fatandlazy11
Apr 17, 04:49 PM
Hi, I know this is not the place for this, but ive tried every other computer site on the net, this is the only one left.
Ok, ok. I own a windows computer. I bought a imac G3 to replace it. as soon as i get the mac working, i notice my PC is acting a little crazy. So i turn it off and on again. Normaly, the fan spins for about 15 seconeds, and then it boots. This time, the fan STAYS on and there is no video wahtsoever. It's been 3 days, and Im desprate to get all my music off of it and onto my mac, but nothing's working.
Like I said, this is the wrong place. but i was hoping one of u guys used a windows comp once or twice
Ok, ok. I own a windows computer. I bought a imac G3 to replace it. as soon as i get the mac working, i notice my PC is acting a little crazy. So i turn it off and on again. Normaly, the fan spins for about 15 seconeds, and then it boots. This time, the fan STAYS on and there is no video wahtsoever. It's been 3 days, and Im desprate to get all my music off of it and onto my mac, but nothing's working.
Like I said, this is the wrong place. but i was hoping one of u guys used a windows comp once or twice
ham_man
Jul 15, 08:42 PM
3
My PowerBook; the kitchen PC, to test the internet, and the school computer (I consider it one because there are hundreds, and that would skew the results... :rolleyes: )...
My PowerBook; the kitchen PC, to test the internet, and the school computer (I consider it one because there are hundreds, and that would skew the results... :rolleyes: )...
mischief
Oct 28, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by springscansing
BUT, you'd also have OS X, and great looking machines. If people see a ugly machine, and a beautiful one, same speed, they get the nicer one. Plus OS X is an easy sell over XP. They could target all advertising at this one thing.
Plus, I'm not a programmer, but I'd assume running Intel chips would make porting programs MUCH easier. I might be wrong here, but I don't think I am... there would be a lot greater incentive to develop for mac, since it's not too much more work.
Intel would mean much more mac software, same speed as the competition, better OS, better systems in general, etc.
So... what's SO bad about intel? If IBM is faster, go IBM. But Intel would be great too!
Actually, you WOULDN'T have OS X OR the pretty machines: The pretty machines are reliant on a much lower-heat chip than Pentium and re-doing OS X, regardless of x-Darwin would be a giant pain in the ass. It would be vastly easier to go with the IBM PPC 970 and/or Moto PPC 7457 that rewrite and retool everything from the ground up.
Intel would NOT mean more software as OS X isn't Windoze, which is way more pivotal to the software issue than which processor.
You're basically saying that if Pigs could fly we could all have fried pork wings and wouldn't that just be peachy.:rolleyes: Because of course, not being a genetic scientist it would make all that cooking stuff so much easier. If this was a face to face I'd slap you. :p
BUT, you'd also have OS X, and great looking machines. If people see a ugly machine, and a beautiful one, same speed, they get the nicer one. Plus OS X is an easy sell over XP. They could target all advertising at this one thing.
Plus, I'm not a programmer, but I'd assume running Intel chips would make porting programs MUCH easier. I might be wrong here, but I don't think I am... there would be a lot greater incentive to develop for mac, since it's not too much more work.
Intel would mean much more mac software, same speed as the competition, better OS, better systems in general, etc.
So... what's SO bad about intel? If IBM is faster, go IBM. But Intel would be great too!
Actually, you WOULDN'T have OS X OR the pretty machines: The pretty machines are reliant on a much lower-heat chip than Pentium and re-doing OS X, regardless of x-Darwin would be a giant pain in the ass. It would be vastly easier to go with the IBM PPC 970 and/or Moto PPC 7457 that rewrite and retool everything from the ground up.
Intel would NOT mean more software as OS X isn't Windoze, which is way more pivotal to the software issue than which processor.
You're basically saying that if Pigs could fly we could all have fried pork wings and wouldn't that just be peachy.:rolleyes: Because of course, not being a genetic scientist it would make all that cooking stuff so much easier. If this was a face to face I'd slap you. :p
ddtlm
Oct 15, 04:51 PM
Jeffx342:
Yeah, something major may always happen. Even two weeks from now! And three! And four! And five! :)
Yeah, something major may always happen. Even two weeks from now! And three! And four! And five! :)
MisterMe
Sep 23, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Most Mac users really like their Macs and wouldn't want to use anything else, so they simply try to keep the software up to date as best they can before they can afford a new Mac.
Buyers don't buy just computers. They decide among a panoply of choices--be it an automobile, new home, entertainment system, expensive meals at restaurant, etc. The choice to buy one thing is the choice to postpone the purchases of other things. If you are correct in your assessment, then an Apple buyer will likely choose to buy the computer he loves rather than that new suite of office furniture. After all, if he loves his 1999 PowerMac G3, then he expects to love a new 2001 PowerMac G4 even more. In the words of that old Beatles song: "Love is all you need."
Still, Mac users tend to hold onto their machines. I offer an alternate theory. The average Mac user doesn't "love" his or her computer. He/she bought it and uses it because it allows him/her to concentrate on getting the job done. The Mac "just works" without a lot of fuss or muss. One software package installed on it can be upgraded without fear that the other software will be broken by the upgrade.
Originally posted by alex_ant
The reason PCs are more frequently replaced, if they are, is because that's a luxury afforded by the cheaper hardware on that side of the fence. So I think the reason Macs tend to "last" longer is not technical - it's preferential or financial.
Alex
There are PCs which are purchased by users with their own money. A small fraction of those build their own machines. However, the vast majority of PCs are used in business. The users are paid to use them.
The Mac and PC markets have very different dynamics. People who buy Macs tend to purchase them with funds at their disposal for their own use. Mac users tend to provide their own technical support. People who buy PCs tend to purchase them with other people's money for use by third parties. Upgrading software and peripherals can be a nighmare. Buying new machines is an expensive form of technical support.
Most Mac users really like their Macs and wouldn't want to use anything else, so they simply try to keep the software up to date as best they can before they can afford a new Mac.
Buyers don't buy just computers. They decide among a panoply of choices--be it an automobile, new home, entertainment system, expensive meals at restaurant, etc. The choice to buy one thing is the choice to postpone the purchases of other things. If you are correct in your assessment, then an Apple buyer will likely choose to buy the computer he loves rather than that new suite of office furniture. After all, if he loves his 1999 PowerMac G3, then he expects to love a new 2001 PowerMac G4 even more. In the words of that old Beatles song: "Love is all you need."
Still, Mac users tend to hold onto their machines. I offer an alternate theory. The average Mac user doesn't "love" his or her computer. He/she bought it and uses it because it allows him/her to concentrate on getting the job done. The Mac "just works" without a lot of fuss or muss. One software package installed on it can be upgraded without fear that the other software will be broken by the upgrade.
Originally posted by alex_ant
The reason PCs are more frequently replaced, if they are, is because that's a luxury afforded by the cheaper hardware on that side of the fence. So I think the reason Macs tend to "last" longer is not technical - it's preferential or financial.
Alex
There are PCs which are purchased by users with their own money. A small fraction of those build their own machines. However, the vast majority of PCs are used in business. The users are paid to use them.
The Mac and PC markets have very different dynamics. People who buy Macs tend to purchase them with funds at their disposal for their own use. Mac users tend to provide their own technical support. People who buy PCs tend to purchase them with other people's money for use by third parties. Upgrading software and peripherals can be a nighmare. Buying new machines is an expensive form of technical support.
zap2
Apr 2, 04:29 PM
Come on Tuesday!
looklost
Mar 16, 02:10 PM
Where is it? Dead link. Did they take it down?
Rower_CPU
Sep 7, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
�
i think bttm is the most diplomatic person i have ever seen on macrumors
Just don't get him talking politics.;)
�
i think bttm is the most diplomatic person i have ever seen on macrumors
Just don't get him talking politics.;)
Postal
Oct 12, 03:28 PM
I'm pretty sure that Apple cares (at least to the degree that they want you to have enough reasons to buy), and I think the issue is mainly with Motorola.
However, I don't think any of us could honestly say whether it's because Motorola can't, or simply won't, put out the speeds and volumes that Apple would like. The G4 is indeed clock-limited (the higher the number of pipelines, the harder it is to speed them up); at the same time, they've gradually been disinterested in the CPU market. Their financial situation hasn't helped either.
It's difficult for me to blame IBM; yes, for the longest time they've been reluctant to include vector multimedia extensions (i.e. VMX, or something eerily similiar to Altivec) in a desktop-oriented PPC, but there hasn't been much doubt as to their capabilities for manufacturing. They said last year that they could get the G3 (in the 750FX version) up to 1 GHz, and they presumably didn't simply because it would have killed incentives to get the Powerbook. A lot of the speculation about the flat-panel iMac in late 2001 was that the iMac would have a 1 GHz G3 processor.
Now that IBM seems to be including VMX in their desktop Power4 variant, I wouldn't be surprised if IBM gladly stepped in and gave the lineup a good kickstart.
However, I don't think any of us could honestly say whether it's because Motorola can't, or simply won't, put out the speeds and volumes that Apple would like. The G4 is indeed clock-limited (the higher the number of pipelines, the harder it is to speed them up); at the same time, they've gradually been disinterested in the CPU market. Their financial situation hasn't helped either.
It's difficult for me to blame IBM; yes, for the longest time they've been reluctant to include vector multimedia extensions (i.e. VMX, or something eerily similiar to Altivec) in a desktop-oriented PPC, but there hasn't been much doubt as to their capabilities for manufacturing. They said last year that they could get the G3 (in the 750FX version) up to 1 GHz, and they presumably didn't simply because it would have killed incentives to get the Powerbook. A lot of the speculation about the flat-panel iMac in late 2001 was that the iMac would have a 1 GHz G3 processor.
Now that IBM seems to be including VMX in their desktop Power4 variant, I wouldn't be surprised if IBM gladly stepped in and gave the lineup a good kickstart.
wowser
Dec 7, 07:59 PM
check out www.mozilla.org
anyone have experience with this program?
I'm gonna check it out.
Back in my Windows days, this was great (even on a very early release) - more like Apple's Mail, than Outlook.
anyone have experience with this program?
I'm gonna check it out.
Back in my Windows days, this was great (even on a very early release) - more like Apple's Mail, than Outlook.
runninmac
May 29, 06:28 PM
I actually think it would be rather relaxing if I knew they were going to get me out. I mean your in one of the worlds biggest cities stuck in a wonderes cube at night time. I would want to do that on purpose!
dubbz
Aug 15, 05:20 AM
Read the Sticky named Folding@Home FAQ (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=21908). It has all the info you need. :)
Dreadnought
Nov 12, 09:54 AM
So is anyone else using the beta besides me?So, where did you get the Beta from? I looked at the download/beta section of Stanford, but didn't see it.
e�Studios
Mar 19, 12:52 AM
It has NO online features.
A couple of days ago, we had some sort of confusion regarding the Wii version of Blazing Angels (360 and PS3) and the possibility of a multiplayer mode, be it in the form of WiFi or full-blown online play. We're sad to share this with you but Ubisoft just dismissed these speculations.
We checked back Ubisoft's official UK site and amazingly, it has been updated and any reference to multiplayer play has been removed. This then brings us to Pokemon Revolution as the first and only video game on the Wii, as of yet, that will have the above-mentioned feature.
http://wii.qj.net/Ubisoft-No-online-play-for-Blazing-Angels-Wii/pg/49/aid/85153
After SNK’s Ben Herman made us all cry with his claim that there might not be any third-party online Wii games in yesterday saw an optimistic round of counter-gossip.
Nintendic says the rumours started with a Wi-Fi logo appearing on games site IGN next to Ubisoft’s Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII game. Meanwhile, NintendoWiiFanboy.com claimed that online development kits had been sent out, fuelling the fire.
But no. Wii-UK took the novel step of actually asking the publisher for the true story. Their response: no online multiplayer. Bah. Apparently the first Wii online game is still set to be those pesky Pokemon.
http://www.wiiwii.tv/2007/03/06/blazing-angels-is-online-wait-oh-no-its-not/
Wow, could SNK be telling *gasp* the truth!!¿¡¡¿¡¡¿
Wii Online Am Cry..
Ed
A couple of days ago, we had some sort of confusion regarding the Wii version of Blazing Angels (360 and PS3) and the possibility of a multiplayer mode, be it in the form of WiFi or full-blown online play. We're sad to share this with you but Ubisoft just dismissed these speculations.
We checked back Ubisoft's official UK site and amazingly, it has been updated and any reference to multiplayer play has been removed. This then brings us to Pokemon Revolution as the first and only video game on the Wii, as of yet, that will have the above-mentioned feature.
http://wii.qj.net/Ubisoft-No-online-play-for-Blazing-Angels-Wii/pg/49/aid/85153
After SNK’s Ben Herman made us all cry with his claim that there might not be any third-party online Wii games in yesterday saw an optimistic round of counter-gossip.
Nintendic says the rumours started with a Wi-Fi logo appearing on games site IGN next to Ubisoft’s Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII game. Meanwhile, NintendoWiiFanboy.com claimed that online development kits had been sent out, fuelling the fire.
But no. Wii-UK took the novel step of actually asking the publisher for the true story. Their response: no online multiplayer. Bah. Apparently the first Wii online game is still set to be those pesky Pokemon.
http://www.wiiwii.tv/2007/03/06/blazing-angels-is-online-wait-oh-no-its-not/
Wow, could SNK be telling *gasp* the truth!!¿¡¡¿¡¡¿
Wii Online Am Cry..
Ed
Macmaniac
May 31, 08:42 AM
I work in a Mac repair shop so I get so see nothing but busted Macs. You would be amazed how annoying installing Tiger is after the 50th time.
Dagless
Mar 21, 05:54 PM
Is this the one by Hudson too? They don't normally develop poo. Another game I wasn't planning on getting gets a bad score :o I wish they stuck this into a Wii- generation game (Wii Fly?), gave it a decent multiplayer and then it might have appeal.
edesignuk
Sep 2, 07:50 AM
Here are just a few...
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10576
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10221
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10056
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10120
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10576
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10221
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10056
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10120
wdlove
Apr 9, 02:20 PM
I would prefer to see something better than cartoon looking characters. Wasn't impressed.
iPoster
Mar 29, 04:46 PM
I have seen it mentioned by other folders, but I have no idea where to begin. I imagine it's similar to building a home server, but I have never done that before either.
I'm asking because I have some old 'puter parts lying around doing nothing useful at the moment, that I thought I could build into something that would sit in a quiet corner of the house and fold.
Any suggestions? :confused:
I'm asking because I have some old 'puter parts lying around doing nothing useful at the moment, that I thought I could build into something that would sit in a quiet corner of the house and fold.
Any suggestions? :confused:
MacRumors
Mar 18, 02:22 PM
According to Corante.com (http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/03/17/johansen_creates_drmfree_interface_to_itunes.php), from the same authors of QTFairUse (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031122001549.shtml), comes what is described as "the fair interface to the iTunes Music Store". The application called PyMusique (http://fuware.nanocrew.net/pymusique/) acts as a front end for the iTunes Music Store and allows users to preview iTunes songs, signup for an account, buy songs and redownload songs that were bought with PyMusique.
The most notable twist is this quote from Jon Johansen ("DVD Jon"), one of the authors of the application:
It is somewhat interesting from a DMCA/EUCD perspective. The iTunes Music Store actually sells songs without DRM. While iTunes adds DRM to your purchases, PyMusique does not.
Note: This application has been untested by this site, and Apple will likely take steps to prevent future usage.
The most notable twist is this quote from Jon Johansen ("DVD Jon"), one of the authors of the application:
It is somewhat interesting from a DMCA/EUCD perspective. The iTunes Music Store actually sells songs without DRM. While iTunes adds DRM to your purchases, PyMusique does not.
Note: This application has been untested by this site, and Apple will likely take steps to prevent future usage.
Vector
Sep 4, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Macunixhacker
Here is the P58 document that has been getting removed from sites at apples request: GET IT WHILE YOU CAN (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.callejea.com/cgi-bin/phpnuke/index.php&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dapplep58%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8)
That is not the one that i found on apples site. That is one from a person named apple58 who put it on the boards a long time ago. We are talking about one that i found on the 28th on a private server of apple's. It has the engineering scematics and circuitry for firewire 2, the other pdf does not.
Here is the P58 document that has been getting removed from sites at apples request: GET IT WHILE YOU CAN (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.callejea.com/cgi-bin/phpnuke/index.php&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dapplep58%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8)
That is not the one that i found on apples site. That is one from a person named apple58 who put it on the boards a long time ago. We are talking about one that i found on the 28th on a private server of apple's. It has the engineering scematics and circuitry for firewire 2, the other pdf does not.
shadowfax0
Sep 29, 07:12 PM
Whoops! :D
JSRockit
Sep 30, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
ibook $999 at 700 mhz or 800 mhz and 128 mb ram and cd-rom
:D
There is no way that they will give a speed bump to the iBook and then lower the price substancially. I can see $999 with CD-ROM, 128MB Ram, and a 600Mhz G3 maybe...but nothing else for that kind of loot.
ibook $999 at 700 mhz or 800 mhz and 128 mb ram and cd-rom
:D
There is no way that they will give a speed bump to the iBook and then lower the price substancially. I can see $999 with CD-ROM, 128MB Ram, and a 600Mhz G3 maybe...but nothing else for that kind of loot.
mc68k
Sep 8, 04:11 PM
Well, actually, I work at CompUSA, and all the Macs (All Intel, now) are on all Day, doing nothing anyway. I figured I may as well make their power usage worthwhile.
Hell, if I could find an automated script for Windows that would launch upon bootup I'd put it on all the PCs as well.
if u have admin privs, all u need to do is:
download the windows console client (the command line one)
put it in a folder
open a terminal window (run -> cmd.exe)
launch it
3rd option on intial setup is: Launch automatically as a system service on system startup (yes/no)
thats all there is to it. to make it easier if ur gonna do it a bunch of times, u could set it up one on a memory stick and then just copy the folder over, making sure it installs the service. even if the machines dont have internet access you could put the client on there, let it finish a WU, then copy it onto a memory stick, then upload it from a machine that does.
Hell, if I could find an automated script for Windows that would launch upon bootup I'd put it on all the PCs as well.
if u have admin privs, all u need to do is:
download the windows console client (the command line one)
put it in a folder
open a terminal window (run -> cmd.exe)
launch it
3rd option on intial setup is: Launch automatically as a system service on system startup (yes/no)
thats all there is to it. to make it easier if ur gonna do it a bunch of times, u could set it up one on a memory stick and then just copy the folder over, making sure it installs the service. even if the machines dont have internet access you could put the client on there, let it finish a WU, then copy it onto a memory stick, then upload it from a machine that does.
No comments:
Post a Comment