Good point. The last season was mostly re-hash of the first three. Cleese left after the third for just that reason.
Now, I watch the re-runs and own the DVDs because the originals are so great. The Silly Walks episode is one of the best they ever did. But let's face it, Mr. Neutron wasn't much of an episode.
Let sleeping dogs lie.
Unless you've found the Chapman-Adams collaborative efforts. Then I might want to see those. But that's not Python.
Oh... there must be a labor charge to install that RAM. Hmm... takes about 2 minutes max to put it in, so...
Ever try putting 2 DIMMs in one of the G4 iMacs? Way more than 2 minutes.
Yes, their prices are disproportionate, and yes, you can get the memory elsewhere. In fact, paying Apple for anything other than putting a 512MB chip in the internal slot is a waste. OTOH, Apple's memory is rigorously tested and generally has a lower failure rate. Plus, if Apple's memory furgles up Apple's system, you have some recourse.
So, like anything else, pays your money and takes your chances.
Yeah, but it seems that is only if you purchased your Mac after today (July 17). I wonder what I should do with my Up-To-Date vouchers that came with my G4 iMac that I purchased in April. From the looks of this, eat them, I suppose. But I'll take them over to the Apple Store and see what they tell me.
If I don't get some satisfaction, I'm gonna be pretty annoyed with Apple.
From the article: "We're not seeing a lot of gratitude around here," said one source, who asked not to be identified.
Uh huh. And how, exactly, did MS show it's "gratitude" for actually having some place to sell it's first versions of Word and Excel? The same way AOL showed it's "gratitude" and Bungie showed it's "gratitude."
If you are buying one of the new G4 iMacs (I know, the poster specifically excluded them), buy a 512MB upgrade as one chip and have Apple install it in the internal slot. Why? The internal slot for the G4 iMac is very close to being non-user serviceable. It can be done, but you have to have a lot of equipment to do it, and be comfortable with dealing with heat pipes, faraday cages and heat conducting paste, which has to be cleaned off and re-applied every time you access internals. Urgh. Having seen the service manual for the G4 iMac, I'm glad I got the 512MB installed by Apple.
The "external" slot for RAM and for an AirPort card are very easy to get to, however. Don't bother having Apple fill those. Of course, I did bother, which essentially made my iMac the most expensive model one could have purchased (until they raised the price $100). I did it for piece of mind, and I wanted to see if I could own a computer that I won't need or want to open. My other Macs are all used to my grimy claws poking around inside. I like fiddling, but I wanted to see just how low maintenance the iMac can be, for myself and for anyone who asks. So far (3.5 months), no worries. My tools are getting dusty.
Again, this only applies to the G4 iMac. Everything else is simple to upgrade yourself.
I installed the 5.1.4 update and for some reason it left 5.1.3 in the folder with it. When I run that copy it says 5.1.3 in the corner and an About... gives me the same number. Not sure why it did this, maybe it's some OS X thing, or the Roxio's update isn't quite thorough enough. I guess I'm glad I didn't delete the old version immediately.
Presumably, you can just delete everything and install the version you purchased. I think the one I originally installed was version 5.0.something.
Besides, as has been pointed out many times already, OS X has adequate CD and DVD creation and burning tools already. To be honest, I'm not sure why I installed Toast . . .
People very well might turn these on without knowing the implication.
It does say what those two checkboxes do right under the checkbox in question. Of course, anyone who turns these things on without knowing what they are doing is a fool.
Beyond that, I note that you mention (among other people) turning them on rather than turning them off. Could it be? No, Apple didn't set these things off by default, did they? On a desktop operating system? What the hell kind of security practice is that?
Isn't it about time the [product] was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does [company] maintain this line of [product type] instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The [product] has become the [vaguely similar product in different segment] of [market segment], except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if [company] never moves forward, what happens to the copycat [competing product]?
I'm not writing this column as a [product] basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the [product] buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the [product] as an old hound that can't hunt.
Let's try it out:
Isn't it about time the Beetle was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does Volkswagen maintain this line of cars instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The Beetle has become the Mack Truck of compact cars, except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if Volkswagen never moves forward, what happens to the copycat Ford Focus?
I'm not writing this column as a Bettle basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the Beetle buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the Beetle as an old hound that can't hunt.
I'll just ship this right over to AutoWeek. I'm sure they'll print it.
I've got a $4000 Mac at home. It surfs the 'net on my home ethernet LAN, reads e-mail, word processing using MS Word, plays a few older games, does a lot of basic tasks well, but not a lot else.
The thing about it is this: it's a Centris 650, built in 1993. $4000 is what it's cost, materials-wise, since it's birth. That comes to about $500 a year, or around $1.50 a day. That covers a full complement (128MB) of RAM, a monitor, a hard drive upgrade and software upgrades. That's all I've ever had to do with it, really. Actually, the best part is that I didn't have to pay the initial $2,700 purchase price: I purchased it used from a university for $25. So really my TCO, since I've owned for a year or two, is more like $300 (RAM and hard drive - the rest came with it).
Sure, that doesn't take into account the cost of my time, but I really don't have much in the way of non-productive downtime either. My other Macs have similar stories. Probably my best one is my Mac Plus. Last time I calculated, that machine cost about $.23 a day since it's birth. And it does everything the Centris does, only in black and white.
But you sure as hell can't trust them. They're users, remember? It ends up being akin to herding some sort of animal. Usually cats. Although I've heard it called a goat rodeo as well.
So, take route (a): re-map all writable directories to the server and lock down the rest. Or take route (b): secretly back up a drive and then crash it to put the fear of [insert deity of choice (BOFH is a deity)] in them.
Not saying anything anyone else didn't, just trying to conglomerate all the reasons and routes in one post.
There may be subtleties which we do not know of yet, or we may be radically wrong, but so far, all evidence collected by many different researchers using different methods, suggests the current model is correct . ..
And furthermore, might I add, allows for the possibility that we are incorrect, something which Creationism specifically disallows. Good points all around, just missed the main difference between science and religion: the admission of fallibility.
This is not to say that science is willing to admit they're wrong easily. But at least we believed Galileo sooner than the Church did.
Everyone is so stuck on the idea of a tower. Why not make a case that is slightly more conducive to heat dissipation?
Apple has done quite well with their iMac designs. And the Cube was an interesting, if not entirely successful, attempt at a tower-ish design that didn't require a lot of heavy cooling equipment.
Sure, they're not that upgradeable, and you can't cram 3 video cards, 6 SCSI controllers, 4 sound cards, and a dozen hard drives, but if you need to do that, sound isn't your first consideration anyway. And if it is, try a disk array and remote terminals; put the noisy bits somewhere else.
Air flow is the key. Convection can be a great help, but towers aren't designed to allow that to work efficiently. Volkswagen made an entire car without a radiator or any kind of water cooling system, primarily due to re-examining the design of the car itself. Surely there are better case designs to be had.
In a word, yes. I moved a techically illiterate user (seriously, he called to complain his slot-loading CD-ROM was broken - he had crammed two CDs in there at once) from Netscape 4.7 to Mozilla this weekend.
No worries. It's enough alike to keep him happy. In fact, had I not erased his entire hard disk earlier in the day ("Why shouldn't I open attachments again?"), Mozilla probably would have been able to import all of his settings automatically.
IE isn't a "broswer of choice." It's the broswer of it-got-forced-down-my-throat-and-I-can't-get-rid-o f-it-without-hosing-my-system for most users and the broswer of it's-there-and-I-am-too-lazy-or-uninformed-to-inst all-anything-else for the vast majority of users not covered by the first part.
But what do you use them for? That's my main issue. If I'm hauling lumber hither and yon every day, then I need a big truck with some power. If I'm driving back and forth to work mostly, then I really don't need anything more than a Metro or some other such small vehicle. Family cars for families. SUV's and 4x4s for people who drive off-road.
It's the single person in a Lincoln Navigator with a leather interior and dirt-free paint job that bothers me. Not the 3 guys in a filthy work truck or SUV.
An Escalade with bush guards? Who do they think they're kidding? Try living in Phoenix and driving a small car as I do. It's fun to take your life in your hands. Every other car is a large truck or SUV. And a good third of those are driven by the same people who didn't know where the edges of their Cadillacs were. Only now, I'm below their field of vision. Nice, huh?
I drive a Geo Storm every day. The mileage isn't too bad (about 30 MPG on average), and it's reasonably powerful for dealing with traffic and hills. I also own a '48 Studebaker. Gas mileage is worse (~22 MPG, better than an Excursion anyway), but I don't drive it to work every day. It's my hobby car, I drive it to shows, cruise with it on the weekends and so on.
The optimal tool for the required task, people. That's all I'm asking. I want a CNG conversion for my Storm. Or perhaps an electric car, or maybe an Insight. But I don't have the funds handy at the moment. It's a commuter car, mainly, so it should be optimized for that. If I was towing the island of Manhattan every day, then I'd need a big truck, but I don't, so I don't.
I thought Klez was more of a trojan horse, actually. Harmful code inside a seemingly innocuous program?
Has to be run via user intervention (bring the horse inside the gates)?
Perhaps a virus is more local, attached to data, needs a file to infect, but no user intervention; a worm is a networked virus, so to speak, able to jump from computer to computer without a carrier file, and without user intervention? Correct me if I am wrong on this. No really, I need to know.
Then, of course, there are the Microsoft Transmitted Diseases . . .
Agreed, but further than that, Quanta may have to look for something else to be their "main revenue driver". ATI spoiled the show for Jobs once, now ATI's chips aren't installed by default.
Apple (pronounced Jobs) does Apple's press releases. Anyone else announcing Apple's toys gets a nice pat on the shoulder and a meaningful goodbye. At best. At worst, Jobs will release the dogs with bees in their mouths, and when they bark they shoot bees at you. Or is that the laywers . . .
Ah, like Linux, or Mac OS X (NeXT), or BeOS? OS/2 Warp? Perhaps Plan9 suits you well? Two are dead, the others are doing well.
I don't use MS products. My bosses have all had trouble with me because I won't. I'll find another way.
However, I also freely admit that I am able to find another way. A lot of people aren't. And a lot of people won't (which is the thrust of your argument).
Sadly, with the keyboard thing, I know it very well, and am disinclined to swtich. On the other hand, no one is using an unlocked backdoor on my keyboard to hack my Mac from the internet. If they could, I'd learn something else fast. Point me to a non-qwerty keyboard compatible with OS X, USB (or FireWire, I suppose), and I'll give it a shot. I use a trackball instead of a mouse, if that's any indication of my willingness to try new things.
BeOS's and OS/2's "ignominious death" was also due (in part) to OEM licensing, so let's not put all the heat on the end user.
Still, my point was more that MS software is too obfuscated to fix easily or at all (and MS agrees with me). Anyway, the right tool for the right job. MS's tool is for the job of crashing computers and keeping IT support budgets fat.
Good point. I do actually think that a lot of clueless admins ought to be flogged with cat-5 until they wake up and close the door.
On the other hand, you know when you've put a Schlage on your door. You can see it, it's "well documented," and it's obvious how you lock it down. Too much MS software isn't well documented, it's not obvious how you lock it down, and the most egregious point is that you might not be able to tell (easily) if it's been installed.
Both are left unlocked by default after installation, though, so I can't point that out. But I think that MS is more like installing 100 locks on your door, some which are locked and some which aren't, some with keys and some without, and nothing to tell you which is which.
I see your point. I just don't think it's as bad as it seems. AOL lives mostly off in it's own world, even now. What version of IE is under AOL? 4? Maybe 5? So it's already a dark horse in the world of IE. The change from dark horse to black horse isn't so bad, IMHO.
How many Mac users use AOL and IE 5.1 (which is installed on OS X)? I think (and this is just an assumption from a small set of known AOL users I deal with) that unless there is a specific web application that they must use, they'll stick with AOL's browser no matter how crappy it looks, and never venture forth to an external browser. I know a finite number of external browser users who are connected via AOL (why bother - Earthlink gives you that capability), and I don't think overall it's siginificant across all of AOL.
Apple will survive. It's prospects are looking up when all else in tech is looking down. AOL, I think, has more to lose by pushing Mozilla/Gecko than Apple does, because if they screw it up, the users will blame AOL, not Apple, since most Mac users can tell the difference between a program and an operating system (Hear that, Redmond? There is a difference!). If AOL is doing it, rest assured that they thought about it first and have a plan in mind. Transitioning Mac users is a test, primarily to see if they can support all the calls it might generate. Not really a good idea, a lot of Mac owners are self-supporting (we have to be). Once they see how easy it is, Windows will be next. Why else would they have thrown all this money at Netscape development?
In any case, let AOL screw up the Mac client. It won't be the first time, and maybe I can finally get the last holdouts off AOL once and for all.
Disclaimer: I don't use AOL or IE, so maybe I'm jsut wrong. I am self-supporting, and so proabably think a lot more people are than is the case, so maybe I'm just wrong there, too. I'm also a Mac user, so my view of reality is skewed from the get-go.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, think "stunning" as in "set phasers on stun." That's probably more like it. You'll be shocked, then paralytic. With rage.
Now, I watch the re-runs and own the DVDs because the originals are so great. The Silly Walks episode is one of the best they ever did. But let's face it, Mr. Neutron wasn't much of an episode.
Let sleeping dogs lie.
Unless you've found the Chapman-Adams collaborative efforts. Then I might want to see those. But that's not Python.
Ever try putting 2 DIMMs in one of the G4 iMacs? Way more than 2 minutes.
Yes, their prices are disproportionate, and yes, you can get the memory elsewhere. In fact, paying Apple for anything other than putting a 512MB chip in the internal slot is a waste. OTOH, Apple's memory is rigorously tested and generally has a lower failure rate. Plus, if Apple's memory furgles up Apple's system, you have some recourse.
So, like anything else, pays your money and takes your chances.
If I don't get some satisfaction, I'm gonna be pretty annoyed with Apple.
"We're not seeing a lot of gratitude around here," said one source, who asked not to be identified.
Uh huh. And how, exactly, did MS show it's "gratitude" for actually having some place to sell it's first versions of Word and Excel? The same way AOL showed it's "gratitude" and Bungie showed it's "gratitude."
The foot's on the other hand now, isn't it!
Oh, foo. Forgot the hard drives. Right, right, max those out as well.
If you are buying one of the new G4 iMacs (I know, the poster specifically excluded them), buy a 512MB upgrade as one chip and have Apple install it in the internal slot. Why? The internal slot for the G4 iMac is very close to being non-user serviceable. It can be done, but you have to have a lot of equipment to do it, and be comfortable with dealing with heat pipes, faraday cages and heat conducting paste, which has to be cleaned off and re-applied every time you access internals. Urgh. Having seen the service manual for the G4 iMac, I'm glad I got the 512MB installed by Apple.
The "external" slot for RAM and for an AirPort card are very easy to get to, however. Don't bother having Apple fill those. Of course, I did bother, which essentially made my iMac the most expensive model one could have purchased (until they raised the price $100). I did it for piece of mind, and I wanted to see if I could own a computer that I won't need or want to open. My other Macs are all used to my grimy claws poking around inside. I like fiddling, but I wanted to see just how low maintenance the iMac can be, for myself and for anyone who asks. So far (3.5 months), no worries. My tools are getting dusty.
Again, this only applies to the G4 iMac. Everything else is simple to upgrade yourself.
Presumably, you can just delete everything and install the version you purchased. I think the one I originally installed was version 5.0.something.
Besides, as has been pointed out many times already, OS X has adequate CD and DVD creation and burning tools already. To be honest, I'm not sure why I installed Toast . . .
It does say what those two checkboxes do right under the checkbox in question. Of course, anyone who turns these things on without knowing what they are doing is a fool.
Beyond that, I note that you mention (among other people) turning them on rather than turning them off. Could it be? No, Apple didn't set these things off by default, did they? On a desktop operating system? What the hell kind of security practice is that?
A good one.
Apple is plenty quick.
I'm not writing this column as a [product] basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the [product] buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the [product] as an old hound that can't hunt.
Let's try it out:
Isn't it about time the Beetle was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does Volkswagen maintain this line of cars instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The Beetle has become the Mack Truck of compact cars, except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if Volkswagen never moves forward, what happens to the copycat Ford Focus?
I'm not writing this column as a Bettle basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the Beetle buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the Beetle as an old hound that can't hunt.
I'll just ship this right over to AutoWeek. I'm sure they'll print it.
No doubt! Whose leg I gotta hump to get that? Or is it a mod? And if so, where's the directions?
The thing about it is this: it's a Centris 650, built in 1993. $4000 is what it's cost, materials-wise, since it's birth. That comes to about $500 a year, or around $1.50 a day. That covers a full complement (128MB) of RAM, a monitor, a hard drive upgrade and software upgrades. That's all I've ever had to do with it, really. Actually, the best part is that I didn't have to pay the initial $2,700 purchase price: I purchased it used from a university for $25. So really my TCO, since I've owned for a year or two, is more like $300 (RAM and hard drive - the rest came with it).
Sure, that doesn't take into account the cost of my time, but I really don't have much in the way of non-productive downtime either. My other Macs have similar stories. Probably my best one is my Mac Plus. Last time I calculated, that machine cost about $.23 a day since it's birth. And it does everything the Centris does, only in black and white.
(a) Fool them, or,
(b) Scare them
But you sure as hell can't trust them. They're users, remember? It ends up being akin to herding some sort of animal. Usually cats. Although I've heard it called a goat rodeo as well.
So, take route (a): re-map all writable directories to the server and lock down the rest. Or take route (b): secretly back up a drive and then crash it to put the fear of [insert deity of choice (BOFH is a deity)] in them.
Not saying anything anyone else didn't, just trying to conglomerate all the reasons and routes in one post.
And furthermore, might I add, allows for the possibility that we are incorrect, something which Creationism specifically disallows. Good points all around, just missed the main difference between science and religion: the admission of fallibility.
This is not to say that science is willing to admit they're wrong easily. But at least we believed Galileo sooner than the Church did.
How does Creationism explain dachshunds?
Apple has done quite well with their iMac designs. And the Cube was an interesting, if not entirely successful, attempt at a tower-ish design that didn't require a lot of heavy cooling equipment.
Sure, they're not that upgradeable, and you can't cram 3 video cards, 6 SCSI controllers, 4 sound cards, and a dozen hard drives, but if you need to do that, sound isn't your first consideration anyway. And if it is, try a disk array and remote terminals; put the noisy bits somewhere else.
Air flow is the key. Convection can be a great help, but towers aren't designed to allow that to work efficiently. Volkswagen made an entire car without a radiator or any kind of water cooling system, primarily due to re-examining the design of the car itself. Surely there are better case designs to be had.
No worries. It's enough alike to keep him happy. In fact, had I not erased his entire hard disk earlier in the day ("Why shouldn't I open attachments again?"), Mozilla probably would have been able to import all of his settings automatically.
But really, what I meant was that IE for the most part is just there. I don't think most users actively choose it.
IE isn't a "broswer of choice." It's the broswer of it-got-forced-down-my-throat-and-I-can't-get-rid-o f-it-without-hosing-my-system for most users and the broswer of it's-there-and-I-am-too-lazy-or-uninformed-to-inst all-anything-else for the vast majority of users not covered by the first part.
It's the single person in a Lincoln Navigator with a leather interior and dirt-free paint job that bothers me. Not the 3 guys in a filthy work truck or SUV.
An Escalade with bush guards? Who do they think they're kidding? Try living in Phoenix and driving a small car as I do. It's fun to take your life in your hands. Every other car is a large truck or SUV. And a good third of those are driven by the same people who didn't know where the edges of their Cadillacs were. Only now, I'm below their field of vision. Nice, huh?
I drive a Geo Storm every day. The mileage isn't too bad (about 30 MPG on average), and it's reasonably powerful for dealing with traffic and hills. I also own a '48 Studebaker. Gas mileage is worse (~22 MPG, better than an Excursion anyway), but I don't drive it to work every day. It's my hobby car, I drive it to shows, cruise with it on the weekends and so on.
The optimal tool for the required task, people. That's all I'm asking. I want a CNG conversion for my Storm. Or perhaps an electric car, or maybe an Insight. But I don't have the funds handy at the moment. It's a commuter car, mainly, so it should be optimized for that. If I was towing the island of Manhattan every day, then I'd need a big truck, but I don't, so I don't.
Oh, and learn where your vehicle starts and ends.
Perhaps a virus is more local, attached to data, needs a file to infect, but no user intervention; a worm is a networked virus, so to speak, able to jump from computer to computer without a carrier file, and without user intervention? Correct me if I am wrong on this. No really, I need to know.
Then, of course, there are the Microsoft Transmitted Diseases . . .
Apple (pronounced Jobs) does Apple's press releases. Anyone else announcing Apple's toys gets a nice pat on the shoulder and a meaningful goodbye. At best. At worst, Jobs will release the dogs with bees in their mouths, and when they bark they shoot bees at you. Or is that the laywers . . .
I don't use MS products. My bosses have all had trouble with me because I won't. I'll find another way.
However, I also freely admit that I am able to find another way. A lot of people aren't. And a lot of people won't (which is the thrust of your argument).
Sadly, with the keyboard thing, I know it very well, and am disinclined to swtich. On the other hand, no one is using an unlocked backdoor on my keyboard to hack my Mac from the internet. If they could, I'd learn something else fast. Point me to a non-qwerty keyboard compatible with OS X, USB (or FireWire, I suppose), and I'll give it a shot. I use a trackball instead of a mouse, if that's any indication of my willingness to try new things.
BeOS's and OS/2's "ignominious death" was also due (in part) to OEM licensing, so let's not put all the heat on the end user.
Still, my point was more that MS software is too obfuscated to fix easily or at all (and MS agrees with me). Anyway, the right tool for the right job. MS's tool is for the job of crashing computers and keeping IT support budgets fat.
On the other hand, you know when you've put a Schlage on your door. You can see it, it's "well documented," and it's obvious how you lock it down. Too much MS software isn't well documented, it's not obvious how you lock it down, and the most egregious point is that you might not be able to tell (easily) if it's been installed.
Both are left unlocked by default after installation, though, so I can't point that out. But I think that MS is more like installing 100 locks on your door, some which are locked and some which aren't, some with keys and some without, and nothing to tell you which is which.
How many Mac users use AOL and IE 5.1 (which is installed on OS X)? I think (and this is just an assumption from a small set of known AOL users I deal with) that unless there is a specific web application that they must use, they'll stick with AOL's browser no matter how crappy it looks, and never venture forth to an external browser. I know a finite number of external browser users who are connected via AOL (why bother - Earthlink gives you that capability), and I don't think overall it's siginificant across all of AOL.
Apple will survive. It's prospects are looking up when all else in tech is looking down. AOL, I think, has more to lose by pushing Mozilla/Gecko than Apple does, because if they screw it up, the users will blame AOL, not Apple, since most Mac users can tell the difference between a program and an operating system (Hear that, Redmond? There is a difference!). If AOL is doing it, rest assured that they thought about it first and have a plan in mind. Transitioning Mac users is a test, primarily to see if they can support all the calls it might generate. Not really a good idea, a lot of Mac owners are self-supporting (we have to be). Once they see how easy it is, Windows will be next. Why else would they have thrown all this money at Netscape development?
In any case, let AOL screw up the Mac client. It won't be the first time, and maybe I can finally get the last holdouts off AOL once and for all.
Disclaimer: I don't use AOL or IE, so maybe I'm jsut wrong. I am self-supporting, and so proabably think a lot more people are than is the case, so maybe I'm just wrong there, too. I'm also a Mac user, so my view of reality is skewed from the get-go.