OT: Ya want MacOS X on x86? Well, ya just might get it!

I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that Apple would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino somewhere. Damned if it doesn't look like I was right :) http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp -Larry

yeah, I saw that on slashdot.org...if OS-X came for x86 procs,, I'd buy it in a second... I totally dig the Aqua interface... On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 04:07:08 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that Apple >would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS >X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino >somewhere. > >Damned if it doesn't look like I was right :) > >http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp > >-Larry > >

Ive owned a couple of powerbooks, and NEVER AGAIN!. I dont like MacOS at all, i can understand that some people find it awesome, but its hard to impress on someone who have taken everything for granted since using AmigaOS :) "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Mngc9.32260$[email hidden]... > I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year thatApple

Quoted text (11 lines)

> would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS > X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino > somewhere. > > Damned if it doesn't look like I was right :) > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp > > -Larry > >

All it is now is a port of BSD (kinda like Linux) to the Mac platform. Many standard Xwindows apps run on it because of that. I've heard it's quite nice, but like Windows XP, I have never seen it running on a machine before... I would be willing to bet that Apple has already taken steps to prevent the OS from being run on anything thast's not an Apple, regardless of the type of CPU they use, so I wouldn't get your hopes up too soon that it will ever be released for the PC... In article <rthc9.8669$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Ive owned a couple of powerbooks, and NEVER AGAIN!. I dont like MacOS at > all, i can understand that some people find it awesome, but its hard to > impress on someone who have taken everything for granted since using AmigaOS > :) > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Mngc9.32260$[email hidden]... > > I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that > Apple > > would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS > > X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino > > somewhere. > > > > Damned if it doesn't look like I was right :) > > > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp > > > > -Larry > > > > > > >

-- ========================================================= Redneck Techno-Biker & "programming deity" http://www.paddedwall.org/john DeMONS/1 for Nascar Racing 3 & Nascar Legends http://www.paddedwall.org/demons DeMONS/2 for Nascar Racing 4 and 2002 Season (in development) http://www.paddedwall.org/demons2 RASCAR Roster http://www.paddedwall.org/rascar Barbarian Diecast Collector (490+ cars and counting) http://www.paddedwall.org/diecast If you want to send me email, go to the first URL shown above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame. =========================================================

On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 04:07:08 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that Apple >would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS >X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino >somewhere. You could just run freeBSD or SuSE Linux and install GNUStep, all of which will be more stable and educational. =) Jason ----- GPLRank 24.50 N2002Rank -12.995

Maybe they have.. but if you remember the amiga?, it had a Macintosh emulator, which made it able to run macintosh programs. The funny thing was that the emulator was faster then a real macintosh =) "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> All it is now is a port of BSD (kinda like Linux) to the Mac platform. > Many standard Xwindows apps run on it because of that. I've heard it's > quite nice, but like Windows XP, I have never seen it running on a > machine before... > > I would be willing to bet that Apple has already taken steps to prevent > the OS from being run on anything thast's not an Apple, regardless of > the type of CPU they use, so I wouldn't get your hopes up too soon that > it will ever be released for the PC...

On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 17:10:30 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 04:07:08 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that Apple >>would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS >>X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino >>somewhere. > >You could just run freeBSD or SuSE Linux and install GNUStep, all of >which will be more stable and educational. =) > >Jason > >----- >GPLRank 24.50 >N2002Rank -12.995

Good thinking. Mac OS X _is_ FreeBSD (v.4.4 to be precise) http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/unix.html /petern

From someone who has Win2K, Win XP Pro, Linux Mandrake 8.2, and Apple OS 9 running in the home... I'd love to see Apple migrate to AMD/Intel for CPUs. We have an iBook and we love it except for one major problem - software availability and price. Gaming is a general no-go and the GF4 MX is considered "top gun". But damn Apple has the displays to kill for with the Cinema's =) -- Scott B. Husted "PA-Scott" ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Mngc9.32260$[email hidden]... > I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that Apple > would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS > X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino > somewhere. > > Damned if it doesn't look like I was right :) > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp > > -Larry > >

You obviously haven't used OS X. It's NOT the same thing. -Larry P.S. The Classic MacOS wasn't that bad either.... "Andreas Nystrom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rthc9.8669$[email hidden]... > Ive owned a couple of powerbooks, and NEVER AGAIN!. I dont like MacOS at > all, i can understand that some people find it awesome, but its hard to > impress on someone who have taken everything for granted since usingAmigaOS

Quoted text (20 lines)

> :) > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Mngc9.32260$[email hidden]... > > I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that > Apple > > would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS > > X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino > > somewhere. > > > > Damned if it doesn't look like I was right :) > > > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp > > > > -Larry > > > > > >

And you base the more stable comment on what ? -Larry "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 04:07:08 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year thatApple

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS > >X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino > >somewhere. > > You could just run freeBSD or SuSE Linux and install GNUStep, all of > which will be more stable and educational. =) > > Jason > > ----- > GPLRank 24.50 > N2002Rank -12.995

Could just be leverage to keep Motorola honest. Or they could get out of hardware altogether. It definitely gives them more options to deal with whatever the future may bring. Jim Larry wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that Apple >would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS >X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino >somewhere. > >Damned if it doesn't look like I was right :) > >http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp > >-Larry > >

The only thing more stable than freeBSD 4.x (or 3.x for that matter) is Solaris 8 running on an ultraSPARC. Most distributions of linux can be nearly as stable if administered by someone with a clue. Unfortunately that's relatively rare. Jason On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 01:20:11 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

>And you base the more stable comment on what ? > >-Larry > >"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 04:07:08 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that >Apple >> >would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS >> >X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino >> >somewhere. >> >> You could just run freeBSD or SuSE Linux and install GNUStep, all of >> which will be more stable and educational. =) >> >> Jason >> >> ----- >> GPLRank 24.50 >> N2002Rank -12.995 > >

----- GPLRank 24.50 N2002Rank -12.995

True,, I already run nix varient at home,, Mandrake 8 to be specific,, its the Aqua interface that I want... :-) On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 17:10:30 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 04:07:08 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that Apple >>would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS >>X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino >>somewhere. > >You could just run freeBSD or SuSE Linux and install GNUStep, all of >which will be more stable and educational. =) > >Jason > >----- >GPLRank 24.50 >N2002Rank -12.995

On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 17:10:30 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 04:07:08 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that Apple >>would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS >>X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino >>somewhere. > >You could just run freeBSD or SuSE Linux and install GNUStep, all of >which will be more stable and educational. =)

Mac OSX 10.2 runs quite fine here though. Would be VERY nice if we could update our Intel machines for a choice of 2 OSes and Windows. ;-) (although Mac programming does show legacy crap completely in the middle of new API's; bad). Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

In article <z0zc9.33219$[email hidden]>, "Larry" <[email hidden]> writes: >You obviously haven't used OS X. It's NOT the same thing. I like OSX even *less* than OS 9...and I've used both. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+8.03 N2002 Rank:+20.124 Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 10:29:18 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) wrote: >(although Mac programming does show legacy crap completely in the >middle of new API's; bad). I haven't been following lately, but isn't most Mac OS X development still being done in native PowerPC API's? Jason ----- GPLRank 24.50 N2002Rank -12.995

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 10:29:18 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) wrote: >Mac OSX 10.2 runs quite fine here though. >Would be VERY nice if we could update our Intel machines for a choice >of 2 OSes and Windows. ;-) I view Mac OS X like I do BeOS. There's nothing that can be done with it that can't be done better elsewhere. Want gaming, get Win32. Want an easy-to-use development platform, get SuSE. Want to serve content with performance and stability get FreeBSD. Want to spend a pile of cash on proprietary hardware, get a Sunfire. =) Jason ----- GPLRank 24.50 N2002Rank -12.995

Yes, it was FreeBSD 4.3 prior to MacOS X 1.2 (Jaguaur). They went to 4.4 in Jaguar. -Larry "Peter Nilsson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 17:10:30 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > wrote: > > >On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 04:07:08 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >>I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year thatApple

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >>would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS > >>X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino > >>somewhere. > > > >You could just run freeBSD or SuSE Linux and install GNUStep, all of > >which will be more stable and educational. =) > > > >Jason > > > >----- > >GPLRank 24.50 > >N2002Rank -12.995 > > > Good thinking. Mac OS X _is_ FreeBSD (v.4.4 to be precise) > http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/unix.html > > /petern

I don't know how, but Apple seems to get more mileage out of the MX chipsets than you would think. I agree though, I don't like the choice of the GF4 MX in particular. Their other MX choices in the past have been fine. -Larry "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:akua0i$vfv$[email hidden]... > From someone who has Win2K, Win XP Pro, Linux Mandrake 8.2, and Apple OS 9 > running in the home... I'd love to see Apple migrate to AMD/Intel forCPUs. > > We have an iBook and we love it except for one major problem - software > availability and price. Gaming is a general no-go and the GF4 MX is > considered "top gun". But damn Apple has the displays to kill for withthe

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Cinema's =) > > -- > Scott B. Husted > "PA-Scott" > ICQ# 4395450 > http://www.Husted.cc > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Mngc9.32260$[email hidden]... > > I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that > Apple > > would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS > > X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino > > somewhere. > > > > Damned if it doesn't look like I was right :) > > > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp > > > > -Larry > > > > > >

Motorola is a lost cause. I think Apple is starting to see this. -Larry "The Carvalho Family" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Could just be leverage to keep Motorola honest. Or they could get out of > hardware altogether. It definitely gives them more options to deal with > whatever the future may bring. > Jim > > Larry wrote: > > >I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that

Apple

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS > >X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino > >somewhere. > > > >Damned if it doesn't look like I was right :) > > > >http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp > > > >-Larry > > > > >

Again, WHAT are you basing this on? I assume you have some document or URL that investigates MacOS X and Linux side-by-side in an exhaustive test that proves in some way that Linux is more stable than MacOS X ? -Larry "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (39 lines)

> The only thing more stable than freeBSD 4.x (or 3.x for that matter) > is Solaris 8 running on an ultraSPARC. > > Most distributions of linux can be nearly as stable if administered by > someone with a clue. Unfortunately that's relatively rare. > > Jason > > On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 01:20:11 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >And you base the more stable comment on what ? > > > >-Larry > > > >"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 04:07:08 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> > >> >I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year that > >Apple > >> >would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS > >> >X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino > >> >somewhere. > >> > >> You could just run freeBSD or SuSE Linux and install GNUStep, all of > >> which will be more stable and educational. =) > >> > >> Jason > >> > >> ----- > >> GPLRank 24.50 > >> N2002Rank -12.995 > > > > > > > ----- > GPLRank 24.50 > N2002Rank -12.995

Ruud, That 'Legacy Crap' should be ok. The ONLY thing left over from the past is fully Carbonized and compliant with the necessary buzz-words, i.e. Multi-Tasking and Multi-Threading. The Carbon Library is essential to the smooth transition from MacOS 9 to MacOS X. Without it, it could have never been possible. -Larry "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 17:10:30 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > wrote: > > >On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 04:07:08 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >>I knew it. I KNEW it! I've been telling people for over a year thatApple

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >>would be stupid if they didn't maintain the x86 roots of MacOS > >>X/NextStep/OpenStep up to date in a deep dark dungeon in Cupertino > >>somewhere. > > > >You could just run freeBSD or SuSE Linux and install GNUStep, all of > >which will be more stable and educational. =) > > Mac OSX 10.2 runs quite fine here though. > Would be VERY nice if we could update our Intel machines for a choice > of 2 OSes and Windows. ;-) > > (although Mac programming does show legacy crap completely in the > middle of new API's; bad). > > Ruud van Gaal > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 13:29:57 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 10:29:18 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) >wrote: > >>(although Mac programming does show legacy crap completely in the >>middle of new API's; bad). > >I haven't been following lately, but isn't most Mac OS X development >still being done in native PowerPC API's?

I'm not sure; haven't been programming these Macs for long (month or 2?). :) But old API calls like GetFNum() are intertwined with later FMGetFontFamilyFromID() type stuff, which all just point a bit to eachother, sometimes with 'you shouldn't use this function anymore' and that sort of stuff, without explaining the workarounds. I use Unix functions a lot, and for windowing and such I use AGL/CGL (CoreGraphics) and such. CGL is new for OSX but AGL and the windowing calls aren't. Doesn't really matter; an API is an API, and if designed carefully is useful and clear for decades almost. However, it seems the Mac has tried some new steps here & there, and stopped halfway without really a new API taking over from an old one (so you get ugly mixes and pray it's forward & backward compatible). Ofcourse, in contrast, every MS API is over-verbose and not really fit for a programmer; more for a machine. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

It depends on the type of Application you are writing. If it is a Cocoa (Pure MacOS X application) then it does not use any API's from the CarbonLib. If it is a Carbon Application, which gives it full compatibility with both MacOS 9 AND MacOS X then it, of course, uses some Legacy API's. However, those API's are fully compliant with the MacOS X OS, including M-Tasking and M-Threading. Any API's from MacOS 9 that were not compliant have been removed and in most cases compliant alternatives provided. Full Cocoa apps are the future. The CarbonLib is the transitional Layer and will be around for several years. As time goes on, there will be fewer and fewer uses for it. Apple knows how to transition users from one technology to another. The did what some called impossible in 1993-1994 (the transition from 680x0 to PPC), and they are doing a great job of it in the transition from Mac Classic to X. -Larry "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 10:29:18 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) > wrote: > > >(although Mac programming does show legacy crap completely in the > >middle of new API's; bad). > > I haven't been following lately, but isn't most Mac OS X development > still being done in native PowerPC API's? > > Jason > > ----- > GPLRank 24.50 > N2002Rank -12.995

You might want to support YOUR family users on Linux, but I'll pass thank you :) I installed MacOS X on my sisters iMac about 4 months ago. She has been using Mac's for about 8 years. I have not received a SINGLE call for help yet. If I would hve moved her to Linux, I would have had to have a dedicated phone line between our houses installed :) You know damned well that the technologies you speak of are not ready for the average desktop, and it is questionable if they ever will be. MacOS X or Windows XP are the only true choices for the AVERAGE computer user out there. Not everyone is a geek :) -Larry "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 10:29:18 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) > wrote: > > >Mac OSX 10.2 runs quite fine here though. > >Would be VERY nice if we could update our Intel machines for a choice > >of 2 OSes and Windows. ;-) > > I view Mac OS X like I do BeOS. There's nothing that can be done with > it that can't be done better elsewhere. Want gaming, get Win32. Want > an easy-to-use development platform, get SuSE. Want to serve content > with performance and stability get FreeBSD. Want to spend a pile of > cash on proprietary hardware, get a Sunfire. =) > > Jason > > ----- > GPLRank 24.50 > N2002Rank -12.995

There is no doubt there is some transitional 'pain' for long-time Mac Classic users. However, in the long run, learning MacOS X can bring nothing but good things. I've been using Mac's for 18 years. I'm also Apple Certified in every certification they have. But, I've also been using PC's for the same length of time. I'm also an MCP. Personally, the experience I've got with the Windows platform (especially 2K and XP) has been FAR more benificial in my use and acceptance of MacOS X than the Classic MacOS has. It's odd, but IMHO the design philosophies in 2K/XP better prepare a user for MacOS X than MacClassic does. -Larry "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> In article <z0zc9.33219$[email hidden]>, "Larry" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >You obviously haven't used OS X. It's NOT the same thing. > > I like OSX even *less* than OS 9...and I've used both. > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+8.03 > N2002 Rank:+20.124 > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Absolutely true. I'd consider myself an 'above average' computer user (not a pure Geek though <G>) and I like Linux - but even for me, if you don't use it very regularly you forget all the commands you use to do something, etc. The average "Joe" would be lost very quickly. My interest in Linux is more 'recreational' though and for self interest more than anything else. It can get very confusing if you don't take the time to learn all the commands. Although releases such as Mandrake have improved the situation greatly, you still need to know your commands to get around Linux and accomplish the same things you can in Windows/Mac interface environments. I always forget how I did something in Linux and have to pull out my 3-ring binders of notes or a book for reference. Not to mention the fun I had with SAMBA on my home network. -- Scott B. Husted "PA-Scott" ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:qLLc9.34801$[email hidden]... > You might want to support YOUR family users on Linux, but I'll pass thank > you :) > > I installed MacOS X on my sisters iMac about 4 months ago. She has been > using Mac's for about 8 years. > > I have not received a SINGLE call for help yet. > > If I would hve moved her to Linux, I would have had to have a dedicated > phone line between our houses installed :) > > You know damned well that the technologies you speak of are not ready for > the average desktop, and it is questionable if they ever will be. > > MacOS X or Windows XP are the only true choices for the AVERAGE computer > user out there. Not everyone is a geek :) > > -Larry >

The dead API's were killed off because they could not be carbonized for one reason or another. -Larry "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (36 lines)

> On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 13:29:57 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) > wrote: > > >On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 10:29:18 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) > >wrote: > > > >>(although Mac programming does show legacy crap completely in the > >>middle of new API's; bad). > > > >I haven't been following lately, but isn't most Mac OS X development > >still being done in native PowerPC API's? > > I'm not sure; haven't been programming these Macs for long (month or > 2?). :) > But old API calls like GetFNum() are intertwined with later > FMGetFontFamilyFromID() type stuff, which all just point a bit to > eachother, sometimes with 'you shouldn't use this function anymore' > and that sort of stuff, without explaining the workarounds. > > I use Unix functions a lot, and for windowing and such I use AGL/CGL > (CoreGraphics) and such. CGL is new for OSX but AGL and the windowing > calls aren't. > > Doesn't really matter; an API is an API, and if designed carefully is > useful and clear for decades almost. However, it seems the Mac has > tried some new steps here & there, and stopped halfway without really > a new API taking over from an old one (so you get ugly mixes and pray > it's forward & backward compatible). > > Ofcourse, in contrast, every MS API is over-verbose and not really fit > for a programmer; more for a machine. > > > Ruud van Gaal > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 15:48:38 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You might want to support YOUR family users on Linux, but I'll pass thank >you :) Have you tried SuSE 7 or 8? I can't imagine anyone finding an OS to be more user friendly than the latest versions of SuSE, and since it doesn't use lame proprietary daemons like Root Hat/Mandrake to provide the userfriendliness, you're not compromising the system integrity or stability. I dunno, I also believe a computer is a tool used to accomplish specific tasks, and for each task there is a hardware/software combination best suited for the job. Unfortunately, most people (well, Americans) seem to buy computers without really knowing why they're buying one. It could be a $2000 hula hoop, capri pants, or an American flag to stick in their SUV window for all they know. For what most people use a computer for, there's no reason for them to run anything besides Windows XP. It's the superior choice for entertainment, which is what most people tend to use their home PC's for, myself included. I think I've run linux as my second OS for a total of maybe 3 months in my life, the last being over a year ago, and I always end up being the person who has to fix everyone's machine when they break something. I really don't see how people can cope with the complete illogic of Windows/Mac OS and then stumble around with the straightforward *nix variants. I guess part of the problem is that the most popular distributions of linux are the ones that seem to have a microsoft-like disregard for standards, convention, and stability (again, witness Root Hat or Mandrake), while Debian and SuSE seem to be primarily confined to people who have the experience to know that they want out of their operating systems. Then there's Slackware for people who don't realize they'd rather be using BSD. Anyway, I wouldn't recommend any unix variants to family members (except my dad, who has an IT degree) since none of them really need to accomplish the jobs that *nix excels at - network server applications, content serving, and program development - and if they did I'd point them to sun.com and tell them to buy a Sunfire. =) Jason ----- GPLRank 24.50 N2002Rank -12.995

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:08:00 -0400, "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It can get very confusing if you don't take the time to learn all the >commands. Although releases such as Mandrake have improved the situation >greatly, you still need to know your commands to get around Linux and >accomplish the same things you can in Windows/Mac interface environments. I think part of the problem is that *nix wasn't designed to perform the same functions as Windows/Mac OS. Unless you're a programmer or network/system engineer, it's not even something you need to care about, and in those cases you wouldn't have a problem wrestling with the OS. I thought I was clear that I wasn't recommending unix for the average person's desktop in my original post... Windows is the OS of choice for people who primarily use their PC's for personal entertainment. Mac OS is the OS for people who like overpriced hardware but don't have a real purpose for using a computer or they'd buy a Sunfire. =p Jason ----- GPLRank 24.50 N2002Rank -12.995

If that isn't the most over-abused phrase in the universe I don't know what is :( Despite what the rest of the world thinks Americans are made up of ALL types of people. Yeah, a few may fit your little phrase, but surely it's nothing but an ignorant generalization :) Mitch "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 15:48:38 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Snippage >Unfortunately, most people >(well, Americans)

"Ignorant Generalizations" Isn't that what "we Americans" call Europeans? ;) -- Scott B. Husted "PA-Scott" ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:TFRc9.572$[email hidden]... > ignorant generalization :) >

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 22:32:19 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Despite what the rest of the world thinks Americans are made up of ALL types >of people. Yeah, a few may fit your little phrase, but surely it's nothing >but an ignorant generalization :) This country definitely has a good standard for education in most geographical regions, but from a computer-buying standpoint I don't think most people really think the process through. People spend $2000 on powerful computers and what they actually use them for could be accomplished on a $200-300 PDA or pocket computer. Based on SUV and truck sales, I'd also imagine the same generalization would apply to car purchases as well. Jason ----- GPLRank 24.50 N2002Rank -12.995

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 15:48:38 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>You might want to support YOUR family users on Linux, but I'll pass thank >you :) > >I installed MacOS X on my sisters iMac about 4 months ago. She has been >using Mac's for about 8 years. > >I have not received a SINGLE call for help yet. > >If I would hve moved her to Linux, I would have had to have a dedicated >phone line between our houses installed :)

That seems absolutely true. My Mac here was a dream to configure, all run-of-the-mill stuff that interfaces exist for. On Linux, I can't even get my soundcard up (without spending an entire extra day probably). ;-) It just depends on what you want to do. Linux develops a bit nicer (read: faster). Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 15:41:13 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Ruud, > >That 'Legacy Crap' should be ok. The ONLY thing left over from the past is >fully Carbonized and compliant with the necessary buzz-words, i.e. >Multi-Tasking and Multi-Threading. Good to hear. :) Although it's funny to see functions like 'StillDown()'; it reminds me of SGI's IrisGL; so bleeding fast to do programs ('main(){ winopen(); }' works) but very MS-DOS-like functions ('I'm the only one on this machine'). Still, easy enough to go around, although for my games, I ofcourse do eat all processor times. ;-) Thanks, Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 16:08:42 GMT, Larry wrote: > The dead API's were killed off because they could not be carbonized for one > reason or another. > > -Larry Hi Larry, while your posts are usually both entertaining and interesting, may I suggest the following URL to you: http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html with a bit less TOFU your posts will taste even better than they do now ;-) All the best, Uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 21:30:32 GMT, jason moyer wrote: > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:08:00 -0400, "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> > > I thought I was clear that I wasn't recommending unix for the average > person's desktop in my original post... Windows is the OS of choice > for people who primarily use their PC's for personal entertainment. Hmm, right now I'm trying to set up one of my used machines (a 366MHz K6-2) for our local Kindergarten as a donation, and I am tempted to install Mandrake 9.0b4 (in fact I have done so already) and provide the kids with a really simple user interface, just two or three BIG icons on the screen, no virtual desktops, no nothing. One for a paint program, one to shut down, one for printing, one for tuxracer or Xbill (hehehe ;-) and maybe other games. That should be really simple to do with Linux / WindowMaker, but I am not so sure about Windows. Bottom side is that most "kindergarten" age applications won't run in this setup (the machine simply isn't fast enough for WINE or some other emulator), but this might be solved by using a dual boot setup? Cheers, Uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 21:24:08 GMT, jason moyer wrote: > the most popular distributions of linux are the ones that seem to have > a microsoft-like disregard for standards, convention, and stability > (again, witness Root Hat or Mandrake), while Debian and SuSE seem to > be primarily confined to people who have the experience to know that > they want out of their operating systems. Aaah, I can smell a distro flamewar in RAS! Now that's surely a sign of Linux picking up speed if enough of my racing buddies run Linux as their first or second OS to start an argument in here. Mandrake was one of the first distros to become LSB certified, did you know that? To speak of a "microsoft-like disregard" in Mandrakesoft is pure FUD IMO. Bottom line: we're all penguin lovers deep down inside. Let's work together instead of, er well, hmmm. Wait ;-) Uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 08:56:49 GMT, Ruud van Gaal wrote: > > That seems absolutely true. My Mac here was a dream to configure, all > run-of-the-mill stuff that interfaces exist for. On Linux, I can't yep, it's one hardware base that apple has to support, not the myriad of possible combinations that Windows faces (mostly with vendor support) or Linux (mostly without vendor support and re-engineered in countless community hours), so the point is a bit moot IMHO. > even get my soundcard up (without spending an entire extra day > probably). ;-) > did you try the suggestions I sent you two years ago? I never heard back ;-) cheers & all the best, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:07:21 +0200, Uwe Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> wrote: >Bottom line: we're all penguin lovers deep down inside. Let's >work together instead of, er well, hmmm. Wait ;-) I dunno, that sexy daemon that comes with secureBSD is beckoning me.... Jason ----- GPLRank 24.50 N2002Rank -12.995

On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 12:56:48 GMT, jason moyer wrote: > > I dunno, that sexy daemon that comes with secureBSD is beckoning > me.... > ooohhhh I hope he isn't going to mention the cute little plimsolls... /me faints ;-> cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 10:43:30 -0400, Jason Tennyson wrote: > > Can't argue with that. XP is so easy to use to setup new hardware, now > try installing a GF4 to Linux. Not fun in the least if you are a > relative neophyte. Yep, I am afraid you're right. However this isn't a Linux problem; as NVIDIA drivers aren't "open source" in the pure sense of many distributions, they cannot be included without "tainting" the whole package, making it impossible for the CD's to be freely downloaded and / or redistributed. That's why you have to jump through burning hoops in order to install them if you're a newbie. Cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

What your point Uwe ? -Larry "Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 16:08:42 GMT, Larry wrote: > > The dead API's were killed off because they could not be carbonized forone

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > reason or another. > > > > -Larry > > Hi Larry, > > while your posts are usually both entertaining and interesting, > may I suggest the following URL to you: > > http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html > > with a bit less TOFU your posts will taste even better than they > do now ;-) > > All the best, > > Uwe > > -- > mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) > Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ > Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) > GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Amiga went so far, that you could run a PPC AND a 68k processor in the same computer, and they did different things!. The 68k could do one thing, and the PPC another at the same time.. using different code. "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CILc9.34799$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> It depends on the type of Application you are writing. > > If it is a Cocoa (Pure MacOS X application) then it does not use any API's > from the CarbonLib. > > If it is a Carbon Application, which gives it full compatibility with both > MacOS 9 AND MacOS X then it, of course, uses some Legacy API's. > > However, those API's are fully compliant with the MacOS X OS, including > M-Tasking and M-Threading. > > Any API's from MacOS 9 that were not compliant have been removed and in

most > cases compliant alternatives provided. > > Full Cocoa apps are the future. The CarbonLib is the transitional Layerand > will be around for several years. As time goes on, there will be fewerand > fewer uses for it. > > Apple knows how to transition users from one technology to another. Thedid > what some called impossible in 1993-1994 (the transition from 680x0 toPPC),

Quoted text (23 lines)

> and they are doing a great job of it in the transition from Mac Classic to > X. > > -Larry > > "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 10:29:18 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) > > wrote: > > > > >(although Mac programming does show legacy crap completely in the > > >middle of new API's; bad). > > > > I haven't been following lately, but isn't most Mac OS X development > > still being done in native PowerPC API's? > > > > Jason > > > > ----- > > GPLRank 24.50 > > N2002Rank -12.995 > >

On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 23:36:18 GMT, Larry wrote: > What your point Uwe ? > > -Larry Hi Larry, I was trying to point you to a document which describes how to quote on USENET as to not waste everyone's time and bandwith. I was serious about your posts usually being very interesting, and I enjoy reading them a lot. I would enjoy them even more if they contained less TOFU (the term will be explained in the document below). If you can find some time please read the article at http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html this also pertains to others, and while I really don't like playing NETKOP a little reminder once in a while can't hurt, can it? As usual I would have preferred replying by email, but I suspect that the [email hidden] address from your posts will bounce... Cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:09:59 +0200, Uwe Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 08:56:49 GMT, Ruud van Gaal wrote: > >> >> That seems absolutely true. My Mac here was a dream to configure, all >> run-of-the-mill stuff that interfaces exist for. On Linux, I can't > >yep, it's one hardware base that apple has to support, not the >myriad of possible combinations that Windows faces (mostly with >vendor support) or Linux (mostly without vendor support and >re-engineered in countless community hours), so the point is a >bit moot IMHO.

Well, one hardware config is a design in itself, I'd say. More expensive, but less cumbersome. Which is something you could choose for. Less flexibility, but less problems. Good enough for some specialized applications. You just want too much control on your hardware. ;-) >> even get my soundcard up (without spending an entire extra day >> probably). ;-) > >did you try the suggestions I sent you two years ago? I never >heard back ;-) Hm, do you still have those suggestions somewhere? ;-) Don't think I tried those. Never was a problem running without sound actually, until I added the helicopter view. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

I have my own style, but just for you I will try to improve :) -Larry "Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 23:36:18 GMT, Larry wrote: > > What your point Uwe ? > > > > -Larry > > Hi Larry, > > I was trying to point you to a document which describes how to > quote on USENET as to not waste everyone's time and bandwith. > > I was serious about your posts usually being very interesting, > and I enjoy reading them a lot. I would enjoy them even more if > they contained less TOFU (the term will be explained in the > document below).

On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:58:03 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) wrote: >Hm, do you still have those suggestions somewhere? ;-) >Don't think I tried those. Never was a problem running without sound >actually, until I added the helicopter view. Don't blame the OS if your buggy software won't work. =) *hiding* Jason ----- GPLRank 24.50 N2002Rank -12.995

On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 21:18:58 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:58:03 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) >wrote: > >>Hm, do you still have those suggestions somewhere? ;-) >>Don't think I tried those. Never was a problem running without sound >>actually, until I added the helicopter view. > >Don't blame the OS if your buggy software won't work. =) > >*hiding*

*Throws big shoe* ;-) I just need a non-Plug&Play board, that's all. Something where the interrupts are known, just like in the old days, where you still had some control over your hardware. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Sorry. I post from a Win2K Server Machine using Outlook Express, via a Terminal Server. Was that a backfire I heard? :) -Larry "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:58:03 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) > wrote: > > >Hm, do you still have those suggestions somewhere? ;-) > >Don't think I tried those. Never was a problem running without sound > >actually, until I added the helicopter view. > > Don't blame the OS if your buggy software won't work. =) > > *hiding* > > Jason > > ----- > GPLRank 24.50 > N2002Rank -12.995

On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 13:27:30 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 21:18:58 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) >wrote: > >>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:58:03 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) >>wrote: >> >>>Hm, do you still have those suggestions somewhere? ;-) >>>Don't think I tried those. Never was a problem running without sound >>>actually, until I added the helicopter view. >> >>Don't blame the OS if your buggy software won't work. =) >> >>*hiding* > >*Throws big shoe* > >;-) > >I just need a non-Plug&Play board, that's all. Something where the >interrupts are known, just like in the old days, where you still had >some control over your hardware. >

You still do, if you know how to do it... My mainboard's BIOS will allow me to specify (a) whether Plug'n'Pray should be active or not and (b) which interrupt to manually assign to each and every slot (AGP/PCI/ISA). Deactivating PnP and manually setting IRQs has solved lots of problems, mainly with ISA Ethernet cards, on more than one computer I've had to check. Or you can buy an old card for a very cheap price on eBay, if you think that's going to be the solution... -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

No, that was the sound of a virus sending email to everyone in your address book. =) PINE 4EVAH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jason (CART SIM <-- should add this to his .sig) On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 19:04:26 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

>Sorry. I post from a Win2K Server Machine using Outlook Express, via a >Terminal Server. > >Was that a backfire I heard? > >:) > >-Larry > >"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:58:03 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) >> wrote: >> >> >Hm, do you still have those suggestions somewhere? ;-) >> >Don't think I tried those. Never was a problem running without sound >> >actually, until I added the helicopter view. >> >> Don't blame the OS if your buggy software won't work. =) >> >> *hiding* >> >> Jason >> >> ----- >> GPLRank 24.50 >> N2002Rank -12.995 > >

----- GPLRank 24.50 N2002Rank -12.995

On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 14:13:00 -0500, machf <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (30 lines)

>On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 13:27:30 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) wrote: > >>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 21:18:58 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) >>wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:58:03 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Hm, do you still have those suggestions somewhere? ;-) >>>>Don't think I tried those. Never was a problem running without sound >>>>actually, until I added the helicopter view. >>> >>>Don't blame the OS if your buggy software won't work. =) >>> >>>*hiding* >> >>*Throws big shoe* >> >>;-) >> >>I just need a non-Plug&Play board, that's all. Something where the >>interrupts are known, just like in the old days, where you still had >>some control over your hardware. >> >You still do, if you know how to do it... >My mainboard's BIOS will allow me to specify (a) whether Plug'n'Pray >should be active or not and (b) which interrupt to manually assign to >each and every slot (AGP/PCI/ISA). Deactivating PnP and manually >setting IRQs has solved lots of problems, mainly with ISA Ethernet >cards, on more than one computer I've had to check.

I'll look into that, thanks. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

For those that were hoping that the IBM Power4 Desktop version being introduced in October would be Apple's saviour, I have potentially bad news. I just caught this over at www.macrumors.com. If true, Apple is quickly running out of options. Motorola is a lost cause, so that's not the answer. The x86 project is looking more likely as time goes on. Bring on Marklar! -Larry "IBM PPC => No Altivec? The following was published to a public Apple mailing list: I attended a briefing today on IBM's high performance computing technology, which is hinged on their Power4 CPU (this CPU has awesome performance in the various real-world benchmarks I have seen). After the briefing, I asked the presenter (a chief engineering manager from IBM) about the Power4 derivative for desktops and low end servers to be announced in October. You may recall that there has been speculation that this CPU would find its way into PowerMacs in the future. Well, it sounds like this CPU is not in Apple's future -- the "over 160" vector instructions are not AltiVec (even though AltiVec has 162 instructions), and there are technical issues that would prevent AltiVec from ever marrying with Power4 or its successors. Furthermore, the guy came right out and said that they have pitched the desktop Power4 to Apple, but Apple was not interested. So, although Power4-based PowerMacs seemed like a promising (and likely) possibility, it looks like it won't happen. I guess we will have to wait and see what Apple has in store for the future . . . . "

In article <VYLc9.34810$[email hidden]>, "Larry" <[email hidden]> writes: >There is no doubt there is some transitional 'pain' for long-time Mac >Classic users. > >However, in the long run, learning MacOS X can bring nothing but good >things. I'm a 'long time' Classic user in time only, not quantity. I use PCs. > >It's odd, but IMHO the design philosophies in 2K/XP better prepare a user >for MacOS X than MacClassic does. I'm not big on 2K/XP either. Curious...<g>

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >-Larry > >"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> In article <z0zc9.33219$[email hidden]>, "Larry" >> <[email hidden]> writes: >> >> >You obviously haven't used OS X. It's NOT the same thing. >> >> I like OSX even *less* than OS 9...and I've used both.

Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+8.03 N2002 Rank:+20.124 Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Gotta say Eldred, if youre not using XP youre really missing out on the best product MS has *EVER* released, bar none, IMO :-) $99 is a steal. Hell, I've had XP running for 3 months without a reboot or performance degradation. Tell me youve done the same with 98?.. Mitch "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm not big on 2K/XP either. Curious...<g> > > >

In article <QKie9.944$[email hidden]>, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> writes: >Gotta say Eldred, if youre not using XP youre really missing out on the best >product MS has *EVER* released, bar none, IMO :-) $99 is a steal. Hell, >I've had XP running for 3 months without a reboot or performance >degradation. Tell me youve done the same with 98?.. Nope, I can't say that. But then again, I don't have a NEED to leave my system on for 3 months straight. :-) Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+8.03 N2002 Rank:+20.124 Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 08:26:24 GMT, Mitch_A wrote: > I've had XP running for 3 months without a reboot or performance > degradation. Tell me youve done the same with 98?.. No, you don't. You shut it down after you've raced your races and played your games. Saves power, you know. Then, you do your day-to-day stuff on a Linux/BSD box. Don't even get me started about "uptime records" ;-) Best, Uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On 07 Sep 2002 14:14:41 GMT, EldredP wrote: > Nope, I can't say that. But then again, I don't have a NEED to leave my system > on for 3 months straight. :-) Well said, Eldred. League races are every other week, right? ;-) Cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On 07 Sep 2002 14:14:41 GMT, EldredP wrote: >> Nope, I can't say that. But then again, I don't have a NEED to leave my >system >> on for 3 months straight. :-) > >Well said, Eldred. League races are every other week, right? ;-) >

Well, I'm in enough leagues that I end up racing EVERY week. But I shut my system off each night, unless I'm downloading something. Even when I had a Novell server running I turned it off when it wasn't in use. Saves energy, y'know... :-) Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+8.03 N2002 Rank:+20.124 Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 23:23:07 +0200, Uwe Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> wrote: >No, you don't. You shut it down after you've raced your races >and played your games. Saves power, you know. Then, you do >your day-to-day stuff on a Linux/BSD box. Don't even get me >started about "uptime records" ;-) One of my former coworkers at a previous job (and a great friend of mine) had an Ultra 5 development machine that had 400 days of uptime when he quit, even surviving a move between offices across the city. Honestly, to this day I'm not sure if the machine has been shut down since early 2000. Last time I checked, about 6 months ago (well after he quit) it was still up and being used for development and qmail testing since it had all of his modified qmail source code on it. I'd like to see a Windows 2000 or XP machine, in a production environment, pull off 2-3 year uptimes... Hell, I'd be happy if you could run a pair of Win2k boxes behind a local director without ISS refusing to run every day or two. Jason ----- GPLRank 24.50 N2002Rank -12.995

On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 00:37:20 GMT, jason moyer wrote: > One of my former coworkers at a previous job (and a great friend of > mine) had an Ultra 5 development machine that had 400 days of uptime > when he quit, even surviving a move between offices across the city. > We had a similar situation on a Linux box (ok, it was only a Squid proxy for the company and sometimes served a round of UT) where the jiffy counter overflowed and it reported an uptime of 1 day again 8-( This must have been after near 500 days of uptime. Quite impressive for a 2.0 kernel I believe. > I'd like to see a Windows 2000 or XP machine, in a production > environment, pull off 2-3 year uptimes... Hell, I'd be happy if you They cannot. Remember you have to upgrade every two years and pay Bill and his minions his money. That's when you reboot at the latest ;-) Cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61