From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <ien0gv8aoh8vfn48d5f2k49cfciqj9f673@4ax.com>, foo
<foo@bar.com> wrote:

Similar to the NTVDM and WOW. But I'd call those emulations too.

I would also call those emulations. But they're not really functionally comparable to Classic.

Why wouldn't you call the OS X Classic app an emulation? Emulation
just means 'imitation of another'... The Amiga Mac emulations (and *everyone* called them emulations) ran 0x0 Mac Systems on an 0x0
Amiga. Wouldn't you call that an emulation?

But what's _emulated_ in the Classic environment.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:47:07 GMT, Greg Weston
<gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

In article <ien0gv8aoh8vfn48d5f2k49cfciqj9f673@4ax.com>, foo
<foo@bar.com> wrote:

Similar to the NTVDM and WOW. But I'd call those emulations too.

I would also call those emulations. But they're not really functionally >comparable to Classic.

Why not? Both run Mac system software (Amiga) or older-generation
software (NTVDM/WOW).

Why wouldn't you call the OS X Classic app an emulation? Emulation
just means 'imitation of another'... The Amiga Mac emulations (and
*everyone* called them emulations) ran 0x0 Mac Systems on an 0x0
Amiga. Wouldn't you call that an emulation?

But what's _emulated_ in the Classic environment.

The System 9.2.2 environment.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

foo wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:47:07 GMT, Greg Weston
<gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

But what's _emulated_ in the Classic environment.

The System 9.2.2 environment.

Bottom line is that you can consider 9.2.2 emulated if you screw up your
face and look at it with your head at an angle. It's less so than, say, Windows 3.1 under Windows 95, but you could call it "emulated" and not
be wholy incorrect.

This is just an argument over terms, and it's pretty stupid. Exactly the
kind of word game I expect from you, foo.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

From: Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com>

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:24:52 GMT
Subject: Re: No IE 6 -- Is this Good or Bad???

In article <BB22F821.13D90%don.romero@verizon.net>,
Don Romero <don.romero@verizon.net> wrote:

Do you really blame them?

Who else? I don't run Apple.. only support a small array of High margins
and low performance hardware..?

Only support machines for seven years, you mean?

Not the hardware -- I'm not looking for 'new' 604 hardware updates. Support for OS 9.x apart from within OS X (ie 'Classic' as I believe it's called)..

Were 9.x dysfunctional, buggy, requiring constant major rewrites and such -- that'd be one thing. But just to drop it to help move Mac users off the
snide to upgrade to OS X is something else. That's Apple looking after it's cash flow, not it's users.

that would not be MY recipe for growing the
Mac user family. Pretty doesn't go very far in my book. Neither does
planned obsolescence or obsolete on delivery.

That's called "the computer industry." Macs devalue less on the way to
the car than other options.

Yeah.. the Wintel industry. Aren't Apple people were supposed to "think differently?" :-)

Forget the "computer industry".. In the computer "market", most people are using machines a generation or more removed from "state of the art". Heck,
a year ago or less, in that other computer market, I could still by Celeron based machines. For all I know (or care) they're still making 'em.

As for devaluing Macs, if it's true it's because of the Mac users out here hungry for upgrades but can't afford "new". As it is, it's going to
people selling their "old" Macs. Apple doesn't see any of that money. Were Apple smarter, they'd find a way to tap into that.

Were Apple MINE, you wouldn't have a motherboard form-of-the-month club..
you drop your new g4/5 MB into your 7600 or whatever and motor on.

That's fascinating. What would you do about the cooling? How about the different set of ports that aren't the same shape? Or should we all
still be using DB-9 serial ports or support USB but only with an adapter
that lets the standard USB connector mate with something that fits
through the RJ-11 keyboard jack?

The one thing I thought snazzy about the Performa was the ability to pull a motherboard like it was a big RAM chip. Not so much that you could change
the MB, but that it was EASY to change. I/O connectors were all along the back edge .. New MB's got new I/O forms? No problem .. all you need is a
new back cover plate in this particular scenario.

And why cooling requirements would be a difficult or unforseeable issue.. ?

(..there ARE g4 upgrades for even the lowly 7600 already.. that's more money not going to Apple.. G5? way too early to tell.)

Within the same form factors, these certainly aren't issues with PC boxes.. which have over the years undergone several connector changes (dealt with in
a little different manner).. doesn't seem to have hurt PC sales or performance..

"Upgradeable computers" is not an original idea. And it's not rocket
science.. not if Wintel people can figure it out.. :-)

Building MBs to fit inside oddball designer shapes *may* be rocket science,
but it's not a good blueprint for developing widely *affordable* new
computers.


d.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:38:43 GMT, Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net>
wrote:

foo wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:47:07 GMT, Greg Weston
<gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

But what's _emulated_ in the Classic environment.

The System 9.2.2 environment.

Bottom line is that you can consider 9.2.2 emulated if you screw up your >face and look at it with your head at an angle. It's less so than, say, >Windows 3.1 under Windows 95, but you could call it "emulated" and not
be wholy incorrect.

Apparently you aren't familiar with the distinction between
Win16/NTVDM in NT/etc. and Win95's native running of Win3.1 apps, but
that's another story.

This is just an argument over terms, and it's pretty stupid. Exactly the >kind of word game I expect from you, foo.

You're the one arguing and namecalling - I just asked.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

foo wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:38:43 GMT, Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net>
wrote:

Bottom line is that you can consider 9.2.2 emulated if you screw up your >>face and look at it with your head at an angle. It's less so than, say, >>Windows 3.1 under Windows 95, but you could call it "emulated" and not
be wholy incorrect.

Apparently you aren't familiar with the distinction between
Win16/NTVDM in NT/etc. and Win95's native running of Win3.1 apps, but
that's another story.

Oh look, Captain Tangental Word Game strikes again!

Did I ever even mention NT? No, I didn't, did I? What makes it AT ALL
related to my statement?

Oh, I know: You needed to play more word games.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:14:44 GMT, Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net>
wrote:

foo wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:38:43 GMT, Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net>
wrote:

Bottom line is that you can consider 9.2.2 emulated if you screw up your >>>face and look at it with your head at an angle. It's less so than, say, >>>Windows 3.1 under Windows 95, but you could call it "emulated" and not >>>be wholy incorrect.

Apparently you aren't familiar with the distinction between
Win16/NTVDM in NT/etc. and Win95's native running of Win3.1 apps, but
that's another story.

Oh look, Captain Tangental Word Game strikes again!

Did I ever even mention NT? No, I didn't, did I? What makes it AT ALL >related to my statement?

Follow the thread.

Oh, I know: You needed to play more word games.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:33:37 GMT, Gregory Weston
<gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

In article <j3n1gv4q5do14r4kmg8375cg34lvnvql2c@4ax.com>,
foo <foo@bar.com> wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:47:07 GMT, Greg Weston
<gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

In article <ien0gv8aoh8vfn48d5f2k49cfciqj9f673@4ax.com>, foo
<foo@bar.com> wrote:

Similar to the NTVDM and WOW. But I'd call those emulations too.

I would also call those emulations. But they're not really functionally
comparable to Classic.

Why not?

Because they are actually _emulating_ something.

So is Classic. It's emulating the System 9 environment in an OS or a
machine that cannot natively run System 9.

But what's _emulated_ in the Classic environment.

The System 9.2.2 environment.

No. Not in any real sense and certainly nothing like how WoW works.

WoW is a layer in the NT model, just as Classic is in the OS X model;
why are they different?
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

To comp.sys.mac, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.apps,
comp.sys.mac.misc and comp.sys.mac.system subscribers,

From: Didier A. Depireux <didier@tango.isr.umd.edu>,

From: Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net>,

From: ubaldo <ubust@goink.com>,

1) The one and only thing I can't do with Safari is webmail. It's
frustrating to have to change browsers just for one thing.

Well... make sure you report the bug using the built in bug button,
then. The sooner you report it, the sooner it'll get fixed. :)

That is what I though. I have reported it SEVERAL times to Apple from
day one (Safari BETA). I told them that SAFARI must be able to access
any web like I.E. otherwise I'll need to use a PC. Never got any
answer, nor did I see any fix.

How did you report it? As I understand it, Apple has not been responding
to any bug or feature requests submitted through the Safari 'bug
button' as per their policy on unsolicited feedback.

If the site you're accessing uses W3C technologies that Safari doesn't
support in 1.0, then you're right, Apple needs to move on it. If, OTOH,
the site uses proprietry Microsoft technologies (ActiveX, VBScript,
etc.), then you'll still need IE for Windows no matter what; IE for Mac
has very little of these technologies available in it.

By the way, that is actually what Microsoft is doing. No more MAC I.E.
will mean that we will all need to use PC to access 97% of the
servers/web. That has always been their strategy, the more so since
they won their legal battle!

They have to offer solutions hugely compelling against those from IBM,
Sun, Oracle, and Linux/BSD vendors offering Apache (of which Apple is
one). IIS has garnered a reputation for making life difficult in
multiplatform environments and for being extremely insecure, whether or
not deserved. With Apache still leading the way, I think we can expect
the web to be driven primarily by W3C technologies for at least awhile
longer.

You are correct about Microsoft continuing their old strategy, though.
And it's a rawer deal for their own customers: want the new IE? Have to purchase the new OS as well!

Here are my main problems:

1) There are certain secure web (SSL) that I cannot access using
SAFARI but they work OK with I.E. 5.1 or 5.2 either from a Mac or PC.

What are those sites using for authentication? They may be relying on Microsoft's authentication scheme, only available in IE. If it works in Mozilla/NetScape/Firebird/Camino, then you know it's not.

2) I want to "print" my statement from a Bank web. No way to do it
from my Mac either with Safari or with I.E.5.2 (!!!) Then, I tried
with a PC, and... bingo, I got it printed right away. Why?

Triggering a print is done through scripting. If the page is doing it
through VBScript, or is using Microsoft's implementation of JavaScript
(given that implementations of JS are still different across all
vendors), then this would fit the behaviour you describe.

The whole point of W3C standards is to ensure platform- and
device-independance for hypertext documents. Netscape "added" features
just as Microsoft "added" features after them to differentiate their
browsers from the competition, on the grounds that interoperability is
a threat to their business interests, and not an acceptable basis on
which to build their Internet technologies.

Fortunately, the world has grown too big too quickly for any vendor to
control, even Microsoft, and for public use documents have to be
interoperable so that consumers can access them through any device.
Witness Microsoft's 'focus shift' from Internet technologies (IE for
Windows essentially works with the standards now as intended) to
security technologies (Palladium etc.) as the new market battleground.
IT Security is a rising industry, and Microsoft is in the thick of it,
hoping to take home the biggest piece of the pie.

Meanwhile, the browser market is slowly recovering from the aftermath of
the IE/Communicator battles, and on the Mac specifically it will take a
little while for the Safari 'shockwave' to dissipate. When that
happens, we might see at least a modicum of true interoperability
across just about all of the WWW - or at least, across the sites that
are in English (I don't read any other languages fluently, so I won't
comment on the interoperability of sites in other languages).

digitaleon.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system



ubaldo wrote:

Here are my main problems:

1) There are certain secure web (SSL) that I cannot access using
SAFARI but they work OK with I.E. 5.1 or 5.2 either from a Mac or PC.

never ran into one myself...

2) I want to "print" my statement from a Bank web. No way to do it
from my Mac either with Safari or with I.E.5.2 (!!!) Then, I tried
with a PC, and... bingo, I got it printed right away. Why?
Note: my MAC and PC are all networked and connected to a HP 5MP.

again not ever a poblem, worse case -
take a screen shot and print that

3) Try this one: http://www.wvfc.org/index.html with Safari I cannot
use the left side menu. While with I.E. all works fine. Why? I cannot
ask the webmaster to modify his web, but I surely would expect Apple
to fix it once I told them about this strange, non standard,
behaviour.

This site does not work in Safari -
BUT
it does work in Netscape 7

I have had issues with Safari and frames - often (although not in this
case), you can often right click (control click) on the frame link and
open in a new page and things then work.

Last - why can you not request a change to the web site design?
I do it all the time - this does not mean that they will make the
change, but often the web site will.

Any suggestion? Thanks

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113