---- The difference bewteen part CT372707 and CT6464X265 is the PCB revision. Part CT372707 = CT6464X256AP (note the AP)
CT372707 is specifically for the Apple iBook (G4 1.2GHz) as standard parts CT6464X265 can sometimes be incompatible. This is due to a change in the JEDEC standards.
Apples with standard memory will sometimes give the error "Bad memory" or "kernal panic". The memory however is not faulty. ---
Maybe I'm reading it wrong or being overly cynical, but doesn't that translate into this?
Even though the standard has changed, we still sell memory for the old standard without saying so. This old-standard memory will not necessarily work correctly, but it's not broken, we swear.
On the Apple forums, several people have described random kernel panics and general operating unpleasantness after going with cheap RAM.
If that happens, then your RAM is defective. Assuming you bought memory with a lifetime warranty (can you even find memory that doesn't have one?), then get it replaced.
The only place I would get Mac RAM from would be Crucial.com, and they're more or less the price of the Apple RAM, though the 1GB is a hundred less. Crucial is a division of Micron and thoroughly tests their RAM.
I'll never buy from Crucial, and here's why. I was shopping for a memory upgrade for my PowerBook when I came across this product on their site:
It's a 1GB memory module for my model of PowerBook. It's $480. I thought this price was a little high, but Crucial is generally kind of expensive. Then I found this page:
What's going on here? I e-mailed them and asked what the difference was. Here are some quotes from their reply:
Thank you for your e-mail. At Crucial we offer different "flavors" of the same memory, some that work in specific systems and some that work in general systems.
If you placed the general use module into a PowerBook the system would become unstable and even lock up at sporadic times.
Part number CT12864X335 is not compatible.
I'm not sure what's going on here. It's obvious that this e-mail is at extreme odds with the truth. One explanation is that they've caught on to the idea that Mac owners have more money, and they decided to cash in. Another explanation is that their customer support is incompetent. Either way, I see no reason to buy from them and every reason to avoid them.
Actually, having a fully preemptive multithreaded enviroment is incredibly useful for a robot.
In my wheeled two-motor robot using a Lego Mindstorms as the computer, I spawned several threads at startup. One thread handled navigation; ten times a second it woke up, read the current position of the wheels, and updated the robot's knowledge of its position and orientation. Another thread handled incoming communications over the IR link with the main computer. Another thread handled low-level driving routines, making up for asymmetrical motor strengths and ground conditions so that the robot drove in mostly a straight line or a smooth turn.
It is vastly easier to do all of these things when you can plunk them all in separate threads and have them work independently. You could, of course, write your own scheduling system to take care of all of these tasks, but by the time you've finished you'll just have a buggy, under-tested version of the OS that you were trying to get rid of in the first place.
whois bungie.com [snip]
Administrative Contact:
Domain Administrator (37676006O) DOMAINS@MICROSOFT.COM
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
425-882-8080 [etc.]
Bungie Studios is just a division of Microsoft now. Bungie Inc. no longer exists.
Basically, your argument boils down to this: people are stupid and don't plan ahead, so they don't match their actions to their intentions at the beginning of the project.
To which I say, tough cookies! If you open source your code, you are giving explicit permission for everybody to use it and not pay you a dime.
Most popular open source projects would never have become so popular if they were closed to begin with, so I don't see the problem. The GPL giveth, and the GPL taketh away.
If you think you might want to charge for your product, don't open source it, simple as that. If that means that you never get any recognition or contributions, too bad.
People who distribute software that is explicitly marked as "distribute at will, you are not obligated to pay anything" and then get annoyed when nobody sends them money piss me off! If you think that people should be obligated to pay you, then release your software under that license. If you're releasing your software under the GPL, BSD license, or other open source license, you are explicitly saying that nobody is obligated to pay anything for anything. If that's not what you want, don't do it.
I would consider having to sign up for all of these offers, having to cancel all of them later, and having to deal with the inevitable business jackhole who doesn't understand what "cancel" means to be "hurt". Of course, if your time is cheap, you might consider it to be worthwhile.
Given that a pyramid scheme is mathematically guaranteed to screw over the majority of the people who get sucked into it, even in the best case, what makes you special? What makes you lucky enough to have a good chance of succeeding?
Re:Don't Fall For This Trick!
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 1
I wish I knew. I got it off of Usenet which, I know, means it's probably meaningless. What are your numbers?
There was no misunderstanding between the ATC and the aircraft on the runway at the time.
Wikipedia says:
Later investigation showed that there had been misinterpretations and false convictions.... [T]he KLM pilot was convinced that he had been cleared for take-off, while the Tenerife control tower was certain that the KLM 747 was stationary at the end of the runway and awaiting takeoff clearance.... [T]he disaster was caused partly by squelched radio messages... partly by non-standard phrases used by the KLM co-pilot ("We're at take off") and the Tenerife control tower ("O.K.")....
Wikipedia of course mentions von Zanten's impatience and improper takeoff as a major factor, but not the only one.
Your quoted final conclusion that places the sole blame on von Zanten would appear to be from the initial investigation, whereas Wikipedia cites "later investigation" for its other conclusions. This is probably the source of the discrepancy.
I didn't know about the Pan Am 747 being the first commercially-delivered 747, that's an interesting tidbit.
Wikipedia disagrees with you. According to their page, "Later investigation showed that there had been misinterpretations and false convictions. Analysis of the CVR transcript shows that the KLM pilot was convinced that he had been cleared for take-off, while the Tenerife control tower was certain that the KLM 747 was stationary at the end of the runway and awaiting takeoff clearance." However, I'm not an expert and they may well be wrong.
Even if you're correct, it just goes to show that Shit Happens and People Die because of it even in the aviation industry.
If "I forgot" or "shit happens" isn't an excuse, why did the Concorde crash just because nobody bothered to remove a bit of metal from the runway? Why did two 747s collide during a takeoff run on Tenerife due to a misunderstanding with ATC? Why did Korean Air 007 get shot down over the USSR after the crew mishandled the autopilot?
Macs have run on proprietary OS's until very very recently, but now they run proprietary extensions to a reasonably open OS. I am sure you couldn't just give away OS/X the same way you can give away Knoppix on a CD to someone.
Gee, did you even read the link? Or did your willful blindness prevent you from checking my references? It was to an Apple IIe! Apple has made more than just Macs in its history, you know. That was the entire point of my subject line.
Average - When Apple don't produce their own components, they buy middle to high end components and rebadge them. Average is a very adequate description.
Please explain just what was so average about the linked computer, the original Mac. The 68000 processor was far from average at the time, as was the bitmapped display, the 3.5" floppy drive, the built-in networking.... Also, it's more than just the hardware. The original Mac was beyond average in the software department as well.
Underpowered - Reviewing the link provided zealously by the parent, one can see that, as per typical Apple philosophy, no hard facts or trustworthy benchmarks are provided, aside from a slightly amusing "10% faster than.. an older mac". Realisticly, in terms of IPC the G3 in the article was a better performer, it's just a shame that the intel gear of the time was orders of magnitude faster. Great link for proving my point, though.
Woo, you finally looked at a link! Too bad you're so condescending that you didn't realize the link was just to provide a reference, and wasn't meant to prove anything.
The beige G3s shipped in November of 1997 with clock speeds of 233MHz and 266MHz. The top of the line from the x86 camp at the time was, according to this page the 300MHz Pentium II. Was a 300MHz Pentium II really "orders of magnitude" faster than a 266MHz G3? (This will mean at least a factor of two, you realize.) My experience was that the G3 was significantly faster than same-clocked x86 processors, and would more than make up for the 12% difference in clock speed.
Three times the price - This is an exaggeration on my part. Usually it's more like 150%-200% the price of an equivalently performing Dell/HP. A quick look around will show you can get a better laptop than the iBook in terms of performance for a few hundred dollars cheaper than the prices on that website - again confirming my general gist, thankyou.
If all you care about is performance, why get a laptop at all?
Show me a better, cheaper laptop than the iBook in terms of everything and then you have a point. To give you a helping hand, I'll even forget about all of the software and just look at the hardware. Don't forget to consider size, battery life, ports, wireless networking, optical drive, etc.
Re:Don't Fall For This Trick!
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 1
It's just like the old statistic that airline travel is the safest. You'll hear that quoted a lot, but no one ever mentions the metric. It just so happens the metric is "safest per mile traveled." An airliner designed to go long distances at 550 mph obviously has the advantage here. Compare it by number of individual trips or hours spent traveling, and it turns out that the chance of fatality is about the same (or more).
When it comes to hard drives, I've always replaced the older one. Keeping them both around gets into partitioning headaches and usually doesn't gain you too much more space.
I've never had the least desire to add a zip, jazz, or DVD-RAM drive. If I did, I could get an external one and it would work just as well as an internal one.
Right now, my PowerBook has all of the components I want. If I want something more in the future, chances are I can find a version that I can plug in to a port on the outside.
And so we come full circle. I think you may have misunderstood my point, which was thus:
I have been the victim of both actual theft (bicycle, wallet, etc.) and copyright infringement (pirated serial numbers, cracked applications). I personally consider the former to be much, much worse than the latter. I don't believe that copyright infringement is anywhere near as bad as actual theft, and the fact that the theft takes place over the internet doesn't change a thing. I don't think that people who infringe on copyright, not even the ones who copy the things I have created and earn money on, deserve to be phished any more than anybody else.
- Reliability. Your data always arrives or the connection drops. - In-order delivery. Regardless of network conditions, the data always arrives in the order that it was sent. - Rate-limiting. Your data stream will be limited to a rate that the intervening network hardware can handle.
TCP provides and requires all three. Many interactive applications aren't real gung-ho on reliability. If you're sending ten position packets a second and one gets dropped, you don't care about it. If two of them arrive out of order, you don't care about it.
Because TCP mandates both reliability and in-order delivery, a single dropped packet can result in huge (multi-second) delays while the retransmits happen.
I'd rather, frankly, have packets that are late than no packets at all.
To paraphrase Stuart Cheshire, who wrote one of the first realtime internet-playable action games, "I can write an algorithm to recover from a lost packet, but I can't write an algorithm to send one back in time when it arrives late."
It's a tradeoff. Writing a reliable protocol on top of UDP is not always the wrong solution.
[Expandability] is no problem with $400 PCs and is rather important for anyone with even mild computer-geek tendencies
Careful there, "computer-geek" is a pretty general word.
I make a living programming and I love to screw around with my computer, but I hate screwing around with hardware. I want a computer that Just Works so I can play with robots or writing a laser-pointer tracker or whatever I feel like doing this particular day of the week. I don't like fooling around with internal components and I don't like having to repair my OS. For this reason, I own a Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
Crucial told someone else this:
---- The difference bewteen part CT372707 and CT6464X265 is the PCB revision. Part CT372707 = CT6464X256AP (note the AP)
CT372707 is specifically for the Apple iBook (G4 1.2GHz) as standard parts CT6464X265 can sometimes be incompatible. This is due to a change in the JEDEC standards.
Apples with standard memory will sometimes give the error "Bad memory" or "kernal panic". The memory however is not faulty. ---
Maybe I'm reading it wrong or being overly cynical, but doesn't that translate into this?
Even though the standard has changed, we still sell memory for the old standard without saying so. This old-standard memory will not necessarily work correctly, but it's not broken, we swear.
It is one thing to say that you won't guarantee it'll work. It's quite another thing to assert strongly that it is guaranteed not to work.
I've heard from numerous sources that this will be there for Tiger.
On the Apple forums, several people have described random kernel panics and general operating unpleasantness after going with cheap RAM.
i d=5DC2B0BFA5CA7304
e =CT12864X335&cat=RAM
If that happens, then your RAM is defective. Assuming you bought memory with a lifetime warranty (can you even find memory that doesn't have one?), then get it replaced.
The only place I would get Mac RAM from would be Crucial.com, and they're more or less the price of the Apple RAM, though the 1GB is a hundred less. Crucial is a division of Micron and thoroughly tests their RAM.
I'll never buy from Crucial, and here's why. I was shopping for a memory upgrade for my PowerBook when I came across this product on their site:
http://www.crucial.com/store/MPartspecs.Asp?mtbpo
It's a 1GB memory module for my model of PowerBook. It's $480. I thought this price was a little high, but Crucial is generally kind of expensive. Then I found this page:
http://www.crucial.com/store/PartSpecs.asp?imodul
It's an identical 1GB module, but for $340.
What's going on here? I e-mailed them and asked what the difference was. Here are some quotes from their reply:
Thank you for your e-mail. At Crucial we offer different "flavors" of the same memory, some that work in specific systems and some that work in general systems.
If you placed the general use module into a PowerBook the system would become unstable and even lock up at sporadic times.
Part number CT12864X335 is not compatible.
I'm not sure what's going on here. It's obvious that this e-mail is at extreme odds with the truth. One explanation is that they've caught on to the idea that Mac owners have more money, and they decided to cash in. Another explanation is that their customer support is incompetent. Either way, I see no reason to buy from them and every reason to avoid them.
Pr0n... is there anything it can't do?
Get you laid.
Actually, having a fully preemptive multithreaded enviroment is incredibly useful for a robot.
In my wheeled two-motor robot using a Lego Mindstorms as the computer, I spawned several threads at startup. One thread handled navigation; ten times a second it woke up, read the current position of the wheels, and updated the robot's knowledge of its position and orientation. Another thread handled incoming communications over the IR link with the main computer. Another thread handled low-level driving routines, making up for asymmetrical motor strengths and ground conditions so that the robot drove in mostly a straight line or a smooth turn.
It is vastly easier to do all of these things when you can plunk them all in separate threads and have them work independently. You could, of course, write your own scheduling system to take care of all of these tasks, but by the time you've finished you'll just have a buggy, under-tested version of the OS that you were trying to get rid of in the first place.
Basically, your argument boils down to this: people are stupid and don't plan ahead, so they don't match their actions to their intentions at the beginning of the project.
To which I say, tough cookies! If you open source your code, you are giving explicit permission for everybody to use it and not pay you a dime.
Most popular open source projects would never have become so popular if they were closed to begin with, so I don't see the problem. The GPL giveth, and the GPL taketh away.
If you think you might want to charge for your product, don't open source it, simple as that. If that means that you never get any recognition or contributions, too bad.
I have a complimentary rant.
People who distribute software that is explicitly marked as "distribute at will, you are not obligated to pay anything" and then get annoyed when nobody sends them money piss me off! If you think that people should be obligated to pay you, then release your software under that license. If you're releasing your software under the GPL, BSD license, or other open source license, you are explicitly saying that nobody is obligated to pay anything for anything. If that's not what you want, don't do it.
I would consider having to sign up for all of these offers, having to cancel all of them later, and having to deal with the inevitable business jackhole who doesn't understand what "cancel" means to be "hurt". Of course, if your time is cheap, you might consider it to be worthwhile.
Given that a pyramid scheme is mathematically guaranteed to screw over the majority of the people who get sucked into it, even in the best case, what makes you special? What makes you lucky enough to have a good chance of succeeding?
I wish I knew. I got it off of Usenet which, I know, means it's probably meaningless. What are your numbers?
You said:
There was no misunderstanding between the ATC and the aircraft on the runway at the time.
Wikipedia says:
Later investigation showed that there had been misinterpretations and false convictions.... [T]he KLM pilot was convinced that he had been cleared for take-off, while the Tenerife control tower was certain that the KLM 747 was stationary at the end of the runway and awaiting takeoff clearance.... [T]he disaster was caused partly by squelched radio messages... partly by non-standard phrases used by the KLM co-pilot ("We're at take off") and the Tenerife control tower ("O.K.")....
Wikipedia of course mentions von Zanten's impatience and improper takeoff as a major factor, but not the only one.
Your quoted final conclusion that places the sole blame on von Zanten would appear to be from the initial investigation, whereas Wikipedia cites "later investigation" for its other conclusions. This is probably the source of the discrepancy.
I didn't know about the Pan Am 747 being the first commercially-delivered 747, that's an interesting tidbit.
Wikipedia disagrees with you. According to their page, "Later investigation showed that there had been misinterpretations and false convictions. Analysis of the CVR transcript shows that the KLM pilot was convinced that he had been cleared for take-off, while the Tenerife control tower was certain that the KLM 747 was stationary at the end of the runway and awaiting takeoff clearance." However, I'm not an expert and they may well be wrong.
Even if you're correct, it just goes to show that Shit Happens and People Die because of it even in the aviation industry.
Are you suggesting that airports institute a policy of thoroughly inspecting runways for FOD between every flight landing/departing?
Certainly not. I'm merely suggesting that Shit Happens.
So is the article.
If "I forgot" or "shit happens" isn't an excuse, why did the Concorde crash just because nobody bothered to remove a bit of metal from the runway? Why did two 747s collide during a takeoff run on Tenerife due to a misunderstanding with ATC? Why did Korean Air 007 get shot down over the USSR after the crew mishandled the autopilot?
Macs have run on proprietary OS's until very very recently, but now they run proprietary extensions to a reasonably open OS. I am sure you couldn't just give away OS/X the same way you can give away Knoppix on a CD to someone.
Gee, did you even read the link? Or did your willful blindness prevent you from checking my references? It was to an Apple IIe! Apple has made more than just Macs in its history, you know. That was the entire point of my subject line.
Average - When Apple don't produce their own components, they buy middle to high end components and rebadge them. Average is a very adequate description.
Please explain just what was so average about the linked computer, the original Mac. The 68000 processor was far from average at the time, as was the bitmapped display, the 3.5" floppy drive, the built-in networking.... Also, it's more than just the hardware. The original Mac was beyond average in the software department as well.
Underpowered - Reviewing the link provided zealously by the parent, one can see that, as per typical Apple philosophy, no hard facts or trustworthy benchmarks are provided, aside from a slightly amusing "10% faster than.. an older mac". Realisticly, in terms of IPC the G3 in the article was a better performer, it's just a shame that the intel gear of the time was orders of magnitude faster. Great link for proving my point, though.
Woo, you finally looked at a link! Too bad you're so condescending that you didn't realize the link was just to provide a reference, and wasn't meant to prove anything.
The beige G3s shipped in November of 1997 with clock speeds of 233MHz and 266MHz. The top of the line from the x86 camp at the time was, according to this page the 300MHz Pentium II. Was a 300MHz Pentium II really "orders of magnitude" faster than a 266MHz G3? (This will mean at least a factor of two, you realize.) My experience was that the G3 was significantly faster than same-clocked x86 processors, and would more than make up for the 12% difference in clock speed.
Three times the price - This is an exaggeration on my part. Usually it's more like 150%-200% the price of an equivalently performing Dell/HP. A quick look around will show you can get a better laptop than the iBook in terms of performance for a few hundred dollars cheaper than the prices on that website - again confirming my general gist, thankyou.
If all you care about is performance, why get a laptop at all?
Show me a better, cheaper laptop than the iBook in terms of everything and then you have a point. To give you a helping hand, I'll even forget about all of the software and just look at the hardware. Don't forget to consider size, battery life, ports, wireless networking, optical drive, etc.
It's just like the old statistic that airline travel is the safest. You'll hear that quoted a lot, but no one ever mentions the metric. It just so happens the metric is "safest per mile traveled." An airliner designed to go long distances at 550 mph obviously has the advantage here. Compare it by number of individual trips or hours spent traveling, and it turns out that the chance of fatality is about the same (or more).
According to this text file of dubious accuracy which I've saved, airline travel is three times safer than passenger cars when measured in fatalities per hour.
Why yes, I can.
When it comes to hard drives, I've always replaced the older one. Keeping them both around gets into partitioning headaches and usually doesn't gain you too much more space.
I've never had the least desire to add a zip, jazz, or DVD-RAM drive. If I did, I could get an external one and it would work just as well as an internal one.
Right now, my PowerBook has all of the components I want. If I want something more in the future, chances are I can find a version that I can plug in to a port on the outside.
And so we come full circle. I think you may have misunderstood my point, which was thus:
I have been the victim of both actual theft (bicycle, wallet, etc.) and copyright infringement (pirated serial numbers, cracked applications). I personally consider the former to be much, much worse than the latter. I don't believe that copyright infringement is anywhere near as bad as actual theft, and the fact that the theft takes place over the internet doesn't change a thing. I don't think that people who infringe on copyright, not even the ones who copy the things I have created and earn money on, deserve to be phished any more than anybody else.
Hey, I think the Mini is a great computer and I want one bad. I wouldn't buy an equivalent PC even if it were half the size and price, to be honest.
However, "proposing alternatives to your wife's desires is the certain path to disaster" is not a good reason.
TCP gives you three things over UDP:
- Reliability. Your data always arrives or the connection drops.
- In-order delivery. Regardless of network conditions, the data always arrives in the order that it was sent.
- Rate-limiting. Your data stream will be limited to a rate that the intervening network hardware can handle.
TCP provides and requires all three. Many interactive applications aren't real gung-ho on reliability. If you're sending ten position packets a second and one gets dropped, you don't care about it. If two of them arrive out of order, you don't care about it.
Because TCP mandates both reliability and in-order delivery, a single dropped packet can result in huge (multi-second) delays while the retransmits happen.
I'd rather, frankly, have packets that are late than no packets at all.
To paraphrase Stuart Cheshire, who wrote one of the first realtime internet-playable action games, "I can write an algorithm to recover from a lost packet, but I can't write an algorithm to send one back in time when it arrives late."
It's a tradeoff. Writing a reliable protocol on top of UDP is not always the wrong solution.
I thought decent laptop power bricks were switching power supplies.
[Expandability] is no problem with $400 PCs and is rather
important for anyone with even mild computer-geek tendencies
Careful there, "computer-geek" is a pretty general word.
I make a living programming and I love to screw around with my computer, but I hate screwing around with hardware. I want a computer that Just Works so I can play with robots or writing a laser-pointer tracker or whatever I feel like doing this particular day of the week. I don't like fooling around with internal components and I don't like having to repair my OS. For this reason, I own a Mac.