Slashdot Mirror

Mac Central is updated daily, and hosts Andy Inahtko's columns.

Low End Mac Posts links to everything interesting about macs (including the occational link to /.) and has detailed specs for the entire mac line, 1984 - today.

MacWeek sucks, but they cover the trade shows fairly well.

Mac News Network seems to me like it is mostly a forum for product releases and press statements, but a lot of people consider it a favorite. (They were the first one I saw publish the ETA for the Diablo II port, so there's one notch on their belt, anyway.)

And of course, there is the new kid on the block, MacSlash, who took the slash code, and added ugly aqua-themed graphics to it.

For those of you truly interested in this topic, here is an article that has an interview with the CEO of Connectix regarding this issue. It's posted at MacNN.

For those of you truly interested in this topic, here is an article that has an interview with the CEO of Connectix regarding this issue. It's posted at MacNN.

Short interview with Connectix CEO

He mentions that a key point is that the technique of reverse engineering was completely cleared, opening the door to creating PS2, Dreamcast, and even X-Box emulators in the future (once PC hardware speeds are capable of it).

- Isaac =)

While they did sell upgrades in the early days (including DOS cards that had an Intel processor and PPC upgrades for older Macs), they stopped doing this later on. A different attitude arrived along with Steve Jobs. Upgrades were frowned upon, to say the least. The iMac, for example, is designed so that it's almost impossible to upgrade.

This attitude reached its height when Apple released a G3 ROM firmware upgrade that deliberately made it impossible to upgrade your G3 to a G4. The official word from Apple was that they were, "worried about stability issues if users carried out the upgrades themselves, since G3 computers were never meant to be fitted with G4 processors."

http://www.macnn.com/features/g4 blockupgrrep.shtml

While it's nice to think that Apple was concerned about the poor users and wanted to prevent their systems from becoming unstable, I think it's much more likely that Apple realized that they didn't make any money from upgrades. If you're Apple, would you rather have someone upgrade their current iMac with a card (from you or another manufacturer) or buy a completely new iMac? I think the answer is obvious.

It's hard to argue with Apple's corporate strategy here though. It's changes like this that have brought them back from the brink of bankruptcy and turned them into a profitable company.

The current situation seems to be that Apple tolerates upgrades but isn't about to go out of their way to help the upgrade companies.

Look at this screenshot from the article - It shows the splash screen of "Pet Wolverine" (Imageready 3.0) with the words "Licensed to: AppleInsider" So someone using the AppleInsider name had to fill out everything required to get their name there, which I suspect includes the whole registration and "I will not relase this info" terms.

You see, I tried to save some money by using generic PC100 memory and it didn't work. The problem I found is that the machine needs 2/2/2 timed memory sticks, and higher quality=better stability. You might end up looking at the PC133 rated memory, going a bit over the specs with generic stuff may help resolve potential timing issues. I was lucky that I was able to exchange the memory I bought for better quality memory and the dealer ate the cost since I had specified that it must be Mac G3 compatible on the purchase order. The frustration of having 4 brand new blue G3's all crashing because of bad memory was a lesson to me, you get what you pay for.

The other area which you must be very cautious in is video cards. The quality of the mac drivers will be critical to your success. Currently ATI is the only one that seems to be in the game right now but those ATI rumors persist.

The things which will work with little hastle are most USB devices, just have to check if the manufacturer supports the Mac. 95% of IDE DMA/33 or DMA/66 hard drives will work, the problem might arise with the apple disk tools not being able to format the drive. I wouln't buy a hard drive any larger than the biggest one apple offers to avoid that potential hazard. Monitors are safe, apple dropped their proprietary monitor connector a few generations ago thank god. Watch out with printers. Some of those cheap as dirt printers on the market are brain dead so without a supported driver they are table art. A postscript printer is the native mac printer type but postscript doesn't come cheap, and it doesn't come with inkjets until they get to large format. If you don't need perfect prints (not doing publishing) just get a printer which is supported. Epson seems to be one of the better injet manufacturers for mac support.

Stuff that doesn't work well: Anything in that braindead cheap group of junk equipment like winmodems. Most add on PCI cards do not have mac drivers even though the mac supports the PCI slot standard. DVD decoders, TV tuners, some SCSI cards. First step would be to check a prospective devices manufacturer driver page. Some devices are supported on the mac but don't ship in a box that comes with drivers or any clue that it might be mac compatible. Lots of multimedia software is the same way. There are many educational and low end multimedia titles on the PC shelves that are hybrid discs with the code for both mac and PC computers on the same disk.

Here are some links to mac news pages which you might like to dig through the archives for. All 3 tend to run feature articles when new OS and hardware come out to gather problem reports and solutions which I find very useful.
www.macfixit.com
www.macnn.com
www.macintouch.com

This "anoymous coward" report is taken VERBATIM from MacNN.com. Just thought we should give credit where credit is due. You can see the full article here:

http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=10


----------
Jeff Croft
http://jeffcroft.com
http://industrystandard.org
http://newbeetle.org

Looks like this rumor got it's start from a fake advertisement made by some wannabe advertising people.

macnn.com feature on 'espionage' ad

Well, because it comes from a company with presumably more engineering resources than LinuxPPC. What do you think companies are more likely to support natively, OS X or LinuxPPC?

MacNN has an interesting article featuring a talk with Jeff Carr from LinuxPPC, in which he once again slams OS X needlessly ("Mac OS X is very limited regarding hardware support" - well, duh, it's not actually out yet, but I bet it'll support USB and FireWire sooner than LinuxPPC does natively), claiming Apple can't win against a free OS and that they should throw out the Mach kernel. But OS X is built on a free OS, and BSD appears (have to be careful here) to have an easier upgrade path, something Apple is finally interested in - the Software Update feature of OS 9 took way too long to make it into the system, IMHO.

LinuxPPC has been fairly critical of OS X and Darwin for some time now. Why don't they cooperate instead? Then, everybody wins.

Yes, Sony just turned around and sued Connectix again, this time on grounds that Virtual GameStation infringes on eleven Sony patents. MacNN has the story at http://www.macnn.com/features/ sony-patent-suit.shtml. (I submitted it last night, but it got rejected. Who's editing this stuff, anyway?)

Connectix won in the 9th Circuit court last week, but that was a copyright infringement case. Sony is trying a new tactic now.

It seems like Sony just won't be an IBM-ish pansy when it comes to others reverse engineering their gear... So instead, they are going to Johnny Cochran Connectix out of existence (sue them till they run out of money) even if they have to use the Chewbacca offense...

South Park Johnny Cochran: Chewbacca is a Wookie.. who lives on Kashyykk... with Ewoks.. now does that make any sense?!?!?!

Then you must aquit.

Sony - get a life - make PlayStation 2 and don't worry! Your stuff is going to get legally REd eventually.. sorry to break it to you. Call IBM and cry on their fuckin shoulder.

There have been a couple free updates to Connectix VGS for compatibility and performance improvements as well (v1.1 and 1.2). They stopped development when Sony won the temporary injunction.

However, I read elsewhere (MacNN maybe?) that they were planning to announce a release date for a version 1.3 update within a month; this update would address compatibility for games released during the legal process.

Likely their support will be similar for the Windows version.

Ok, listen up people, I have a mac, I got the patch, and it didn't do anything but mess up my networking. There's a report over at macnn about a bunch of people who wrote in to macnn with the problems they had and how they went away once they disabled the patch. Same thing happened to me.

I admit that it IS impressive that apple got that patch up so damn fast (like a few hours after the slashdot post), but something is screwy with it. Hopefully 1.1 will come out soon (it was 1.0).

Anyways, so if you have a mac, dont install it. You'll have problems.

Ok, listen up people, I have a mac, I got the patch, and it didn't do anything but mess up my networking. There's a report over at macnn about a bunch of people who wrote in to macnn with the problems they had and how they went away once they disabled the patch. Same thing happened to me.

I admit that it IS impressive that apple got that patch up so damn fast (like a few hours after the slashdot post), but something is screwy with it. Hopefully 1.1 will come out soon (it was 1.0).

Anyways, so if you have a mac, dont install it. You'll have problems.

Why does Slashdot let this drivel through the gate? And better yet, why do so many Slashdot readers believe it? Slashdot is supposed to be about not swallowing things based on face value. Apple has issued ONE, SINGULAR, UNO press release on this matter, entitled "Apple Reconfigures Power Mac G4 Processor Speeds to Match Chip Availability." Whatever ZDNet and MacWeek said is their problem. Let's review Slashdot's stories on this over the past several days:

Wednesday: According to MacInTouch, Apple just reduced the processing speed of G4s by 50Mhz, without a price reduction or change in configuration, and cancelled all outstanding orders.

Thursday: According to MacInTouch "Apple has reversed the cancellation of existing Power Mac G4 orders, according to impeccable sources, and is calling back customers to explain

Sunday: "ZDNN appears to be reporting that Apple appears to be reversing its decision to reinstate all cancelled G4 orders, except for "a few orders"


So, for some odd reason, the first two days are pointed at MacInTouch, but the last one is pointed at ZDNet. If anyone had actually looked at MacInTouch today, they would realize that MacInTouch has (correct) information that directly contradict's MacWeek's:

As we reported first on Oct. 14, Apple reversed its decision to cancel outstanding Apple Store orders for Power Mac G4 computers and to force customers to re-order. [...] (Sources say that a contradictory report, citing Apple spokesperson Rhona Hamilton, has since been retracted.)

MacNN.com (the most reputable of the sites, IMNSHO), confirms this:

Our understanding is that all Apple Store orders before the "reconfiguration announcement" will be honored, as part of Apple's reversal on its G4 Cancellation policy. [...] (Muddying the issue is a MacWEEK report that claims Apple will only be reversing a limited number of Apple Store orders.)

If Slashdot (or readers) cannot responsibly research and report on Apple, it should cease doing so.

- Scott

------
Scott Stevenson

Before anyone gets out of shape, take a visit to the usual Mac web sites:

it's not wise to base your judgements on something coming from ZDNet

ZDNet reporting at its best I see. MacNN reports that Apple will cancel no orders from the Apple store, but only orders from resellers.

--

" Apple Store representatives confirm that Apple has reversed its G4 cancelation policy, which brought much reader feedback--both positive and negative. Representatives, who are backed-up due to the large number of reader calls, are asking that users wait for another 24-48 hours, in which Apple expects to reinstate orders all Apple Store orders prior to yesterday's announcement and send an email message to customers with details. Discounts will reportedly apply to orders of 500-MHz Power Macs, which will be shipped with 450-MHz processors instead. (Apple yesterday evening began pre-emptively canceling Apple Store orders of G4 Power Macs after it announced "reconfigured" models with lower-speed processors--at the same price points, due in part to memory price increases.)"

• http://www.macnn.com/features/ orbit99/orbit99b.shtml
• http://www.macnn.com/features/ orbit99/orbit99c.shtml

Unfortunately, David Bowie goes and releases his new album online using Liquid Audio Pitty...

-kaputnik

• http://www.macnn.com/features/ orbit99/orbit99b.shtml
• http://www.macnn.com/features/ orbit99/orbit99c.shtml

Unfortunately, David Bowie goes and releases his new album online using Liquid Audio Pitty...

-kaputnik

The numbers that Apple uses to back up their claims that MacOS X Server is the fastest webserver under $5000 come from one of Steve Jobs infamous 'bake-offs' at the MacOS X Server introduction yesterday. We all know that these numbers are subject to reality-distortion, and we realize that you can build a Linux server with similar performance to the Dell PowerEdge 2300 for far less than $5000, but Jobs is trying to compare it to something that's actually sold by a competitor.

So basically, without throwing previous bias into the mix, it just means Apple's got a reasonable server solution now. Whether it fits your needs, you think it'll sell/get used, or disagree with the minor details of the benchmark comparison, that's all you have to take away from it:

Macnn X Server Intro (benchmarks are about halfway down the page)

[...note that we've been working with Bell-Atlantic representatives to get non-iMacs certified in their DSL program, but at least one reader has been able to use Virtual PC with Windows to sidestep the iMac/Windows requirement...]