I installed it on my PB G4 without incident. To be specific, I was running a clean install of 9.2.2 and 10.2 and then got 10.2.1 via Software Update. So far I have observed no problems whatsoever. I checked MacFixIt and I don't see any other reported issues of this type. Yet, anyway.
I recognize Apple as a dominant PC maker. Not software though.
I am just being unclear, I think. What I mean in regards to software is that Apple is influential. Products like Quicktime and Mac OS (every version) and iMovie and Colorsync and probably two dozen others that I could list if I sat and thought for a few minutes all make Apple a....I guess "software maker of consequence," is perhaps the best way to put it. I don't mean to say that they sell the most software or that they make the most money doing it. Only that they are sucessful at it, have been doing it a long time, and that their products are innovative and influential in the industry.
(Psst. He's making an allusion to "total cost of ownership or 'TCO'. Oh, and watch your head.)
Seriously, I think many more people would be very happy with a Macintosh than currently own one. Put another way, I think there is 'growth potential' for the Macintosh product family.
Will Apple-made personal computers ever seriously challenge Microsoft/Intel/AMD "Wintel" dominance? Not a chance. Forget it. But what I don't get is why so many people think this is a mark of irrelevance or failure.
In truth Apple is one of the most relevant computer makers. Apple is also one of the most relevant software makers. Apple is also one of the most sucessful personal computer makers. They make tons of money, have a fiercely loyal customer base, hold one of the most recognized brands in the United States and could buy every single Linux comany with cash using only the change out from under the breakroom couch pillows. The fact that the platform that they put forth isn't a dominant one doesn't change any of that.
Sometimes I think we're all so used to hearing about some single-digit marketshare that the Macintosh platform is supposed to have that we simply lose sight of the fact that Apple is a very large, very sucessful and influential company that makes some darned nice products, too. They're in no danger of irrelevance.
Sorry about the seemingly unprovoked rant. Sometimes it just bursts out. Mod me down if you must. I can take it.
I would put that the other way 'round, myself. After all it's Microsoft that isn't giving you a platform-independent solution in this instance, not Apple.
Like I always say there are millions of people who use Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Outlook to do their Microsoft Exchange email and who type things in Microsoft Word and calculate things with Microsoft Excel, etc, etc, etc...and who see no problem with this. I myself do.
OK, sorry about the rant. Email shouldn't be a problem, anything that does POP3 or IMAP4 (damned near anything) should be fine. I recommend Mail or Entourage or even Eudora or Netscape Messenger. Calendaring is a bit harder. It's not too tough to do a one-way, read-only deal for your Mac (just sync your palm on the PC and then sync it palm-overwrites-Mac on the Mac), but having true interactive exchange calendaring on the Macintosh is another thing.
There used to be a Mac Outlook client but it's a dead product now I think. It certainly wouldn't run in OS X, anyway. The Microsoft Macintosh Business Unit is making hints that they are about to remedy this situation but there has been no official word thusfar. I'm betting that in six months they give us a full-featured or nearly full-featured outlook client
You obviously don't have any real idea as to what the Macintosh is all about other than "it's supposed to be easy to use."
Admins... shouldn't be dependable on easy-to-use interfaces.
And your point about the Macintosh is...? You insinuate that to use a Mac server one must be "dependable" on an easy-to-use interface. This is flat-out false. (Why you think it's easy-to-use is a Bad Thing is a whole other issue. I believe it goes to show how the vendors you prefer have lowered your expecations over the years regarding interface design - "if it's easy to use it's got to suck.")
Standard server system are much cheaper even with the obligatory redundancy stuff.
Funny you should mention it. I myself have seen my Tibook wake improperly from sleep several times since doing a fresh install of Jaguar. What appears to happen is the machine wakes up...but the screen doesn't. I found that shutting the screen and opening it again often caused it to snap out of it. Hasn't done it in a few days though.
If this was an anonymous post I would refrain...but since it's not...what in hell are you talking about?
In what way is "the 10.2" not backwards compatible "with 10.1.5"? Perhaps you're confused and talking about the updated open source wireless card driver that doesn't work on 10.1.5 anymore?
Insinuating that Apple is pulling a Microsoft because some part-time hacks released a half-done driver is ridiculous. If I am even understanding you correctly.
First, that Apple will solder proprietary widgets to the Macintosh motherboard which the OS will look for before booting. No widget, no boot. Simple as that.
Now you might say, "someone will reverse engineer it and then there will be rampant Mac clones," which brings us to the second point...
Second, even though it's totally possible to reverse engineer these types of widgets it's not realistic to do so. This is simply because Apple can change it willy-nilly any time they freakin' want to. Who is going to continue to invest in reverse engineering in order to remain compatible? Nobody. Don't believe it? Consider that you can buy G4 processors and you can buy all the standard Mac motherboard stuff...and absolutely nothing is stopping you from reverse engineering the proprietary widgets in use right now...and thus making your own Mac clone business...and yet nobody is doing it. I see no reason to believe that this will be a more attractive prospect just because Apple switches processors.
Re:Newton or Pad comp?
on
Newton Won't Die
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
latest Apple jackboot of non-apple DVD players and its software
I don't know the details on Apples legal stance here but I do know that the reason behind the move is to stop software piracy.
The only way to get a license of their iDVD burning software is to buy a Mac with a built-in SuperDrive. That's the only legitimate license there is. The software itself costs nothing - you buy it with the machine. Sooo... if someone develops a hack to allow iDVD to work with non-Apple distributed DVD-burners...ask yourself what is going on here. The only answer I can come up with is that people are wanting to rip off the software.
I have no problem with Apple trying to stop this. If it's true that the DMCA is being invoked then I can't support that particular method, however. I just don't think the "Apple = jackbooting thugs taking away your rights" knee-jerk reaction is as clear cut as some are thinking.
Good technology never dies I guess. I wonder if Apple is planning to fill the space left by the Newton. They can't be developing Inkwell for nothing can they?
...why use Star Wars in an attempt to persecute my church?
I can't see where your church is being persecuted. But I can, on the other hand, see where your church (going by the title of your coment) has done quite a bit of persecuting of it's own. Clean your own house first. If you think a few thousand light-hearted pranksters and a few dozen flaky nerds are in any way equivalent to the centuries of murder and genuine persecution your church has inflicted on the world then you need to get up to speed on history and current events.
In light of these facts I find your whiny indignant tone offensive.
Re:usability and Linux for sissies
on
KDE Gets The Hat
·
· Score: 2
Could you point me to the post that brands RedHat as Linux for sissies?
Alas, I cannot. In fact I don't mean to say that I'm staking my reputation on the fact that the word "sissy" was used. But I am standing behind the sentiment - that the Redhat distribution has been repeatedly referred to with disdain and labled a distribution more suitable for people who are inexperienced with Linux and that users "in the know" would never be caught using it.
Re:usability and Linux for sissies
on
KDE Gets The Hat
·
· Score: 2
Please show me the data that supports you assumption that linux is unusable on the desktop.
What kind of BS demand is that? Please show me the data that says it is usable! I am basing my judgement on the 5 years of experience I have directly supporting and training users in a large multi-platform environment and also on my own personal experiences running Windows, Mac OS and two flavors of Linux...each across numerous versions. If you have better data than that then you know something the rest of us don't. Please share!
The fact that there isn't any data from serious independent studies showing the state of Linux usability doesn't mean, however, that we can assume Linux is just as usuable as any other desktop OS - although I'm sure you'd like to. There's plenty of reason to believe otherwise (see above). And frankly, I think it's the people who are in denial about the state of Linux usability that are the largest roadblock on the path to getting it fixed.
you are obivously pretty green to GNU\linux
I'm really not sure what that means. That I'm not a linux developer? That I've never used it? That I haven't read up on it? Whatever it is supposed to mean it is irrelevant to my point, which I still stand by.
usability and Linux for sissies
on
KDE Gets The Hat
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I admit I am absolutely fascinated by the whole Linux phenomenon and this debate gets right to one of the core issues. Open source may indeed be "about choice" but until someone chooses to make a usable, consumer-ized distribution the world will choose to use another operating system on the desktop.
Linux will never be more than a geek toy and a server OS until and unless someone takes seriously the idea that its general usablity has a long way to go. I predict that when/if this happens, that consumerized distro will be universally hated and soundly thrashed in these forums for "taking away choice," and using "too much eye candy," etc.
There are, naturally, other hurdles for Linux making inroads on the desktop. But its consumer-friendliness is certainly one of the biggies. Perhaps Redhat is making more moves in that direction than I realized. I guess the signs are there...it's already been branded as the "Linux for sissies" in these forums.
Excellent question. I'm eagerly awaiting the web tech notes for 10.2 so I can see exactly what it is burning and whether there is any way back to ISO9660 without resorting to Toast. If Apple seriously expects nobody to care about this loss of functionality they should have their heads examined.
So what if it would? Apple calls it a "Security Update." If you're implying that they're somehow glossing over the potential security implications of the product before patching by using this terminology...then I guess I don't see how.
Yeah, today. It'll be one version behind all the time and then one day - who knows - "oh we're not making that for the Macintosh anymore...our customers dont' want that." It's the same reason why I wouldn't want anyone to port DirectX to the Mac. Rather we should all throw our weight behind OpenGL dispite any short-term gains that might be had going the other way.
Yeah, me too. I get sick of reading a truckload of +5 Insightful Apple adverts
Forgive me if I doubt your sincerity. But tell me, do you have the same complaint about Linux in these forums? And surely that was you who was vehemently poo-pooing the shameless RMS ass-kissing, right? Doubtful.
In conclusion, it's not that I don't see your point, but every platform/programming language discussed on slashdot is subject to the same semi-blind advocacy as the Macintosh discussions are.
Whether there were specific posts on mice really isn't the point. Besides that there is a post about mous buttons that last time I looked was moderated up to "+4 Funny." But as I said, it's hardly the point.
I'm starting to dread when Apple news makes the slashdot front page. That is when 3/4 of the discussion tends to be about multi-button mice, "proprietary hardware" and how we don't want to pay for it, stuipid misunderstsandings about the OS, and on and on and on.
I almost prefer the apple.slashdot.org ghetto that we're usually relegated to. At least there it's about 3/4 people who actually understand something about the platform and don't need to bring the discussion back to "why I don't like this platform" no matter what the original story is.
But what kind of business strategy would lead a company to intentionally leave holes in software?
What we're talking about is deliberate incompatibility. Whether it's the omission of features or the addition of ones that break compatiblity, it's all the same. Case in point - Microsoft wanted nothing more than for Java to fail. They figured if the Web browser became a "platform" unto itself it could jeapardize the Windows monopoly. So they impliment Java...only they kinda break it. Deliberately. See where I'm going with this?
And actually in that scenario they added features that would break compatibility with standard java. When asked why they said "because that's what our customers want." In reality what they were doing was the "extend" part of the embrace, extend and extinguish strategy.
One might ask "what sense does it make for a company to make products that deliberately have problems?" Unfortunately there are indeed answers to that question that make good "bottom line" business sense. Even more unfortunately, it retards the progress of the entire industry.
It has had java support for ages but hasn't worked all that well. Some would say that this is Apple's fault, others would say otherwise.. in any case you're right about one thing - it's a bad example.
I actually find Microsoft Macintosh software to be of fairly decent quality. The real problem lies elsewhere.
Specifically, MS leaves out certain functionality for "strategic" reasons that essentially leave the Mac platform lacking in certain specific areas. Outlook, anyone? Java-enabled Web browsing anyone? There are other examples as well. What you end up with is well written software with what I call "strategic holes" in it.
I seriously hope that Microsoft delivers a more highly compatible web browser and an OS X Outlook client soon. Judging from the past, however, there's no reason to suspect that they will except the vague "watch us for six months" comment.
I assume that they have not really given Linux a try, and should not compare it to OS/X for that reason
I don't think you have a single reason to assume this. In fact, I suspect that research scientists, like other professionals, know their own business better than you or I. In other words, one can assume for the most part that they are familiar with the available tools of the trade and choose according to their needs.
Heck, I could "assume" that you are a Linux advocate simply because you've never given Mac OS X an adequate try. I mean why else would you have made a different choice than I did? I'm sure you'll agree that this conclusion would be unwarranted.
Slashdot Mirror
I installed it on my PB G4 without incident. To be specific, I was running a clean install of 9.2.2 and 10.2 and then got 10.2.1 via Software Update. So far I have observed no problems whatsoever. I checked MacFixIt and I don't see any other reported issues of this type. Yet, anyway.
Powerbook G4 (version = 11.3) w. DVD
500 mhz
384 MB RAM
boot ROM 4.1.8f5
I recognize Apple as a dominant PC maker. Not software though.
I am just being unclear, I think. What I mean in regards to software is that Apple is influential. Products like Quicktime and Mac OS (every version) and iMovie and Colorsync and probably two dozen others that I could list if I sat and thought for a few minutes all make Apple a....I guess "software maker of consequence," is perhaps the best way to put it. I don't mean to say that they sell the most software or that they make the most money doing it. Only that they are sucessful at it, have been doing it a long time, and that their products are innovative and influential in the industry.
(Psst. He's making an allusion to "total cost of ownership or 'TCO'. Oh, and watch your head.)
Seriously, I think many more people would be very happy with a Macintosh than currently own one. Put another way, I think there is 'growth potential' for the Macintosh product family.
Will Apple-made personal computers ever seriously challenge Microsoft/Intel/AMD "Wintel" dominance? Not a chance. Forget it. But what I don't get is why so many people think this is a mark of irrelevance or failure.
In truth Apple is one of the most relevant computer makers. Apple is also one of the most relevant software makers. Apple is also one of the most sucessful personal computer makers. They make tons of money, have a fiercely loyal customer base, hold one of the most recognized brands in the United States and could buy every single Linux comany with cash using only the change out from under the breakroom couch pillows. The fact that the platform that they put forth isn't a dominant one doesn't change any of that.
Sometimes I think we're all so used to hearing about some single-digit marketshare that the Macintosh platform is supposed to have that we simply lose sight of the fact that Apple is a very large, very sucessful and influential company that makes some darned nice products, too. They're in no danger of irrelevance.
Sorry about the seemingly unprovoked rant. Sometimes it just bursts out. Mod me down if you must. I can take it.
I would put that the other way 'round, myself. After all it's Microsoft that isn't giving you a platform-independent solution in this instance, not Apple.
Like I always say there are millions of people who use Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Outlook to do their Microsoft Exchange email and who type things in Microsoft Word and calculate things with Microsoft Excel, etc, etc, etc...and who see no problem with this. I myself do.
OK, sorry about the rant. Email shouldn't be a problem, anything that does POP3 or IMAP4 (damned near anything) should be fine. I recommend Mail or Entourage or even Eudora or Netscape Messenger. Calendaring is a bit harder. It's not too tough to do a one-way, read-only deal for your Mac (just sync your palm on the PC and then sync it palm-overwrites-Mac on the Mac), but having true interactive exchange calendaring on the Macintosh is another thing.
There used to be a Mac Outlook client but it's a dead product now I think. It certainly wouldn't run in OS X, anyway. The Microsoft Macintosh Business Unit is making hints that they are about to remedy this situation but there has been no official word thusfar. I'm betting that in six months they give us a full-featured or nearly full-featured outlook client
You obviously don't have any real idea as to what the Macintosh is all about other than "it's supposed to be easy to use."
... shouldn't be dependable on easy-to-use interfaces.
Admins
And your point about the Macintosh is...? You insinuate that to use a Mac server one must be "dependable" on an easy-to-use interface. This is flat-out false. (Why you think it's easy-to-use is a Bad Thing is a whole other issue. I believe it goes to show how the vendors you prefer have lowered your expecations over the years regarding interface design - "if it's easy to use it's got to suck.")
Standard server system are much cheaper even with the obligatory redundancy stuff.
No they're not.
Sorry, but I don't see the points for Macs.
But it's refreshing to know that you did your homework before deciding. Not.
Funny you should mention it. I myself have seen my Tibook wake improperly from sleep several times since doing a fresh install of Jaguar. What appears to happen is the machine wakes up...but the screen doesn't. I found that shutting the screen and opening it again often caused it to snap out of it. Hasn't done it in a few days though.
If this was an anonymous post I would refrain...but since it's not...what in hell are you talking about?
In what way is "the 10.2" not backwards compatible "with 10.1.5"? Perhaps you're confused and talking about the updated open source wireless card driver that doesn't work on 10.1.5 anymore?
Insinuating that Apple is pulling a Microsoft because some part-time hacks released a half-done driver is ridiculous. If I am even understanding you correctly.
+ 1 informative. But I really would like to know what format the Apple Disk Burner is using if it's not iso9660? Anyone know?
There are really two things to consider:
First, that Apple will solder proprietary widgets to the Macintosh motherboard which the OS will look for before booting. No widget, no boot. Simple as that.
Now you might say, "someone will reverse engineer it and then there will be rampant Mac clones," which brings us to the second point...
Second, even though it's totally possible to reverse engineer these types of widgets it's not realistic to do so. This is simply because Apple can change it willy-nilly any time they freakin' want to. Who is going to continue to invest in reverse engineering in order to remain compatible? Nobody. Don't believe it? Consider that you can buy G4 processors and you can buy all the standard Mac motherboard stuff...and absolutely nothing is stopping you from reverse engineering the proprietary widgets in use right now...and thus making your own Mac clone business...and yet nobody is doing it. I see no reason to believe that this will be a more attractive prospect just because Apple switches processors.
latest Apple jackboot of non-apple DVD players and its software
I don't know the details on Apples legal stance here but I do know that the reason behind the move is to stop software piracy.
The only way to get a license of their iDVD burning software is to buy a Mac with a built-in SuperDrive. That's the only legitimate license there is. The software itself costs nothing - you buy it with the machine. Sooo... if someone develops a hack to allow iDVD to work with non-Apple distributed DVD-burners...ask yourself what is going on here. The only answer I can come up with is that people are wanting to rip off the software.
I have no problem with Apple trying to stop this. If it's true that the DMCA is being invoked then I can't support that particular method, however. I just don't think the "Apple = jackbooting thugs taking away your rights" knee-jerk reaction is as clear cut as some are thinking.
Good technology never dies I guess. I wonder if Apple is planning to fill the space left by the Newton. They can't be developing Inkwell for nothing can they?
I can't see where your church is being persecuted. But I can, on the other hand, see where your church (going by the title of your coment) has done quite a bit of persecuting of it's own. Clean your own house first. If you think a few thousand light-hearted pranksters and a few dozen flaky nerds are in any way equivalent to the centuries of murder and genuine persecution your church has inflicted on the world then you need to get up to speed on history and current events.
In light of these facts I find your whiny indignant tone offensive.
Could you point me to the post that brands RedHat as Linux for sissies?
Alas, I cannot. In fact I don't mean to say that I'm staking my reputation on the fact that the word "sissy" was used. But I am standing behind the sentiment - that the Redhat distribution has been repeatedly referred to with disdain and labled a distribution more suitable for people who are inexperienced with Linux and that users "in the know" would never be caught using it.
Please show me the data that supports you assumption that linux is unusable on the desktop.
What kind of BS demand is that? Please show me the data that says it is usable! I am basing my judgement on the 5 years of experience I have directly supporting and training users in a large multi-platform environment and also on my own personal experiences running Windows, Mac OS and two flavors of Linux...each across numerous versions. If you have better data than that then you know something the rest of us don't. Please share!
The fact that there isn't any data from serious independent studies showing the state of Linux usability doesn't mean, however, that we can assume Linux is just as usuable as any other desktop OS - although I'm sure you'd like to. There's plenty of reason to believe otherwise (see above). And frankly, I think it's the people who are in denial about the state of Linux usability that are the largest roadblock on the path to getting it fixed.
you are obivously pretty green to GNU\linux
I'm really not sure what that means. That I'm not a linux developer? That I've never used it? That I haven't read up on it? Whatever it is supposed to mean it is irrelevant to my point, which I still stand by.
I admit I am absolutely fascinated by the whole Linux phenomenon and this debate gets right to one of the core issues. Open source may indeed be "about choice" but until someone chooses to make a usable, consumer-ized distribution the world will choose to use another operating system on the desktop.
Linux will never be more than a geek toy and a server OS until and unless someone takes seriously the idea that its general usablity has a long way to go. I predict that when/if this happens, that consumerized distro will be universally hated and soundly thrashed in these forums for "taking away choice," and using "too much eye candy," etc.
There are, naturally, other hurdles for Linux making inroads on the desktop. But its consumer-friendliness is certainly one of the biggies. Perhaps Redhat is making more moves in that direction than I realized. I guess the signs are there...it's already been branded as the "Linux for sissies" in these forums.
Excellent question. I'm eagerly awaiting the web tech notes for 10.2 so I can see exactly what it is burning and whether there is any way back to ISO9660 without resorting to Toast. If Apple seriously expects nobody to care about this loss of functionality they should have their heads examined.
So what if it would? Apple calls it a "Security Update." If you're implying that they're somehow glossing over the potential security implications of the product before patching by using this terminology...then I guess I don't see how.
Yeah, today. It'll be one version behind all the time and then one day - who knows - "oh we're not making that for the Macintosh anymore...our customers dont' want that." It's the same reason why I wouldn't want anyone to port DirectX to the Mac. Rather we should all throw our weight behind OpenGL dispite any short-term gains that might be had going the other way.
Yeah, me too. I get sick of reading a truckload of +5 Insightful Apple adverts
Forgive me if I doubt your sincerity. But tell me, do you have the same complaint about Linux in these forums? And surely that was you who was vehemently poo-pooing the shameless RMS ass-kissing, right? Doubtful.
In conclusion, it's not that I don't see your point, but every platform/programming language discussed on slashdot is subject to the same semi-blind advocacy as the Macintosh discussions are.
Whether there were specific posts on mice really isn't the point. Besides that there is a post about mous buttons that last time I looked was moderated up to "+4 Funny." But as I said, it's hardly the point.
I'm starting to dread when Apple news makes the slashdot front page. That is when 3/4 of the discussion tends to be about multi-button mice, "proprietary hardware" and how we don't want to pay for it, stuipid misunderstsandings about the OS, and on and on and on.
I almost prefer the apple.slashdot.org ghetto that we're usually relegated to. At least there it's about 3/4 people who actually understand something about the platform and don't need to bring the discussion back to "why I don't like this platform" no matter what the original story is.
But what kind of business strategy would lead a company to intentionally leave holes in software?
What we're talking about is deliberate incompatibility. Whether it's the omission of features or the addition of ones that break compatiblity, it's all the same. Case in point - Microsoft wanted nothing more than for Java to fail. They figured if the Web browser became a "platform" unto itself it could jeapardize the Windows monopoly. So they impliment Java...only they kinda break it. Deliberately. See where I'm going with this?
And actually in that scenario they added features that would break compatibility with standard java. When asked why they said "because that's what our customers want." In reality what they were doing was the "extend" part of the embrace, extend and extinguish strategy.
One might ask "what sense does it make for a company to make products that deliberately have problems?" Unfortunately there are indeed answers to that question that make good "bottom line" business sense. Even more unfortunately, it retards the progress of the entire industry.
It has had java support for ages but hasn't worked all that well. Some would say that this is Apple's fault, others would say otherwise.. in any case you're right about one thing - it's a bad example.
I actually find Microsoft Macintosh software to be of fairly decent quality. The real problem lies elsewhere.
Specifically, MS leaves out certain functionality for "strategic" reasons that essentially leave the Mac platform lacking in certain specific areas. Outlook, anyone? Java-enabled Web browsing anyone? There are other examples as well. What you end up with is well written software with what I call "strategic holes" in it.
I seriously hope that Microsoft delivers a more highly compatible web browser and an OS X Outlook client soon. Judging from the past, however, there's no reason to suspect that they will except the vague "watch us for six months" comment.
I assume that they have not really given Linux a try, and should not compare it to OS/X for that reason
I don't think you have a single reason to assume this. In fact, I suspect that research scientists, like other professionals, know their own business better than you or I. In other words, one can assume for the most part that they are familiar with the available tools of the trade and choose according to their needs.
Heck, I could "assume" that you are a Linux advocate simply because you've never given Mac OS X an adequate try. I mean why else would you have made a different choice than I did? I'm sure you'll agree that this conclusion would be unwarranted.