What about the $800 eMac? Just wait when the tech industry comes out of the slump and PC prices go back up. I think the entire PC industry is selling so cheap because of the major slump we're in. Just two years ago you'd pay well over $1000 for the same PC systems they're selling for $600 or so now. And when the industry/economy pick back up, expect the computer prices to go back to previous, $1000+ levels. And when this happens, Apple will be much more price competitive. I still believe that Apple is very price competitive, considering the quality of the product you're buying and when you compare equally specced out PC's. The iBook, for example, is very competitively priced when compared to equally specced PC laptops.
Hint, Hint PARC took a lot of these ideas from Douglas Englebart of Stanford Research Institute. Sad, but true. Xerox PARC was amazing, but Douglas Englebart was more so by an order of magnitude.
What about Chimera and Omniweb? I think both are better than Mozilla, Opera and Netscape on the Mac.
As far as the original post goes... it's not like Microsoft have updated IE for the Mac in forever anyway. Not to mention I believe they intentionally crippled it on the Mac to make it s.l.o.w.e.r than the Windows version in order to show "how much faster Windows is" (when in reality Safari is just as fast as IE on Windows, so obviously MS was crippling the Mac version of IE).
In summation, I think this will receive a collective yawn from 99% of Macintosh users. Safari stomps on IE on the Mac in every way, and it's just a beta version! Good riddance IE!
I'm nearly 100% Microsoft-free on my OS X box and I have a lot more productivity and STABILITY to show for it!
Now if only Apple would make Appleworks (Document?) a full featured MS Office killer we'd have something (with full support for the horrible, proprietary Office formats of course, to ween people from that horrible MS Office crap).
Oh well, in lieu of this I intend on using OpenOffice.org for my word processing in the future anyway. With Apple's latest software ventures and OS X and open source/source forge/fink, Microsoft is becoming more and more irrelevant every day.
It's really not that incorrect, given that the Matrix is a world built on metaphors. All the visual "consensual hallucinations" within the matrix are simply metaphors for coded actions. That is to say, the fight scenes are only visual representations of bits of code (code warfare?), along with everything else seen, felt, heard and experienced in the Matrix. The keymaker (believe was his name) was nothing more than a metaphor for an encryption specialist. I think if we approach the Matrix films from the vantage point of "All Is Metaphor" then the beauty of it becomes more readily apparent and acceptable; especially in the context of real life events. Nothing in the Matrix is as it seems, but is only contextual analogies of real life. It is binary, translated to a rich visual and aural consensual hallucination meant to enslave mankind and fool the mind (and it makes for more interesting cinematics than simply binary code everywhere).:)
He's only 19 for Pete's sake. A 19 year old's "life savings" probably consists of a handful of beat-up cd's, two moldy pizza boxes on the coffee table, a Playstation 2 and one dollar and fifty three cents... if he scours under the pillows and cushions of the couch.
Things can be standards based and be proprietary at the same time, or am I wrong? I'm not trying to argue, but I'd like to discuss this. Mp3 is also a proprietary technology if I'm not mistaken, based on your definition. Even though a consortium decided upon mp3 there are still copyrights and licenses to deal with, from my understanding. Ogg Vorbis seems to be the only license-less of the bunch, but that doesn't make it a "standard". I think we're confusing "standard" with "open source", perhaps. Maybe? Possibly?
Anyone know if Quicktime is ISO-recognized? That would help clarify the issue perhaps. I'd also be curious if Ogg Vorbis, Real and the other audio/video codecs are ISO-recognized/approved.
OS X generally needs at bare minimum 128 megs of RAM. I'd go at least 256 megs if I were you.
According to Everymac.com your Powerbook is an original Powerbook G3 (see bolded quote below) and therefore isn't supported in OS 10.2. However, you might try checking with XLR8yourmac.com because there are "hacks" available that enable "unsupported" Macs (old clones/beige, etc.) to run OS 10.2.
Mac OS X Version 10.2 requires a Power Mac G3, G4, G4 Cube; iMac; PowerBook G3, G4; iBook; or eMac computer; at least 128MB of physical RAM and a built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied video card.
Mac OS X does not support the original PowerBook G3 or processor upgrade cards. Verify your hardware is supported from the list below
As with processor upgrades cards, this particular Powerbook, while officially unsupported, can probably be made to run OS 10.2 with a little ingeniunity and research.
This page (cached, since the site seems to be down right now) might help you out.
Also you might want to upgrade the processor to a G4 in that Powerbook and gain OS 10.2 support, not to mention an extreme increase in speed (+Altivec support!) by buying one of these Crescendo G3 or G4 upgrade cards. I've personally bought stuff from Sonnet and can very much recommend them. I buy all my Mac stuff generally from the fantastic (and fast/cheap/honest) Macsales.com but you can find Sonnet Mac upgrade peripherals at just about any Mac reseller. If you do upgrade the Powerbook, be sure to pick up some RAM (I'd max it out to 512 megs if I were you) while you're at it. OWC/Macsales have very reliable and extremely cheap RAM. Just make sure to get the right kind by checking with one of the sites I provided.
I'm running OS 10.2.6 on my G3 and it runs pretty damned well, all things considered. Granted I have 1 gigabyte of SDRAM and fairly fast 7200 rpm ATA/133 drives but I'm impressed with the speed on my "lowly" 400 mhz G3 Power Mac tower. I think OS X can run adequately on any 300mhz+ G3 (iMac, iBook or Power Mac). Granted you don't want to play graphics-intensive games on it, but you wouldn't be interested in Linux (or to an extent Macs) if you wanted to play games anyway.
In summation, has the original poster even tried to run OS X on the iBook? I'd give it whirl before dismissing it as a possibility.
This is probably the STUPIDEST THING I'VE EVER HEARD OF. Arguably more stupid than Circuit Cities proprietary pay-per-play Divx discs a few years back.
Hello PEOPLE, this is just MORE garbage that is going to go into the trash piles.
The problem here is that the physiology of a rat isn't the same as a humans. Various animal bodies react differently to carcinogens/pathogens than we do, so testing on them isn't inherently as beneficial as you claim. Personally I would advocate testing on brain-dead humans. Sure a lot of people would disagree with me, but if a human is verifiably brain-dead (from severe head injuries, for instance), why not? And then you'll be assured that the test will adequately translate to other humans, and not have to guestimate as they do when they test on animals. Pain and fear are not just human traits and these animals we so mercilessly kill by the millions each year feel pain and fear just as you and I do, and die horrible deaths for our benefit. Who are we to decide that animals are "lesser" and more deserving to die for our causes? If we're so-called "humane" then we owe it to them not to test on them... that's my opinion at least.
Industry insiders say that the software for the phone continued to have 'fundamental problems,' leading to a high failure rate. French mobile carrier Orange introduced a MS SmartPhone, SPV, late last year. It initially had software security problems...
Well, duh, people... ALL Microsoft software has security problems and is buggy, crash-prone (okay, NT/Win2k ain't half bad...). I salute those in the industry that are actively taking steps to remove cruddy Microsoft code from their servers/computers and in this case future cell phones.
Remember, friends don't let friends use Microsoft products.
*curtseys*
What I meant is that generally speaking there are a lot less security issues (and patches) for Apple software, but when a security issue does rear its ugly, misshapen head Apple is quick to squash it and issue a fix. Microsoft has been known to repeatedly ignore problems (for months) until many a customer's computer is compromised.
Make any sense?
Nope, I don't currently use XP (I have Windows 98SE on two PC's next to my Mac). However, it's refreshing that Apple doesn't release security updates every week like Microsoft. That shows that their products are generally more secure.:P
Slashdot Mirror
What about the $800 eMac? Just wait when the tech industry comes out of the slump and PC prices go back up. I think the entire PC industry is selling so cheap because of the major slump we're in. Just two years ago you'd pay well over $1000 for the same PC systems they're selling for $600 or so now. And when the industry/economy pick back up, expect the computer prices to go back to previous, $1000+ levels. And when this happens, Apple will be much more price competitive. I still believe that Apple is very price competitive, considering the quality of the product you're buying and when you compare equally specced out PC's. The iBook, for example, is very competitively priced when compared to equally specced PC laptops.
Hint, Hint PARC took a lot of these ideas from Douglas Englebart of Stanford Research Institute. Sad, but true. Xerox PARC was amazing, but Douglas Englebart was more so by an order of magnitude.
What about Chimera and Omniweb? I think both are better than Mozilla, Opera and Netscape on the Mac.
As far as the original post goes... it's not like Microsoft have updated IE for the Mac in forever anyway. Not to mention I believe they intentionally crippled it on the Mac to make it s.l.o.w.e.r than the Windows version in order to show "how much faster Windows is" (when in reality Safari is just as fast as IE on Windows, so obviously MS was crippling the Mac version of IE).
In summation, I think this will receive a collective yawn from 99% of Macintosh users. Safari stomps on IE on the Mac in every way, and it's just a beta version! Good riddance IE!
I'm nearly 100% Microsoft-free on my OS X box and I have a lot more productivity and STABILITY to show for it!
Now if only Apple would make Appleworks (Document?) a full featured MS Office killer we'd have something (with full support for the horrible, proprietary Office formats of course, to ween people from that horrible MS Office crap).
Oh well, in lieu of this I intend on using OpenOffice.org for my word processing in the future anyway. With Apple's latest software ventures and OS X and open source/source forge/fink, Microsoft is becoming more and more irrelevant every day.
The future is so bright I gotta wear shades!
It's really not that incorrect, given that the Matrix is a world built on metaphors. All the visual "consensual hallucinations" within the matrix are simply metaphors for coded actions. That is to say, the fight scenes are only visual representations of bits of code (code warfare?), along with everything else seen, felt, heard and experienced in the Matrix. The keymaker (believe was his name) was nothing more than a metaphor for an encryption specialist. I think if we approach the Matrix films from the vantage point of "All Is Metaphor" then the beauty of it becomes more readily apparent and acceptable; especially in the context of real life events. Nothing in the Matrix is as it seems, but is only contextual analogies of real life. It is binary, translated to a rich visual and aural consensual hallucination meant to enslave mankind and fool the mind (and it makes for more interesting cinematics than simply binary code everywhere). :)
If this is true, this is the end of Microsoft.
He's only 19 for Pete's sake. A 19 year old's "life savings" probably consists of a handful of beat-up cd's, two moldy pizza boxes on the coffee table, a Playstation 2 and one dollar and fifty three cents... if he scours under the pillows and cushions of the couch.
Things can be standards based and be proprietary at the same time, or am I wrong? I'm not trying to argue, but I'd like to discuss this. Mp3 is also a proprietary technology if I'm not mistaken, based on your definition. Even though a consortium decided upon mp3 there are still copyrights and licenses to deal with, from my understanding. Ogg Vorbis seems to be the only license-less of the bunch, but that doesn't make it a "standard". I think we're confusing "standard" with "open source", perhaps. Maybe? Possibly?
Anyone know if Quicktime is ISO-recognized? That would help clarify the issue perhaps. I'd also be curious if Ogg Vorbis, Real and the other audio/video codecs are ISO-recognized/approved.
Quicktime isn't a standard? Huh? *scratches head in bewilderment*
According to Everymac.com your Powerbook is an original Powerbook G3 (see bolded quote below) and therefore isn't supported in OS 10.2. However, you might try checking with XLR8yourmac.com because there are "hacks" available that enable "unsupported" Macs (old clones/beige, etc.) to run OS 10.2.
From Apple's OS X Requirements Page Quoted here: As with processor upgrades cards, this particular Powerbook, while officially unsupported, can probably be made to run OS 10.2 with a little ingeniunity and research. This page (cached, since the site seems to be down right now) might help you out.
Also you might want to upgrade the processor to a G4 in that Powerbook and gain OS 10.2 support, not to mention an extreme increase in speed (+Altivec support!) by buying one of these Crescendo G3 or G4 upgrade cards. I've personally bought stuff from Sonnet and can very much recommend them. I buy all my Mac stuff generally from the fantastic (and fast/cheap/honest) Macsales.com but you can find Sonnet Mac upgrade peripherals at just about any Mac reseller. If you do upgrade the Powerbook, be sure to pick up some RAM (I'd max it out to 512 megs if I were you) while you're at it. OWC/Macsales have very reliable and extremely cheap RAM. Just make sure to get the right kind by checking with one of the sites I provided.
Good luck.
I'm running OS 10.2.6 on my G3 and it runs pretty damned well, all things considered. Granted I have 1 gigabyte of SDRAM and fairly fast 7200 rpm ATA/133 drives but I'm impressed with the speed on my "lowly" 400 mhz G3 Power Mac tower. I think OS X can run adequately on any 300mhz+ G3 (iMac, iBook or Power Mac). Granted you don't want to play graphics-intensive games on it, but you wouldn't be interested in Linux (or to an extent Macs) if you wanted to play games anyway.
In summation, has the original poster even tried to run OS X on the iBook? I'd give it whirl before dismissing it as a possibility.
It would have been better had she changed the password to:
"M4TR1X0WN3D"
This is probably the STUPIDEST THING I'VE EVER HEARD OF. Arguably more stupid than Circuit Cities proprietary pay-per-play Divx discs a few years back. Hello PEOPLE, this is just MORE garbage that is going to go into the trash piles.
If you take away our cars then only the criminals will have cars.. oh wait, nm.
The problem here is that the physiology of a rat isn't the same as a humans. Various animal bodies react differently to carcinogens/pathogens than we do, so testing on them isn't inherently as beneficial as you claim. Personally I would advocate testing on brain-dead humans. Sure a lot of people would disagree with me, but if a human is verifiably brain-dead (from severe head injuries, for instance), why not? And then you'll be assured that the test will adequately translate to other humans, and not have to guestimate as they do when they test on animals. Pain and fear are not just human traits and these animals we so mercilessly kill by the millions each year feel pain and fear just as you and I do, and die horrible deaths for our benefit. Who are we to decide that animals are "lesser" and more deserving to die for our causes? If we're so-called "humane" then we owe it to them not to test on them... that's my opinion at least.
Now I know why I've always loved NASA.
Don't forget policitians. :)
Remember, friends don't let friends use Microsoft products.
Alright! I'm game!
Experimenting on animals makes me sick. Just because you can doesn't mean it's right.
*curtseys* What I meant is that generally speaking there are a lot less security issues (and patches) for Apple software, but when a security issue does rear its ugly, misshapen head Apple is quick to squash it and issue a fix. Microsoft has been known to repeatedly ignore problems (for months) until many a customer's computer is compromised. Make any sense?
Server meet melt. Another unfortunate casualty of the fearsome /. effect.
I'm going to patent breathing! I'll make a bundle on that one!
Nope, I don't currently use XP (I have Windows 98SE on two PC's next to my Mac). However, it's refreshing that Apple doesn't release security updates every week like Microsoft. That shows that their products are generally more secure. :P
I agree in principle but more choice is a Good Thing? for the Macintosh platform.