 
> That was a truly despicable act!


Awww, this ng needs a bit of humor now and then.   I love my Mac and would 
rather fight than switch.    Gotta light?



-- 
Cheers!

Dennis

Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply

In article <0001HW.C146DA90000A46A2F0407530@news.sasktel.net>,
 Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabong'@canada.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:05:21 -0600, Paul Sture wrote
> (in article <paul.sture.nospam-56E4D5.16052102102006@mac.sture.homeip.net>):
> 
> > In article <michelle-25C8EE.06363702102006@news.west.cox.net>,
> >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article 
> >> <paul.sture.nospam-0E7B12.12043102102006@mac.sture.homeip.net>,
> >> Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> >> 
> >>>>>> I'm eagerly awaiting his rationalization for this.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I'm not.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I was being sarcastic. <g>
> >>> 
> >>> But look on the bright side. At least this thread hasn't included 
> >>> endless quotes from Wikipedia.
> >> 
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia>
> > 
> > That was a truly despicable act!
> 
> 
> Awww, this ng needs a bit of humor now and then.   I love my Mac and would 
> rather fight than switch.    Gotta light?

Who said that no humour was involved? I found Michelle's response very 
funny, and answered in the same vein.

-- 
Paul Sture

Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <CoGdnQnT7K4VVoLYnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com>,
> jpmcw@comcast.net wrote:
> 
>> It might be helpful to recognize than Hans has never been wrong.
> 
> Thank you. Then there is no need for replies.

Q.E.D.

Or you could start your own news group where no one would could correct 
you.

-- 
lsmft

In article <zvSdnZtqA-Z2RLzYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
jpmcw@comcast.net wrote:

> Hans Aberg wrote:
> > In article <CoGdnQnT7K4VVoLYnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > jpmcw@comcast.net wrote:
> > 
> >> It might be helpful to recognize than Hans has never been wrong.
> > 
> > Thank you. Then there is no need for replies.
> 
> Q.E.D.

???

> Or you could start your own news group where no one would could correct 
> you.

I wanted to be corrected in the proper manner, that is why took up the
quest of imitating their style.

But eventually checking out their own given references, they finally
realized they were wrong, and dropped out of the discussion.

I would have expected, as a part of the normal reply process on a
technical list, to get a quote, and then I would have explained what I
think was wrong with their interpretation of it.

But it seems that the posters responsible for this long chain of replies
simply do not know how to do proper reference handling, instead resorting
to various emotional arguments in its place.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <paul.sture.nospam-47716C.00093603102006@mac.sture.homeip.net>,
Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> > Awww, this ng needs a bit of humor now and then.   I love my Mac and would 
> > rather fight than switch.    Gotta light?
> 
> Who said that no humour was involved? I found Michelle's response very 
> funny, and answered in the same vein.

Yeah, the whole of it was a big joke. :-)

-- 
  Hans Aberg

Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <zvSdnZtqA-Z2RLzYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> jpmcw@comcast.net wrote:
> 
>> Hans Aberg wrote:
>>> In article <CoGdnQnT7K4VVoLYnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> jpmcw@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> It might be helpful to recognize than Hans has never been wrong.
>>> Thank you. Then there is no need for replies.
>> Q.E.D.
> 
> ???
> 
>> Or you could start your own news group where no one would could correct 
>> you.
> 
> I wanted to be corrected in the proper manner, that is why took up the
> quest of imitating their style.
> 
> But eventually checking out their own given references, they finally
> realized they were wrong, and dropped out of the discussion.
> 
> I would have expected, as a part of the normal reply process on a
> technical list, to get a quote, and then I would have explained what I
> think was wrong with their interpretation of it.
> 
> But it seems that the posters responsible for this long chain of replies
> simply do not know how to do proper reference handling, instead resorting
> to various emotional arguments in its place.

Well, of course; you are right.

-- 
john mcwilliams

In article <svydnW22MLOz5L_YnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
jpmcw@comcast.net wrote:

> >> Or you could start your own news group where no one would could correct 
> >> you.
> > 
> > I wanted to be corrected in the proper manner, that is why took up the
> > quest of imitating their style.
> > 
> > But eventually checking out their own given references, they finally
> > realized they were wrong, and dropped out of the discussion.
> > 
> > I would have expected, as a part of the normal reply process on a
> > technical list, to get a quote, and then I would have explained what I
> > think was wrong with their interpretation of it.
> > 
> > But it seems that the posters responsible for this long chain of replies
> > simply do not know how to do proper reference handling, instead resorting
> > to various emotional arguments in its place.
> 
> Well, of course; you are right.

Thank you.

-- 
  Hans Aberg