Eric P. Peterson wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[snip]
well do NOT run a intel emulator on a powerPC chip. DOS yes, windows..it
works..but the cursor moves about as fast as a snail on morphine ;-)

On *86 type platforms, its obviously better.

Doesn't look good...

The MS Orifice stuff runs OK on a mac, as long as thats ALL the mac is
doing.

Probably a good thing, then, that I have a data management configuration
under OS 9.2.2. I switch to this set using Conflict Catcher whenever I
want to use M$ Word or Excel. These apps don't appear to function as
well in Classic Mode under OS X. Indeed, launching Word in this way
causes Classic to collapse altogether, without so much as an error
message!

The mac is pleasant enough at WP, multimedia, e-mail and browsing. It is
obviously well supported in graphical art and typography, if $1000 a
shot for software doesn't upset you. But there is virtually nothing on
the engineering/Cad-cam side..CNC cutters do NOT talk postscript or PDF ;-)

Works for me, as I don't do anything in the engineering/scientific
fields with my Macs, but I do those things you credit the platform as
doing well.

It also has a nasty habit of splattering shared drives with ._whatever
files, to store its 'metatada' on: irritating if you are generating non
macintosh files.

Now, that I don't like. I find files of that nature--some invisible,
some not--while booted into OS 9.2.2. The files don't appear to cause
any problems, but it always bothers me to discover files unexpectedly.

Best GUI, slowest platform, worst 3rd party support, most expensive
overall.

Slowest? Really? How do we account for that? And is there any hope of
improvement there?

Throw money at it. More RAM more CPU power. I reckon you need about +50%
RAM and 2x CPU speed to get the same subjective speed versus XP..thats
mainly on effing around with windows and the visuals though. Its fast
enough doing normal stuff. Until you run MS Word anyway..then you do get
weirdness, or I do. It multitasks different from windows - more unix
like - the user focussed window isn't at such a high priority which
means the world doesn't stop when you type.

I just fired up activity monitor (a pretty face on 'top')

MS Word with a file loaded takes up 30MB ram, and when as a window,
topped out the CPU usage at 7%. Minimised in the dock its running at
10%...weird huh?

Those sexy graphics with sliding drawers and drop shadows and
sophisticated metadata views don't come free..

Mind you I just looked in one of those sexy ._files and it took a whole
4096 allocation cluster to say.....

.....

.....
wait for it...

...
#cat ._lib.php

2??SMLdSMULATTR??d??xThis resource fork intentionally left
blank ??vault:/var/www/intranet

Yeah. REALLY useful:-)



And here I thought Linux's Enlightenment made for the most attractive
interface...but perhaps there's more to "best GUI" than appearance alone.

I have to say I've not seen that one. Try em both.

If all you want is to mess around with photos and movies, browse the
web, read e-mail and run MS office, then the mac is a hands down winnner.

Very reassuring to me, then. I don't even do movies, and I'm committed
to arriving at a computing environment free from all traces of M$ sw.
It'll come

Oh, I'll recommend the Mac for THAT unhesitatingly. It's a super TOY.



Happy computing,
Eric

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 08:33:59 -0400, CBFalconer wrote:
Try going to any car manufactures website or instruction manual
and see what you get..inside of the engine? no way.

However you can choose to buy the shop manual, which has the
appropriate details.

Maybe. Fraud now sell manuals as a set: Bodywork manual for all current
ford models; engine manual for all current ford models; electrical manual
for all current ford models, etc etc. Costs nearly as much as the car to
get a full set. Alfa romeo's manual is on aCD, and looks like the
instructions for an old-style airfix plastic kit. "the climate control
plugs into the dashboard controller". No detail, no mention of pinouts,
or even a picture to show what it looks like. I can't even get one at all
for a Mercedes A-series, it's maintenance by guesswork, and part shopping
by taking a broken bit into the dealler and saying "I want one that looks
like this".

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 07:59:44 +0100, Robert Harvey
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 08:33:59 -0400, CBFalconer wrote:
Try going to any car manufactures website or instruction manual
and see what you get..inside of the engine? no way.

However you can choose to buy the shop manual, which has the
appropriate details.

Maybe. Fraud now sell manuals as a set: Bodywork manual for all current
ford models; engine manual for all current ford models; electrical manual
for all current ford models, etc etc. Costs nearly as much as the car to
get a full set. Alfa romeo's manual is on aCD, and looks like the
instructions for an old-style airfix plastic kit. "the climate control
plugs into the dashboard controller". No detail, no mention of pinouts,
or even a picture to show what it looks like. I can't even get one at
all
for a Mercedes A-series, it's maintenance by guesswork, and part shopping
by taking a broken bit into the dealler and saying "I want one that looks
like this".


http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MERCEDES-BENZ-...QQcmdZViewItem

In article , Bob Eager
scribeth thus
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 19:46:52 UTC, "Eric P. Peterson"
wrote:

For these purposes, I'm checking out alternatives to M$ apps that can
read and write M$ formats. If and when the time comes, I'll be
interested to learn if it's more performance-effective to run some
versions of Windows on a Mac (the very thought turns my stomach!), or to
simply keep a PC system around. If the latter, I'd probably prefer to
build it from the ground up.

The problem is the apps that only run on Windows, such as the stuff I
use to load my Zen V, and the stuff with my wife's camera, and my son's
diabetes monitor.

So, yes, I built a small PC. NIce compact black case, 64 x 295 x 288.
Min keyboard of similar width, 15 inch LCD. monitor. Unobtrusive, quiet
(motherboard is fanless)

Which motherboard is that please?...


and we keep it in the living room. Uses about
20 watts. Runs XP, and gets used when we have to.


--
Tony Sayer

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 09:23:53 UTC, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
scribeth thus
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 19:46:52 UTC, "Eric P. Peterson"
wrote:

For these purposes, I'm checking out alternatives to M$ apps that can
read and write M$ formats. If and when the time comes, I'll be
interested to learn if it's more performance-effective to run some
versions of Windows on a Mac (the very thought turns my stomach!), or to
simply keep a PC system around. If the latter, I'd probably prefer to
build it from the ground up.

The problem is the apps that only run on Windows, such as the stuff I
use to load my Zen V, and the stuff with my wife's camera, and my son's
diabetes monitor.

So, yes, I built a small PC. NIce compact black case, 64 x 295 x 288.
Min keyboard of similar width, 15 inch LCD. monitor. Unobtrusive, quiet
(motherboard is fanless)

Which motherboard is that please?...

One of the VIA EPIA Mini-ITX ones. Forget exactly which one..!
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:20:53 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
cameras just plug in and work mosly on macs. They got THAT bit right.
This seems to have some custom software...

Do you really need to plug in the camera. Mine, I take the SD card out,
plug it into the pc and download the files as per a USB stick. I never
bothered to connect the camera to the PC.


--
djc

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 14:59:33 UTC, djc
wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:20:53 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
cameras just plug in and work mosly on macs. They got THAT bit right.
This seems to have some custom software...

Do you really need to plug in the camera. Mine, I take the SD card out,
plug it into the pc and download the files as per a USB stick. I never
bothered to connect the camera to the PC.

Probably not, but it's SWMBO's camera, not mine. Mine works on any old
system anyway...

As I said, there's other stuff. Uploads from the diabetes monitor are a
case in point.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On 2007-09-02 18:03:27 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 14:59:33 UTC, djc
wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:20:53 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
cameras just plug in and work mosly on macs. They got THAT bit right.
This seems to have some custom software...

Do you really need to plug in the camera. Mine, I take the SD card out,
plug it into the pc and download the files as per a USB stick. I never
bothered to connect the camera to the PC.

Probably not, but it's SWMBO's camera, not mine. Mine works on any old
system anyway...

As I said, there's other stuff. Uploads from the diabetes monitor are a
case in point.

I've found that VMWare seems to support USB and serial comms pretty
well on virtual machines - e.g. VMWare on Mac with XP VM works fine
with my Ultrasmart. It doesn't with Parallels. Likewise with BP
monitor.

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 17:39:11 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

I've found that VMWare seems to support USB and serial comms pretty
well on virtual machines - e.g. VMWare on Mac with XP VM works fine
with my Ultrasmart. It doesn't with Parallels. Likewise with BP
monitor.

I'm sure it does. But what would I run it on? The point is to avoid
running Windows. I won't touch a Mac, thank you. In any case, the
communal Windows machine is useful for everyone if they have to have
Windows...multiple copies of Windows on VMWare much less so, not to
mention the alternatives of increased expense or license violation.

Everyone in the family has at least one machine apart from this...so the
single XP machine makes life easy.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On 2007-09-02 19:49:34 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 17:39:11 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

I've found that VMWare seems to support USB and serial comms pretty
well on virtual machines - e.g. VMWare on Mac with XP VM works fine
with my Ultrasmart. It doesn't with Parallels. Likewise with BP
monitor.

I'm sure it does. But what would I run it on? The point is to avoid
running Windows. I won't touch a Mac, thank you. In any case, the
communal Windows machine is useful for everyone if they have to have
Windows...multiple copies of Windows on VMWare much less so, not to
mention the alternatives of increased expense or license violation.

Everyone in the family has at least one machine apart from this...so the
single XP machine makes life easy.

For that purpose, I run XP as a VM on Linux and access it via RDP or VNC.

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 19:48:24 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-09-02 19:49:34 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 17:39:11 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

I've found that VMWare seems to support USB and serial comms pretty
well on virtual machines - e.g. VMWare on Mac with XP VM works fine
with my Ultrasmart. It doesn't with Parallels. Likewise with BP
monitor.

I'm sure it does. But what would I run it on? The point is to avoid
running Windows. I won't touch a Mac, thank you. In any case, the
communal Windows machine is useful for everyone if they have to have
Windows...multiple copies of Windows on VMWare much less so, not to
mention the alternatives of increased expense or license violation.

Everyone in the family has at least one machine apart from this...so the
single XP machine makes life easy.

For that purpose, I run XP as a VM on Linux and access it via RDP or VNC.

Sorry, don't use Linux. Jumped up UNIX wannabe, as I've said before....!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Neal Reid wrote:
In article ,

I content that Mac OS X is the nicest front end to a linux box
available.

Well it s NOT a front end to a linux box, is it? Its a whole OS and GUI
based on FreeBSD running (officially) only on macintosh hardware.
Um - see my reply to Michelle
As a long time UNIX admin, I find a number of things
added and nothing missing ... (And before I get flamed, let me
emphasize I'm talking function, not form. It took me a while, for
example to get it clear where /etc files were still needed and
where Netinfo files had replaced them)


What's missing is third party software and hardware support.


That's where the Mac is sadly lacking: Programs that run on it.
Expensive and not enough OF them....you CAN get a lot of Linux stuff
ported across to run under X11,
I have not found ANYTHING I needed to do that I couldn't do on a
Mac. And what does X11 have to do with anything. It's a network
protocol over which one can run process control and a windowing
system (pretty much) platform independently. For e.g., you CAN run
X11 on Mac OS - but I never have.

Thats the salient thing that came through to me. By breaking away from
X, and making a radical statement of difference in terms of the API to
the MAC GUI, Apple have left 3rd party developers in a curious
position. Its a BIG job to port an app to a Mac, not the least because
its not JUST a different set of calls into the graphics: There are a
whole new set of ways in which things are to be done to make them
conform to the OS-X look and feel.
Um - have you ever DONE it? What you claim was true pre-OS X days,
but now it's fairly trivial to develop an app that will run on Mac
OS, other Linuxs or Windows (Think QuickTime, iTunes...)
Now if they had made OS-X run on generic Intel hardware, then it would
have been worth the pain to port stuff, but Apple chose to keep the
whole thing in the family.
What did I miss? Last I looked, OS X has run on Intel hardware for
quite a while. Agreed, not on BIOS dependent Intel hardware, but
certainly on EFI compliant Intel hardware.Or you could just tell
XCode
So a potential developer will look at PC's -
which is a must have, look at Linux, and think 'not that hard a port'
and look at Mac OS-X and say 'Ee bai gum lad, that bain't worth the
effort for 5% of the desktop market'
Or you code just set you target(s) appropriately in XCode and make
your stuff available to anyone (including the approaching 14%
share of Apple users)

--
M for N in address to mail reply

Neal Reid wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Neal Reid wrote:
In article ,

I content that Mac OS X is the nicest front end to a linux box
available.
Well it s NOT a front end to a linux box, is it? Its a whole OS and GUI
based on FreeBSD running (officially) only on macintosh hardware.
Um - see my reply to Michelle
As a long time UNIX admin, I find a number of things
added and nothing missing ... (And before I get flamed, let me
emphasize I'm talking function, not form. It took me a while, for
example to get it clear where /etc files were still needed and
where Netinfo files had replaced them)

What's missing is third party software and hardware support.

That's where the Mac is sadly lacking: Programs that run on it.
Expensive and not enough OF them....you CAN get a lot of Linux stuff
ported across to run under X11,
I have not found ANYTHING I needed to do that I couldn't do on a
Mac.

Shows how narrow your application field is then ;-)

And what does X11 have to do with anything. It's a network
protocol over which one can run process control and a windowing
system (pretty much) platform independently. For e.g., you CAN run
X11 on Mac OS - but I never have.

Er.thats what I was saying.You can rapidly port Linux apps to X11,
because its on the mac, but the look and feel is completely different.

Thats the salient thing that came through to me. By breaking away from
X, and making a radical statement of difference in terms of the API to
the MAC GUI, Apple have left 3rd party developers in a curious
position. Its a BIG job to port an app to a Mac, not the least because
its not JUST a different set of calls into the graphics: There are a
whole new set of ways in which things are to be done to make them
conform to the OS-X look and feel.
Um - have you ever DONE it? What you claim was true pre-OS X days,
but now it's fairly trivial to develop an app that will run on Mac
OS, other Linuxs or Windows (Think QuickTime, iTunes...)

I suspect they are Mac apps that got ported to PCs, not the other way
round.
Now if they had made OS-X run on generic Intel hardware, then it would
have been worth the pain to port stuff, but Apple chose to keep the
whole thing in the family.
What did I miss? Last I looked, OS X has run on Intel hardware

Intel hardware made by Apple is NOT *generic* Intel hardware. To run
OS-X on non apple hardware required a hack. Its probably a violation of
the license of OS-X. You cannot by a PC down the locals store and shove
an OS-X disk in is CDROM and juts install OS-X. If you could, sales of
OS-X would rocket.


for
quite a while. Agreed, not on BIOS dependent Intel hardware, but
certainly on EFI compliant Intel hardware.Or you could just tell
XCode
So a potential developer will look at PC's -
which is a must have, look at Linux, and think 'not that hard a port'
and look at Mac OS-X and say 'Ee bai gum lad, that bain't worth the
effort for 5% of the desktop market'
Or you code just set you target(s) appropriately in XCode and make
your stuff available to anyone (including the approaching 14%
share of Apple users)

Xcode is apple specific.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Er.thats what I was saying.You can rapidly port Linux apps to X11,
because its on the mac, but the look and feel is completely different.

Porting is not necessary to make the look and feel
"completely different" of an X11 app on any platform.

Just change your window manager to any of the dozen plus that are
available. There's even one that tries to look like Windows 95 !

(I admit that there are not very many window managers for OS X)

--
Wes Groleau
"Would the prodigal have gone home if
the elder brother was running the farm?"
-- James Jordan

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:25:01 +0100, Neal Reid wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Neal Reid wrote:
In article ,

I content that Mac OS X is the nicest front end to a linux box
available.

Well it s NOT a front end to a linux box, is it? Its a whole OS and GUI
based on FreeBSD running (officially) only on macintosh hardware.
Um - see my reply to Michelle
As a long time UNIX admin, I find a number of things
added and nothing missing ... (And before I get flamed, let me
emphasize I'm talking function, not form. It took me a while, for
example to get it clear where /etc files were still needed and
where Netinfo files had replaced them)


What's missing is third party software and hardware support.


That's where the Mac is sadly lacking: Programs that run on it.
Expensive and not enough OF them....you CAN get a lot of Linux stuff
ported across to run under X11,
I have not found ANYTHING I needed to do that I couldn't do on a
Mac.


Super, how do I program a simatic PLC with one?

In article
,
"Eric P. Peterson" wrote:

For these purposes, I'm checking out alternatives to M$ apps that can
read and write M$ formats. If and when the time comes, I'll be
interested to learn if it's more performance-effective to run some
versions of Windows on a Mac (the very thought turns my stomach!), or to
simply keep a PC system around. If the latter, I'd probably prefer to
build it from the ground up.

The only reason I've not moved the PC off my office desk is because I'm
familiarising myself with Vista. All the Windows-only apps I used to run
on it under XP are now running under Parallels on my Intel iMac in
'coherence mode':
http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/features/coherence/ which
makes the whole experience feel more like running X11 apps in rootless
mode; they are still ugly as sin, but at least they only take up the
space they need. No complaints about performance, and at 30 odd pounds
it was well worth the investment.

Espen

Espen Koht wrote:
In article
,
"Eric P. Peterson" wrote:

For these purposes, I'm checking out alternatives to M$ apps that can
read and write M$ formats. If and when the time comes, I'll be
interested to learn if it's more performance-effective to run some
versions of Windows on a Mac (the very thought turns my stomach!), or to
simply keep a PC system around. If the latter, I'd probably prefer to
build it from the ground up.

The only reason I've not moved the PC off my office desk is because I'm
familiarising myself with Vista. All the Windows-only apps I used to run
on it under XP are now running under Parallels on my Intel iMac in
'coherence mode':
http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/features/coherence/ which
makes the whole experience feel more like running X11 apps in rootless
mode; they are still ugly as sin, but at least they only take up the
space they need. No complaints about performance, and at 30 odd pounds
it was well worth the investment.

Espen
Yes, if you haven't got the space for that old PC and can afford a new
Intel mac, thats the way to go MOSTLY.

Still can't drive a parallel port though :-)

Though USB-parallel exists..and might actually work with decent windows
drivers.

Further MaC dual system dramas
===============================

"WHY IS MY FREEHAND CRASHING!" (or was it illustrator?)

"Cos you have set it up to use the Classic environment"

"IT DOESN'T CRASH, BUT MY FONTS ARE GONE WEIRD!!"

"Thats because although it is a program ported to a Mac, it doesn't
actually use the MAC font system. They sell their own: Close it, open
"font suitcase", and open it again"

"MUMBLE MUMBLE MY OLD MAC WAS NEVER LIKE THIS"

:-)


In the meantime I had booted this one off her old Classic disk, to get
classic back if she needed it 'native'.

Well of course MAC OS/9 'select a boot device' took one look at the
Tiger disk and said 'dunno what that is' and refused to let me set it to
boot from back into OS/X.

Fortunately my PC was in the next room and a quick google and a print
gave me a series of random keys to press while doing yoga like exercises
to hit the reset button, and it finally 'came up OS-X'

God, you pay a price for a pretty face, don't you?
:-)

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well of course MAC OS/9 'select a boot device' took one look at the
Tiger disk and said 'dunno what that is' and refused to let me set it to
boot from back into OS/X.

Fortunately my PC was in the next room and a quick google and a print
gave me a series of random keys to press while doing yoga like exercises
to hit the reset button, and it finally 'came up OS-X'

One should be sufficient. Hold down option (aka alt) at boot time and
all the available bootable systems from all available devices (including
external drives) will be presented in a graphical interface (with
varying eye-candy depending on generation) for you to choose from.