ot-Win XP versus W98se for sims

Hi, I just wondered if now that a lot of people are using Wins XP how it stands up against Win98se,as 6 months ago 98se was claimed to be the best.I mainly use the computer for GPL, F12001,and IL2 sturmovik,any feed back would be appreciated. TIA

"skellum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3d6a1af3$0$[email hidden]... > Hi, > I just wondered if now that a lot of people are using Wins XP how itstands > up against Win98se,as 6 months ago 98se was claimed to be the best.Imainly > use the computer for GPL, F12001,and IL2 sturmovik,any feed back would be > appreciated. > TIA > Both are just operating systems. You will begin to see some problems tho with future releases. Currently I have no sound in the demo of Live For Speed when in mulitplayer mode. This looks like it has been tracked down to a combination of Win98se and Drivers that are designed for ME or XP. Since Microsoft NO LONGER officially supports SE, you will begin to see developers who miss small items like sound calls in the multiplayer mode. However the titles you listed are all clearly se compatible...if that's what you are using...don't change. Save your bucks and buy a faster cpu. You can't go wrong changing(I almost typed upgrade but sanity returned) OS's...but you don't have any compelling reason to yet. dave henrie dave henrie

Win98se will run all current games perfectly, including LFS Demo. I'm getting about 20 emails a day (what can I say, things are slow right now) and half of them are questions about XP problems with games or hardware. If 98 does everything you want it to, stay with it for a while. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com "skellum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3d6a1af3$0$[email hidden]... > Hi, > I just wondered if now that a lot of people are using Wins XP how it stands > up against Win98se,as 6 months ago 98se was claimed to be the best.I mainly > use the computer for GPL, F12001,and IL2 sturmovik,any feed back would be > appreciated. > TIA > > >

Even though Microsoft's product cycle on Win98/Win98SE expired June 30, 2002, there still is support although it is no longer "free": http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycleconsumer.asp http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?id=fh;en-us;lifecycle Even support for Windows 95 and Windows 3.1 can still be found on msnews.microsoft.com. -- Chris H. Dave Henrie wrote: > "skellum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3d6a1af3$0$[email hidden]... >> Hi, >> I just wondered if now that a lot of people are using Wins XP how it > stands >> up against Win98se,as 6 months ago 98se was claimed to be the best.I > mainly >> use the computer for GPL, F12001,and IL2 sturmovik,any feed back >> would be appreciated. >> TIA >> > Both are just operating systems. You will begin to see some > problems tho with future releases. Currently I have no sound in the > demo of Live For Speed when in mulitplayer mode. This looks like it > has been tracked down to a combination of Win98se and Drivers that > are designed for ME or XP. Since Microsoft NO LONGER officially > supports SE, you will begin to see developers who miss small items > like sound calls in the multiplayer mode. However the titles you > listed are all clearly se compatible...if that's what you are > using...don't change. Save your bucks and buy a faster cpu. You > can't go wrong changing(I almost typed upgrade but sanity returned) > OS's...but you don't have any compelling reason to yet. dave henrie > > dave henrie

Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more compatible than XP. However, overall, I prefer XP. It runs everything I currently like to run, and it sure is a hell of a lot more stable. The only thing I don't like about XP is all the built-in crap I don't want and the digital leash they have stuck up yer butt. But, I tolerate it because the good outweighs the bad. -Larry "skellum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3d6a1af3$0$[email hidden]... > Hi, > I just wondered if now that a lot of people are using Wins XP how itstands > up against Win98se,as 6 months ago 98se was claimed to be the best.Imainly > use the computer for GPL, F12001,and IL2 sturmovik,any feed back would be > appreciated. > TIA > > >

And Windows Update is still fully functional for Win98. It's a long, LONG list, but it's still functional :) You have to be running MSIE 5 or higher to use it though. I just built a 'virtual' machine with Win98 under Connextix Virtual PC and it worked fine with Windows Update. -Larry "Chris H." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tfta9.219312$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (37 lines)

> Even though Microsoft's product cycle on Win98/Win98SE expired June 30, > 2002, there still is support although it is no longer "free": > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycleconsumer.asp > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?id=fh;en-us;lifecycle > > Even support for Windows 95 and Windows 3.1 can still be found on > msnews.microsoft.com. > -- > Chris H. > > Dave Henrie wrote: > > "skellum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3d6a1af3$0$[email hidden]... > >> Hi, > >> I just wondered if now that a lot of people are using Wins XP how it > > stands > >> up against Win98se,as 6 months ago 98se was claimed to be the best.I > > mainly > >> use the computer for GPL, F12001,and IL2 sturmovik,any feed back > >> would be appreciated. > >> TIA > >> > > Both are just operating systems. You will begin to see some > > problems tho with future releases. Currently I have no sound in the > > demo of Live For Speed when in mulitplayer mode. This looks like it > > has been tracked down to a combination of Win98se and Drivers that > > are designed for ME or XP. Since Microsoft NO LONGER officially > > supports SE, you will begin to see developers who miss small items > > like sound calls in the multiplayer mode. However the titles you > > listed are all clearly se compatible...if that's what you are > > using...don't change. Save your bucks and buy a faster cpu. You > > can't go wrong changing(I almost typed upgrade but sanity returned) > > OS's...but you don't have any compelling reason to yet. dave henrie > > > > dave henrie > >

Larry wrote: > > Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more compatible than XP. Curious, why do you refuse to run SE ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Ditto here, XP is very stable for me and runs all my games great. Don Burnette "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:umwa9.14379$[email hidden]... > Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more compatible thanXP. > > However, overall, I prefer XP. It runs everything I currently like torun,

Quoted text (17 lines)

> and it sure is a hell of a lot more stable. > > The only thing I don't like about XP is all the built-in crap I don't want > and the digital leash they have stuck up yer butt. > > But, I tolerate it because the good outweighs the bad. > > -Larry > > "skellum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3d6a1af3$0$[email hidden]... > > Hi, > > I just wondered if now that a lot of people are using Wins XP how it > stands > > up against Win98se,as 6 months ago 98se was claimed to be the best.I > mainly > > use the computer for GPL, F12001,and IL2 sturmovik,any feed back would

be

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > appreciated. > > TIA > > > > > > > > >

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:07:37 GMT, Chris H. <[email hidden]> wrote: > Even though Microsoft's product cycle on Win98/Win98SE expired June 30, > 2002, there still is support although it is no longer "free": when was anything ms ever free and not bound by endless EULA'S? When was the last time anybody called MS tech support and actually got a solution out of them instead of finger pointing to buggy drivers by OEM's? ;-) On another note, I agree with the poster in as far that 98SE is ok for running all current games and sims, if nothing else. If you have to re-install, remember to turn off power management (my freshly installed win98se decided it was time to go into hybernation half way into my last league race, but that's another story 8-P ) Cheers & good luck, 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

Thanks Guys for your comments,forgot to mention just built a new computer,Athlon 1900,Asus AZV333 motherboard 256 ddr ram,GeForce2 TI,etc. I'm thinking of running a dual boot system,to take advantage of the newer features,anyone running similar rig would appreciate any feedback. TIA "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dBAa9.227993$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Ditto here, XP is very stable for me and runs all my games great. > > Don Burnette > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:umwa9.14379$[email hidden]... > > Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more compatible than > XP. > > > > However, overall, I prefer XP. It runs everything I currently like to > run, > > and it sure is a hell of a lot more stable. > > > > The only thing I don't like about XP is all the built-in crap I don't

want

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > and the digital leash they have stuck up yer butt. > > > > But, I tolerate it because the good outweighs the bad. > > > > -Larry > > > > "skellum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3d6a1af3$0$[email hidden]... > > > Hi, > > > I just wondered if now that a lot of people are using Wins XP how it > > stands > > > up against Win98se,as 6 months ago 98se was claimed to be the best.I > > mainly > > > use the computer for GPL, F12001,and IL2 sturmovik,any feed back would > be > > > appreciated. > > > TIA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

From what I hear it is about to get worse. Microsoft are apparently not going to sell their licenses any more. We are going to have to pay every year to lease their OS's and Apps. This of course will increase piracy, and cause people to bail out to Linux etc. BG is getting too greedy. I think he is heading in the wrong direction with this. He should be making XP cheaper, with more support, features and value etc. This would increase the amount of people that were more than willing to pay for the OS because it is such a bargain. He needs to accept that some people will pirate no matter what. Tell me, be honest guys, who out there wouldn't pay say $60 US for XP home, without all the digital collars etc, and with heaps more service, features etc. I know heaps that would rush out and buy it at Today's price straight away, If it didn't have the dog collar. Instead they are using the pirated copy of XP pro, taking the risks associated with using pirated software. Does LFS, F12002 and GPL Run on Linux yet ? :-) Darf

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I agree Larry, XP *really* pisses me off sometimes. The digital leash > is disgusting and an insult to us all. If we wanted a monopoly owned > PC we all would have bought Mac's in the first place. Maybe Mac's > really will take over one day in the near future because all I see is > MS shooting themselves in the foot with these bullying tactics they > have resorted to and Mac's really are superior. If I had to choose > between two monopolistic OS's I would take Mac. I do have Linux too > though but that doesn't run my favourite games. Same problem with > Mac's. >

You would miss out on the NTFS file-system if you'd dual boot. If there is something that you cannot run in the XP environment, probably very old hardware, that might be a reason for dual boot. There are something you should be very aware of thou; there has been all sorts of problems with XP and Ge-Force videocards. It seems that XP's memory timing is more aggressive than earlier operating systems, so many early drivers suffer from instability. In my case, I have an Asus mobo with a via chipset, and there are very few video drivers that will allow me to fly Fs2002 for more than 10 minutes before the bsod. All other games work fine. Now there are many updated drivers for chipsets, bios, video-cards, agp etc., so you should be fine. I do not want to scare you off, I just want to tell you that if you try your first games and you encounter the infinte-loop bsod, there is plenty of updates, and people who will help you. ;-) /Carl "skellum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3d6b7236$0$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Thanks Guys for your comments,forgot to mention just built a new > computer,Athlon 1900,Asus AZV333 motherboard 256 ddr ram,GeForce2 TI,etc. > I'm thinking of running a dual boot system,to take advantage of the newer > features,anyone running similar rig would appreciate any feedback. > TIA > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:dBAa9.227993$[email hidden]... > > Ditto here, XP is very stable for me and runs all my games great. > > > > Don Burnette > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:umwa9.14379$[email hidden]... > > > Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more compatible

than

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > XP. > > > > > > However, overall, I prefer XP. It runs everything I currently like to > > run, > > > and it sure is a hell of a lot more stable. > > > > > > The only thing I don't like about XP is all the built-in crap I don't > want > > > and the digital leash they have stuck up yer butt. > > > > > > But, I tolerate it because the good outweighs the bad. > > > > > > -Larry > > > > > > "skellum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:3d6a1af3$0$[email hidden]... > > > > Hi, > > > > I just wondered if now that a lot of people are using Wins XP how it > > > stands > > > > up against Win98se,as 6 months ago 98se was claimed to be the best.I > > > mainly > > > > use the computer for GPL, F12001,and IL2 sturmovik,any feed back

would

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > be > > > > appreciated. > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Goy Larsen" wrote > Curious, why do you refuse to run SE ? Maybe it's because someone at MS (jokingly) referred to it as Sucker Edition. Remember the 'shut-down bug'? When it first came out, many people couldn't shut it down. It would just restart. People wondered how a bug that obvious could get out in the released version. Don't those people at MS ever shut down their computers? My guess is, they don't. They just wait for them to crash and then hit reset. I must admit that I've been running SE on one computer now for the past 3 months, but I've had it since it came out and just refused to use it for several reasons. With all the service patches out now, though, it seems ok. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

GTX_SlotCar wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "Goy Larsen" wrote > > Curious, why do you refuse to run SE ? > > Maybe it's because someone at MS (jokingly) referred to it as Sucker > Edition. Remember the 'shut-down bug'? When it first came out, many people > couldn't shut it down. It would just restart. People wondered how a bug that > obvious could get out in the released version. Don't those people at MS ever > shut down their computers? My guess is, they don't. They just wait for them > to crash and then hit reset. > I must admit that I've been running SE on one computer now for the past 3 > months, but I've had it since it came out and just refused to use it for > several reasons. With all the service patches out now, though, it seems ok.

Ok......I still don't quite get it though, SE was an improvement over the original edition, several bugs where fixed, and although some new ones where introduced, such as the old shutdown bug from Win95, the network bug, not the shutdown/restart thing, I thought most people agreed that Win98 SE was the better of the 9x OS's ? Oh, and I also wonder what they called ME, jokingly or otherwise Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

In article <[email hidden]>, Uwe Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> writes: >On another note, I agree with the poster in as far that 98SE is >ok for running all current games and sims, if nothing else. If >you have to re-install, remember to turn off power management >(my freshly installed win98se decided it was time to go into >hybernation half way into my last league race, but that's >another story 8-P ) Well, it allowed *me* to move up one more spot... :-) I'll just have to beat you on raw SPEED at Watkins... <g,d, & r> Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+8.09 N2002 Rank:+22.329 Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <akg8ga$1iiumc$[email hidden]>, "Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> writes: >You would miss out on the NTFS file-system if you'd dual boot. >If there is something that you cannot run in the XP environment, probably >very old hardware, that might be a reason for dual boot. What's the big draw to NTFS? File security, yeah - that's useful for an office machine. But a HOME system...? I don't see it. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+8.09 N2002 Rank:+22.329 Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Performance.. The Diskeeper folks published some performance results. NTFS was fastest followed by FAT and then FAT32. The best cluster size was 4K. 512byte clusters (default for fat32) was worst. They found that a disk intensive task moved "from FAT-32 512-byte clusters to NTFS 4K-byte clusters makes the job run in one fifth the time!" Recovery.. NTFS provides the ability to recover from file system errors and perform sector sparing to remap data to good clusters and mark bad clusters as unusable. Using a method called hot fixing, every storage device write is monitored and written sectors are checked for integrity. If the verification fails, the corrupted or questionable sectors are flagged, and the data is rewritten to another sector(s) on the disk. Sector hot fixing is performed automatically by the file system and does not report error messages to any applications. NTFS also logs all changes to the file system so that changes may be undone or reapplied if a discrepancy is found or if a system failure or power loss causes damage. There are many more advantages of NTFS over Fat32/16 but most don't effect a typical home user. Disk quotas, single recycle bin, compression, encryption. Mitch "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> In article <akg8ga$1iiumc$[email hidden]>, "Carl Ribbegaardh" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >You would miss out on the NTFS file-system if you'd dual boot. > >If there is something that you cannot run in the XP environment, probably > >very old hardware, that might be a reason for dual boot. > > What's the big draw to NTFS? File security, yeah - that's useful for an

office

Quoted text (9 lines)

> machine. But a HOME system...? I don't see it. > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+8.09 > N2002 Rank:+22.329 > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:03:52 +1000, Darf wrote: > Does LFS, F12002 and GPL Run on Linux yet ? :-) GPL works using WINE, I don't know / haven't tested the others. However using WINE is only a short term solution because it still locks developers into the WIN32 API. I'd much rather see more games developed for Linux and / or any open API natively (Racer is a good example even though Ruud decided *not* to use readily available cross-platform libraries like SDL which would have saved him a lot of work IMHO). It's encouraging to see Papy still support OpenGL in their recent sims, that's the first step on the road to freedom from monopolies and proprietary API lock-in. 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

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:03:52 +1000, Darf wrote: > > > Does LFS, F12002 and GPL Run on Linux yet ? :-) > > GPL works using WINE, I don't know / haven't tested the others. > However using WINE is only a short term solution because it > still locks developers into the WIN32 API. I'd much rather see > more games developed for Linux and / or any open API natively > (Racer is a good example even though Ruud decided *not* to use > readily available cross-platform libraries like SDL which would > have saved him a lot of work IMHO). > > It's encouraging to see Papy still support OpenGL in their > recent sims, that's the first step on the road to freedom from > monopolies and proprietary API lock-in. > > Cheers, > > uwe

Don't kid yoursel. Microsoft knows this, and is currently working to kill OpenGL. It may not be widely known, or even obvious, but you can count on them wanting to see openGL dead and buried on the Windows platform because it competes with their own technology. -- ========================================================= 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 Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:27:30 GMT, John Simmons wrote: > Don't kid yoursel. Microsoft knows this, and is currently working to > kill OpenGL. So what are you going to do about it, sit back and watch your computing freedom go down the gutter??? Naaa, not me ;-) While I know I am fighting windmills, I still have hopes that we'll laugh about MS a decade from now down the road. They might still exist as a company, but hopefully not as that 900 pound gorilla they are now, *and* with better manners{1] Cheers, Uwe [1]: I'll have to remember to look this post up in google ten years from now ;-) -- 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

They never really did fix the shut-down bug. They _improved_ it, but didn't fix it. The patches they released were only partially effective. -Larry "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:akgmve$1il5d7$[email hidden]... > > "Goy Larsen" wrote > > Curious, why do you refuse to run SE ? > > Maybe it's because someone at MS (jokingly) referred to it as Sucker > Edition. Remember the 'shut-down bug'? When it first came out, manypeople > couldn't shut it down. It would just restart. People wondered how a bugthat > obvious could get out in the released version. Don't those people at MSever > shut down their computers? My guess is, they don't. They just wait forthem > to crash and then hit reset. > I must admit that I've been running SE on one computer now for the past 3 > months, but I've had it since it came out and just refused to use it for > several reasons. With all the service patches out now, though, it seemsok.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > -- > Slot > > Tweaks & Reviews > www.slottweak.com > >

Because in terms of stability and compatibility, SE can't touch the original. SE has inherent design flaws that drive me nuts and Microsoft never did fix them. The first is the ever-present shut-down hangs. The second is that deal where if you start clicking on things after startup BEFORE the hour-glass goes completely away Win98SE goes into some stupified crash-prone state that can only be resolved by restarting again and leaving it alone until the hour-glass is completely gone at startup. I've also seen far more Registry explosions with SE than the Original, and far more Driver issues. That's just a partial list. It's enough. -Larry "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Larry wrote: > > > > Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more compatible thanXP.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Curious, why do you refuse to run SE ? > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

I continue to disagree, Goy. Windows 98 Original with ALL of the patches from Windows Update is still more reliable than SE is, and with all the patches applied is pretty much just as up to date. -Larry "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> GTX_SlotCar wrote: > > > > "Goy Larsen" wrote > > > Curious, why do you refuse to run SE ? > > > > Maybe it's because someone at MS (jokingly) referred to it as Sucker > > Edition. Remember the 'shut-down bug'? When it first came out, many

people > > couldn't shut it down. It would just restart. People wondered how a bugthat > > obvious could get out in the released version. Don't those people at MSever > > shut down their computers? My guess is, they don't. They just wait forthem > > to crash and then hit reset. > > I must admit that I've been running SE on one computer now for the past3 > > months, but I've had it since it came out and just refused to use it for > > several reasons. With all the service patches out now, though, it seemsok.

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > Ok......I still don't quite get it though, SE was an improvement over > the original edition, several bugs where fixed, and although some new > ones where introduced, such as the old shutdown bug from Win95, the > network bug, not the shutdown/restart thing, I thought most people > agreed that Win98 SE was the better of the 9x OS's ? > > Oh, and I also wonder what they called ME, jokingly or otherwise > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

Frankly, in a way I agree. NTFS has it's advantages, and it's disadvantages. The worst disadvantage is the inability to get to the drive from the DOS level (yeah, I know about the third-party tools but most mom's & pop's aren't into that sort of thing). I still run NTFS though simply because I don't have a real reason not to. Of course on the Win2K servers at home they run NTFS because I _want_ the security it offers. FAT-32 is actually faster unless you load it down with tens of thousands of files. There is a point (somewhere) where NTFS starts to perform better as you add so many files. -Larry "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <akg8ga$1iiumc$[email hidden]>, "Carl Ribbegaardh" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > > What's the big draw to NTFS? File security, yeah - that's useful for anoffice

Quoted text (9 lines)

> machine. But a HOME system...? I don't see it. > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+8.09 > N2002 Rank:+22.329 > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Well, I have a Mac too (ducking) :) LCD iMac G4. I just installed Jaguar on it yesterday. While I still have gripes about the pricing system used, it's an awesome upgrade. The performance improvements alone are astonishing (if you have recent hardware, that is). MacOS X 10.2 is really a hard-core OS and it's a shame that more don't experience it. I thing that is slowly changing, though (Despite the current stupid 'switch' Ad campaign). Anyway, back to MS. WPA has pissed on me FIVE times so far. For such a 'benign' and 'If your legal it won't be a problem' technology, it sure is a pain in the ass to THIS legal user. Two, and possibly three of the times there was ZERO hardware changes made. I was simply updating drivers and it pissed on me and I had to call Microsoft to get permission again to use my paid-for operating system. That just burns me up. One time it just popped for no apparant reason. Started up,. and the stupid activation nonsense kicked in. This was months after the original installation and activation. And it triggered during one hardware change once. When I upgraded the Video card. It's not supposed to do that either. Bastards. -Larry "The Man With No Name" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:39:54 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more compatible thanXP. > > > >However, overall, I prefer XP. It runs everything I currently like torun, > >and it sure is a hell of a lot more stable. > > > >The only thing I don't like about XP is all the built-in crap I don'twant

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >and the digital leash they have stuck up yer butt. > > > >But, I tolerate it because the good outweighs the bad. > > > >-Larry > > I agree Larry, XP *really* pisses me off sometimes. The digital leash > is disgusting and an insult to us all. If we wanted a monopoly owned > PC we all would have bought Mac's in the first place. Maybe Mac's > really will take over one day in the near future because all I see is > MS shooting themselves in the foot with these bullying tactics they > have resorted to and Mac's really are superior. If I had to choose > between two monopolistic OS's I would take Mac. I do have Linux too > though but that doesn't run my favourite games. Same problem with > Mac's. >

For those that don't want Linux, but want the power and stability of Unix, don't underestimate MacOS X. Especially the just-released 10.2 (Jaguar) version. It deserves FAR more credit than it gets, but that is slowly changing over time. It gains further respect with each release, and it's truly 'ready for prime time' after the 10.2 release. -Larry "Darf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3d6b86ca$0$29912$[email hidden]... > From what I hear it is about to get worse. Microsoft are apparently not > going to sell their licenses any more. We are going to have to pay every > year to lease their OS's and Apps. > This of course will increase piracy, and cause people to bail out to Linux > etc. BG is getting too greedy. I think he is heading in the wrongdirection > with this. He should be making XP cheaper, with more support, features and > value etc. This would increase the amount of people that were more than > willing to pay for the OS because it is such a bargain. He needs to accept > that some people will pirate no matter what. > Tell me, be honest guys, who out there wouldn't pay say $60 US for XPhome, > without all the digital collars etc, and with heaps more service, features > etc. > I know heaps that would rush out and buy it at Today's price straightaway, > If it didn't have the dog collar. Instead they are using the pirated copyof

Quoted text (18 lines)

> XP pro, taking the risks associated with using pirated software. > Does LFS, F12002 and GPL Run on Linux yet ? :-) > > Darf > > > > I agree Larry, XP *really* pisses me off sometimes. The digital leash > > is disgusting and an insult to us all. If we wanted a monopoly owned > > PC we all would have bought Mac's in the first place. Maybe Mac's > > really will take over one day in the near future because all I see is > > MS shooting themselves in the foot with these bullying tactics they > > have resorted to and Mac's really are superior. If I had to choose > > between two monopolistic OS's I would take Mac. I do have Linux too > > though but that doesn't run my favourite games. Same problem with > > Mac's. > > > >

I think a certain game developer will have something to say about that. I won't mention any names, though (Carmack). -Larry "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (44 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:03:52 +1000, Darf wrote: > > > > > Does LFS, F12002 and GPL Run on Linux yet ? :-) > > > > GPL works using WINE, I don't know / haven't tested the others. > > However using WINE is only a short term solution because it > > still locks developers into the WIN32 API. I'd much rather see > > more games developed for Linux and / or any open API natively > > (Racer is a good example even though Ruud decided *not* to use > > readily available cross-platform libraries like SDL which would > > have saved him a lot of work IMHO). > > > > It's encouraging to see Papy still support OpenGL in their > > recent sims, that's the first step on the road to freedom from > > monopolies and proprietary API lock-in. > > > > Cheers, > > > > uwe > > > Don't kid yoursel. Microsoft knows this, and is currently working to > kill OpenGL. It may not be widely known, or even obvious, but you can > count on them wanting to see openGL dead and buried on the Windows > platform because it competes with their own technology. > > -- > ========================================================= > 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. > =========================================================

Why can't a port of Jaguar be developed for the X86? It is based on the Linux kernel no? Now that would be great, MS ends up falling to apple not because Apple hardware but rather an Apple OS :) WPA has gotten me numerous times also. I finally just did a base install, created an image and I'm now done with WPA. Supposedly WPA uses the vendor ID's of key hardware and should only prompt for WPA when you change 5 ID's in any re-install. Reality is quite different though. Those ad's are really annoying arent they? Gee I'm too dum to use a PC, so I use an Apple... Gimme a break Steve... Mitch "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Mstb9.25270$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Well, I have a Mac too (ducking) :) LCD iMac G4. > > I just installed Jaguar on it yesterday. While I still have gripes about > the pricing system used, it's an awesome upgrade. The performance > improvements alone are astonishing (if you have recent hardware, that is). > MacOS X 10.2 is really a hard-core OS and it's a shame that more don't > experience it. I thing that is slowly changing, though (Despite the

current

Quoted text (11 lines)

> stupid 'switch' Ad campaign). > > Anyway, back to MS. > > WPA has pissed on me FIVE times so far. For such a 'benign' and 'If your > legal it won't be a problem' technology, it sure is a pain in the ass to > THIS legal user. > > Two, and possibly three of the times there was ZERO hardware changes made. > I was simply updating drivers and it pissed on me and I had to call > Microsoft to get permission again to use my paid-for operating system.

That > just burns me up. > > One time it just popped for no apparant reason. Started up,. and thestupid > activation nonsense kicked in. This was months after the original > installation and activation. > > And it triggered during one hardware change once. When I upgraded theVideo

Quoted text (12 lines)

> card. It's not supposed to do that either. > > Bastards. > > -Larry > > > "The Man With No Name" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:39:54 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more compatible

than

Quoted text (26 lines)

> XP. > > > > > >However, overall, I prefer XP. It runs everything I currently like to > run, > > >and it sure is a hell of a lot more stable. > > > > > >The only thing I don't like about XP is all the built-in crap I don't > want > > >and the digital leash they have stuck up yer butt. > > > > > >But, I tolerate it because the good outweighs the bad. > > > > > >-Larry > > > > I agree Larry, XP *really* pisses me off sometimes. The digital leash > > is disgusting and an insult to us all. If we wanted a monopoly owned > > PC we all would have bought Mac's in the first place. Maybe Mac's > > really will take over one day in the near future because all I see is > > MS shooting themselves in the foot with these bullying tactics they > > have resorted to and Mac's really are superior. If I had to choose > > between two monopolistic OS's I would take Mac. I do have Linux too > > though but that doesn't run my favourite games. Same problem with > > Mac's. > > > >

In article <Mstb9.25267$[email hidden]>, "Larry" <[email hidden]> writes: >Because in terms of stability and compatibility, SE can't touch the >original. Are you KIDDIN' me?? > >SE has inherent design flaws that drive me nuts and Microsoft never did fix >them. > >The first is the ever-present shut-down hangs. *Rarely*... > >The second is that deal where if you start clicking on things after startup >BEFORE the hour-glass goes completely away Win98SE goes into some stupified >crash-prone state that can only be resolved by restarting again and leaving >it alone until the hour-glass is completely gone at startup. I click on stuff all the time before it's 'finished'. (I'm impatient) I haven't experiences that particular "feature". > >I've also seen far more Registry explosions with SE than the Original, and >far more Driver issues. > >That's just a partial list. It's enough. You must have had something else funky on your system. For me, SE is MUCH more stable than original 98, and it's stable enough that I don't need to upgrade my home system to 2000 yet. I won't even let XP in the flippin' DOOR.<g> Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+8.09 N2002 Rank:+22.329 Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Eldred, Not my system because I refuse to run it. I had to support 10,000 users running that POS before we made the switch to Win2K. Still have a thousand or so still running it. The shut-down and startup bugs were issues I had to work on every day, day in and day out. Believe me, I understand Win98SE :) -Larry "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> In article <Mstb9.25267$[email hidden]>, "Larry" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Because in terms of stability and compatibility, SE can't touch the > >original. > > Are you KIDDIN' me?? > > > > >SE has inherent design flaws that drive me nuts and Microsoft never did

fix

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >them. > > > >The first is the ever-present shut-down hangs. > > *Rarely*... > > > > >The second is that deal where if you start clicking on things after

startup > >BEFORE the hour-glass goes completely away Win98SE goes into somestupified > >crash-prone state that can only be resolved by restarting again andleaving

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >it alone until the hour-glass is completely gone at startup. > > I click on stuff all the time before it's 'finished'. (I'm impatient) I > haven't experiences that particular "feature". > > > > >I've also seen far more Registry explosions with SE than the Original,

and > >far more Driver issues. > > > >That's just a partial list. It's enough. > > You must have had something else funky on your system. For me, SE is MUCHmore > stable than original 98, and it's stable enough that I don't need toupgrade my

Quoted text (9 lines)

> home system to 2000 yet. I won't even let XP in the flippin' DOOR.<g> > > Eldred > -- > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank:+8.09 > N2002 Rank:+22.329 > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Mitch, You got some of it right :) MacOS X is not based on Linux. It is based on UNIX and the Mach 5 Kernal.. It uses the Mach 5 Kernal developed at Carnagie Mellon University. The designer of the Mach Kernal, Avie Tevanian, just so happens to be Apple's Chief Software Architect. That sure worked out well :) Think of Avie as Linus Torvlalds. They both created the UNIX kernal that MacOS X (Mach) and Linux (Linux) run on. On top of that is BSD Unix 4.3. On top of that is the MacOS X Interface. Yes, it can be compred to Linux, as it's design is familiar, it just uses different Kernals and Windowing systems. Of course, the stability of both is superb. There is, however, no Windowing Interface for Unix that can touch MacOS X for useability. That's why Apple has succedded in getting Unix on the home-user desktop where others have failed (so far). Now, as for porting to X86. Is it possible? Not only possible, but likely very easy to do. MacOS X is based on what was originally the NextStep/OpenStep Operating System that Steve Jobs developed for Next in the mid-80's after Apple shit-canned him. It began life, as a matter of fact, as an x86 operating system. The original versions of MacOS X Server (called Rhapsody at the time - This was before the MacOS X naming convention was initiated) was available in both PowerPC and x86 flavors. I still have both of them around here somewhere because I was a registered (but not paticularly active) developer at the time. Apple discontinued all x86 Rhapsody development at some point, and concentrated on the PowerPC/Mac platform. Which brings us to where we are today. MacOS X, as we know it today, has very little resemblance to Rhapsody. Some of the concepts are the same, but where Rhapsody mostly retained the NextStep/OpenStep interface (which wasn't bad in itself), MacOS X uses what we see as a combination of the old MacOS Classic Interface and new stuff/idea's/technologies. Most of it is great. A very little bit of it bugs people. Such is life :) So, yes. It is technically feasible. Politically, however, it is not. Apple gets 85% of it's revenue from hardware sales, and at least at this point they are not going to take a chance on messing that up. Look at what the first thing Jobs did when he took over in 1996. He discontinued the cloning program that had just barely gotten off the ground a year or so before! Do _I_ want to see MacOS X on x86? You damned right I do. What I'm about to say now is also politically incorrect if you are speaking amongst Die-Hard Mac Users, especially the more, um, 'verbal' one's. You know, the one's that treasure the stupid 'Switch' commercials :) IMHO (and many others), Motorola is NOT pulling thier weight in regards to the PowerPC. Development is just too damned slow. We are just now getting up to 1.25Ghz G4's. Now, the level-headed Mac Users amongst us, of which I hope I'm considered one, never have bought into the "PPC kicks Intels Ass and is 6 times faster at a given clock speed" horseshit. Is it faster? Absolutely. Is it 6 times faster? No way. I won't put a number on it because I'd be guessing or lying like those who say it's 6 times faster. All the benchmarks that everyone throws around are useless because the tests are massaged by one side or the other to make theirs look better. Both sides are guilty of this IMHO. But the PPC IS faster at a given clockspeed than the x86 family. That's just the way RISC is. With that in mind, SOMETHING has to be done. There are some holding hope that IBM will release a G5 processor, with Altivec (think MMX/SSE) compatible instructions. They have to use a 'compatible' set because Motorola owns Altivec exclusively and apparantly won't share it with IBM. This would allow Apple to continue on the PowerPC road. It would, of course, be the easiest road to travel. Unfortunately, I don't buy unto all this G5 stuff. I think Motorola has enough on their plate, especially in this dreadful economy we have, to be involved in this at the level that Apple NEEDS. I do hope I'm wrong about that. But, I'm certainly not the only one that feels this way. Now for the tricky part, and the part where you have to duck if you are in strict Apple Quarters :) First, Apple WILL survive. It does just fine on it's current marketshare, and has 25 million (and slowly growing, actually) users. They make a fine product that is fast, reliable and satisfies the needs of certain user groups, especially home users, content creators, and certain business/scientific segments. Personally, I think Education is a lost cause for them. Microsoft has forced their nose into this in some interesting (read that as you will) ways. I think Apple will always maintain a 20-25% of the Education Market, but never get back to the 60-70% share they used to have unless something truly spectacular happens. It doesn't help to have billions in the bank and zero long-term debt :) I firmly believe that MacOS X (and not stupid 'switch' commercials) will build Apple's Market Share slowly but surely. BUT... If Apple is to grow, and I mean seriously grow, they HAVE to do something about this processor (some real, some perceived) problem, and I personally think their salvation is... AMD. This is about the time the shit hits the fan in this conversation :) Too many people think this is just impossible. I know damned well it isn't because MacOS X's roots are based on a Kernal/OS/Layer that was, originally, x86 based. AMD is excellent at creating both processors and, more importantly, the chipsets to drive them. Some people say the developers would never go for it because they would have to re-write all thier software. These people forget that Apple has done this BEFORE, when they switched from the 680x0 processor family to the PPC processor family. If anyone could pull this off, it would be Apple. Apple is also very talented at gluing seemingly incompatible platforms together and ending up with a pretty much seemless package. Would developers have to, at a minimum, re-compile thier apps? Of course. But I've read some articles on this that would indicate it's not as hard as the die-hards make it out to be. Since some of these people were coders, I'll take their word for that. Others say that if Apple were to do this, it would put them in direct competition with Microsoft and that would kill them instantly. Again, I say horseshit. Just because Apple is using x86 processors does not mean they are going to let EVERYONE use it. No, I do believe Apple would continue to make MacOS X an APPLE ONLY operating system. They simply cannot, at this time, give up their hardware sales. Finally, the question that everyone asks everyone these days. Does Apple need Microsoft to survive? Personally, I don't think so. Office V.x is excellent, and is arguably the best version of Office for any platform that MS has ever shipped. They even think it's the best version they have ever shipped. It can, however, be replaced by someone else. I personally think the most compelling piece of software Microsoft has shipped for the Mac in a long time is also the most unlikely. The most excellent TS/RDC client they shipped at MacWorld in August. For free. This one little piece of software gave Mac OS X users full access and use of nearly every personal and business software package MS has ever written. Damn, I don't know how I got so deep into this so me go now :) -Larry "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VVwb9.122$A%[email hidden]... > Why can't a port of Jaguar be developed for the X86? It is based on the > Linux kernel no? Now that would be great, MS ends up falling to apple not > because Apple hardware but rather an Apple OS :) > > WPA has gotten me numerous times also. I finally just did a base install, > created an image and I'm now done with WPA. Supposedly WPA uses thevendor > ID's of key hardware and should only prompt for WPA when you change 5 ID's > in any re-install. Reality is quite different though. > > Those ad's are really annoying arent they? Gee I'm too dum to use a PC,so

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I use an Apple... Gimme a break Steve... > > Mitch > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Mstb9.25270$[email hidden]... > > Well, I have a Mac too (ducking) :) LCD iMac G4. > > > > I just installed Jaguar on it yesterday. While I still have gripes

about > > the pricing system used, it's an awesome upgrade. The performance > > improvements alone are astonishing (if you have recent hardware, thatis).

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > MacOS X 10.2 is really a hard-core OS and it's a shame that more don't > > experience it. I thing that is slowly changing, though (Despite the > current > > stupid 'switch' Ad campaign). > > > > Anyway, back to MS. > > > > WPA has pissed on me FIVE times so far. For such a 'benign' and 'If

your > > legal it won't be a problem' technology, it sure is a pain in the ass to > > THIS legal user. > > > > Two, and possibly three of the times there was ZERO hardware changesmade.

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > I was simply updating drivers and it pissed on me and I had to call > > Microsoft to get permission again to use my paid-for operating system. > That > > just burns me up. > > > > One time it just popped for no apparant reason. Started up,. and the > stupid > > activation nonsense kicked in. This was months after the original > > installation and activation. > > > > And it triggered during one hardware change once. When I upgraded the > Video > > card. It's not supposed to do that either. > > > > Bastards. > > > > -Larry > > > > > > "The Man With No Name" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:39:54 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more compatible > than > > XP. > > > > > > > >However, overall, I prefer XP. It runs everything I currently like

to

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > run, > > > >and it sure is a hell of a lot more stable. > > > > > > > >The only thing I don't like about XP is all the built-in crap I don't > > want > > > >and the digital leash they have stuck up yer butt. > > > > > > > >But, I tolerate it because the good outweighs the bad. > > > > > > > >-Larry > > > > > > I agree Larry, XP *really* pisses me off sometimes. The digital leash > > > is disgusting and an insult to us all. If we wanted a monopoly owned > > > PC we all would have bought Mac's in the first place. Maybe Mac's > > > really will take over one day in the near future because all I see is > > > MS shooting themselves in the foot with these bullying tactics they > > > have resorted to and Mac's really are superior. If I had to choose > > > between two monopolistic OS's I would take Mac. I do have Linux too > > > though but that doesn't run my favourite games. Same problem with > > > Mac's. > > > > > > > > >

Thanks for the info Larry :-) We may have to start calling you Tom Jr after that, hehe.. Mitch "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:H9Ab9.26496$[email hidden]... > Mitch, > > You got some of it right :) > > MacOS X is not based on Linux. It is based on UNIX and the Mach 5Kernal..

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > It uses the Mach 5 Kernal developed at Carnagie Mellon University. The > designer of the Mach Kernal, Avie Tevanian, just so happens to be Apple's > Chief Software Architect. That sure worked out well :) > > Think of Avie as Linus Torvlalds. They both created the UNIX kernal that > MacOS X (Mach) and Linux (Linux) run on. > > On top of that is BSD Unix 4.3. > > On top of that is the MacOS X Interface. > > Yes, it can be compred to Linux, as it's design is familiar, it just uses > different Kernals and Windowing systems. > > Of course, the stability of both is superb. There is, however, no

Windowing > Interface for Unix that can touch MacOS X for useability. That's whyApple > has succedded in getting Unix on the home-user desktop where others have > failed (so far). > > Now, as for porting to X86. Is it possible? Not only possible, butlikely

Quoted text (8 lines)

> very easy to do. > > MacOS X is based on what was originally the NextStep/OpenStep Operating > System that Steve Jobs developed for Next in the mid-80's after Apple > shit-canned him. It began life, as a matter of fact, as an x86 operating > system. > > The original versions of MacOS X Server (called Rhapsody at the time -

This > was before the MacOS X naming convention was initiated) was available in > both PowerPC and x86 flavors. I still have both of them around here > somewhere because I was a registered (but not paticularly active)developer

Quoted text (7 lines)

> at the time. > > Apple discontinued all x86 Rhapsody development at some point, and > concentrated on the PowerPC/Mac platform. > > Which brings us to where we are today. MacOS X, as we know it today, has > very little resemblance to Rhapsody. Some of the concepts are the same,

but > where Rhapsody mostly retained the NextStep/OpenStep interface (whichwasn't

Quoted text (7 lines)

> bad in itself), MacOS X uses what we see as a combination of the old MacOS > Classic Interface and new stuff/idea's/technologies. Most of it is great. > A very little bit of it bugs people. Such is life :) > > So, yes. It is technically feasible. Politically, however, it is not. > Apple gets 85% of it's revenue from hardware sales, and at least at this > point they are not going to take a chance on messing that up. Look at

what

Quoted text (7 lines)

> the first thing Jobs did when he took over in 1996. He discontinued the > cloning program that had just barely gotten off the ground a year or so > before! > > Do _I_ want to see MacOS X on x86? You damned right I do. > > What I'm about to say now is also politically incorrect if you are

speaking > amongst Die-Hard Mac Users, especially the more, um, 'verbal' one's. You > know, the one's that treasure the stupid 'Switch' commercials :) > > IMHO (and many others), Motorola is NOT pulling thier weight in regards to > the PowerPC. Development is just too damned slow. We are just nowgetting > up to 1.25Ghz G4's. Now, the level-headed Mac Users amongst us, of whichI > hope I'm considered one, never have bought into the "PPC kicks Intels Ass > and is 6 times faster at a given clock speed" horseshit. Is it faster? > Absolutely. Is it 6 times faster? No way. I won't put a number on it > because I'd be guessing or lying like those who say it's 6 times faster. > All the benchmarks that everyone throws around are useless because thetests > are massaged by one side or the other to make theirs look better. Both > sides are guilty of this IMHO. But the PPC IS faster at a givenclockspeed

Quoted text (24 lines)

> than the x86 family. That's just the way RISC is. > > With that in mind, SOMETHING has to be done. There are some holding hope > that IBM will release a G5 processor, with Altivec (think MMX/SSE) > compatible instructions. They have to use a 'compatible' set because > Motorola owns Altivec exclusively and apparantly won't share it with IBM. > This would allow Apple to continue on the PowerPC road. It would, of > course, be the easiest road to travel. > > Unfortunately, I don't buy unto all this G5 stuff. I think Motorola has > enough on their plate, especially in this dreadful economy we have, to be > involved in this at the level that Apple NEEDS. > > I do hope I'm wrong about that. But, I'm certainly not the only one that > feels this way. > > Now for the tricky part, and the part where you have to duck if you are in > strict Apple Quarters :) > > First, Apple WILL survive. It does just fine on it's current marketshare, > and has 25 million (and slowly growing, actually) users. They make a fine > product that is fast, reliable and satisfies the needs of certain user > groups, especially home users, content creators, and certain > business/scientific segments. Personally, I think Education is a lost

cause > for them. Microsoft has forced their nose into this in some interesting > (read that as you will) ways. I think Apple will always maintain a 20-25% > of the Education Market, but never get back to the 60-70% share they usedto

Quoted text (18 lines)

> have unless something truly spectacular happens. > > It doesn't help to have billions in the bank and zero long-term debt :) > > I firmly believe that MacOS X (and not stupid 'switch' commercials) will > build Apple's Market Share slowly but surely. > > BUT... > > If Apple is to grow, and I mean seriously grow, they HAVE to do something > about this processor (some real, some perceived) problem, and I personally > think their salvation is... > > AMD. > > This is about the time the shit hits the fan in this conversation :) > > Too many people think this is just impossible. I know damned well it

isn't > because MacOS X's roots are based on a Kernal/OS/Layer that was,originally, > x86 based. AMD is excellent at creating both processors and, more > importantly, the chipsets to drive them. > > Some people say the developers would never go for it because they wouldhave > to re-write all thier software. These people forget that Apple has done > this BEFORE, when they switched from the 680x0 processor family to the PPC > processor family. If anyone could pull this off, it would be Apple.Apple > is also very talented at gluing seemingly incompatible platforms together > and ending up with a pretty much seemless package. > > Would developers have to, at a minimum, re-compile thier apps? Of course. > But I've read some articles on this that would indicate it's not as hardas > the die-hards make it out to be. Since some of these people were coders, > I'll take their word for that. > > Others say that if Apple were to do this, it would put them in direct > competition with Microsoft and that would kill them instantly. Again, Isay > horseshit. Just because Apple is using x86 processors does not mean they > are going to let EVERYONE use it. No, I do believe Apple would continueto > make MacOS X an APPLE ONLY operating system. They simply cannot, at this > time, give up their hardware sales. > > Finally, the question that everyone asks everyone these days. Does Apple > need Microsoft to survive? Personally, I don't think so. Office V.x is > excellent, and is arguably the best version of Office for any platformthat > MS has ever shipped. They even think it's the best version they have ever > shipped. It can, however, be replaced by someone else. > > I personally think the most compelling piece of software Microsoft has > shipped for the Mac in a long time is also the most unlikely. The most > excellent TS/RDC client they shipped at MacWorld in August. For free.This

Quoted text (12 lines)

> one little piece of software gave Mac OS X users full access and use of > nearly every personal and business software package MS has ever written. > > Damn, I don't know how I got so deep into this so me go now :) > > -Larry > > > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:VVwb9.122$A%[email hidden]... > > Why can't a port of Jaguar be developed for the X86? It is based on the > > Linux kernel no? Now that would be great, MS ends up falling to apple

not > > because Apple hardware but rather an Apple OS :) > > > > WPA has gotten me numerous times also. I finally just did a baseinstall, > > created an image and I'm now done with WPA. Supposedly WPA uses the > vendor > > ID's of key hardware and should only prompt for WPA when you change 5ID's

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > in any re-install. Reality is quite different though. > > > > Those ad's are really annoying arent they? Gee I'm too dum to use a PC, > so > > I use an Apple... Gimme a break Steve... > > > > Mitch > > > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Mstb9.25270$[email hidden]... > > > Well, I have a Mac too (ducking) :) LCD iMac G4. > > > > > > I just installed Jaguar on it yesterday. While I still have gripes > about > > > the pricing system used, it's an awesome upgrade. The performance > > > improvements alone are astonishing (if you have recent hardware, that > is). > > > MacOS X 10.2 is really a hard-core OS and it's a shame that more don't > > > experience it. I thing that is slowly changing, though (Despite the > > current > > > stupid 'switch' Ad campaign). > > > > > > Anyway, back to MS. > > > > > > WPA has pissed on me FIVE times so far. For such a 'benign' and 'If > your > > > legal it won't be a problem' technology, it sure is a pain in the ass

to

Quoted text (37 lines)

> > > THIS legal user. > > > > > > Two, and possibly three of the times there was ZERO hardware changes > made. > > > I was simply updating drivers and it pissed on me and I had to call > > > Microsoft to get permission again to use my paid-for operating system. > > That > > > just burns me up. > > > > > > One time it just popped for no apparant reason. Started up,. and the > > stupid > > > activation nonsense kicked in. This was months after the original > > > installation and activation. > > > > > > And it triggered during one hardware change once. When I upgraded the > > Video > > > card. It's not supposed to do that either. > > > > > > Bastards. > > > > > > -Larry > > > > > > > > > "The Man With No Name" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:39:54 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more compatible > > than > > > XP. > > > > > > > > > >However, overall, I prefer XP. It runs everything I currently like > to > > > run, > > > > >and it sure is a hell of a lot more stable. > > > > > > > > > >The only thing I don't like about XP is all the built-in crap I

don't

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > want > > > > >and the digital leash they have stuck up yer butt. > > > > > > > > > >But, I tolerate it because the good outweighs the bad. > > > > > > > > > >-Larry > > > > > > > > I agree Larry, XP *really* pisses me off sometimes. The digital

leash > > > > is disgusting and an insult to us all. If we wanted a monopoly owned > > > > PC we all would have bought Mac's in the first place. Maybe Mac's > > > > really will take over one day in the near future because all I seeis

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > > MS shooting themselves in the foot with these bullying tactics they > > > > have resorted to and Mac's really are superior. If I had to choose > > > > between two monopolistic OS's I would take Mac. I do have Linux too > > > > though but that doesn't run my favourite games. Same problem with > > > > Mac's. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:06:45 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Why can't a port of Jaguar be developed for the X86? It is based on the >Linux kernel no? Now that would be great, MS ends up falling to apple not >because Apple hardware but rather an Apple OS :) MacOS X is based on BSD. Doesn't MS invest a lot of money in Apple? I think MS has a say in whether Apple can make a x86 port. I remember reading about MS investing millions in Apple a few years back. Plus if they ported it over to x86, they'd lose tons of money from sales of their hardware. Why buy an expensive iMac to run MacOS X, when you can run it on a sub $1000 AMD/Intel PC. -- karkrazy AT softhome DOT net

Looks like Object Desktop is the closest I'll ever get to using OSX then :-) Mitch <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:06:45 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Why can't a port of Jaguar be developed for the X86? It is based on the > >Linux kernel no? Now that would be great, MS ends up falling to applenot

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >because Apple hardware but rather an Apple OS :) > > MacOS X is based on BSD. Doesn't MS invest a lot of money in Apple? > I think MS has a say in whether Apple can make a x86 port. I remember > reading about MS investing millions in Apple a few years back. Plus > if they ported it over to x86, they'd lose tons of money from sales of > their hardware. Why buy an expensive iMac to run MacOS X, when you > can run it on a sub $1000 AMD/Intel PC. > > -- > karkrazy AT softhome DOT net

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:47:19 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Looks like Object Desktop is the closest I'll ever get to using OSX then :-) I often wish the GNOME/KDE guys would just get together and create something marvelous that would blow OSX out of the water. If we all got together, we could do it. It's just that with Linux, everyone wants to do their own thing cause they can. Kernel development is amazing. Why can't we do the same with the GUI? -- karkrazy AT softhome DOT net

Interesting reading, and I have never even switched on a mac :-) Darf "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:H9Ab9.26496$[email hidden]... > Mitch, > > You got some of it right :) > > MacOS X is not based on Linux. It is based on UNIX and the Mach 5Kernal..

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > It uses the Mach 5 Kernal developed at Carnagie Mellon University. The > designer of the Mach Kernal, Avie Tevanian, just so happens to be Apple's > Chief Software Architect. That sure worked out well :) > > Think of Avie as Linus Torvlalds. They both created the UNIX kernal that > MacOS X (Mach) and Linux (Linux) run on. > > On top of that is BSD Unix 4.3. > > On top of that is the MacOS X Interface. > > Yes, it can be compred to Linux, as it's design is familiar, it just uses > different Kernals and Windowing systems. > > Of course, the stability of both is superb. There is, however, no

Windowing > Interface for Unix that can touch MacOS X for useability. That's whyApple > has succedded in getting Unix on the home-user desktop where others have > failed (so far). > > Now, as for porting to X86. Is it possible? Not only possible, butlikely

Quoted text (8 lines)

> very easy to do. > > MacOS X is based on what was originally the NextStep/OpenStep Operating > System that Steve Jobs developed for Next in the mid-80's after Apple > shit-canned him. It began life, as a matter of fact, as an x86 operating > system. > > The original versions of MacOS X Server (called Rhapsody at the time -

This > was before the MacOS X naming convention was initiated) was available in > both PowerPC and x86 flavors. I still have both of them around here > somewhere because I was a registered (but not paticularly active)developer

Quoted text (7 lines)

> at the time. > > Apple discontinued all x86 Rhapsody development at some point, and > concentrated on the PowerPC/Mac platform. > > Which brings us to where we are today. MacOS X, as we know it today, has > very little resemblance to Rhapsody. Some of the concepts are the same,

but > where Rhapsody mostly retained the NextStep/OpenStep interface (whichwasn't

Quoted text (7 lines)

> bad in itself), MacOS X uses what we see as a combination of the old MacOS > Classic Interface and new stuff/idea's/technologies. Most of it is great. > A very little bit of it bugs people. Such is life :) > > So, yes. It is technically feasible. Politically, however, it is not. > Apple gets 85% of it's revenue from hardware sales, and at least at this > point they are not going to take a chance on messing that up. Look at

what

Quoted text (7 lines)

> the first thing Jobs did when he took over in 1996. He discontinued the > cloning program that had just barely gotten off the ground a year or so > before! > > Do _I_ want to see MacOS X on x86? You damned right I do. > > What I'm about to say now is also politically incorrect if you are

speaking > amongst Die-Hard Mac Users, especially the more, um, 'verbal' one's. You > know, the one's that treasure the stupid 'Switch' commercials :) > > IMHO (and many others), Motorola is NOT pulling thier weight in regards to > the PowerPC. Development is just too damned slow. We are just nowgetting > up to 1.25Ghz G4's. Now, the level-headed Mac Users amongst us, of whichI > hope I'm considered one, never have bought into the "PPC kicks Intels Ass > and is 6 times faster at a given clock speed" horseshit. Is it faster? > Absolutely. Is it 6 times faster? No way. I won't put a number on it > because I'd be guessing or lying like those who say it's 6 times faster. > All the benchmarks that everyone throws around are useless because thetests > are massaged by one side or the other to make theirs look better. Both > sides are guilty of this IMHO. But the PPC IS faster at a givenclockspeed

Quoted text (24 lines)

> than the x86 family. That's just the way RISC is. > > With that in mind, SOMETHING has to be done. There are some holding hope > that IBM will release a G5 processor, with Altivec (think MMX/SSE) > compatible instructions. They have to use a 'compatible' set because > Motorola owns Altivec exclusively and apparantly won't share it with IBM. > This would allow Apple to continue on the PowerPC road. It would, of > course, be the easiest road to travel. > > Unfortunately, I don't buy unto all this G5 stuff. I think Motorola has > enough on their plate, especially in this dreadful economy we have, to be > involved in this at the level that Apple NEEDS. > > I do hope I'm wrong about that. But, I'm certainly not the only one that > feels this way. > > Now for the tricky part, and the part where you have to duck if you are in > strict Apple Quarters :) > > First, Apple WILL survive. It does just fine on it's current marketshare, > and has 25 million (and slowly growing, actually) users. They make a fine > product that is fast, reliable and satisfies the needs of certain user > groups, especially home users, content creators, and certain > business/scientific segments. Personally, I think Education is a lost

cause > for them. Microsoft has forced their nose into this in some interesting > (read that as you will) ways. I think Apple will always maintain a 20-25% > of the Education Market, but never get back to the 60-70% share they usedto

Quoted text (18 lines)

> have unless something truly spectacular happens. > > It doesn't help to have billions in the bank and zero long-term debt :) > > I firmly believe that MacOS X (and not stupid 'switch' commercials) will > build Apple's Market Share slowly but surely. > > BUT... > > If Apple is to grow, and I mean seriously grow, they HAVE to do something > about this processor (some real, some perceived) problem, and I personally > think their salvation is... > > AMD. > > This is about the time the shit hits the fan in this conversation :) > > Too many people think this is just impossible. I know damned well it

isn't > because MacOS X's roots are based on a Kernal/OS/Layer that was,originally, > x86 based. AMD is excellent at creating both processors and, more > importantly, the chipsets to drive them. > > Some people say the developers would never go for it because they wouldhave > to re-write all thier software. These people forget that Apple has done > this BEFORE, when they switched from the 680x0 processor family to the PPC > processor family. If anyone could pull this off, it would be Apple.Apple > is also very talented at gluing seemingly incompatible platforms together > and ending up with a pretty much seemless package. > > Would developers have to, at a minimum, re-compile thier apps? Of course. > But I've read some articles on this that would indicate it's not as hardas > the die-hards make it out to be. Since some of these people were coders, > I'll take their word for that. > > Others say that if Apple were to do this, it would put them in direct > competition with Microsoft and that would kill them instantly. Again, Isay > horseshit. Just because Apple is using x86 processors does not mean they > are going to let EVERYONE use it. No, I do believe Apple would continueto > make MacOS X an APPLE ONLY operating system. They simply cannot, at this > time, give up their hardware sales. > > Finally, the question that everyone asks everyone these days. Does Apple > need Microsoft to survive? Personally, I don't think so. Office V.x is > excellent, and is arguably the best version of Office for any platformthat > MS has ever shipped. They even think it's the best version they have ever > shipped. It can, however, be replaced by someone else. > > I personally think the most compelling piece of software Microsoft has > shipped for the Mac in a long time is also the most unlikely. The most > excellent TS/RDC client they shipped at MacWorld in August. For free.This

Quoted text (12 lines)

> one little piece of software gave Mac OS X users full access and use of > nearly every personal and business software package MS has ever written. > > Damn, I don't know how I got so deep into this so me go now :) > > -Larry > > > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:VVwb9.122$A%[email hidden]... > > Why can't a port of Jaguar be developed for the X86? It is based on the > > Linux kernel no? Now that would be great, MS ends up falling to apple

not > > because Apple hardware but rather an Apple OS :) > > > > WPA has gotten me numerous times also. I finally just did a baseinstall, > > created an image and I'm now done with WPA. Supposedly WPA uses the > vendor > > ID's of key hardware and should only prompt for WPA when you change 5ID's

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > in any re-install. Reality is quite different though. > > > > Those ad's are really annoying arent they? Gee I'm too dum to use a PC, > so > > I use an Apple... Gimme a break Steve... > > > > Mitch > > > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Mstb9.25270$[email hidden]... > > > Well, I have a Mac too (ducking) :) LCD iMac G4. > > > > > > I just installed Jaguar on it yesterday. While I still have gripes > about > > > the pricing system used, it's an awesome upgrade. The performance > > > improvements alone are astonishing (if you have recent hardware, that > is). > > > MacOS X 10.2 is really a hard-core OS and it's a shame that more don't > > > experience it. I thing that is slowly changing, though (Despite the > > current > > > stupid 'switch' Ad campaign). > > > > > > Anyway, back to MS. > > > > > > WPA has pissed on me FIVE times so far. For such a 'benign' and 'If > your > > > legal it won't be a problem' technology, it sure is a pain in the ass

to

Quoted text (37 lines)

> > > THIS legal user. > > > > > > Two, and possibly three of the times there was ZERO hardware changes > made. > > > I was simply updating drivers and it pissed on me and I had to call > > > Microsoft to get permission again to use my paid-for operating system. > > That > > > just burns me up. > > > > > > One time it just popped for no apparant reason. Started up,. and the > > stupid > > > activation nonsense kicked in. This was months after the original > > > installation and activation. > > > > > > And it triggered during one hardware change once. When I upgraded the > > Video > > > card. It's not supposed to do that either. > > > > > > Bastards. > > > > > > -Larry > > > > > > > > > "The Man With No Name" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:39:54 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more compatible > > than > > > XP. > > > > > > > > > >However, overall, I prefer XP. It runs everything I currently like > to > > > run, > > > > >and it sure is a hell of a lot more stable. > > > > > > > > > >The only thing I don't like about XP is all the built-in crap I

don't

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > want > > > > >and the digital leash they have stuck up yer butt. > > > > > > > > > >But, I tolerate it because the good outweighs the bad. > > > > > > > > > >-Larry > > > > > > > > I agree Larry, XP *really* pisses me off sometimes. The digital

leash > > > > is disgusting and an insult to us all. If we wanted a monopoly owned > > > > PC we all would have bought Mac's in the first place. Maybe Mac's > > > > really will take over one day in the near future because all I seeis

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > MS shooting themselves in the foot with these bullying tactics they > > > > have resorted to and Mac's really are superior. If I had to choose > > > > between two monopolistic OS's I would take Mac. I do have Linux too > > > > though but that doesn't run my favourite games. Same problem with > > > > Mac's. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> You must have had something else funky on your system. For me, SE is MUCHmore > stable than original 98, and it's stable enough that I don't need toupgrade my > home system to 2000 yet. I won't even let XP in the flippin' DOOR.<g> > > Eldred Me too. Until I need XP (for working at home) I have no plans on "upgrading" to XP. 98SE is just fine for gaming. Even if I do go XP sometime in the future I'll probably dual boot 98SE. Why mess with something that works so well.

Too many chef's in the soup instead of a small group of dedicated engineer's. Open source does have some disadvantages. -Larry <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:47:19 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Looks like Object Desktop is the closest I'll ever get to using OSX then:-)

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > I often wish the GNOME/KDE guys would just get together and create > something marvelous that would blow OSX out of the water. If we all > got together, we could do it. It's just that with Linux, everyone > wants to do their own thing cause they can. Kernel development is > amazing. Why can't we do the same with the GUI? > > -- > karkrazy AT softhome DOT net

Apple invests ZERO money in Apple. The first and only investment they ever made was the token 150 million in 1996 during the great "Jobs & Gates Feel-Good Party". It was mostly for show. Apple had over 2 Billion in the bank and no long term debt when that went down. I'm not sure if MS still holds that stock or not. One thing is clear, they made quite a small fortune on it. -Larry <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:06:45 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Why can't a port of Jaguar be developed for the X86? It is based on the > >Linux kernel no? Now that would be great, MS ends up falling to applenot

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >because Apple hardware but rather an Apple OS :) > > MacOS X is based on BSD. Doesn't MS invest a lot of money in Apple? > I think MS has a say in whether Apple can make a x86 port. I remember > reading about MS investing millions in Apple a few years back. Plus > if they ported it over to x86, they'd lose tons of money from sales of > their hardware. Why buy an expensive iMac to run MacOS X, when you > can run it on a sub $1000 AMD/Intel PC. > > -- > karkrazy AT softhome DOT net

I was afraid of that :) -Larry "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0RAb9.1381$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Thanks for the info Larry :-) > > We may have to start calling you Tom Jr after that, hehe.. > > Mitch > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:H9Ab9.26496$[email hidden]... > > Mitch, > > > > You got some of it right :) > > > > MacOS X is not based on Linux. It is based on UNIX and the Mach 5 > Kernal.. > > > > It uses the Mach 5 Kernal developed at Carnagie Mellon University. The > > designer of the Mach Kernal, Avie Tevanian, just so happens to be

Apple's > > Chief Software Architect. That sure worked out well :) > > > > Think of Avie as Linus Torvlalds. They both created the UNIX kernalthat

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > MacOS X (Mach) and Linux (Linux) run on. > > > > On top of that is BSD Unix 4.3. > > > > On top of that is the MacOS X Interface. > > > > Yes, it can be compred to Linux, as it's design is familiar, it just

uses

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > different Kernals and Windowing systems. > > > > Of course, the stability of both is superb. There is, however, no > Windowing > > Interface for Unix that can touch MacOS X for useability. That's why > Apple > > has succedded in getting Unix on the home-user desktop where others have > > failed (so far). > > > > Now, as for porting to X86. Is it possible? Not only possible, but > likely > > very easy to do. > > > > MacOS X is based on what was originally the NextStep/OpenStep Operating > > System that Steve Jobs developed for Next in the mid-80's after Apple > > shit-canned him. It began life, as a matter of fact, as an x86

operating

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > system. > > > > The original versions of MacOS X Server (called Rhapsody at the time - > This > > was before the MacOS X naming convention was initiated) was available in > > both PowerPC and x86 flavors. I still have both of them around here > > somewhere because I was a registered (but not paticularly active) > developer > > at the time. > > > > Apple discontinued all x86 Rhapsody development at some point, and > > concentrated on the PowerPC/Mac platform. > > > > Which brings us to where we are today. MacOS X, as we know it today,

has > > very little resemblance to Rhapsody. Some of the concepts are the same, > but > > where Rhapsody mostly retained the NextStep/OpenStep interface (which > wasn't > > bad in itself), MacOS X uses what we see as a combination of the oldMacOS > > Classic Interface and new stuff/idea's/technologies. Most of it isgreat.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > A very little bit of it bugs people. Such is life :) > > > > So, yes. It is technically feasible. Politically, however, it is not. > > Apple gets 85% of it's revenue from hardware sales, and at least at this > > point they are not going to take a chance on messing that up. Look at > what > > the first thing Jobs did when he took over in 1996. He discontinued the > > cloning program that had just barely gotten off the ground a year or so > > before! > > > > Do _I_ want to see MacOS X on x86? You damned right I do. > > > > What I'm about to say now is also politically incorrect if you are > speaking > > amongst Die-Hard Mac Users, especially the more, um, 'verbal' one's.

You > > know, the one's that treasure the stupid 'Switch' commercials :) > > > > IMHO (and many others), Motorola is NOT pulling thier weight in regardsto > > the PowerPC. Development is just too damned slow. We are just now > getting > > up to 1.25Ghz G4's. Now, the level-headed Mac Users amongst us, ofwhich > I > > hope I'm considered one, never have bought into the "PPC kicks IntelsAss

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > and is 6 times faster at a given clock speed" horseshit. Is it faster? > > Absolutely. Is it 6 times faster? No way. I won't put a number on it > > because I'd be guessing or lying like those who say it's 6 times faster. > > All the benchmarks that everyone throws around are useless because the > tests > > are massaged by one side or the other to make theirs look better. Both > > sides are guilty of this IMHO. But the PPC IS faster at a given > clockspeed > > than the x86 family. That's just the way RISC is. > > > > With that in mind, SOMETHING has to be done. There are some holding

hope > > that IBM will release a G5 processor, with Altivec (think MMX/SSE) > > compatible instructions. They have to use a 'compatible' set because > > Motorola owns Altivec exclusively and apparantly won't share it withIBM. > > This would allow Apple to continue on the PowerPC road. It would, of > > course, be the easiest road to travel. > > > > Unfortunately, I don't buy unto all this G5 stuff. I think Motorola has > > enough on their plate, especially in this dreadful economy we have, tobe > > involved in this at the level that Apple NEEDS. > > > > I do hope I'm wrong about that. But, I'm certainly not the only onethat > > feels this way. > > > > Now for the tricky part, and the part where you have to duck if you arein > > strict Apple Quarters :) > > > > First, Apple WILL survive. It does just fine on it's currentmarketshare, > > and has 25 million (and slowly growing, actually) users. They make afine > > product that is fast, reliable and satisfies the needs of certain user > > groups, especially home users, content creators, and certain > > business/scientific segments. Personally, I think Education is a lost > cause > > for them. Microsoft has forced their nose into this in some interesting > > (read that as you will) ways. I think Apple will always maintain a20-25% > > of the Education Market, but never get back to the 60-70% share theyused

Quoted text (11 lines)

> to > > have unless something truly spectacular happens. > > > > It doesn't help to have billions in the bank and zero long-term debt :) > > > > I firmly believe that MacOS X (and not stupid 'switch' commercials) will > > build Apple's Market Share slowly but surely. > > > > BUT... > > > > If Apple is to grow, and I mean seriously grow, they HAVE to do

something > > about this processor (some real, some perceived) problem, and Ipersonally

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > think their salvation is... > > > > AMD. > > > > This is about the time the shit hits the fan in this conversation :) > > > > Too many people think this is just impossible. I know damned well it > isn't > > because MacOS X's roots are based on a Kernal/OS/Layer that was, > originally, > > x86 based. AMD is excellent at creating both processors and, more > > importantly, the chipsets to drive them. > > > > Some people say the developers would never go for it because they would > have > > to re-write all thier software. These people forget that Apple has done > > this BEFORE, when they switched from the 680x0 processor family to the

PPC > > processor family. If anyone could pull this off, it would be Apple. > Apple > > is also very talented at gluing seemingly incompatible platformstogether > > and ending up with a pretty much seemless package. > > > > Would developers have to, at a minimum, re-compile thier apps? Ofcourse. > > But I've read some articles on this that would indicate it's not as hard > as > > the die-hards make it out to be. Since some of these people werecoders, > > I'll take their word for that. > > > > Others say that if Apple were to do this, it would put them in direct > > competition with Microsoft and that would kill them instantly. Again, I > say > > horseshit. Just because Apple is using x86 processors does not meanthey > > are going to let EVERYONE use it. No, I do believe Apple would continue > to > > make MacOS X an APPLE ONLY operating system. They simply cannot, atthis > > time, give up their hardware sales. > > > > Finally, the question that everyone asks everyone these days. DoesApple > > need Microsoft to survive? Personally, I don't think so. Office V.x is > > excellent, and is arguably the best version of Office for any platform > that > > MS has ever shipped. They even think it's the best version they haveever

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > shipped. It can, however, be replaced by someone else. > > > > I personally think the most compelling piece of software Microsoft has > > shipped for the Mac in a long time is also the most unlikely. The most > > excellent TS/RDC client they shipped at MacWorld in August. For free. > This > > one little piece of software gave Mac OS X users full access and use of > > nearly every personal and business software package MS has ever written. > > > > Damn, I don't know how I got so deep into this so me go now :) > > > > -Larry > > > > > > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:VVwb9.122$A%[email hidden]... > > > Why can't a port of Jaguar be developed for the X86? It is based on

the

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > Linux kernel no? Now that would be great, MS ends up falling to apple > not > > > because Apple hardware but rather an Apple OS :) > > > > > > WPA has gotten me numerous times also. I finally just did a base > install, > > > created an image and I'm now done with WPA. Supposedly WPA uses the > > vendor > > > ID's of key hardware and should only prompt for WPA when you change 5 > ID's > > > in any re-install. Reality is quite different though. > > > > > > Those ad's are really annoying arent they? Gee I'm too dum to use a

PC,

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > so > > > I use an Apple... Gimme a break Steve... > > > > > > Mitch > > > > > > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:Mstb9.25270$[email hidden]... > > > > Well, I have a Mac too (ducking) :) LCD iMac G4. > > > > > > > > I just installed Jaguar on it yesterday. While I still have gripes > > about > > > > the pricing system used, it's an awesome upgrade. The performance > > > > improvements alone are astonishing (if you have recent hardware,

that > > is). > > > > MacOS X 10.2 is really a hard-core OS and it's a shame that moredon't

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > experience it. I thing that is slowly changing, though (Despite the > > > current > > > > stupid 'switch' Ad campaign). > > > > > > > > Anyway, back to MS. > > > > > > > > WPA has pissed on me FIVE times so far. For such a 'benign' and 'If > > your > > > > legal it won't be a problem' technology, it sure is a pain in the

ass

Quoted text (7 lines)

> to > > > > THIS legal user. > > > > > > > > Two, and possibly three of the times there was ZERO hardware changes > > made. > > > > I was simply updating drivers and it pissed on me and I had to call > > > > Microsoft to get permission again to use my paid-for operating

system. > > > That > > > > just burns me up. > > > > > > > > One time it just popped for no apparant reason. Started up,. andthe > > > stupid > > > > activation nonsense kicked in. This was months after the original > > > > installation and activation. > > > > > > > > And it triggered during one hardware change once. When I upgradedthe

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > Video > > > > card. It's not supposed to do that either. > > > > > > > > Bastards. > > > > > > > > -Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > "The Man With No Name" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:39:54 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Well, in all honesty, Win98 (I refuse to use SE) is more

compatible > > > than > > > > XP. > > > > > > > > > > > >However, overall, I prefer XP. It runs everything I currentlylike

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > to > > > > run, > > > > > >and it sure is a hell of a lot more stable. > > > > > > > > > > > >The only thing I don't like about XP is all the built-in crap I > don't > > > > want > > > > > >and the digital leash they have stuck up yer butt. > > > > > > > > > > > >But, I tolerate it because the good outweighs the bad. > > > > > > > > > > > >-Larry > > > > > > > > > > I agree Larry, XP *really* pisses me off sometimes. The digital > leash > > > > > is disgusting and an insult to us all. If we wanted a monopoly

owned > > > > > PC we all would have bought Mac's in the first place. Maybe Mac's > > > > > really will take over one day in the near future because all I see > is > > > > > MS shooting themselves in the foot with these bullying tacticsthey > > > > > have resorted to and Mac's really are superior. If I had to choose > > > > > between two monopolistic OS's I would take Mac. I do have Linuxtoo

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > > though but that doesn't run my favourite games. Same problem with > > > > > Mac's. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Well, I blew that one LOL! I meant to say MICROSOFT invests zero in Apple :) -Larry "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:yYQb9.28525$[email hidden]... > Apple invests ZERO money in Apple. > > The first and only investment they ever made was the token 150 million in > 1996 during the great "Jobs & Gates Feel-Good Party". It was mostly for > show. Apple had over 2 Billion in the bank and no long term debt whenthat > went down. > > I'm not sure if MS still holds that stock or not. One thing is clear,they

Quoted text (9 lines)

> made quite a small fortune on it. > > -Larry > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:06:45 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > > >Why can't a port of Jaguar be developed for the X86? It is based on

the

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > >Linux kernel no? Now that would be great, MS ends up falling to apple > not > > >because Apple hardware but rather an Apple OS :) > > > > MacOS X is based on BSD. Doesn't MS invest a lot of money in Apple? > > I think MS has a say in whether Apple can make a x86 port. I remember > > reading about MS investing millions in Apple a few years back. Plus > > if they ported it over to x86, they'd lose tons of money from sales of > > their hardware. Why buy an expensive iMac to run MacOS X, when you > > can run it on a sub $1000 AMD/Intel PC. > > > > -- > > karkrazy AT softhome DOT net > >

Actually, with Object Desktop http://www.stardock.com/products/odnt/ you have an amazing amount of control over the GUI. You can make XP look just like Gnome, OSX, or really whatever you want. It is only skin deep though! Great for Kiosks and Corperate desktop where you want to restrict access to all but a few apps. No, I don't work for em hehe. I do recognize a good product though :) A trail is available for 30 days but 1x is made up of a myriad of components that don't like to be removed so getting back to original XP is quite an ordeal. Version 2 is supposed to bring all the components together in a much more unified way. Its quite funny to see people's face when they see OSX on my PC :) Mitch ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email hidden]> Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:15 PM Subject: Re: ot-Win XP versus W98se for sims > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:47:19 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Looks like Object Desktop is the closest I'll ever get to using OSX then:-)

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > I often wish the GNOME/KDE guys would just get together and create > something marvelous that would blow OSX out of the water. If we all > got together, we could do it. It's just that with Linux, everyone > wants to do their own thing cause they can. Kernel development is > amazing. Why can't we do the same with the GUI? > > -- > karkrazy AT softhome DOT net

Hint to all... Make SURE you go and hit every "Restore Defaults" button you can find before uninstalling this software, and BEFORE the damn thing expires. Been there, done that. The hard way :) -Larry "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:qiWb9.83$[email hidden]... > > Actually, with Object Desktop http://www.stardock.com/products/odnt/ you > have an amazing amount of control over the GUI. You can make XP look just > like Gnome, OSX, or really whatever you want. It is only skin deepthough! > Great for Kiosks and Corperate desktop where you want to restrict accessto > all but a few apps. > > No, I don't work for em hehe. I do recognize a good product though :) > > A trail is available for 30 days but 1x is made up of a myriad ofcomponents

Quoted text (20 lines)

> that don't like to be removed so getting back to original XP is quite an > ordeal. Version 2 is supposed to bring all the components together in a > much more unified way. > > Its quite funny to see people's face when they see OSX on my PC :) > > Mitch > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[email hidden]> > Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:15 PM > Subject: Re: ot-Win XP versus W98se for sims > > > > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:47:19 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > > >Looks like Object Desktop is the closest I'll ever get to using OSX

then

Quoted text (13 lines)

> :-) > > > > I often wish the GNOME/KDE guys would just get together and create > > something marvelous that would blow OSX out of the water. If we all > > got together, we could do it. It's just that with Linux, everyone > > wants to do their own thing cause they can. Kernel development is > > amazing. Why can't we do the same with the GUI? > > > > -- > > karkrazy AT softhome DOT net > > >

It is 120 days (four months) when the "count" gets reset. See http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm -- Chris H. Microsoft MVP - Windows XP Associate Expert Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone Jason Tennyson wrote: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:10:52 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> Well, I have a Mac too (ducking) :) LCD iMac G4. >> >> I just installed Jaguar on it yesterday. While I still have gripes >> about the pricing system used, it's an awesome upgrade. The >> performance improvements alone are astonishing (if you have recent >> hardware, that is). MacOS X 10.2 is really a hard-core OS and it's a >> shame that more don't experience it. I thing that is slowly >> changing, though (Despite the current stupid 'switch' Ad campaign). >> >> Anyway, back to MS. >> >> WPA has pissed on me FIVE times so far. For such a 'benign' and 'If >> your legal it won't be a problem' technology, it sure is a pain in >> the ass to THIS legal user. >> >> Two, and possibly three of the times there was ZERO hardware changes >> made. I was simply updating drivers and it pissed on me and I had to >> call Microsoft to get permission again to use my paid-for operating >> system. That just burns me up. >> >> One time it just popped for no apparant reason. Started up,. and >> the stupid activation nonsense kicked in. This was months after the >> original installation and activation. >> >> And it triggered during one hardware change once. When I upgraded >> the Video card. It's not supposed to do that either. >> >> Bastards. >> >> -Larry > > Hmmm, I've done many hardware changes since getting XP and I've never > had a problem yet. You are supposed to be able to make six changes in > six months without having to reactivate.

I believe the later packages are cross-platform in the box. -Larry "Jason Tennyson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:10:53 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >For those that don't want Linux, but want the power and stability ofUnix, > >don't underestimate MacOS X. Especially the just-released 10.2 (Jaguar) > >version. > > > >It deserves FAR more credit than it gets, but that is slowly changingover > >time. It gains further respect with each release, and it's truly 'readyfor

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >prime time' after the 10.2 release. > > > >-Larry > > Yea, but you have to buy a whole new computer to run it. If Adobe put > MAC and PC versions of Photoshop, Pagemaker etc. on the same cdrom > then I could warrant the switch but I invested big bucks in those > progs and my copies only run on Windows.

Key word is 'supposed'. Of course, I'm not the only one who has been through this. -Larry "Jason Tennyson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:10:52 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Well, I have a Mac too (ducking) :) LCD iMac G4. > > > >I just installed Jaguar on it yesterday. While I still have gripes about > >the pricing system used, it's an awesome upgrade. The performance > >improvements alone are astonishing (if you have recent hardware, that

is). > >MacOS X 10.2 is really a hard-core OS and it's a shame that more don't > >experience it. I thing that is slowly changing, though (Despite thecurrent

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >stupid 'switch' Ad campaign). > > > >Anyway, back to MS. > > > >WPA has pissed on me FIVE times so far. For such a 'benign' and 'If your > >legal it won't be a problem' technology, it sure is a pain in the ass to > >THIS legal user. > > > >Two, and possibly three of the times there was ZERO hardware changes

made. > >I was simply updating drivers and it pissed on me and I had to call > >Microsoft to get permission again to use my paid-for operating system.That > >just burns me up. > > > >One time it just popped for no apparant reason. Started up,. and thestupid > >activation nonsense kicked in. This was months after the original > >installation and activation. > > > >And it triggered during one hardware change once. When I upgraded theVideo

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >card. It's not supposed to do that either. > > > >Bastards. > > > >-Larry > > Hmmm, I've done many hardware changes since getting XP and I've never > had a problem yet. You are supposed to be able to make six changes in > six months without having to reactivate.

Correct. -Larry "Chris H." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:TScc9.329378$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (48 lines)

> It is 120 days (four months) when the "count" gets reset. See > http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm > -- > Chris H. > Microsoft MVP - Windows XP > Associate Expert > Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone > > > Jason Tennyson wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:10:52 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >> Well, I have a Mac too (ducking) :) LCD iMac G4. > >> > >> I just installed Jaguar on it yesterday. While I still have gripes > >> about the pricing system used, it's an awesome upgrade. The > >> performance improvements alone are astonishing (if you have recent > >> hardware, that is). MacOS X 10.2 is really a hard-core OS and it's a > >> shame that more don't experience it. I thing that is slowly > >> changing, though (Despite the current stupid 'switch' Ad campaign). > >> > >> Anyway, back to MS. > >> > >> WPA has pissed on me FIVE times so far. For such a 'benign' and 'If > >> your legal it won't be a problem' technology, it sure is a pain in > >> the ass to THIS legal user. > >> > >> Two, and possibly three of the times there was ZERO hardware changes > >> made. I was simply updating drivers and it pissed on me and I had to > >> call Microsoft to get permission again to use my paid-for operating > >> system. That just burns me up. > >> > >> One time it just popped for no apparant reason. Started up,. and > >> the stupid activation nonsense kicked in. This was months after the > >> original installation and activation. > >> > >> And it triggered during one hardware change once. When I upgraded > >> the Video card. It's not supposed to do that either. > >> > >> Bastards. > >> > >> -Larry > > > > Hmmm, I've done many hardware changes since getting XP and I've never > > had a problem yet. You are supposed to be able to make six changes in > > six months without having to reactivate. > >

By whom, and who cares, Jason? The only thing with activation - not to be confused with registration - is that you identify the country in your original settings. But otherwise, how are they going to spot the exact location of your computer and why - other than being part of the "hash" created - would they even care. Scene: While on vacation, flying to the Caribbean from Michigan, you have a three-hour layover in Miami. So you install Windows XP on your laptop, use a pay phone in the airport to activate - either automatically on the dial-up or by actually speaking with a live person at the activation desk. How is that traced? What happens when you overheat the CPU and replace it? What happens if you're running multiple hard drives (removable trays, even)? Basically the same machine, and in most cases the activation system doesn't give a hoot. 8-) It still isn't "personal" information, just numbers. Much more serious to worry about, I think, is information gathered each and every time we apply for or use a credit card. Gotten a credit review lately, or tried to contact any of the credit report companies like TRW to get a mistake removed? Nearly takes an act of Congress to even get to the core level where they'll start listening to you. And nearly anyone - from apartment landlords to your grocery clerk and favorite department store instantly can instantly access your credit history, and knows if you're over your limit or not. In public, "Sir, the charge has been rejected!" 8-) -- Chris H. Microsoft MVP - Windows XP Associate Expert Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone Jason Tennyson wrote: > On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 00:07:15 GMT, "Chris H." <[email hidden]> > wrote: > >> It is 120 days (four months) when the "count" gets reset. See >> http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm > > Hey Chris, these two items bother me. By sending these two serial > numbers this means our machines can be uniquely identified which is an > invasion of privacy. > > Processor Serial Number > Hard Drive Volume Serial Number (VSN)

No, registration isn't part of the activation process, Jason. Maybe you were beyond the 120 days? I've done that before, gutting one machine to make a better one and didn't need to call. I've also called (several different times) because of beta tests and wiping various partitions where I've reinstalled Office. I tell the truth, they activate. I always make sure to ask the person's name and write it down, plus the time of day in case there's any problem. The process has always been handled professionally and quickly, but I'm also prepared to escalate the call to a supervisor in case the person to whom I'm originally connected is having a bad day. - Chris H. Jason Tennyson wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 00:07:15 GMT, "Chris H." <[email hidden]> > wrote: > >> It is 120 days (four months) when the "count" gets reset. See >> http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm > > I've done this and have never had to call MS to activate. Maybe > because I never register? > > "If you get a new computer, you are entitled to remove Windows XP from > the one that is being junked, and install the same Windows XP on the > new machine - but you will have to do the reactivation by a voice call > and explain."