Ubuntu 8.10 did work on my 15" PB G4, but I had to hunt around for the PPC build. While it did work adequately, it ran so much hotter than OS X. I put this down to not fully understanding (due to not making the hardware) the fan controller system, which was a lot more "grainy" than in OS X. It seemed that Ubuntu could run the fans low, medium and high, rather than gradually changing the speed or choosing a speed inbetween.
I think the graphics driver also had something to do with it - the GPU got *really* toasty running Ubuntu. I also had to manually start it each time - if I let it boot on its own, the screen would go blank and then very gradually start to change to red (over about 10 minutes) and never get to the login prompt. If I booted to the prompt and manually started it up (with whatever command it is that you use - I forget exactly), but it would then load up perfectly.
I did quite like it though, and it played all the music I had in my iTunes library, if a little choppily occasionally - I was expecting it to choke on some of the AAC stuff, but it worked out of the box, so to speak.
If the Apple Store employees are "going to try to sell her a Mac Pro" (presumably this is an attempt to make it look like Apple likes to push really expensive options on people that they don't need, even though they sell cheaper computers that would suit granny), then the PC salesman in Best Buy tries to sell her an Alienware PC with Windows 7 Ultimate Business Xtreeme Advance with dual graphics cards and at least three different colours of fluorescent lights in the case.
Either way, if she wanders into a computer store without asking someone in her family "what do I need?" so she at least has a vague idea of what might be too much for her, or takes someone with her, then caveat emptor.
However, I would argue that on the whole, Apple Store and PC store employees don't go around ruthlessly ripping off old ladies - they're not used car dealerships.
1. Put Mac OS X DVD into the slot (she knows where to put the disk in right?)
2. Finder window opens with a large icon that says "Install Mac OS X" - double click.
3. OS X prompts for a reboot.
4. OS X installs (the upgrade option is selected by default, more advanced users may want to go for a nuke and pave, or an archive and install as required).
I can't remember the last time I took notes in an impressive manor, although I was concentrating on the material I was learning rather than the building I was sitting in so it's possible I suppose.
As for the last bit... well, I already ate. Sorry.
I disagree - while some people find it easier to learn from books, a lot of people really don't, and handing out fully-complete course notes encourages laziness. I much prefer hand writing notes, and the best lectures (ie, the ones I have learned the most from) have been the ones with almost no powerpoint material at all, with the lecturer writing up on the boards as he taught the class.
The next best were the incomplete powerpoints, that required you to write notes on and alongside the printed slides.
The very, very worst are the fully printed ones - which might as well just be a book.
If you can learn from a book, then more power to you, but not everyone learns in the same way, and encouraging people to write notes purely as a form of "enforcing attendance" is far from the truth. You attend so you can learn - the course content is all in the textbooks anyway, regardless of what style the module teacher uses.
There are nearly 100 web browsers on the iPhone app store. Take away a fair few because I just counted the rows and columns and multiplied and I could see that a couple were dupes (ie, the free version and the paid version of the same app, which should really be counted only once).
Either way, Safari is *far* from the only browser on the iPhone. Did you even look? Or did you just assume?
How do you "actively obstruct" just a single application/plugin while the rest of your 3rd party developers are quite happy and unrestricted with speedy apps.
Flash is *dog slow* on OS X - I have a Core 2 Duo iMac (2.1Ghz) and using the high quality stream (not the HD stream) pushes my CPU use up near 70%. I can drop it a little by playing the stream fullscreen, and it drops to about 45% ish, but it is still a crazy amount for playing back a video stream.
If Adobe can't pull its finger out and write a decent plugin with all the developer information available from Apple, even if Apple does nothing, then they are just being lazy (or someone at Adobe is blocking it).
"Actively obstructing" probably means "wah wah! Apple won't implement DirectX on OS X so we can't just lazily rename flash.exe to flash.app and call it a port, we actually have to write some platform-specific code and we don't want to!"
Yes yes, I know it's not likely to be that simple, but this is software politics. I am certain that there's no code in OS X that says "if plugin=flash then emulatecpu=pentium200".
And "one button mouse all over again?" - Apple has supported the multi button mouse for well over 10 years. Just plug it in. Works right away. It's not like you would plug one in and a window pops up saying "too many buttons!" - OS X has supported right clicking since it was first released, and OS 9 also supported it.
Nope, it will (probably) not. The iPod's directory structure was never designed to be human readable, but a pseudo-mirror of the iTunes database (ie, you sync your other machines to the iTunes database rather than the iPod).
I haven't looked at the iPod directory structure since about the 3G iPod, so I do not know how it handles it if you choose to manually manage your library.
I do know that having that option unchecked, you can organise your files however you wish, and dragging to iTunes merely makes an alias to the file path in the DB, rather than copying the file in and putting it in a managed, computer-chosen location.
I have never managed my music this way (at least, not since I left Winamp and my old W2K box). I do know a guy who manages about 2TB of music (all legal) across multiple iTunes on multiple machines this way and it works fine for him. I'll have to ask him how iTunes deals with the iPod in this situation - I suspect it will assign its own filename for the iPod track, since Apple is very big on using the metadata for all information display.
While I don't disagree with your statement, "unlike the UK" is just not true - the UK's biggest pressure right now is immigration, both legal and illegal.
As a member of the EU, we have an enormous influx of people from the EU who move here for a better life. We also face a huge illegal immigration problem from the channel as refugees from the middle east work their way across Europe, hiding in lorries and making the dash across the tunnel. They can be caught just before they cross (and many are) but they can only be turfed out to just beyond the fence, and they try again the next day.
Why is iTunes so horrible? I've used it for years and it's never been a problem. Your friends may like iTunes, even if you find it abhorrent. Get them to at least try iTunes first to see if they can "live with it".
Diabetics who cannot control their condition tend to go blind, or get very nasty skin ulcers, especially in the feet - hence the foot amputations.
I think it is *insane* that in the USA a doctor can tell you in his medical capacity that you need to check your blood sugar 5 times per day only for your insurance company to say "oh no no no no, you don't need to do that - we only cover 2 test strips per day. If you want more, you have to buy extra, we will not cover those".
Why even have a doctor if your insurance company is making medical decisions for you?
Or a doctor who has told a patient that they need a bi-anual MRI instead of a normal mammogram due to her previous treatments making the Xray totally ineffective for future preventitive screening, but the insurance company will not pay for that - they will, however, continue to pay for the Xrays that *do not work*, so they are wasting money. I guess they figure that the cancer will come back and be undetected and she'll die before the cost of the useless Xrays reaches the cost of the bi-anual MRI.
Or the woman who is trapped in her job because she had a medical issue that has left her practically uninsurable, so if she leaves the job she hates she will lose the coverage she has and will never be able to get back onto a plan in a new job that she can afford, or that would be worth the paper it is printed on.
I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but I know an awful lot of people from my time living in the US that have terrible stories about the barmy US healthcare system.
Fox can spin out all the "78% of people polled said they were happy with their coverage" pie charts all they like, and they are probably accurate - most people are happy right up until the point when they get sick and actually need to use it.
I think you'll find that socialised healthcare not only works, but works extremely well. This is evident in abundance in many countries, like France, UK, Australia... and in fact, all industrialised countries with the notable exception of the USA. It seems odd that you think it "always fails" when literally every other developed nation other than the US uses it.
Have you ever been to a country outside the USA? Or did you just hear your "fact" on Fox News?
But it everyone pays a little, then the cost for everyone goes down, even if it means that "you pay for your neighbour".
It's one of the reasons that countries with universal healthcare systems pay *considerably* less of their GDP on healthcare compared to the USA.
The US system is excellent once you are past all the insurance nonsense, but it doesn't have to be like that. If everyone paid national insurance (akin to the UK method), then you would pay *much* less than you are paying for health insurance right now, there would be *no* insurance malarkey bullshit about a broken arm being a pre-existing condition, or "this doctor sis out of network" etc, all of your citizens would be covered, and you would still have the excellent facilities that you do right now.
There just has to be a little leap that if everyone chips in, it is better for everyone. I have heard the argument "why should I pay for my neighbour?" from several Americans regarding healthcare, and the answer is simply, because it benefits *you* if everyone who works a job is paying a small amount. Even if you don't care about Joe-Schmoe down the street who "burdens" the system by smoking 20 a day and eating nothing but McD's - ignore him: your healthcare is cheaper, and he gets looked after. You are also not tied to your job, and still covered for treatment if you lose your job while you look for another one.
The US could easily afford to run the system that way; with the amount it is shelling out currently, it could easily do it - so much money is just wasted (read: going into the pockets of insurance companies and never seen again).
If you meet three strangers in a shop and you all want to buy a slice of cake, but the store only sells them whole, it is better for you all if you pool your money and buy one between you. The more of you there are, the cheaper it is. As a bonus, after you have all taken the piece that you want, the last slice left over can be given to the guy outside who lost his job and has no money for cake right now.
The government has a part to play in society - I agree that some of the powers it is foisting on the population (I live in the UK, where surveillance is getting very heavy now) are not great, but in my opinion, having extensive personal experience with both the US and UK healthcare systems, it is one thing that you really *do* want the government to handle.
(Note that in the UK you can go private if you like, paying insurance etc - they have their own hospitals, insurance companies, separate lines etc, so you can go down that route if you like, but the NHS is always there for you when you need it).
Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu 8.10 did work on my 15" PB G4, but I had to hunt around for the PPC build. While it did work adequately, it ran so much hotter than OS X. I put this down to not fully understanding (due to not making the hardware) the fan controller system, which was a lot more "grainy" than in OS X. It seemed that Ubuntu could run the fans low, medium and high, rather than gradually changing the speed or choosing a speed inbetween.
I think the graphics driver also had something to do with it - the GPU got *really* toasty running Ubuntu. I also had to manually start it each time - if I let it boot on its own, the screen would go blank and then very gradually start to change to red (over about 10 minutes) and never get to the login prompt. If I booted to the prompt and manually started it up (with whatever command it is that you use - I forget exactly), but it would then load up perfectly.
I did quite like it though, and it played all the music I had in my iTunes library, if a little choppily occasionally - I was expecting it to choke on some of the AAC stuff, but it worked out of the box, so to speak.
If the Apple Store employees are "going to try to sell her a Mac Pro" (presumably this is an attempt to make it look like Apple likes to push really expensive options on people that they don't need, even though they sell cheaper computers that would suit granny), then the PC salesman in Best Buy tries to sell her an Alienware PC with Windows 7 Ultimate Business Xtreeme Advance with dual graphics cards and at least three different colours of fluorescent lights in the case.
Either way, if she wanders into a computer store without asking someone in her family "what do I need?" so she at least has a vague idea of what might be too much for her, or takes someone with her, then caveat emptor.
However, I would argue that on the whole, Apple Store and PC store employees don't go around ruthlessly ripping off old ladies - they're not used car dealerships.
Then she does this:
1. Put Mac OS X DVD into the slot (she knows where to put the disk in right?)
2. Finder window opens with a large icon that says "Install Mac OS X" - double click.
3. OS X prompts for a reboot.
4. OS X installs (the upgrade option is selected by default, more advanced users may want to go for a nuke and pave, or an archive and install as required).
And those who are suckered into installing Linux will have to realise they can't use FCP, the Creative Suite or Logic.
(/troll)
If you have an Intel Mac, the "official" upgrade cost is $29.
I think you are grossly underestimating the female population.
They're not all cookie-cutter, assembly line baby incubators that fawn over chocolates and flowers and get broody when you mention children.
Surprisingly, their likes and dislikes are equally as varied as the other gender.
Send her a push notification on her iPhone after each contraction.
She'll love you forever.
The same one used by Miles Davis, Kermit the Frog and Einstein.
Ok, so it was Jim Henson, but unless he was typing one handed, Kermit was doing some button pressing.
I can't remember the last time I took notes in an impressive manor, although I was concentrating on the material I was learning rather than the building I was sitting in so it's possible I suppose.
As for the last bit... well, I already ate. Sorry.
Yup, best way to learn I have found, even in 2010.
I disagree - while some people find it easier to learn from books, a lot of people really don't, and handing out fully-complete course notes encourages laziness. I much prefer hand writing notes, and the best lectures (ie, the ones I have learned the most from) have been the ones with almost no powerpoint material at all, with the lecturer writing up on the boards as he taught the class.
The next best were the incomplete powerpoints, that required you to write notes on and alongside the printed slides.
The very, very worst are the fully printed ones - which might as well just be a book.
If you can learn from a book, then more power to you, but not everyone learns in the same way, and encouraging people to write notes purely as a form of "enforcing attendance" is far from the truth. You attend so you can learn - the course content is all in the textbooks anyway, regardless of what style the module teacher uses.
There are nearly 100 web browsers on the iPhone app store. Take away a fair few because I just counted the rows and columns and multiplied and I could see that a couple were dupes (ie, the free version and the paid version of the same app, which should really be counted only once).
Either way, Safari is *far* from the only browser on the iPhone. Did you even look? Or did you just assume?
On Snow Leopard (10.6), Flash is also a peer process in Safari too (WebKitPluginHost), and it is still crazy slow.
How do you "actively obstruct" just a single application/plugin while the rest of your 3rd party developers are quite happy and unrestricted with speedy apps.
Flash is *dog slow* on OS X - I have a Core 2 Duo iMac (2.1Ghz) and using the high quality stream (not the HD stream) pushes my CPU use up near 70%. I can drop it a little by playing the stream fullscreen, and it drops to about 45% ish, but it is still a crazy amount for playing back a video stream.
If Adobe can't pull its finger out and write a decent plugin with all the developer information available from Apple, even if Apple does nothing, then they are just being lazy (or someone at Adobe is blocking it).
"Actively obstructing" probably means "wah wah! Apple won't implement DirectX on OS X so we can't just lazily rename flash.exe to flash.app and call it a port, we actually have to write some platform-specific code and we don't want to!"
Yes yes, I know it's not likely to be that simple, but this is software politics. I am certain that there's no code in OS X that says "if plugin=flash then emulatecpu=pentium200".
And "one button mouse all over again?" - Apple has supported the multi button mouse for well over 10 years. Just plug it in. Works right away. It's not like you would plug one in and a window pops up saying "too many buttons!" - OS X has supported right clicking since it was first released, and OS 9 also supported it.
Nope, it will (probably) not. The iPod's directory structure was never designed to be human readable, but a pseudo-mirror of the iTunes database (ie, you sync your other machines to the iTunes database rather than the iPod).
I haven't looked at the iPod directory structure since about the 3G iPod, so I do not know how it handles it if you choose to manually manage your library.
I do know that having that option unchecked, you can organise your files however you wish, and dragging to iTunes merely makes an alias to the file path in the DB, rather than copying the file in and putting it in a managed, computer-chosen location.
I have never managed my music this way (at least, not since I left Winamp and my old W2K box). I do know a guy who manages about 2TB of music (all legal) across multiple iTunes on multiple machines this way and it works fine for him. I'll have to ask him how iTunes deals with the iPod in this situation - I suspect it will assign its own filename for the iPod track, since Apple is very big on using the metadata for all information display.
While I don't disagree with your statement, "unlike the UK" is just not true - the UK's biggest pressure right now is immigration, both legal and illegal.
As a member of the EU, we have an enormous influx of people from the EU who move here for a better life. We also face a huge illegal immigration problem from the channel as refugees from the middle east work their way across Europe, hiding in lorries and making the dash across the tunnel. They can be caught just before they cross (and many are) but they can only be turfed out to just beyond the fence, and they try again the next day.
Windows users, yes. Mac OS X users, yes.
Xbox 360 users: no, iPhone users: no
At least compare apples to apples, so to speak.
Send me all your Apple kit. I'll rehome it.
Sorry to see you go.
How the hell is this offtopic?
Mods, can I have some of what you're smoking.
Note please, that -1 Offtopic does not mean "I do not agree with this poster"
Uncheck "Keep iTunes media folder organised".
Rant solved.
Why is iTunes so horrible? I've used it for years and it's never been a problem. Your friends may like iTunes, even if you find it abhorrent. Get them to at least try iTunes first to see if they can "live with it".
It's really not terrible.
Diabetics who cannot control their condition tend to go blind, or get very nasty skin ulcers, especially in the feet - hence the foot amputations.
I think it is *insane* that in the USA a doctor can tell you in his medical capacity that you need to check your blood sugar 5 times per day only for your insurance company to say "oh no no no no, you don't need to do that - we only cover 2 test strips per day. If you want more, you have to buy extra, we will not cover those".
Why even have a doctor if your insurance company is making medical decisions for you?
Or a doctor who has told a patient that they need a bi-anual MRI instead of a normal mammogram due to her previous treatments making the Xray totally ineffective for future preventitive screening, but the insurance company will not pay for that - they will, however, continue to pay for the Xrays that *do not work*, so they are wasting money. I guess they figure that the cancer will come back and be undetected and she'll die before the cost of the useless Xrays reaches the cost of the bi-anual MRI.
Or the woman who is trapped in her job because she had a medical issue that has left her practically uninsurable, so if she leaves the job she hates she will lose the coverage she has and will never be able to get back onto a plan in a new job that she can afford, or that would be worth the paper it is printed on.
I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but I know an awful lot of people from my time living in the US that have terrible stories about the barmy US healthcare system.
Fox can spin out all the "78% of people polled said they were happy with their coverage" pie charts all they like, and they are probably accurate - most people are happy right up until the point when they get sick and actually need to use it.
[citation needed]
I think you'll find that socialised healthcare not only works, but works extremely well. This is evident in abundance in many countries, like France, UK, Australia... and in fact, all industrialised countries with the notable exception of the USA. It seems odd that you think it "always fails" when literally every other developed nation other than the US uses it.
Have you ever been to a country outside the USA? Or did you just hear your "fact" on Fox News?
But it everyone pays a little, then the cost for everyone goes down, even if it means that "you pay for your neighbour".
It's one of the reasons that countries with universal healthcare systems pay *considerably* less of their GDP on healthcare compared to the USA.
The US system is excellent once you are past all the insurance nonsense, but it doesn't have to be like that. If everyone paid national insurance (akin to the UK method), then you would pay *much* less than you are paying for health insurance right now, there would be *no* insurance malarkey bullshit about a broken arm being a pre-existing condition, or "this doctor sis out of network" etc, all of your citizens would be covered, and you would still have the excellent facilities that you do right now.
There just has to be a little leap that if everyone chips in, it is better for everyone. I have heard the argument "why should I pay for my neighbour?" from several Americans regarding healthcare, and the answer is simply, because it benefits *you* if everyone who works a job is paying a small amount. Even if you don't care about Joe-Schmoe down the street who "burdens" the system by smoking 20 a day and eating nothing but McD's - ignore him: your healthcare is cheaper, and he gets looked after. You are also not tied to your job, and still covered for treatment if you lose your job while you look for another one.
The US could easily afford to run the system that way; with the amount it is shelling out currently, it could easily do it - so much money is just wasted (read: going into the pockets of insurance companies and never seen again).
If you meet three strangers in a shop and you all want to buy a slice of cake, but the store only sells them whole, it is better for you all if you pool your money and buy one between you. The more of you there are, the cheaper it is. As a bonus, after you have all taken the piece that you want, the last slice left over can be given to the guy outside who lost his job and has no money for cake right now.
The government has a part to play in society - I agree that some of the powers it is foisting on the population (I live in the UK, where surveillance is getting very heavy now) are not great, but in my opinion, having extensive personal experience with both the US and UK healthcare systems, it is one thing that you really *do* want the government to handle.
(Note that in the UK you can go private if you like, paying insurance etc - they have their own hospitals, insurance companies, separate lines etc, so you can go down that route if you like, but the NHS is always there for you when you need it).
As a fellow 6-digiter, I have to ask, what's an article?