Selleck on Boston Legal.

[k***@gmail.com]

Anyone see Selleck on Boston Legal this week? He was good (as always).








BTW if Anybody is still out there from New Zealand. After all our
arguing about Apples I ended up getting a 20" Intel iMac. I have to
concede you were right it is definetly not a PC, even tho it shares
many parts with one and can Windows. BTW this is the best computer
ever IMO.

[Anybody]

Post by k***@gmail.com
Anyone see Selleck on Boston Legal this week? He was good (as always).

He's been on and off the show for a little while as Candice Bergen's
"love interest". I've never actually seen a full episode though because
it plays in a timeslot here that's too late for me to bother staying up
for and I don't like the ditzy characters who are the companies
big-cheeses ... they're far too much like real management types. :-)

Post by k***@gmail.com
BTW if Anybody is still out there from New Zealand. After all our
arguing about Apples I ended up getting a 20" Intel iMac. I have to
concede you were right it is definetly not a PC, even tho it shares
many parts with one and can Windows. BTW this is the best computer
ever IMO.

Told ya so!! ;-)

Although the price has dropped a little, the only REAL stumbling block
for Macs is still the price (and games). Apple charges a premium to
have their logo - sometimes to their detriment (eg. the Newton PDA and
the G4 Cube). :-( But usually you do "get what you pay for" - it
simply works!

They're also suffering from a problem of including less and less in the
price. iMacs and iBooks used to come with the AppleWorks "office
software" for free, but they no longer do. You do get all sorts of free
software for image manipulation, video creation, website building,
etc., but no longer any word processor or spreadsheet - you have to pay
more for that. Manuals too have become virtually non-existant and
FireWire cables no longer come with iPods.

I can't say I'm a great fan of Mac OS X. It's growing on me (like a
fungus), but I still prefer the ease, cleaness and consistencty of Mac
OS 9. I'm still trying to make up my mind which Mac to upgrade to, but
upgrading from this old beige G3 is still probably a little time off
yet.

[Anim8rFSK]

Post by Anybody

Post by k***@gmail.com
Anyone see Selleck on Boston Legal this week? He was good (as always).

He's been on and off the show for a little while as Candice Bergen's
"love interest". I've never actually seen a full episode though because
it plays in a timeslot here that's too late for me to bother staying up
for and I don't like the ditzy characters who are the companies
big-cheeses ... they're far too much like real management types. :-)

Post by k***@gmail.com
BTW if Anybody is still out there from New Zealand. After all our
arguing about Apples I ended up getting a 20" Intel iMac. I have to
concede you were right it is definetly not a PC, even tho it shares
many parts with one and can Windows. BTW this is the best computer
ever IMO.

Told ya so!! ;-)
Although the price has dropped a little, the only REAL stumbling block
for Macs is still the price (and games). Apple charges a premium to
have their logo - sometimes to their detriment (eg. the Newton PDA and
the G4 Cube). :-( But usually you do "get what you pay for" - it
simply works!

The G4 Cube is an excellent machine. I have one sitting here as a
legacy box.

Post by Anybody
They're also suffering from a problem of including less and less in the
price. iMacs and iBooks used to come with the AppleWorks "office
software" for free, but they no longer do. You do get all sorts of free
software for image manipulation, video creation, website building,
etc., but no longer any word processor or spreadsheet - you have to pay
more for that. Manuals too have become virtually non-existant and
FireWire cables no longer come with iPods.
I can't say I'm a great fan of Mac OS X. It's growing on me (like a
fungus), but I still prefer the ease, cleaness and consistencty of Mac
OS 9.

Yes

[k***@gmail.com]

Post by Anybody
Told ya so!! ;-)
Although the price has dropped a little, the only REAL stumbling block
for Macs is still the price (and games). Apple charges a premium to
have their logo - sometimes to their detriment (eg. the Newton PDA and
the G4 Cube). :-( But usually you do "get what you pay for" - it
simply works!

As far as games running in OSX it's a losing battle that Apple lost a
long time ago. Boot Camp is on my iMac just for that reason and my
iMac can play all the latest PC games so that problem is solved as far
as I am concerned. As far as charging a premium for their logo, that
is less and less true. IMO this Imac is much better then a similary
equiped PC. It has the added bonus of looking cool, running OSX, and
being completely silent.

Post by Anybody
They're also suffering from a problem of including less and less in the
price. iMacs and iBooks used to come with the AppleWorks "office
software" for free, but they no longer do. You do get all sorts of free
software for image manipulation, video creation, website building,
etc., but no longer any word processor or spreadsheet - you have to pay
more for that. Manuals too have become virtually non-existant and
FireWire cables no longer come with iPods.
I can't say I'm a great fan of Mac OS X. It's growing on me (like a
fungus), but I still prefer the ease, cleaness and consistencty of Mac
OS 9. I'm still trying to make up my mind which Mac to upgrade to, but
upgrading from this old beige G3 is still probably a little time off
yet.

I have two Mac's, one is a G3 500mhz Imac with 512mb ram and my Intel
core duo imac. I recently upgraded the G3 (added memory, dvd drive
etc..) from a older non working imac someone gave me and I installed
OSX tiger. It runs fine on this machine, but yes it's still nice to
have classic on there and many applications for the G3 run better in
their classic incarnations then their modern OSX ones on the G3, so
tonight I am putting OS9 in it too. It is possible to run the classic
OS on the Intel mac's (via a PowerPC emulator!) but OSX runs so fast
that I doubt there is much demand.

When you do finally upgrade it's gonna be a serious jump!!!Not sure how
you held off thru the g4, g5, an even core duo era's!! that's a 4
generation jump if you buy one of the new Core 2 duo's today otherwise
it is 5 generations! It's a testament to the macintosh that the older
machines still remain useful (unlike PC's where a Pentium PC from 4 or
5 years ago would be a glorified paperweight and forget about running
modern software or OS!)

On a brighter note Apple is making resurgence and gaining marketshare
since they switched to Intel which is the best move they've made in
many many years IMO.

[Anybody]

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
Told ya so!! ;-)
Although the price has dropped a little, the only REAL stumbling block
for Macs is still the price (and games). Apple charges a premium to
have their logo - sometimes to their detriment (eg. the Newton PDA and
the G4 Cube). :-( But usually you do "get what you pay for" - it
simply works!

As far as games running in OSX it's a losing battle that Apple lost a
long time ago. Boot Camp is on my iMac just for that reason and my
iMac can play all the latest PC games so that problem is solved as far
as I am concerned. As far as charging a premium for their logo, that
is less and less true. IMO this Imac is much better then a similary
equiped PC. It has the added bonus of looking cool, running OSX, and
being completely silent.

Apple's prices have come down a little and you do usually get a much
better quality / spec'd product ... BUT like companies such as Rolls
Royce, Mercedes and Gucci, Apple do still over-price their stuff simply
becuase it is an Apple product. The rumour is that they make about 50%
profit on each iPod. :-\ It makes you wonder how many they'd sell
at a more sensible margin.

I'd prefer to have Mac version of my games, but I do have many Windows
games in my collection since there are no Mac versions ... but I don't
actually get time to play anything more complicated than a quick card
or simple arcade-style game anyway. :-(

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
I can't say I'm a great fan of Mac OS X. It's growing on me (like a
fungus), but I still prefer the ease, cleaness and consistencty of Mac
OS 9. I'm still trying to make up my mind which Mac to upgrade to, but
upgrading from this old beige G3 is still probably a little time off
yet.

I have two Mac's, one is a G3 500mhz Imac with 512mb ram and my Intel
core duo imac. I recently upgraded the G3 (added memory, dvd drive
etc..) from a older non working imac someone gave me and I installed
OSX tiger. It runs fine on this machine, but yes it's still nice to
have classic on there and many applications for the G3 run better in
their classic incarnations then their modern OSX ones on the G3, so
tonight I am putting OS9 in it too. It is possible to run the classic
OS on the Intel mac's (via a PowerPC emulator!) but OSX runs so fast
that I doubt there is much demand.

Yep. SheepShaver evidently allows you to run Classic applications on
Intel Macs, although you need a ROM image from an older machine. I'm
not sure it handles Mac OS 9 either.

The main use would be for older games people still like to play or the
occasional piece of old software - PageMaker, for example, won't run on
Intel Macs, and has a few bugs running under Mac OS X on PowerPC Macs.
Classic itself has a few bugs anyway.

Post by k***@gmail.com
When you do finally upgrade it's gonna be a serious jump!!!Not sure how
you held off thru the g4, g5, an even core duo era's!! that's a 4
generation jump if you buy one of the new Core 2 duo's today otherwise
it is 5 generations! It's a testament to the macintosh that the older
machines still remain useful (unlike PC's where a Pentium PC from 4 or
5 years ago would be a glorified paperweight and forget about running
modern software or OS!)

The only real thing that's beginning to make this Mac look "old" is the
fact that most of my clients now use Mac OS X and at some stage I'll
need to be able to use software that won't run on my current Mac.
There's also some websites that are starting to show hiccups with fancy
new bits that don't work in Explorer and or are slow in iCab. Otherwise
it does pretty much everything I need it to.

Unfortunately I'll have to upgrade the entire set-up (including going
to broadband), which will be expensive, but easier and probably cheaper
than trying to get these bits connected and working to a new Mac. I'm
begining to look at whether to get a 23" iMac or a Mac Pro + 23"
display, but with Mac OS X 10.5 just around the corner and none of the
main applications from the likes of Adobe being Intel-native yet,
there's still a little while before I perhaps "have" to make that
decision.

This Mac might even last me 10 years (or more). Maybe even long enough
for Apple to switch back to PowerPC or it's replacement. ;-)

Post by k***@gmail.com
On a brighter note Apple is making resurgence and gaining marketshare
since they switched to Intel which is the best move they've made in
many many years IMO.

In some ways yes, in others no. The loss of "Classic" support is
annoying for some of us (although you can work-around that as above).
There's also a divided camp as to whether Intel or AMD chips are
better. Realisitically there was nothing wrong with the PowerPC, other
than Steve Jobs belief that the sun shines out of a laptop's bottom
:-)
and PowerPCs supposedly not running cool enough quickly enough for him.

The main problem with marketshare is that if Apple gets "too" big it
will start attracting the morons that make malware like viruses, etc.

[k***@gmail.com]

Post by Anybody
I'd prefer to have Mac version of my games, but I do have many Windows
games in my collection since there are no Mac versions ... but I don't
actually get time to play anything more complicated than a quick card
or simple arcade-style game anyway. :-(

So would I who wouldnt prefer Mac versions, but it isnt going to happen
and even when it does they come out much later. Like you I have
limited amount of time to play games these days, but I have Windows set
up on a 32 gb partition on this Imac with one application: PREY which
is a great game. I stick to one new game at a time usually and
Windows/Bootcamp is great if all you have to do with it is run one game
=) I also have Parallels set up in OSX which is a much better and
useful solution for applications.

Post by Anybody
The main use would be for older games people still like to play or the
occasional piece of old software - PageMaker, for example, won't run on
Intel Macs, and has a few bugs running under Mac OS X on PowerPC Macs.
Classic itself has a few bugs anyway.

The only software I miss from Classic OS is WordPerfect.

Post by Anybody
The only real thing that's beginning to make this Mac look "old" is the
fact that most of my clients now use Mac OS X and at some stage I'll
need to be able to use software that won't run on my current Mac.
There's also some websites that are starting to show hiccups with fancy
new bits that don't work in Explorer and or are slow in iCab. Otherwise
it does pretty much everything I need it to.
Unfortunately I'll have to upgrade the entire set-up (including going
to broadband), which will be expensive, but easier and probably cheaper
than trying to get these bits connected and working to a new Mac. I'm
begining to look at whether to get a 23" iMac or a Mac Pro + 23"
display, but with Mac OS X 10.5 just around the corner and none of the
main applications from the likes of Adobe being Intel-native yet,
there's still a little while before I perhaps "have" to make that
decision.
This Mac might even last me 10 years (or more). Maybe even long enough
for Apple to switch back to PowerPC or it's replacement. ;-)

I run Photoshop in OSX with Rosetta and it takes a bit hit in
performance IMO. It's still nice to have but If I were doing anything
professional with it I would use a G5 or run it in shudder... Bootcamp.
It wont be too long until a Universal version of the Adobe CS is out
there.

There is n othing wrong with the PowerPC but going x86 provides huge
advantages. Apple has to think about laptops since they are bigger
player in that field then desktops not only. I dont see why your
current system with proper memory couldnt run OSX since my old G3 runs
it fine. If it is not supported there is a program which can help (I
forget the name off hand)

Wa syour last macintosh b efore your g3 a 680x0? TIf that is true you
are really getting your moneys worth out of these machines!!!

One more thing, as far as dropping classic support, it had to happen
sooner or later. Although I think Apple should of provided a semi
official "fix" to get classic working on the Intels sort of like the
bootcamp beta. It wouldnt take much afterall.

You might be resistant to OSX but it sure beats the hell out of XP or
Vista.

Post by Anybody

Post by k***@gmail.com
On a brighter note Apple is making resurgence and gaining marketshare
since they switched to Intel which is the best move they've made in
many many years IMO.

In some ways yes, in others no. The loss of "Classic" support is
annoying for some of us (although you can work-around that as above).
There's also a divided camp as to whether Intel or AMD chips are
better. Realisitically there was nothing wrong with the PowerPC, other
than Steve Jobs belief that the sun shines out of a laptop's bottom
:-)
and PowerPCs supposedly not running cool enough quickly enough for him.
The main problem with marketshare is that if Apple gets "too" big it
will start attracting the morons that make malware like viruses, etc.

[Anybody]

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
I'd prefer to have Mac version of my games, but I do have many Windows
games in my collection since there are no Mac versions ... but I don't
actually get time to play anything more complicated than a quick card
or simple arcade-style game anyway. :-(

So would I who wouldnt prefer Mac versions, but it isnt going to happen
and even when it does they come out much later. Like you I have
limited amount of time to play games these days, but I have Windows set
up on a 32 gb partition on this Imac with one application: PREY which
is a great game. I stick to one new game at a time usually and
Windows/Bootcamp is great if all you have to do with it is run one game
=)

I collect the Star Wars games, so I've got a few Windows-only ones plus
the Mac ones (I've just given away a couple of Windows versions for
ones that I later bought the Mac version of) ... but I've only played
about three of the oldest ones ... well, only two and two halves
really.

Post by k***@gmail.com
I also have Parallels set up in OSX which is a much better and
useful solution for applications.

CrossOver was supposed to be released in August, but I haven't looked
at that yet. It allows you to run SOME Windows applications directly in
Mac OS X (ie. just double-click the Windows .EXE) rather than running
Windows in a window - you don't even need to buy or install Windows
itself. The range of supported titles is evidently limited and there's
no much chance it will work for games.
http://www.codeweavers.com

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
Unfortunately I'll have to upgrade the entire set-up (including going
to broadband), which will be expensive, but easier and probably cheaper
than trying to get these bits connected and working to a new Mac. I'm
begining to look at whether to get a 23" iMac or a Mac Pro + 23"
display, but with Mac OS X 10.5 just around the corner and none of the
main applications from the likes of Adobe being Intel-native yet,
there's still a little while before I perhaps "have" to make that
decision.
This Mac might even last me 10 years (or more). Maybe even long enough
for Apple to switch back to PowerPC or it's replacement. ;-)

I run Photoshop in OSX with Rosetta and it takes a bit hit in
performance IMO. It's still nice to have but If I were doing anything
professional with it I would use a G5 or run it in shudder... Bootcamp.
It wont be too long until a Universal version of the Adobe CS is out
there.

I have installed InDesign on a G4 iMac and an Intel iMac. I can't say I
notice any real difference, but I haven't sat there with a stop watch
to see.

Post by k***@gmail.com
I dont see why your current system with proper memory couldnt run OSX
since my old G3 runs it fine. If it is not supported there is a
program which can help (I forget the name off hand)

Officially this computer will run Mac OS X 10.2.8. Unofficially it
could run Mac OS X 10.3 using the hack which tricks the installer into
thinking you've got a newer Mac than it really is ... but at just
266MHz it likely to be quite slow.

I could upgrade the CPU chip to a faster G3 or G4, but the cost is
pretty horrendous (almost better to simply buy a new computer) and Mac
OS X wouldn't work with all my extras anyway, so I'd be forever
re-booting to swap between X and 9.

Post by k***@gmail.com
Was your last macintosh before your g3 a 680x0? If that is true you
are really getting your moneys worth out of these machines!!!

Nope. This is my first Mac ... in fact it's the first computer I've
ever bought.

We did have a Vic20 and C-64 when I was younger and my brother had an
Amiga 500. I've used MANY different models of Mac at work though.

Post by k***@gmail.com
One more thing, as far as dropping classic support, it had to happen
sooner or later. Although I think Apple should of provided a semi
official "fix" to get classic working on the Intels sort of like the
bootcamp beta. It wouldnt take much afterall.

The only real reason Classic isn't on the Intel Macs is because Apple
wants to get rid of it, although with Rosetta running things slower,
Classic would likely be even slower and might have annoyed more people
than not having it at all.

Unfortunately not everyone has money to burn to allow them to upgrade
every time Apple changes its models. Most of the people / places I do
work for are individuals and non-profit organisations.

Post by k***@gmail.com
You might be resistant to OSX but it sure beats the hell out of XP or
Vista.

That's no surprise - Mac OS 1 (or System 1) beats the hell out of XP
and Vista, and that's now over 20 years old. ;-)

[k***@gmail.com]

Post by Anybody
CrossOver was supposed to be released in August, but I haven't looked
at that yet. It allows you to run SOME Windows applications directly in
Mac OS X (ie. just double-click the Windows .EXE) rather than running
Windows in a window - you don't even need to buy or install Windows
itself. The range of supported titles is evidently limited and there's
no much chance it will work for games.
http://www.codeweavers.com

I tried CrossOver without much luck. Apparently it works better with
supported applications like MS OFFICE, but I dont have a problem with
running Office thru Rossetta and it is coming soon to Intel OSX. I
found Paralelles to be just what I was looking for. Once you install
Windows and your application you can run the app then press pause and
save that state. Next time you want to use that windows app, you just
run Paralelles choose that state and press play and you are right there
with your app running. I can't think of anything more conveinet.

I had an Amiga 500 back in the day too. i went from the Amiga to
custom built PC's, before the Amiga I had 8bit Atari 800 series
computer (400 then later 130xe). My first Mac was Power PC performa
then an Imac g3 both of which I acquired used. The recent Intel Imac
is the first time Ive had a Mac that was still being sold by Apple.
The switch to Intel made it so that I could finally have a Mac as my
primary computer. I still use the G3 too.

As far as Rosetta ,I dont notice much of a difference with Word since I
dont do anything with it but write invoices, and personal letter etc..
I do notice a difference Photoshop (altho it's still faster thru
Rosetta then my G3 imac) it takes forever for it to load for one and
then once you start applying complicated effects on large multiple
images it gets slow... but like I said if I was using it professionally
I would be running the Windows version or using a G5. Im not so I can
put up with the slow loading until the native versions come out.

The Classic OS looks great and was great for it's time, but it was
lacking in alot of features including true premptive multitasking
(which even your brothers old Amiga 500 could do btw) and proper mem
management. They needed to go with somethign new. I just dont see
why Apple couldnt make some kind of solution for INtel PC's to run
Classic Apps. Sure it wouldnt be as fast as a g5 running Classic but it
would still be fast. I tried Sheepshaver to run WordPerfect but it
was a big PITA setting it up. After a couple failed attempts I lost
interest, afterall I still have my oldermac that can run Classic
without all that trouble. my problem was having the right version of OS
8/9 and the rom file from the disk. Apple could of made somethign that
had allthis built in and made it easy. but no... do you realise there
are some WordPerfect users who will never by a new Mac because of a
lack of Classic OS support?

There are a couple Star Wars games for the Mac do you have Starwars
Galactic Battlegrounds, Star wars rebel assault ,Star wars racer, and
dark forces?

Post by Anybody

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
Unfortunately I'll have to upgrade the entire set-up (including going
to broadband), which will be expensive, but easier and probably cheaper
than trying to get these bits connected and working to a new Mac. I'm
begining to look at whether to get a 23" iMac or a Mac Pro + 23"
display, but with Mac OS X 10.5 just around the corner and none of the
main applications from the likes of Adobe being Intel-native yet,
there's still a little while before I perhaps "have" to make that
decision.
This Mac might even last me 10 years (or more). Maybe even long enough
for Apple to switch back to PowerPC or it's replacement. ;-)

I run Photoshop in OSX with Rosetta and it takes a bit hit in
performance IMO. It's still nice to have but If I were doing anything
professional with it I would use a G5 or run it in shudder... Bootcamp.
It wont be too long until a Universal version of the Adobe CS is out
there.

I have installed InDesign on a G4 iMac and an Intel iMac. I can't say I
notice any real difference, but I haven't sat there with a stop watch
to see.

Post by k***@gmail.com
I dont see why your current system with proper memory couldnt run OSX
since my old G3 runs it fine. If it is not supported there is a
program which can help (I forget the name off hand)

Officially this computer will run Mac OS X 10.2.8. Unofficially it
could run Mac OS X 10.3 using the hack which tricks the installer into
thinking you've got a newer Mac than it really is ... but at just
266MHz it likely to be quite slow.
I could upgrade the CPU chip to a faster G3 or G4, but the cost is
pretty horrendous (almost better to simply buy a new computer) and Mac
OS X wouldn't work with all my extras anyway, so I'd be forever
re-booting to swap between X and 9.

Post by k***@gmail.com
Was your last macintosh before your g3 a 680x0? If that is true you
are really getting your moneys worth out of these machines!!!

Nope. This is my first Mac ... in fact it's the first computer I've
ever bought.
We did have a Vic20 and C-64 when I was younger and my brother had an
Amiga 500. I've used MANY different models of Mac at work though.

Post by k***@gmail.com
One more thing, as far as dropping classic support, it had to happen
sooner or later. Although I think Apple should of provided a semi
official "fix" to get classic working on the Intels sort of like the
bootcamp beta. It wouldnt take much afterall.

The only real reason Classic isn't on the Intel Macs is because Apple
wants to get rid of it, although with Rosetta running things slower,
Classic would likely be even slower and might have annoyed more people
than not having it at all.
Unfortunately not everyone has money to burn to allow them to upgrade
every time Apple changes its models. Most of the people / places I do
work for are individuals and non-profit organisations.

Post by k***@gmail.com
You might be resistant to OSX but it sure beats the hell out of XP or
Vista.

That's no surprise - Mac OS 1 (or System 1) beats the hell out of XP
and Vista, and that's now over 20 years old. ;-)

[Anybody]

Post by k***@gmail.com
I tried CrossOver without much luck. Apparently it works better with
supported applications like MS OFFICE, but I dont have a problem with
running Office thru Rossetta and it is coming soon to Intel OSX. I
found Paralelles to be just what I was looking for. Once you install
Windows and your application you can run the app then press pause and
save that state. Next time you want to use that windows app, you just
run Paralelles choose that state and press play and you are right there
with your app running. I can't think of anything more conveinet.

It is more convenient to not have to install Windows and run it in a
separate window, BUT I would never trust using CrossOver or the other
WINE derivatives. If a Windows application can easily run in Mac OS X
itself, then it's likely at least some of the Windows nasties can as
well.

Post by k***@gmail.com
The Classic OS looks great and was great for it's time, but it was
lacking in alot of features including true premptive multitasking
(which even your brothers old Amiga 500 could do btw) and proper mem
management. They needed to go with somethign new. I just dont see
why Apple couldnt make some kind of solution for INtel PC's to run
Classic Apps. Sure it wouldnt be as fast as a g5 running Classic but it
would still be fast.

The "Classic" Mac OS can and does multitask perfectly well (I do
multiple things all the time - read newsgroups, browse websites, check
emails, download files, etc.), but the problem is that the programmers
actually have to know what they're doing. Mac OS X allows any old lazy
fool to write an application and it's the OS that handles the
multitasking.

Despite what many people like to claim, Mac OS X isn't even remotely a
revolutionary operating system. As you say, the Amiga was doing the
same things 10-15 years before ... although the Amiga OS was rather
clunky, it sat somewhere between Mac OS and Windoze in terms of "OS
goodness".

The company that now owns the "Amiga" name is supposedly about to
release Amiga OS 4.0, which is meant to be a "scalable" operating
system that can be used on various devices - mobile phones, PDAs,
computers, etc.

The problem with all these operating systems is that they simply a
pretty face stuck on top of an ancient DOS-style system. The original
Mac operating system was a proper graphical user interface and there
was never any need to go into some sort of 'terminal' to type in
commands to fix / change things.

The other "problem" with Mac OS X is that the user is expected to leave
the computer turned on 24 hours, 7 days a week so the thing can run the
housekeeping routines in the early hours of the morning. Plus the huge
patches that have to be downloaded and installed far too often.

Post by k***@gmail.com
I tried Sheepshaver to run WordPerfect but it was a big PITA setting it up.

I keep meaning to go in and read more about Sheepshaver to find out how
to get a ROM image from this G3 Mac ready for when I upgrade. I'm not
sure whether I'll keep this Mac or give it away, it's definitely not
worth the hassle trying to sell it to get $10.

Post by k***@gmail.com
There are a couple Star Wars games for the Mac do you have Starwars
Galactic Battlegrounds, Star wars rebel assault ,Star wars racer, and
dark forces?

There's more than "a couple". :-)

My Star Wars collection has got almost every Star Wars computer game
(ie. Mac or Windows) and reference CD-ROM that's been released, plus
one old PlayStation game (from an auction) and one GameCube game (from
my brother after he'd finished playing it).

There's been Mac versions of these games:
- Rebel Assault
- Rebel Assault II
- Dark Forces
- X-Wing Collector's Edition (includes add-on packs)
- TIE Fighter Collector's Edition (includes add-on packs)
- Episode I: Racer
- Pit Droids
- Droidworks
- Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast
- Jedi Knight III: Jedi Academy
- Knights of the Old Republic
- Galactic Battlegrounds
- Galactic Battlegrounds: Clone Campaigns (add-on)
- Battlefront
- Lego Star Wars
- Episode I: Insider's Guide (reference CD-ROM)
- Star Wars Screen Entertainment (screen saver & desktop "toy")

I think that's all of them so far. I'm waiting to see if there's going
to be a Mac version of Lego Star Wars II before I buy it - I don't want
to be stuck with the Windows version, AGAIN.

There was going to be a Mac version of Star Wars: Bombad Racing (a
"kart" style racing game), but the LucasLearning company (not the main
LucasArts) pulled out of the games market just before it was released.
:-(

I have finished Pit Droids (a sort-of Lemmings puzle game) and finished
all but the last level of Droidworks - both way back, not long after I
bought the Mac. I've played a few levels of Episode I: Racer and the
demo of Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast. I did try and play Rebel Assault,
but it's virtually unplayable and I can't even get through the first
training level (at least not without cheating and using levels codes
found on the Internet). :-\

Except for the reference CD-ROM, none of the others have even been
installed, nor have any of the Windows games been installed in
VirtualPC (I did play through most of Commandoes under VirtualPC with
Windows 98 - it was slow, but playable).

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Anybody
If a Windows application can easily run in Mac OS X
itself, then it's likely at least some of the Windows nasties can as
well.

Yeah--within the Windows environment.

They *cannot* do anything to the host Macintosh environment.

And such is the benefit of a virtual environment: I can set it up the
way I want it and save it off as a golden environment, and work within a
copy of the environment. Should it get nastied up, I delete it and copy
the golden environment over again, and I'm back to work within a couple
of minutes.

Meanwhile, the host Macintosh environment remains unsullied.

You can even do the exact same thing with Windows as the host
environment.

[k***@gmail.com]

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

Post by Anybody
If a Windows application can easily run in Mac OS X
itself, then it's likely at least some of the Windows nasties can as
well.

Yeah--within the Windows environment.
They *cannot* do anything to the host Macintosh environment.
And such is the benefit of a virtual environment: I can set it up the
way I want it and save it off as a golden environment, and work within a
copy of the environment. Should it get nastied up, I delete it and copy
the golden environment over again, and I'm back to work within a couple
of minutes.
Meanwhile, the host Macintosh environment remains unsullied.
You can even do the exact same thing with Windows as the host
environment.

this is true, there is no way a windows application running thru wine
could infect OSx with a virus, but getting back to what you are saying
elmo. I prefer to run Windows on a Macintosh, it makes it easier to
just wipe it out and reinstall (bootcamp) or keep an application (thru
Paralells) running in a virtual state.. either way it's makes Windows
alot less painful.

[Anybody]

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

Post by Anybody
If a Windows application can easily run in Mac OS X
itself, then it's likely at least some of the Windows nasties can as
well.

Yeah--within the Windows environment.
They *cannot* do anything to the host Macintosh environment.
And such is the benefit of a virtual environment: I can set it up the
way I want it and save it off as a golden environment, and work within a
copy of the environment. Should it get nastied up, I delete it and copy
the golden environment over again, and I'm back to work within a couple
of minutes.
Meanwhile, the host Macintosh environment remains unsullied.
You can even do the exact same thing with Windows as the host
environment.

That's the point. With something like WINE and CrossOver there is NO
"Windows environment" to give that safety layer - the Windows
applciations run directly in Mac OS X. Most Windows nasties obviously
won't work because there's no Windows file structure, etc., but those
that are simple applications could well work and ones that simply start
trashing your hard drive can still cause major problems.

For that reason alone it's best to stick to Parallels Desktop or Boot
Camp and keep the Windows side completely separate.

[k***@gmail.com]

Post by Anybody

Post by k***@gmail.com
I tried CrossOver without much luck. Apparently it works better with
supported applications like MS OFFICE, but I dont have a problem with
running Office thru Rossetta and it is coming soon to Intel OSX. I
found Paralelles to be just what I was looking for. Once you install
Windows and your application you can run the app then press pause and
save that state. Next time you want to use that windows app, you just
run Paralelles choose that state and press play and you are right there
with your app running. I can't think of anything more conveinet.

It is more convenient to not have to install Windows and run it in a
separate window, BUT I would never trust using CrossOver or the other
WINE derivatives. If a Windows application can easily run in Mac OS X
itself, then it's likely at least some of the Windows nasties can as
well.

Post by k***@gmail.com
The Classic OS looks great and was great for it's time, but it was
lacking in alot of features including true premptive multitasking
(which even your brothers old Amiga 500 could do btw) and proper mem
management. They needed to go with somethign new. I just dont see
why Apple couldnt make some kind of solution for INtel PC's to run
Classic Apps. Sure it wouldnt be as fast as a g5 running Classic but it
would still be fast.

The "Classic" Mac OS can and does multitask perfectly well (I do
multiple things all the time - read newsgroups, browse websites, check
emails, download files, etc.), but the problem is that the programmers
actually have to know what they're doing. Mac OS X allows any old lazy
fool to write an application and it's the OS that handles the
multitasking.

I said Prememptive multitasking which the classic OS cannot do.
Windows did not have this feature until 95. I would of liked to Amiga
OS (which had premptive multitasking way back in the 80's but lacked
other features like proper memory management etc..)

Post by Anybody
Despite what many people like to claim, Mac OS X isn't even remotely a
revolutionary operating system. As you say, the Amiga was doing the
same things 10-15 years before ... although the Amiga OS was rather
clunky, it sat somewhere between Mac OS and Windoze in terms of "OS
goodness".

Mac OSX is LINUX kernal with an awesome user friendly GUI. It may not
be "revolutionary" but it's good enough for Microsoft to copy almost
feature for feature (see Vista)

Post by Anybody
The company that now owns the "Amiga" name is supposedly about to
release Amiga OS 4.0, which is meant to be a "scalable" operating
system that can be used on various devices - mobile phones, PDAs,
computers, etc.

We've been hearing this since 1993 when Commodore went under. Too
little too late the Amiga is over. A great machine ahead of it's time,
but a relic of the past :( I was the biggest Amiga fan back in the
day so it somewhat saddens me to say that.

Post by Anybody
The problem with all these operating systems is that they simply a
pretty face stuck on top of an ancient DOS-style system. The original
Mac operating system was a proper graphical user interface and there
was never any need to go into some sort of 'terminal' to type in
commands to fix / change things.

I dont mean to dispute everything you say but just because terminal is
there doesnt mean you have to use it.

Post by Anybody
The other "problem" with Mac OS X is that the user is expected to leave
the computer turned on 24 hours, 7 days a week so the thing can run the
housekeeping routines in the early hours of the morning. Plus the huge
patches that have to be downloaded and installed far too often.

what? I dont know what you are talking about here, sure sounds like
you are describing Windows. I havent downloaded much from Apple since
I bought the computer the initial updates to bring it 10.4.7 when I
took it out of the box then just recently a new version of Itunes and
the next update to OS X (10.4.7 to 10.4.8) none of these were large
downloads. Try turning Windows onto manual and checking out how many
downloads you do every day...

Post by Anybody

Post by k***@gmail.com
I tried Sheepshaver to run WordPerfect but it was a big PITA setting it up.

I keep meaning to go in and read more about Sheepshaver to find out how
to get a ROM image from this G3 Mac ready for when I upgrade. I'm not
sure whether I'll keep this Mac or give it away, it's definitely not
worth the hassle trying to sell it to get $10.

The rom image is on the Classic OS install disk.

Post by Anybody

Post by k***@gmail.com
There are a couple Star Wars games for the Mac do you have Starwars
Galactic Battlegrounds, Star wars rebel assault ,Star wars racer, and
dark forces?

There's more than "a couple". :-)
My Star Wars collection has got almost every Star Wars computer game
(ie. Mac or Windows) and reference CD-ROM that's been released, plus
one old PlayStation game (from an auction) and one GameCube game (from
my brother after he'd finished playing it).
- Rebel Assault
- Rebel Assault II
- Dark Forces
- X-Wing Collector's Edition (includes add-on packs)
- TIE Fighter Collector's Edition (includes add-on packs)
- Episode I: Racer
- Pit Droids
- Droidworks
- Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast
- Jedi Knight III: Jedi Academy
- Knights of the Old Republic
- Galactic Battlegrounds
- Galactic Battlegrounds: Clone Campaigns (add-on)
- Battlefront
- Lego Star Wars
- Episode I: Insider's Guide (reference CD-ROM)
- Star Wars Screen Entertainment (screen saver & desktop "toy")
I think that's all of them so far. I'm waiting to see if there's going
to be a Mac version of Lego Star Wars II before I buy it - I don't want
to be stuck with the Windows version, AGAIN.
There was going to be a Mac version of Star Wars: Bombad Racing (a
"kart" style racing game), but the LucasLearning company (not the main
LucasArts) pulled out of the games market just before it was released.
:-(
I have finished Pit Droids (a sort-of Lemmings puzle game) and finished
all but the last level of Droidworks - both way back, not long after I
bought the Mac. I've played a few levels of Episode I: Racer and the
demo of Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast. I did try and play Rebel Assault,
but it's virtually unplayable and I can't even get through the first
training level (at least not without cheating and using levels codes
found on the Internet). :-\
Except for the reference CD-ROM, none of the others have even been
installed, nor have any of the Windows games been installed in
VirtualPC (I did play through most of Commandoes under VirtualPC with
Windows 98 - it was slow, but playable).

so you dont actually play all the games?

[Anybody]

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
The "Classic" Mac OS can and does multitask perfectly well (I do
multiple things all the time - read newsgroups, browse websites, check
emails, download files, etc.), but the problem is that the programmers
actually have to know what they're doing. Mac OS X allows any old lazy
fool to write an application and it's the OS that handles the
multitasking.

I said Prememptive multitasking which the classic OS cannot do.
Windows did not have this feature until 95. I would of liked to Amiga
OS (which had premptive multitasking way back in the 80's but lacked
other features like proper memory management etc..)

Yes, but as I said, the "classic" Mac OS did multitask very effectively
already, as long as the programmers knew what they were doing. Changing
to "preemptive" is simply the way to encourage lazy programmers ...
besides which, it's wouldn't have been hugely difficult process to run
older non-preemptive tasks with the "classic" Mac OS in a similar way
to Mac OS X running it's "Classic" environment.

Just like the switch to Intel was mainly to get faster laptops (and to
appease Steve Jobs embarassment adter promising and not delivering a
3GHz PowerMac!), the main reason for the switch to Mac OS X / Linux was
really aimed at trying to pull in more big business users ... and both
changes are more of a hassle than a bonus for Apple's main customers of
home and education users - neither has bundles of spare cash to throw
away every time Apple comes up with another bright idea.

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
Despite what many people like to claim, Mac OS X isn't even remotely a
revolutionary operating system. As you say, the Amiga was doing the
same things 10-15 years before ... although the Amiga OS was rather
clunky, it sat somewhere between Mac OS and Windoze in terms of "OS
goodness".

Mac OSX is LINUX kernal with an awesome user friendly GUI. It may not
be "revolutionary" but it's good enough for Microsoft to copy almost
feature for feature (see Vista)

Microsoft simply buy out (including the original DOS!) or copy anything
and everything. They can't actually think for themselves.

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
The company that now owns the "Amiga" name is supposedly about to
release Amiga OS 4.0, which is meant to be a "scalable" operating
system that can be used on various devices - mobile phones, PDAs,
computers, etc.

We've been hearing this since 1993 when Commodore went under. Too
little too late the Amiga is over. A great machine ahead of it's time,
but a relic of the past :( I was the biggest Amiga fan back in the
day so it somewhat saddens me to say that.

Commodore's demise was the product of greedy and stupid managers -
which usually is the problem when a company goes under. Amigas are
still being used in some smaller TV studios and there is still a
die-hard group of fans ... but I doubt it a true "Amiga" will ever see
the light of day again. At one point some idiot company was going to
create a set-top TV box and call it "Amiga", despite any one with a
miniscule amount of common sense knowing it was no such thing.

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
The problem with all these operating systems is that they simply a
pretty face stuck on top of an ancient DOS-style system. The original
Mac operating system was a proper graphical user interface and there
was never any need to go into some sort of 'terminal' to type in
commands to fix / change things.

I dont mean to dispute everything you say but just because terminal is
there doesnt mean you have to use it.

Ah, but you may well have to use it. Read though places like MacFixIt
and often the only way to fix some problems or enable some settings is
by playing with text commands in the terminal or even the Firmware on
non-Intel Macs. Some do have little shareware applications that give a
GUI face to it, but not all. :-(

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
The other "problem" with Mac OS X is that the user is expected to leave
the computer turned on 24 hours, 7 days a week so the thing can run the
housekeeping routines in the early hours of the morning. Plus the huge
patches that have to be downloaded and installed far too often.

what? I dont know what you are talking about here, sure sounds like
you are describing Windows. I havent downloaded much from Apple since
I bought the computer the initial updates to bring it 10.4.7 when I
took it out of the box then just recently a new version of Itunes and
the next update to OS X (10.4.7 to 10.4.8) none of these were large
downloads. Try turning Windows onto manual and checking out how many
downloads you do every day...

That's because you bought a Mac and updated it with an even bigger
"combo" 10.4.7 updater, but for those who bought their Macs before,
they've had to download and install Mac OS X 10.4.1, .2, .3. .4, .5,
.6, .7, .8, plus all the other minor updates to various bits and
pieces. It *IS* just becoming more and more like Windows, just not
quite as bad ... YET! These continual updates are painful for those of
us still using dial-up connections or who have to update lots of Macs.

In the "good ol' days" there was only rarely an update to the Mac OS
and it wasn't a huge hundreds of megabytes thing that had to be
downloaded. Mac OS X is in many ways simply too complicated for it's
own good.


There is also growing reports of a possible problem with Mac OS X's
disk routines. According to some people, Mac OS X seems to need to
repair the drives far too often. I have run into some client's iMacs of
various models that have had to have the hard drives replaced, but at
least one of these never used Mac OS X (although it was installed at
the factory). I'm not sure if that's really a problem with Mac OS X or
some sort of quality control problem at Apple or the hard drive
manufacturers.

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
I keep meaning to go in and read more about Sheepshaver to find out how
to get a ROM image from this G3 Mac ready for when I upgrade. I'm not
sure whether I'll keep this Mac or give it away, it's definitely not
worth the hassle trying to sell it to get $10.

The rom image is on the Classic OS install disk.

Thanks. I'll have a look on there. Of course, new Macs don't come with
"Classic" any more so I won't get that when I eventually upgrade, but
my main customer does have those discs for their older iMacs.

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
There's more than "a couple". :-)

<snip>

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
Except for the reference CD-ROM, none of the others have even been
installed, nor have any of the Windows games been installed in
VirtualPC (I did play through most of Commandoes under VirtualPC with
Windows 98 - it was slow, but playable).

so you dont actually play all the games?

I just don't get time to play them. :-( Many of the newer ones won't
run on this Mac anyway, plus I'm not much good at the complicated games
around these days - trying to memorise 30 different keys (and different
ones for each game) is a bit silly just to play a game.

When I do get time to play a game, it's only 10 minutes here, 15
minutes there sort of thing, so I stick to less complicated games -
mostly card, puzzle or platform / arcade games.

[JEMS EBERHARD HORBEL]

Post by Anybody

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
The "Classic" Mac OS can and does multitask perfectly well (I do
multiple things all the time - read newsgroups, browse websites, check
emails, download files, etc.), but the problem is that the programmers
actually have to know what they're doing. Mac OS X allows any old lazy
fool to write an application and it's the OS that handles the
multitasking.

I said Prememptive multitasking which the classic OS cannot do.
Windows did not have this feature until 95. I would of liked to Amiga
OS (which had premptive multitasking way back in the 80's but lacked
other features like proper memory management etc..)

Yes, but as I said, the "classic" Mac OS did multitask very effectively
already, as long as the programmers knew what they were doing. Changing
to "preemptive" is simply the way to encourage lazy programmers ...
besides which, it's wouldn't have been hugely difficult process to run
older non-preemptive tasks with the "classic" Mac OS in a similar way
to Mac OS X running it's "Classic" environment.
Just like the switch to Intel was mainly to get faster laptops (and to
appease Steve Jobs embarassment adter promising and not delivering a
3GHz PowerMac!), the main reason for the switch to Mac OS X / Linux was
really aimed at trying to pull in more big business users ... and both
changes are more of a hassle than a bonus for Apple's main customers of
home and education users - neither has bundles of spare cash to throw
away every time Apple comes up with another bright idea.

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
Despite what many people like to claim, Mac OS X isn't even remotely a
revolutionary operating system. As you say, the Amiga was doing the
same things 10-15 years before ... although the Amiga OS was rather
clunky, it sat somewhere between Mac OS and Windoze in terms of "OS
goodness".

Mac OSX is LINUX kernal with an awesome user friendly GUI. It may not
be "revolutionary" but it's good enough for Microsoft to copy almost
feature for feature (see Vista)

Microsoft simply buy out (including the original DOS!) or copy anything
and everything. They can't actually think for themselves.

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
The company that now owns the "Amiga" name is supposedly about to
release Amiga OS 4.0, which is meant to be a "scalable" operating
system that can be used on various devices - mobile phones, PDAs,
computers, etc.

We've been hearing this since 1993 when Commodore went under. Too
little too late the Amiga is over. A great machine ahead of it's time,
but a relic of the past :( I was the biggest Amiga fan back in the
day so it somewhat saddens me to say that.

Commodore's demise was the product of greedy and stupid managers -
which usually is the problem when a company goes under. Amigas are
still being used in some smaller TV studios and there is still a
die-hard group of fans ... but I doubt it a true "Amiga" will ever see
the light of day again. At one point some idiot company was going to
create a set-top TV box and call it "Amiga", despite any one with a
miniscule amount of common sense knowing it was no such thing.

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
The problem with all these operating systems is that they simply a
pretty face stuck on top of an ancient DOS-style system. The original
Mac operating system was a proper graphical user interface and there
was never any need to go into some sort of 'terminal' to type in
commands to fix / change things.

I dont mean to dispute everything you say but just because terminal is
there doesnt mean you have to use it.

Ah, but you may well have to use it. Read though places like MacFixIt
and often the only way to fix some problems or enable some settings is
by playing with text commands in the terminal or even the Firmware on
non-Intel Macs. Some do have little shareware applications that give a
GUI face to it, but not all. :-(

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
The other "problem" with Mac OS X is that the user is expected to leave
the computer turned on 24 hours, 7 days a week so the thing can run the
housekeeping routines in the early hours of the morning. Plus the huge
patches that have to be downloaded and installed far too often.

what? I dont know what you are talking about here, sure sounds like
you are describing Windows. I havent downloaded much from Apple since
I bought the computer the initial updates to bring it 10.4.7 when I
took it out of the box then just recently a new version of Itunes and
the next update to OS X (10.4.7 to 10.4.8) none of these were large
downloads. Try turning Windows onto manual and checking out how many
downloads you do every day...

That's because you bought a Mac and updated it with an even bigger
"combo" 10.4.7 updater, but for those who bought their Macs before,
they've had to download and install Mac OS X 10.4.1, .2, .3. .4, .5,
.6, .7, .8, plus all the other minor updates to various bits and
pieces. It *IS* just becoming more and more like Windows, just not
quite as bad ... YET! These continual updates are painful for those of
us still using dial-up connections or who have to update lots of Macs.
In the "good ol' days" there was only rarely an update to the Mac OS
and it wasn't a huge hundreds of megabytes thing that had to be
downloaded. Mac OS X is in many ways simply too complicated for it's
own good.
There is also growing reports of a possible problem with Mac OS X's
disk routines. According to some people, Mac OS X seems to need to
repair the drives far too often. I have run into some client's iMacs of
various models that have had to have the hard drives replaced, but at
least one of these never used Mac OS X (although it was installed at
the factory). I'm not sure if that's really a problem with Mac OS X or
some sort of quality control problem at Apple or the hard drive
manufacturers.

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
I keep meaning to go in and read more about Sheepshaver to find out how
to get a ROM image from this G3 Mac ready for when I upgrade. I'm not
sure whether I'll keep this Mac or give it away, it's definitely not
worth the hassle trying to sell it to get $10.

The rom image is on the Classic OS install disk.

Thanks. I'll have a look on there. Of course, new Macs don't come with
"Classic" any more so I won't get that when I eventually upgrade, but
my main customer does have those discs for their older iMacs.

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
There's more than "a couple". :-)

<snip>

Post by k***@gmail.com

Post by Anybody
Except for the reference CD-ROM, none of the others have even been
installed, nor have any of the Windows games been installed in
VirtualPC (I did play through most of Commandoes under VirtualPC with
Windows 98 - it was slow, but playable).

so you dont actually play all the games?

I just don't get time to play them. :-( Many of the newer ones won't
run on this Mac anyway, plus I'm not much good at the complicated games
around these days - trying to memorise 30 different keys (and different
ones for each game) is a bit silly just to play a game.
When I do get time to play a game, it's only 10 minutes here, 15
minutes there sort of thing, so I stick to less complicated games -
mostly card, puzzle or platform / arcade games.

DIRECT SENDER IS HERE LETS DEAL.

JEMS EBERHARD HORBEL



MT103/202 DIRECT WIRE TRANSFER
PAYPAL TRANSFER
CASHAPP TRANSFER
ZELLE TRANSFER
TRANSFER WISE
WESTERN UNION TRANSFER
BITCOIN FLASHING
BANK ACCOUNT LOADING/FLASHING
IBAN TO IBAN TRANSFER
MONEYGRAM TRANSFER
SLBC PROVIDER
CREDIT CARD TOP UP
SEPA TRANSFER
WIRE TRANSFER
GLOBALPAY INC US


Thanks.


NOTE; ONLY SERIOUS / RELIABLE RECEIVERS CAN CONTACT.

DM ME ON WHATSAPP FOR A SERIOUS DEAL.

[phone]