Not only that - if you look at the search results for Scientology, you will see it split about 50/50 between pro and anti Scientology sites, which is just as it should be.
I don't think you'll ever get the main Scientology domain name off number one, and that's not unreasonable since it is, after all, the "official" site. But to see Operation Clambake and "Scientology and The Net" and so on linked so conspicuously just warms my heart.
(I was an ardent Scientology critic until I discovered that it was taking over my life, and I'd never even been a Scientologist in the first place!)
I think the point is that crashes in MacOS 9 are more predictable and (thus) controllable than MacOS X. For instance, if you're using an application, and it's almost out of memory, you should save your work straight away and quit. If you do that every time an app is close to the end of its memory band, you won't get many crashes at all.
I'm sure there are plenty of printing operations that are simply too cheap to buy the expensive newer Macs capable of running MacOS X. I wouldn't be surprised if Quark's real position is that MacOS X software simply isn't as lean and mean as Quark, and making Quark MacOS X compatible would sacrifice that image.
I have never used Quark, seeing that I just about never print anyway, but that's my suspicion based on what I've read.
You sound like someone who's used Quark too much. What do you think of InDesign? The reviews make me think it's a lot nicer to work with. Maybe your press house should consider supporting it.
I don't have any inside knowledge here, but FrameMaker runs on MacOS 9, Windows and a passel of Unices. THere was even a port to Linux for a while, but I think it didn't sell.
I don't see why a port of FrameMaker would be any more difficult than, say, Photoshop (also with plenty of legacy code).
I seem to remember they're trying to expand use of FrameMaker, and I doubt they'd be able to do that without a MacOS X port in the pipeline. If it were a dying product, I'd say it would never get ported, but apparently it isn't.
I'd love to give it a try, but sadly it's just too expensive for casual use.
I've been trying to do this myself, and my best sessions have always been when I bring my digital camera along and take pictures. I get so absorbed in the picture-taking process I forget I'm exercising.
Another way to get exercise is to go to a trade show of some field you're interested in, like the auto show or DV expo. You're on your feet a lot. Just watch for the absymal food served at convention centers; take a break to go to a restaurant instead. (The link is to my own pictures, by the way. Camera is my spiffy Canon EOS D30 which I bought in January, shortly before the D60 came out).
If you live in a neighborhood with comically expensive real estate, you can always check out a few land listings. They're fun to look at because you can generally wander the land at will (again, my pictures, taken with my Canon XL1 MiniDV). In Los Angeles, TheMLS.com has land listings.
The Omni Group already has a couple of applications bundled with PowerMacs, so they are getting revenue for each system. I'm sure that if Apple thought it was time to bundle OmniWeb, they would come to an agreement.
Omni would probably be tickled to death to have OmniWeb bundled. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens eventually, but there are still bugs to iron out and incompatibilities to fix.
I don't think it's unreasonable for Apple to say that they'll start bundling it if it is at least as compatible as IE.
The big problem now is that IE has name recognition among Windows users, and of course OmniWeb has none. So if they took out IE and put in OW, the average person on the street would think they were cheap and chintzy for not including the better known product.
That's why I don't think IE is going any time soon - but if OmniWeb could be added to the default install, I think that would be a Very Good Thing, since it sure does make MacOS X look fantastic.
Final point: I happily paid for OmniWeb, since I think the browser is worth the $30. It's a great product and deserves the support of its users. This is not a big company like Microsoft that can afford to work for free because it gets revenue from Windows. If you want independent companies to survive, you should support the ones whose products you appreciate.
I don't think so, because they put an enormous amount of effort into Mac Office. There is not one untouched dialog box in that thing, and everything looks super-cool.
(The font rendering with normal text is awful, but that's another story entirely - I wish they'd fix it. Rumour has it that they're going to do a free upgrade with at least a partial fix).
I think MS created the Mac Business Unit because its development as a poor sister of their Windows versions wasn't working. Hard as it is to believe for some of us, MS really does want to please customers.
(Not that it works for the likes of me, but my needs are different from what they see as the mainstream).
... but it doesn't even let you change the default font yet!
I have Omniweb running Optima as the default font, and it looks stunning. It's the most readable combination of browser and font I've ever seen.
It also doesn't fix the infamous referer bug, so it's no better than OmniWeb in handling my browsing behaviour.
(The Referer bug: Some sites use the referer as a crude autentication mechanism. In a couple of browsers, including OmniWeb and Chimera, if you open a page in a new window, it doesn't pass on the referer, so these sites won't work. One of them is http://www.themls.com/ - go to the site, look up property in some area, and try to pull up a listing in a new window).
I've written to the OmniWeb people about this, but sadly I haven't heard back from them.:-( ).
As others have said, we're talking about private jets, not business class commercial aviation.
For information on the cost of chartering your own private jet, check out skyjet.com. The bottom line is that if you can fill the jet (capacities of roughly 8-20), it costs roughly the same as first class airfare for all the passengers.
Be civil. Nobody likes to hear flaming, and your representative will almost certainly toss flames in the trash.
Be brief. These are busy people you're writing to. Heck, even the person hired to read your letter is a busy person, since he gets whole sacks of these things.
Don't use someone else's words. It's easy to rely on others to write letters for you. But the more identical letters they receive, the more likely it is that they'll feel this is an organized lobbying campaign instead of something from the grass roots. You want people to think your letter is genuine, so proceed accordingly. A relatively small number of sincere, well-written, DISTINCT letters are going to be as effective as hundreds of identical screeds.
Proofread. This should go without saying, but, judging by what I see on Slashdot, many of us have lost the habit.
Write a paper letter. They know how easy it is to bat out an email, so they don't give them much weight. In any event, nobody has time to wade through the millions of emails they get, so they sit unread.
You may even want to hand write it instead of using a computer. That will make it more of a novelty, and it will be obvious you are/really/ willing to put in an effort. Perhaps "I have to write in longhand so Microsoft's goons won't get me if I do it in Word their spies in Redmond will get it." Okay, that was a joke, but you get the idea.
For this issue specifically, it might be worth checking out how controversial Microsoft Government has been elsewhere. If you want an idea of what this is going to look like, check out this article in The Register (UK). You may also want to do a few more searches over there since there's lots of meaty material.
Can it be true that some people actually... gulp... like... him?
When I first saw him, I felt gripped by fear, fear that "The Paperclip Spy", as I called him, would be sending my deathless prose to Redmond for analysis. I knew that was an irrational thought, since they could send my stuff to Redmond even without a paperclip, but... you get the idea.
(Come to think of it, our otherwise very nice and sane accounting lady loves her cat version).
Why, oh why, haven't these censors realized that all they do in the end is create immense amounts of curiosity and expose huge numbers of people to the banned content?
What they're doing is about as counterproductive as it gets.
Now, understand that I'm sympathetic to their goals - few people want to see terrorist attacks on trains - but this isn't the right way to achieve them.
The Church of Scientology, whose goals I am empathetically unsympathetic to, does the exact same thing, and to the same effect: Tremendous interest among the public to see the "forbidden" materials, and enormous ridicule once they are revealed.
We're a long way on this road for the railroad...
D
PS Gotta admire that Dutch ISP. They got guts, both for dealing with this and standing up for Scientology. From what I can see, the only reason the material is now down is that the railroad got an injunction.
Well... Radikal is expressing some sort of opinion, no?
Strangely enough, the copy in Google's cache (as linked to previously) doesn't appear to have any of the actual banned information on it. I tried doing a search for it using terms in the article's alleged title, and couldn't find anything.
The page is crowing about censorship, without linking us to the information censored - which I find, well, odd.
Or did Google remove the information from cache already? Looks to me like Radikal may have done so for them by replacing the articles with the (almost incomprehensible) main page that now shows up.
Apple probably understands that the browser monoculture may be unpopular with Slashdotters, but the general public just wants to see pages. So until everything's perfect over on the Mozilla/Omniweb/etc end, they're not going to switch.
This is totally separate from any payoffs from Microsoft which might show up and influence Jobs, of course.
I've all but switched from IE to Mozilla 0.99 for sites that won't work in OmniWeb. So far, I haven't found a single site that doesn't work in Mozilla 0.99. (OW has the world's best type rendering and saves me from eyestrain, thus winning my best browser crown even though it won't work with all sites).
So it might be time for Apple to recheck this issue. Maybe when a Netscape version of Mozilla 1.0 is released?
So the only solution to this would have been to push them to the edge of bankruptcy?
That doesn't seem realistic in the case of Adobe. Killing off the unit that sold the technology that got us in this mess would surely seem sufficient, no? If you're going to force Photoshop to die, you'll have a whole bunch of angry graphic artists crying for blood:-).
Do you know the fate of the technology he reverse-engineered?
If you are doing a branding campaign to associate Pepsi with good stuff, in such a way that I will buby Pepsi the next time I visit the store, you are correct.
But if I buy ads for my creativesdates.tv online dating site, the only thing that matters is how many people will click on it. I don't expect them to remember the URL from session to session. I just expect them to click.
It's fundementally the difference between direct response marketing and regular TV ads. With direct response marketing, the percentage who answered the ad is the result. Period.
And I think that's true of most online advertising , too.
If 10.2 does that, it will be an immense relief; font rendering in Microsoft Office is so bad it hurts my eyes even to think about it.
The latest 2-3 versions of OmniWeb have helped a lot in terms of JavaScript support; some pages that would simply not work in older versions (i.e. the home type selection JavaScript of http://www.realtor.com/ ) work now.
I got the MultiLink with my 1600SW, and it works great with my dual 450. (Hey, same machine you have!)
I'd say it's genuinely worth the money to get the MultiLink in your situation, since it will give you high-speed performance and a rock-solid display.
Or you might just hook up another display to the card that was included with the 450, and use that for video stuff, leaving the 1600SW for terminal windows and the like.
At least you don't have the problem I have at work - because I don't have a $500 obsolete video adapter with DVI, I can't get it to run at any more than 1280x1024 under Linux. Driver support for Linux is truly rotten, at least last time I checked. Oops:-(.
Network effects give them some insulation from competition. That's most easily shown with Quark; many people now consider InDesign superior, but it's tough to argue with Quark's dominance in the printing market, because of the cooperation you need with printers, most of who only have Quark.
The same is true of Photoshop. Once you've learned their keyboard equivalents, secret workarounds and the like, you have an enormous investment in the product and are unlikely to switch unless a competitor enormously raises the bar. I know that I tried a few different photo editing programs in an effort to avoid Classic, and none of them felt as right as Photoshop. They had all the functions of Photoshop, but, well, they weren't Photoshop.
Another big advantage of Adobe is that they still include old-fashioned paper manuals with their products. That's enormously appealing to me; you get something tangible for your $150-600. Almost nobody does that anymore, and it's a darn shame.
It gives them the image of the Classy Software Company, and I think it's very much merited.
Come to think of it, Final Cut Pro 3 comes with a few bricks worth of manuals. And you're right, once you've seen FCP, Premiere just plain doesn't feel right.
The community cares, and has in fact worked hard to get him released.
At the same time, the community also knows what company to go to to get great graphics software.
For whatever reason, the computer biz is about cool products, not morality. Even Steve Jobs of Apple, the cool computer company, is known as a relentless perfectionist who can be staggeringly cruel to his employees. Do we care? No, we keep buying his products because, for better or for worse, he makes the best stuff.
Same with Adobe.
Harsh reality, but that's the way it works.
On the other hand, can you see anyone using Adobe's secure PDF format or whatever the heck it was any time soon? They suffered a genuine defeat with the publicity; they shouldn't have done what they did, even from a pragmatic commercial viewpoint.
The new Cinema HD Display is coming, and my guess is that you'd be willing to give even more for it.
1920x1200 coming right up!
$3,500.
If you want a 3/4 scale Cinema Display, do what I did and get a SGI 1600SW. You can find them on eBay for about $1k. They're not as gorgeous, but they work extremely well for the money, and the 1600x1000 resolution is the same as the standard Cinema Display's.
I already have a G4/450 dual processor and a G4/400 TiBook, both running MacOS X. You won't regret it. The classiest user experience around.
If finances break more or less my way, I'm getting the latest G4 dual processor system with a Cinema Display HD around the middle of the year when the new PowerMacs are rumoured to come out.
You can get one of those, you know. I think one was reviewed earlier in this section. They took the stock G4/1ghz dual processor, ripped open the case and put it in a spiffy metal case with lots more ports and better cooling.
I was surprised - it didn't cost that much more than the dual 1ghz system, something like $3,200 versus $2,999. Might be worth looking into if that's your style, or you need more drive options and/or better cooling..
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that - if you look at the search results for Scientology, you will see it split about 50/50 between pro and anti Scientology sites, which is just as it should be.
I don't think you'll ever get the main Scientology domain name off number one, and that's not unreasonable since it is, after all, the "official" site. But to see Operation Clambake and "Scientology and The Net" and so on linked so conspicuously just warms my heart.
(I was an ardent Scientology critic until I discovered that it was taking over my life, and I'd never even been a Scientologist in the first place!)
D
I think the point is that crashes in MacOS 9 are more predictable and (thus) controllable than MacOS X. For instance, if you're using an application, and it's almost out of memory, you should save your work straight away and quit. If you do that every time an app is close to the end of its memory band, you won't get many crashes at all.
I'm sure there are plenty of printing operations that are simply too cheap to buy the expensive newer Macs capable of running MacOS X. I wouldn't be surprised if Quark's real position is that MacOS X software simply isn't as lean and mean as Quark, and making Quark MacOS X compatible would sacrifice that image.
I have never used Quark, seeing that I just about never print anyway, but that's my suspicion based on what I've read.
You sound like someone who's used Quark too much. What do you think of InDesign? The reviews make me think it's a lot nicer to work with. Maybe your press house should consider supporting it.
D
I don't have any inside knowledge here, but FrameMaker runs on MacOS 9, Windows and a passel of Unices. THere was even a port to Linux for a while, but I think it didn't sell.
I don't see why a port of FrameMaker would be any more difficult than, say, Photoshop (also with plenty of legacy code).
I seem to remember they're trying to expand use of FrameMaker, and I doubt they'd be able to do that without a MacOS X port in the pipeline. If it were a dying product, I'd say it would never get ported, but apparently it isn't.
I'd love to give it a try, but sadly it's just too expensive for casual use.
D
I've been trying to do this myself, and my best sessions have always been when I bring my digital camera along and take pictures. I get so absorbed in the picture-taking process I forget I'm exercising.
Another way to get exercise is to go to a trade show of some field you're interested in, like the auto show or DV expo. You're on your feet a lot. Just watch for the absymal food served at convention centers; take a break to go to a restaurant instead. (The link is to my own pictures, by the way. Camera is my spiffy Canon EOS D30 which I bought in January, shortly before the D60 came out).
If you live in a neighborhood with comically expensive real estate, you can always check out a few land listings. They're fun to look at because you can generally wander the land at will (again, my pictures, taken with my Canon XL1 MiniDV). In Los Angeles, TheMLS.com has land listings.
Hope that helps.
D
The Omni Group already has a couple of applications bundled with PowerMacs, so they are getting revenue for each system. I'm sure that if Apple thought it was time to bundle OmniWeb, they would come to an agreement.
Omni would probably be tickled to death to have OmniWeb bundled. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens eventually, but there are still bugs to iron out and incompatibilities to fix.
I don't think it's unreasonable for Apple to say that they'll start bundling it if it is at least as compatible as IE.
The big problem now is that IE has name recognition among Windows users, and of course OmniWeb has none. So if they took out IE and put in OW, the average person on the street would think they were cheap and chintzy for not including the better known product.
That's why I don't think IE is going any time soon - but if OmniWeb could be added to the default install, I think that would be a Very Good Thing, since it sure does make MacOS X look fantastic.
Final point: I happily paid for OmniWeb, since I think the browser is worth the $30. It's a great product and deserves the support of its users. This is not a big company like Microsoft that can afford to work for free because it gets revenue from Windows. If you want independent companies to survive, you should support the ones whose products you appreciate.
D
Isn't there IE 6 for the PC which had a whole slew of significant features?
Mac users (including myself) are stuck back in 5.x, I believe.
Anyone know how significant an update IE 6 is?
D
I don't think so, because they put an enormous amount of effort into Mac Office. There is not one untouched dialog box in that thing, and everything looks super-cool.
(The font rendering with normal text is awful, but that's another story entirely - I wish they'd fix it. Rumour has it that they're going to do a free upgrade with at least a partial fix).
I think MS created the Mac Business Unit because its development as a poor sister of their Windows versions wasn't working. Hard as it is to believe for some of us, MS really does want to please customers.
(Not that it works for the likes of me, but my needs are different from what they see as the mainstream).
D
... but it doesn't even let you change the default font yet!
:-( ).
I have Omniweb running Optima as the default font, and it looks stunning. It's the most readable combination of browser and font I've ever seen.
It also doesn't fix the infamous referer bug, so it's no better than OmniWeb in handling my browsing behaviour.
(The Referer bug: Some sites use the referer as a crude autentication mechanism. In a couple of browsers, including OmniWeb and Chimera, if you open a page in a new window, it doesn't pass on the referer, so these sites won't work. One of them is http://www.themls.com/ - go to the site, look up property in some area, and try to pull up a listing in a new window).
I've written to the OmniWeb people about this, but sadly I haven't heard back from them.
D
For information on the cost of chartering your own private jet, check out skyjet.com. The bottom line is that if you can fill the jet (capacities of roughly 8-20), it costs roughly the same as first class airfare for all the passengers.
D
Me too - but there must be at least one person left on Slashdot who has legible handwriting.
Or at least could fake it.
Maybe?
Perhaps someone will write his letter using Palm's Graffiti (artifical handwriting) without thinking! That'll fool 'em.
D
- Be civil. Nobody likes to hear flaming, and your representative will almost certainly toss flames in the trash.
- Be brief. These are busy people you're writing to. Heck, even the person hired to read your letter is a busy person, since he gets whole sacks of these things.
- Don't use someone else's words. It's easy to rely on others to write letters for you. But the more identical letters they receive, the more likely it is that they'll feel this is an organized lobbying campaign instead of something from the grass roots. You want people to think your letter is genuine, so proceed accordingly. A relatively small number of sincere, well-written, DISTINCT letters are going to be as effective as hundreds of identical screeds.
- Proofread. This should go without saying, but, judging by what I see on Slashdot, many of us have lost the habit.
- Write a paper letter. They know how easy it is to bat out an email, so they don't give them much weight. In any event, nobody has time to wade through the millions of emails they get, so they sit unread.
- You may even want to hand write it instead of using a computer. That will make it more of a novelty, and it will be obvious you are
/really/ willing to put in an effort. Perhaps "I have to write in longhand so Microsoft's goons won't get me if I do it in Word their spies in Redmond will get it." Okay, that was a joke, but you get the idea.
For this issue specifically, it might be worth checking out how controversial Microsoft Government has been elsewhere. If you want an idea of what this is going to look like, check out this article in The Register (UK). You may also want to do a few more searches over there since there's lots of meaty material.Hope that helps.
D
He sounds just like Binky, the Office Assistant, as shown in one of my favourite cartoons of all time
Can it be true that some people actually ... gulp ... like ... him?
When I first saw him, I felt gripped by fear, fear that "The Paperclip Spy", as I called him, would be sending my deathless prose to Redmond for analysis. I knew that was an irrational thought, since they could send my stuff to Redmond even without a paperclip, but ... you get the idea.
(Come to think of it, our otherwise very nice and sane accounting lady loves her cat version).
D
Why, oh why, haven't these censors realized that all they do in the end is create immense amounts of curiosity and expose huge numbers of people to the banned content?
...
What they're doing is about as counterproductive as it gets.
Now, understand that I'm sympathetic to their goals - few people want to see terrorist attacks on trains - but this isn't the right way to achieve them.
The Church of Scientology, whose goals I am empathetically unsympathetic to, does the exact same thing, and to the same effect: Tremendous interest among the public to see the "forbidden" materials, and enormous ridicule once they are revealed.
We're a long way on this road for the railroad
D
PS Gotta admire that Dutch ISP. They got guts, both for dealing with this and standing up for Scientology. From what I can see, the only reason the material is now down is that the railroad got an injunction.
Well ... Radikal is expressing some sort of opinion, no?
Strangely enough, the copy in Google's cache (as linked to previously) doesn't appear to have any of the actual banned information on it. I tried doing a search for it using terms in the article's alleged title, and couldn't find anything.
The page is crowing about censorship, without linking us to the information censored - which I find, well, odd.
Or did Google remove the information from cache already? Looks to me like Radikal may have done so for them by replacing the articles with the (almost incomprehensible) main page that now shows up.
Oops.
D
Apple probably understands that the browser monoculture may be unpopular with Slashdotters, but the general public just wants to see pages. So until everything's perfect over on the Mozilla/Omniweb/etc end, they're not going to switch.
This is totally separate from any payoffs from Microsoft which might show up and influence Jobs, of course.
I've all but switched from IE to Mozilla 0.99 for sites that won't work in OmniWeb. So far, I haven't found a single site that doesn't work in Mozilla 0.99. (OW has the world's best type rendering and saves me from eyestrain, thus winning my best browser crown even though it won't work with all sites).
So it might be time for Apple to recheck this issue. Maybe when a Netscape version of Mozilla 1.0 is released?
D
So the only solution to this would have been to push them to the edge of bankruptcy?
:-).
That doesn't seem realistic in the case of Adobe. Killing off the unit that sold the technology that got us in this mess would surely seem sufficient, no? If you're going to force Photoshop to die, you'll have a whole bunch of angry graphic artists crying for blood
Do you know the fate of the technology he reverse-engineered?
D
Here you go:
c om/news/politics/0,1283,50797,00 . tml
http://www.freesklyarov.org/
http://www.wired.
http://www.boycottadobe.com/
That should get you started.
D
But if I buy ads for my creativesdates.tv online dating site, the only thing that matters is how many people will click on it. I don't expect them to remember the URL from session to session. I just expect them to click.
It's fundementally the difference between direct response marketing and regular TV ads. With direct response marketing, the percentage who answered the ad is the result. Period.
And I think that's true of most online advertising , too.
D
If 10.2 does that, it will be an immense relief; font rendering in Microsoft Office is so bad it hurts my eyes even to think about it.
The latest 2-3 versions of OmniWeb have helped a lot in terms of JavaScript support; some pages that would simply not work in older versions (i.e. the home type selection JavaScript of http://www.realtor.com/ ) work now.
D
I got the MultiLink with my 1600SW, and it works great with my dual 450. (Hey, same machine you have!)
:-(.
I'd say it's genuinely worth the money to get the MultiLink in your situation, since it will give you high-speed performance and a rock-solid display.
Or you might just hook up another display to the card that was included with the 450, and use that for video stuff, leaving the 1600SW for terminal windows and the like.
At least you don't have the problem I have at work - because I don't have a $500 obsolete video adapter with DVI, I can't get it to run at any more than 1280x1024 under Linux. Driver support for Linux is truly rotten, at least last time I checked. Oops
D
But once he's released, the issue is moot as far as the community is concerned - no?
D
Network effects give them some insulation from competition. That's most easily shown with Quark; many people now consider InDesign superior, but it's tough to argue with Quark's dominance in the printing market, because of the cooperation you need with printers, most of who only have Quark.
The same is true of Photoshop. Once you've learned their keyboard equivalents, secret workarounds and the like, you have an enormous investment in the product and are unlikely to switch unless a competitor enormously raises the bar. I know that I tried a few different photo editing programs in an effort to avoid Classic, and none of them felt as right as Photoshop. They had all the functions of Photoshop, but, well, they weren't Photoshop.
Another big advantage of Adobe is that they still include old-fashioned paper manuals with their products. That's enormously appealing to me; you get something tangible for your $150-600. Almost nobody does that anymore, and it's a darn shame.
It gives them the image of the Classy Software Company, and I think it's very much merited.
Come to think of it, Final Cut Pro 3 comes with a few bricks worth of manuals. And you're right, once you've seen FCP, Premiere just plain doesn't feel right.
D
The community cares, and has in fact worked hard to get him released.
At the same time, the community also knows what company to go to to get great graphics software.
For whatever reason, the computer biz is about cool products, not morality. Even Steve Jobs of Apple, the cool computer company, is known as a relentless perfectionist who can be staggeringly cruel to his employees. Do we care? No, we keep buying his products because, for better or for worse, he makes the best stuff.
Same with Adobe.
Harsh reality, but that's the way it works.
On the other hand, can you see anyone using Adobe's secure PDF format or whatever the heck it was any time soon? They suffered a genuine defeat with the publicity; they shouldn't have done what they did, even from a pragmatic commercial viewpoint.
D
Wait.
The new Cinema HD Display is coming, and my guess is that you'd be willing to give even more for it.
1920x1200 coming right up!
$3,500.
If you want a 3/4 scale Cinema Display, do what I did and get a SGI 1600SW. You can find them on eBay for about $1k. They're not as gorgeous, but they work extremely well for the money, and the 1600x1000 resolution is the same as the standard Cinema Display's.
I already have a G4/450 dual processor and a G4/400 TiBook, both running MacOS X. You won't regret it. The classiest user experience around.
If finances break more or less my way, I'm getting the latest G4 dual processor system with a Cinema Display HD around the middle of the year when the new PowerMacs are rumoured to come out.
D
You can get one of those, you know. I think one was reviewed earlier in this section. They took the stock G4/1ghz dual processor, ripped open the case and put it in a spiffy metal case with lots more ports and better cooling.
I was surprised - it didn't cost that much more than the dual 1ghz system, something like $3,200 versus $2,999. Might be worth looking into if that's your style, or you need more drive options and/or better cooling..
D