Macs
Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2002 7:53 pm
Mac has finally made their "computers" have some sort of use.
http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/howto ... 23,00.html
http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/howto ... 23,00.html
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2002 8:51 pm
thats funny stuff -some people paid 2000 a couple years ago and now ther only use is paper weights and fish tanks
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2002 7:32 am
Heh, as a Mac user myself, i will tell you that thats an old idea. In fact, people have been turning dead Mac cases into "MacQuariums", as they are called, since about 1992. And now that Apple has farmed "dummy" iMac cases (pre-flat panel iMac era) out to authorised Apple retailers, its possible for people to build an "iMacQuarium", as it is called, without having to strip an iMac.
FYI, i don't mean to act like a troll or an "OS Warrior", or anything, but Macs really aren't that bad a machine, once you get past the slow bus speed, low megahertz speed, and limited expandability (except for PowerMacs, which are quite expandable), Macs are very fine machines. I'm actually typing this from a Revision D (333 Mhz G3) iMac, which after 3 years, is still a great machine. I have 192 megs of RAM, and a 40 gig HD. Under Mac OS X, which is the only version of Mac OS i boot into these days on here) it is an extremely solid machine. It has gone for 7 weeks without reboots before, and has only given me 2 kernal panics (OS X equivilent to the BSoD) in the past 5 months. Don't get me wrong - PCs are damn fine machines too, provided you don't buy dodgy parts, and set it up properly with a decent operating system (Win 9x is crap, get NT, ME or 2k if you want Windows), PCs can be very nice, just the same.
Btw, the tire block idea was a joke. :laugh :lol
FYI, i don't mean to act like a troll or an "OS Warrior", or anything, but Macs really aren't that bad a machine, once you get past the slow bus speed, low megahertz speed, and limited expandability (except for PowerMacs, which are quite expandable), Macs are very fine machines. I'm actually typing this from a Revision D (333 Mhz G3) iMac, which after 3 years, is still a great machine. I have 192 megs of RAM, and a 40 gig HD. Under Mac OS X, which is the only version of Mac OS i boot into these days on here) it is an extremely solid machine. It has gone for 7 weeks without reboots before, and has only given me 2 kernal panics (OS X equivilent to the BSoD) in the past 5 months. Don't get me wrong - PCs are damn fine machines too, provided you don't buy dodgy parts, and set it up properly with a decent operating system (Win 9x is crap, get NT, ME or 2k if you want Windows), PCs can be very nice, just the same.
Btw, the tire block idea was a joke. :laugh :lol
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2002 1:22 pm
2k, xp or linux, ME belongs nowhere in the list of solid os;s for pc, 98 is 10 times more stable and hogs alot less resources
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2002 1:34 pm
2k is actually faster then 98 now and much more stable from all that I have seen. I dont touch xp or me as they are bloated versons of the 2 earlier products that actually work. 
Greg
Greg
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2002 7:07 pm
I have nothing against a Mac except the price,it if wasnt for that I'd own one.
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2002 2:41 am
i was actually referring 98 to ME. Greg 2k is probably the best microsoft os ive ever used, but i find xp better for my games, I turn off most of the xp bloat, but still hate how it actomatically makes everyone a admin, and is harder then hell to set permissions, unlike 2k
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2002 4:57 am
ME is the same exact OS as Win 9x but with an added program or so. No difference in the kernel or anything. ME is worse than 98 in most cases. 2k or XP Pro is the only way to go, emphasis on 2k.Originally posted by ClockerDude
PCs are damn fine machines too, provided you don't buy dodgy parts, and set it up properly with a decent operating system (Win 9x is crap, get NT, ME or 2k if you want Windows), PCs can be very nice, just the same.
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2002 1:06 am
Interesting. I just thought that they may have changed something low level, because according to my experience, ME is actually more stable than 98. I've been asked to do reinstalls of Windows 98 more than i have for ME.
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2002 9:04 am
ME has more self-repair ability than 98 (System Restore) which makes it a bit more idiot proof than 98, but they are both DOS-based OSes. ME is nothing but a minor upgrade over 98, unlike 2K and XP which are NT-based OSes.
ME is still suseptible to all the problems with a DOS based OS (shared memory resources that can be corrupted by misbehaved programs or drives being the worst - the reason why you have to reboot WIn95/98/ME after a GPF).
ME is still suseptible to all the problems with a DOS based OS (shared memory resources that can be corrupted by misbehaved programs or drives being the worst - the reason why you have to reboot WIn95/98/ME after a GPF).