The iBook2 is almost two years old. I am quite sure that someone has tried this already, and so far, I haven't seen a single success story. (using any method)
Actually, OS X has great support for monitor spanning. In fact, for all the bad things about previous Mac OS versions, one thing that they always HAVE had is good multi-monitor support. It's just that apple seems to have disabled that feature JUST for the ibook.
And the iMac, and the eMac. Actually, there are only two Macs (The G4 powerbook and the G4 tower) that support spanning. No other Mac does, which is sad.
You mean Apple INTENTIONALLY made it not work with PCI video, in order to artificially boost sales of new Macs? I'm shocked.
The speed of OS X is the biggest scam I've ever seen. Sorry, but the only thing stopping OS X from running better on old Macs is Apple. A windowing system should not require a $3500 computer to run smoothly without lagging!
Apple knows that users tend to hang onto their Macs and not upgrade. Now they've finally found a way - make the OS so painfully slow that users will have no choice but to go shopping for new hardware.
As a consumer, I'm pissed. As a stockholder, I am merely disgusted at a company I once believed in.
Perhaps because they have actually tried to make a distribution that is usable by a newbie? They have, in my opinion, the best Linux installer currently available. You can get the ISOs and 90% of the time you can boot off of the cd and end up with a working computer. That is much more than can be said for Debian, Slackware, etc.
You just can't be serious. OS X is UNBEARABLY slow. You've "never seen one that comes anywhere close in usability, speed, and quality", huh? If you meant that no other OS comes close to being as slow as OS X, then yeah, I agree with you.
OS X is a cruel joke and a waste of good hardware.
I don't know where you live, but in a Los Angeles movie theater, it is almost guaranteed that a cel phone will ring at least 5 times, with 2 or 3 conversations resulting.
Would it be okay with you if we just hit cell phone users, but not too hard?
Does anyone have any links to violent acts committed by people frustrated with someone else using a phone in a theater? i.e. grabbing and smashing the phone, punching them, dumping soda on them, etc.
I'm getting pretty close to violence, so I'm just wondering if I'm going to be the first.
I am willing to bet that 80% of people innocently forget to turn there phone off or to vibrate, 15% say they never receive phone calls and would say "what is the chance of receiving a phone call during the movie". The last 5% of peope lack common sense, and I doubt a law will help these people find it.
You know, I could accept the fact that some folks have good intentions, but just forgot to turn their phone off. Except for the fact that 90% of the time that a phone rings, the PERSON ANSWERS IT AND PROCEEDS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.
A person who had just forgotten to turn the ringer off would be mortified and embarassed and quickly turn the phone off. These people aren't emabarassed, they just don't care!
A 1ghz Mac strains to run OS X, email, mozilla, IM, and word processor at the same time. A 500 mhz PC does not strain to run those same apps. Nuff said. If the CPU is Sooooo powerful, then why does OS X lag when I click?
We don't need anymore laws. What we need is a little vigilante justice.
Yes, I'm being serious. Things like phones going off in theatres only happens because WE allow it. If we start beating the fuck out of these people and smashing their phones, maybe people will think twice about bring a cell phone into a theatre.
No one in this thread has even mentioned IE. We are talking about the OS in general, and where we have discussed web browsers, we are talking about Mozilla.
For the record, Mozilla on a PIII 500 mhz BLOWS AWAY Mozilla on a 500mhz Mac. Absolutely destroys it.
The fact the Microsoft won't make it faster is a perfectly reasonable reason for IE on OS X to run slow. But what is the reason for thousands of other programs? In cased you haven't noticed, just about ANYTHING running on OS X is slow. How is that Microsoft's fault?
Could you justify the statement "Running OS X, it takes about double the clock on the Mac side to equal the speed of Windows 2000 on a PC"?
By my statement, I mean that for common computing tasks that most users do on a daily basis (opening or saving files through a dialog box, manipulating windows, web browsing, email, MP3s, etc.) a 1ghz Mac feels like a 500mhz PIII, and a 500mhz Mac feels like a PII 350 or so.
In other words, if I want to complete a task with speed "x" minutes, then I need a PC with clockspeed x*2, and a Mac with clockspeed x*4. Of course, when you add in the fact that Macs are more than twice as expensive per Mhz, it's an ugly situation.
Macs are actually slower in two ways - first, in that you need more Mhz to quickly accomplish a task, and second, that they are more expensive to buy a machine which is equal in mhz.
For web browsing, I am referring to the use of current versions of Mozilla on both platforms. What could be more fair than that?
Remember, Apple is selling "the whole widget", right? It doesn't really matter whether the OS or the CPU is to blame - the complete package is slow.
In my opinion, SETI@home is NOT a good benchmark. Why? Because it runs in the background, independent of user interaction! A better benchmark is something that has some GUI elements, some interaction with the user, some calculations, etc.
If Intel can be sued, how about Apple? I hate the way they constantly call the G3/G4 "twice as fast as PCs" of the same clockspeed. This is a blatant lie as anyone who has used a recent Mac can confirm.
Running OS X, it takes about double the clock on the Mac side to equal the speed of Windows 2000 on a PC. (Thus, it takes a Mac at 1ghz to run OS X as fast as a 500mhz PIII runs Windows 2000). This is the exact opposite of Apple's claims.
It really is not fair to the consumer, especially the more novice-type users who tend to buy Macs. I recently visited my family who has two Macs, and they could not believe how fast web browsing was on my wintel laptop. Keep in mind my laptop is about 2 years old!
I just installed both Windows 2000 and Red Hat 7.3 in a dual boot configuration on an HP Omnibook 500. Red Hat picked up my NIC and sound without any interaction on my part.
Under Windows 2000, it had drivers for neither, I had to install and configure them afterwards. Needless to say, I was pretty impressed.
There are still some usability challenges, but overall, RH 7.3 is VERY usable, even for a newbie. And typically, I've been very critical of Linux usability in general. It is improving at a rapid rate.
California Senator Dianne Feinstein is listed as a supporter of this action. She also voted for the DMCA. California has a lot of tech savvy people who are directly affected by her 'sellout' to the media industry.
Let us not forget Senator Feinstein's actions when election time comes. I've voted for her before, but never again.
Does anyone have any REAL information about Ricochet's status. They have been updating the website, so it at least gives the APPEARANCE that they plan to offer service again sometime soon.
But is this just a front or are they really going to make it happen? At $44.95 it's a no brainer and would sell like hotcakes. Does anyone have the inside scoop? It it really going to happen?
Slashdot Mirror
The iBook2 is almost two years old. I am quite sure that someone has tried this already, and so far, I haven't seen a single success story. (using any method)
And the iMac, and the eMac. Actually, there are only two Macs (The G4 powerbook and the G4 tower) that support spanning. No other Mac does, which is sad.
Has anyone besides me noticed how slow Mac OS X is?
The speed of OS X is the biggest scam I've ever seen. Sorry, but the only thing stopping OS X from running better on old Macs is Apple. A windowing system should not require a $3500 computer to run smoothly without lagging!
Apple knows that users tend to hang onto their Macs and not upgrade. Now they've finally found a way - make the OS so painfully slow that users will have no choice but to go shopping for new hardware.
As a consumer, I'm pissed. As a stockholder, I am merely disgusted at a company I once believed in.
Perhaps because they have actually tried to make a distribution that is usable by a newbie? They have, in my opinion, the best Linux installer currently available. You can get the ISOs and 90% of the time you can boot off of the cd and end up with a working computer. That is much more than can be said for Debian, Slackware, etc.
You are welcome to call me a troll if you like. Mac OS X is still slow, however.
Mac OS X is STILL slow. Just die, Apple.
OS X is a cruel joke and a waste of good hardware.
Just like Windows. Amazing!
Would it be okay with you if we just hit cell phone users, but not too hard?
I'm getting pretty close to violence, so I'm just wondering if I'm going to be the first.
You know, I could accept the fact that some folks have good intentions, but just forgot to turn their phone off. Except for the fact that 90% of the time that a phone rings, the PERSON ANSWERS IT AND PROCEEDS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.
A person who had just forgotten to turn the ringer off would be mortified and embarassed and quickly turn the phone off. These people aren't emabarassed, they just don't care!
A 1ghz Mac strains to run OS X, email, mozilla, IM, and word processor at the same time. A 500 mhz PC does not strain to run those same apps. Nuff said. If the CPU is Sooooo powerful, then why does OS X lag when I click?
Yes, I'm being serious. Things like phones going off in theatres only happens because WE allow it. If we start beating the fuck out of these people and smashing their phones, maybe people will think twice about bring a cell phone into a theatre.
Given the choice, would you prefer pretty drop shadows with a slow user interface, or a fast interface with no shadows? I know what I'd pick.
For the record, Mozilla on a PIII 500 mhz BLOWS AWAY Mozilla on a 500mhz Mac. Absolutely destroys it.
The fact the Microsoft won't make it faster is a perfectly reasonable reason for IE on OS X to run slow. But what is the reason for thousands of other programs? In cased you haven't noticed, just about ANYTHING running on OS X is slow. How is that Microsoft's fault?
By my statement, I mean that for common computing tasks that most users do on a daily basis (opening or saving files through a dialog box, manipulating windows, web browsing, email, MP3s, etc.) a 1ghz Mac feels like a 500mhz PIII, and a 500mhz Mac feels like a PII 350 or so.
In other words, if I want to complete a task with speed "x" minutes, then I need a PC with clockspeed x*2, and a Mac with clockspeed x*4. Of course, when you add in the fact that Macs are more than twice as expensive per Mhz, it's an ugly situation.
Macs are actually slower in two ways - first, in that you need more Mhz to quickly accomplish a task, and second, that they are more expensive to buy a machine which is equal in mhz.
No, I'm saying they are equal for most common computing tasks. (OS, email, mozilla, IM, word processing)
Remember, Apple is selling "the whole widget", right? It doesn't really matter whether the OS or the CPU is to blame - the complete package is slow.
In my opinion, SETI@home is NOT a good benchmark. Why? Because it runs in the background, independent of user interaction! A better benchmark is something that has some GUI elements, some interaction with the user, some calculations, etc.
Running OS X, it takes about double the clock on the Mac side to equal the speed of Windows 2000 on a PC. (Thus, it takes a Mac at 1ghz to run OS X as fast as a 500mhz PIII runs Windows 2000). This is the exact opposite of Apple's claims.
It really is not fair to the consumer, especially the more novice-type users who tend to buy Macs. I recently visited my family who has two Macs, and they could not believe how fast web browsing was on my wintel laptop. Keep in mind my laptop is about 2 years old!
Replacing my $26 (!) Verizon phone line and $12 dialup with Ricochet is a no brainer.
Under Windows 2000, it had drivers for neither, I had to install and configure them afterwards. Needless to say, I was pretty impressed.
There are still some usability challenges, but overall, RH 7.3 is VERY usable, even for a newbie. And typically, I've been very critical of Linux usability in general. It is improving at a rapid rate.
Let us not forget Senator Feinstein's actions when election time comes. I've voted for her before, but never again.
But is this just a front or are they really going to make it happen? At $44.95 it's a no brainer and would sell like hotcakes. Does anyone have the inside scoop? It it really going to happen?
How much for flat rate unlimited data?