If you're doing something to your Macs that makes you upgrade, you're supposed to buy a $350 Windows machine anyway. The iMac G4 I'm posting from has lasted 4 years, doesn't show signs of slowing down, and is running Tiger on 256MB of memory. I don't think it's slow; on the other hand, I don't do much with it, and my only comparison is with one of HP's desktops that's 18 months old, has twice the RAM, two 3GHz Pentium 4s as opposed to a solo 1GHz G4, and generally, newer components.
If you don't know what Cmd-Shift-1 and Cmd-Shift-2 are for... So, since you obviously know, what are they for? I've been looking around, but all I can find is stuff about floppy disk ejection. If you've been around long enough to do that, you should be dispensing advice, not hatred, and if you still actually eject floppies from a built-in drive on an Apple computer, please do yourself and the rest of us a favor and buy a new Mac. If whatever you're using works for you, great, but recognize that you're in the minority and that the people you seem to be directing your anger at have newer Macs.
If you think Firefox is a decent Mac application... Define "decent". Does it perform its intended function (i.e., surfing the Internet)? Yes. Does it do so with an appearance that matches the rest of Aqua? No. Does it usually load pages at acceptable speeds? Well, there you have to define "acceptable", and even then, I still wouldn't be able to tell you the answer, as I use Camino much more than Firefox and don't do much with Firefox.
If you're still looking for the "maximize" button... This may come as a shock to you, but...
When people are helped along, they tend to become productive much faster than when they're ridiculed and scorned. In this case, the help given to them may help them to become "real Mac users" much more quickly. If you simply explain that there is no such thing as a maximize button, they will probably listen, especially if you provide them with another way to achieve the desired result.
If the name "Clarus" means nothing to you... "Clarus" (sic) hasn't done anything under that name since 1998, when they renamed to become FileMaker Inc. ClarisWorks was returned to Apple as AppleWorks, and the last product with Claris branding was discontinued in 2001. (Trust me, I looked.) If you still call it Claris, then buy new software.
It's people like you that contribute to the myth that all Mac users are elitist bastards. I don't know the name of the law that states something along the lines of "the smaller the minority, the more noise it makes", but I'm sure there's one like that, and it's relevant here. (If there isn't, there should be.) I'm a Mac user, and you are (AFAIK) in a very small minority. Unfortunately, since you and the rest of your cohorts prefer to post AC, we'll never know just how many of you there are. A shame, too... I'd like to know just how many people actually post this type of thing.
Yes, Jesus acted outside of the prescribed norm in every case you mentioned, but if that's all Cho was looking at, he was misled. To me, nonconformism is all right as long as it's nonviolent (like civil disobedience), but not when it's lethal (like school shootings) or otherwise physically painful. I think that if we (as in everyone) would all wake up and smell the coffee/blood about accepting others, the world would be a much better place.
And while we're at it, maybe we can get more of America to worry about who is running the country than who fathered Anna Nicole's baby.
You're both wrong. The high priests wanted Jesus done away with, because they thought he was converting the Jews to viewpoints that weren't theirs. Depending on which gospel you read, the particular accounts may vary slightly (Luke, for instance, says that Jesus was sent to Herod for a part of that Friday), but the end result in all of them was that Pilate only ordered Jesus crucified because the crowds wanted it. Though Jesus may not have been pro-Roman, he wasn't necessarily anti-Roman, either, as evidenced by the quote in Matthew 22, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's."
Define "painfully slow." As long as it's better than the POS a room over that calls itself a computer, I can take it. There are times that I might wish for more, but I don't run Dashboard too terribly much, and even together, Camino, iTunes and Word v.X don't slow it down a lot unless I'm playing with Flash in Camino. I realize that if I swung by the local Apple Store and test-drove one of the display Macs there, it would blow my mind at how fast it is, but I haven't tried and probably won't until I can actually buy one.
No. My circa August 2005 PC can't even keep XP from hanging. I don't know whether that's HP's fault or Microsoft's, but I sincerely doubt that's how XP's supposed to run. On the other hand, my ~August 2003 iMac G4 can handle Tiger just fine, and I think the only time we upgraded the hardware was to put in a different Airport card. I doubt that DDR RAM has gotten overly expensive yet, but I could always check, because we may need more than 256MB at some point. Anyone have any idea about what the memory requirements for Leopard will be?
the 5 year old iMac lacks USB 2.0 and has no way to add it. Nowadays, that's a pretty big deal, especially since Firewire was dropped on Apple's own iPod.
Depends on who you're asking. For instance, my iTunes library isn't terribly big... only 430 MB. If I hook it up over a USB 1.1 port, that's 1.5 MB/s. 3 megs every 2 seconds means it would take, uh, (counts on fingers) 287 seconds to retransfer every file if necessary, which it usually isn't. That's not even 5 minutes. Of course, YMMV: If you have a lot to transfer, then you'd probably care that it's USB 1.1 instead of 2.0.
Which iMac did you try? If you tried the 1.83 GHz one, then I can believe it. All of the others at least have a dedicated graphics card with separate VRAM, and I'm sure you can find shittier graphics cards. Yeah, they're non-upgradeable, but that's only if you don't want to void the warranty.;-)
If you have a product which takes nearly a century (or more) to expire, I'd like to see it. Of course, if it takes that long to expire, the manufacturer should write at least 3 digits in the year so that one knows which century is being referred to.
No. Apple Corp. (the Beatles' record company) came along before Apple Inc. (the one mostly talked about here), and Apple Inc. has never sued Apple Corp. for trademark infringement. All of the litigation between the two has been instigated by Apple Corp. More info is available here.
Why Microsoft is represented by Bill Gates as one of the Borg... hang out here for a while longer, you'll figure it out.
No... it's just that one-fourth of a dollar is $.25 or 25 cents, not.25 cents. The people that understand what you meant, but also what you actually said, get a tiny bit confused when you do that.
.25 cents/song? Man, that would be great. After all, I don't particularly have 400 songs I want to buy, but if I did, I'd only have to pay $1, total! At that rate, I could buy all the world's recorded music for less than it would cost to buy the servers the music's stored on! WOOHOO!
And, for what it's worth, "it's/its", "who's/whose", and "their/there/they're" are also problems I tend to notice. Not the last one so much as the other two, but it's still out there.
Oh. Sorry. I'm not worried, since I don't actually use iTunes on Windows, but it's there because Apple doesn't exactly make it easy to find the standalone version of QuickTime (I know it exists, there's a link on the Firefox plugins to it, but not on Apple's QuickTime page.). I don't plan to move to Vista anytime soon, either...;-)
Maybe they did have more than enough time, and if they did, I agree that this would be a problem, but then again, maybe not. How much is enough, really?... or does it matter?
The part of your post that I took issue with was where you said that if Apple "followed good Windows programming standards (ex. you have to run iTunes as an Administrator)..." Emphasis mine. Putting aside my opinion that the only programs that should be required to be run as admin are the administrative tools and such, forcing iTunes to only be allowed to run as admin is just pointless. Yes, I know that most people using iTunes on Windows probably have their own computer, and so I'm probably in the distinct minority (the people who set up my Windows box actually use the damn thing and don't want me breaking it), but let's say, hypothetically, that there's some 8-year-old in... pick a state... Colorado whose parents recently bought him an iPod shuffle, and he wants to put his music on it. The problem he has is that his parents won't do it for him, and they think that he might do something dangerous online (unrelated, of course), so they won't let him run as an admin. I don't know how many teenagers own their own computers, but the scenario may be quite similar for many of them. In that case, Apple would have a problem, since the person who wants to use their product cannot. Most of the time, this would lead to the user getting something like the Zen or the iRiver, and Apple can't have that.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? Are you still talking about that?
If you're doing something to your Macs that makes you upgrade, you're supposed to buy a $350 Windows machine anyway. The iMac G4 I'm posting from has lasted 4 years, doesn't show signs of slowing down, and is running Tiger on 256MB of memory. I don't think it's slow; on the other hand, I don't do much with it, and my only comparison is with one of HP's desktops that's 18 months old, has twice the RAM, two 3GHz Pentium 4s as opposed to a solo 1GHz G4, and generally, newer components.
(For anyone who really cares, here are the tech specs for the HP, and here they are for the iMac. Compare them as you will.)
You missed it? I tried to do that 10 years ago, but some jackass claimed "prior art."
When people are helped along, they tend to become productive much faster than when they're ridiculed and scorned. In this case, the help given to them may help them to become "real Mac users" much more quickly. If you simply explain that there is no such thing as a maximize button, they will probably listen, especially if you provide them with another way to achieve the desired result. If the name "Clarus" means nothing to you... "Clarus" (sic) hasn't done anything under that name since 1998, when they renamed to become FileMaker Inc. ClarisWorks was returned to Apple as AppleWorks, and the last product with Claris branding was discontinued in 2001. (Trust me, I looked.) If you still call it Claris, then buy new software.
It's people like you that contribute to the myth that all Mac users are elitist bastards. I don't know the name of the law that states something along the lines of "the smaller the minority, the more noise it makes", but I'm sure there's one like that, and it's relevant here. (If there isn't, there should be.) I'm a Mac user, and you are (AFAIK) in a very small minority. Unfortunately, since you and the rest of your cohorts prefer to post AC, we'll never know just how many of you there are. A shame, too... I'd like to know just how many people actually post this type of thing.
CmdrTaco has UID 1, since you asked.
Yes, Jesus acted outside of the prescribed norm in every case you mentioned, but if that's all Cho was looking at, he was misled. To me, nonconformism is all right as long as it's nonviolent (like civil disobedience), but not when it's lethal (like school shootings) or otherwise physically painful. I think that if we (as in everyone) would all wake up and smell the coffee/blood about accepting others, the world would be a much better place.
And while we're at it, maybe we can get more of America to worry about who is running the country than who fathered Anna Nicole's baby.
You're both wrong. The high priests wanted Jesus done away with, because they thought he was converting the Jews to viewpoints that weren't theirs. Depending on which gospel you read, the particular accounts may vary slightly (Luke, for instance, says that Jesus was sent to Herod for a part of that Friday), but the end result in all of them was that Pilate only ordered Jesus crucified because the crowds wanted it. Though Jesus may not have been pro-Roman, he wasn't necessarily anti-Roman, either, as evidenced by the quote in Matthew 22, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's."
Define "painfully slow." As long as it's better than the POS a room over that calls itself a computer, I can take it. There are times that I might wish for more, but I don't run Dashboard too terribly much, and even together, Camino, iTunes and Word v.X don't slow it down a lot unless I'm playing with Flash in Camino. I realize that if I swung by the local Apple Store and test-drove one of the display Macs there, it would blow my mind at how fast it is, but I haven't tried and probably won't until I can actually buy one.
No. My circa August 2005 PC can't even keep XP from hanging. I don't know whether that's HP's fault or Microsoft's, but I sincerely doubt that's how XP's supposed to run. On the other hand, my ~August 2003 iMac G4 can handle Tiger just fine, and I think the only time we upgraded the hardware was to put in a different Airport card. I doubt that DDR RAM has gotten overly expensive yet, but I could always check, because we may need more than 256MB at some point. Anyone have any idea about what the memory requirements for Leopard will be?
Okay, I admit it: I have no idea what I'm talking about.
the 5 year old iMac lacks USB 2.0 and has no way to add it. Nowadays, that's a pretty big deal, especially since Firewire was dropped on Apple's own iPod.
Depends on who you're asking. For instance, my iTunes library isn't terribly big... only 430 MB. If I hook it up over a USB 1.1 port, that's 1.5 MB/s. 3 megs every 2 seconds means it would take, uh, (counts on fingers) 287 seconds to retransfer every file if necessary, which it usually isn't. That's not even 5 minutes. Of course, YMMV: If you have a lot to transfer, then you'd probably care that it's USB 1.1 instead of 2.0.
Which iMac did you try? If you tried the 1.83 GHz one, then I can believe it. All of the others at least have a dedicated graphics card with separate VRAM, and I'm sure you can find shittier graphics cards. Yeah, they're non-upgradeable, but that's only if you don't want to void the warranty. ;-)
Very well. Try these three sites and see where that gets you.
Sir, you replied to the wrong person. Please begin paying atten... wait, this is Slashdot, what am I saying?
I believe he did...
look around for "Mac Pro RAM"
(meaning Google or some other search engine)
Really. Somebody needs to tell these people... they write the standard to which all music notation software is held, and it runs on the Mac.
...which the article even says was not created by Microsoft. Find something else, because I'm too lazy to waste time on a near-impossible task. ;-)
If you have a product which takes nearly a century (or more) to expire, I'd like to see it. Of course, if it takes that long to expire, the manufacturer should write at least 3 digits in the year so that one knows which century is being referred to.
No. Apple Corp. (the Beatles' record company) came along before Apple Inc. (the one mostly talked about here), and Apple Inc. has never sued Apple Corp. for trademark infringement. All of the litigation between the two has been instigated by Apple Corp. More info is available here.
Why Microsoft is represented by Bill Gates as one of the Borg... hang out here for a while longer, you'll figure it out.
Ah. I missed that one.
Maybe I should change my sig to something about "sorry if I misinterpreted you"...
No... it's just that one-fourth of a dollar is $.25 or 25 cents, not .25 cents. The people that understand what you meant, but also what you actually said, get a tiny bit confused when you do that.
(Why won't this site handle the cent sign?!)
.25 cents/song? Man, that would be great. After all, I don't particularly have 400 songs I want to buy, but if I did, I'd only have to pay $1, total! At that rate, I could buy all the world's recorded music for less than it would cost to buy the servers the music's stored on! WOOHOO!
</intentional misinterpretation>
And, for what it's worth, "it's/its", "who's/whose", and "their/there/they're" are also problems I tend to notice. Not the last one so much as the other two, but it's still out there.
Oh. Sorry. I'm not worried, since I don't actually use iTunes on Windows, but it's there because Apple doesn't exactly make it easy to find the standalone version of QuickTime (I know it exists, there's a link on the Firefox plugins to it, but not on Apple's QuickTime page.). I don't plan to move to Vista anytime soon, either... ;-)
Maybe they did have more than enough time, and if they did, I agree that this would be a problem, but then again, maybe not. How much is enough, really?... or does it matter?
The part of your post that I took issue with was where you said that if Apple "followed good Windows programming standards (ex. you have to run iTunes as an Administrator)..." Emphasis mine. Putting aside my opinion that the only programs that should be required to be run as admin are the administrative tools and such, forcing iTunes to only be allowed to run as admin is just pointless. Yes, I know that most people using iTunes on Windows probably have their own computer, and so I'm probably in the distinct minority (the people who set up my Windows box actually use the damn thing and don't want me breaking it), but let's say, hypothetically, that there's some 8-year-old in ... pick a state ... Colorado whose parents recently bought him an iPod shuffle, and he wants to put his music on it. The problem he has is that his parents won't do it for him, and they think that he might do something dangerous online (unrelated, of course), so they won't let him run as an admin. I don't know how many teenagers own their own computers, but the scenario may be quite similar for many of them. In that case, Apple would have a problem, since the person who wants to use their product cannot. Most of the time, this would lead to the user getting something like the Zen or the iRiver, and Apple can't have that.