From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Well I have a better reason.. Scratch that..


Well, can it be inferior if the machine is now running 4 times faster?


But here would be the better reason to lay of SJ


Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?


They have been really missing the boat for many years...

iTunes etc is what has saved them..

The MacOSX is superior than anything else yet goes for <$100 ;Windows
goes for more and they don't sell hardware and are making the all the
money..

When Apple ports their OS to PC's they will dominate the market.

cd


, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just >because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior >technology.

Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac >Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in >jeaopardy and danger.

The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com>,
notell <jeep4parts2@verizon.net> wrote:

Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

Because they would go out of business.

Many, many companies have tried to do this. Every single one, without exception, has gone out of business as a result. Every one.

We learn from history that we do not learn anything from history.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-11, notell <jeep4parts2@verizon.net> wrote:

Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

Apple's core business is hardware - Macs and iPods. The unique
ability to run Mac OS X is one of the primary reasons that people
buy Macs. One can only assume that Apple have done the sums and
come to the conclusion that the increase in OS sales would not
compensate for the decrease in hardware sales.

Any other questions?

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

notell wrote:

Well I have a better reason.. Scratch that..

Well, can it be inferior if the machine is now running 4 times faster?

But here would be the better reason to lay of SJ

Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

Have you seen the state of some of the cheap knockoff boxes out there that their manufacturers have the nerve to call a computer? I won't waste time claiming that Windows XP is perfect, but I'd be willing to bet a good percentage of the people moaning about stability problems with it are
actually suffering from hardware faults due to below spec parts, and not the fault of the software at all.

I think keeping out of that mess is the smartest thing Apple have done on their road to Intel.


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <tacitr-ADE1CE.13244711042006@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

We learn from history that we do not learn anything from history.

ROTFL!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Entity Robert Moir uttered this profundity:

I'd be willing to bet a good
percentage of the people moaning about stability problems with it are actually suffering from hardware faults due to below spec parts

I hate to denigrate the American Way, but the Profit Motive shot themselves
in the foot on this one. All those PeeCees are made with the absolute
cheapest components that are ordered in bulk from the cheapest bidder.

Not a recipe for reliability.

-- Gnarlie

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com> notell wrote:

Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

They have been really missing the boat for many years...

iTunes etc is what has saved them..

The MacOSX is superior than anything else yet goes for <$100 ;Windows
goes for more and they don't sell hardware and are making the all the
money..

When Apple ports their OS to PC's they will dominate the market.

Please read this first: http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas

When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made
there, then come back here and tell us what they are.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
http://roger.geek.nz/ ________________________________________________________________________
No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20060412225402421+1200@News.Individual.NET>,
Roger Johnstone <news2006@roger.geek.nz> wrote:

In <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com> notell wrote:

....

Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

.....

Please read this first: >http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas

When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made
there, then come back here and tell us what they are.

Excellent points in your article. This underscores the importance
to Apple of preserving hardware sales (their core business). The
risk in moving to intel cpus is the potential creation and wide-spread disemination of bootleg MacOS X that runs on generic pc hardware.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20060412225402421+1200@News.Individual.NET>, Roger
Johnstone <news2006@roger.geek.nz> wrote:

Please read this first: http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas

When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made
there, then come back here and tell us what they are.

Okay.
I don't think Apple should do it, either, but I've got one:

What that argument explains is how Apple does business TODAY.

What it ignores is that a very large part of their business could take
a new direction.

There are many examples in business history, and I suppose one of the
most famous is Wrigley's.
He got started in soap and baking powder; gum was once offered as a
premium, a mere gimmick. It proved to be in more demand, and he
eventually switched the entire company to make the gum.

http://www.wrigley.com/wrigley/about/about_story.asp

I'm not saying Apple is in the same position, nor that they should
switch, but three things are important:
they haven't got a major hardware performance advantage, so their
reliability and quality has to be emphasized
the OS and software is definitely their strongest asset, and would
almost certainly be popular if they opened it's market.
the iPod and iTunes Store markets would not be hurt by that move
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Roger Johnstone <news2006@roger.geek.nz> wrote:

In <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com> notell wrote:

Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

They have been really missing the boat for many years...

iTunes etc is what has saved them..

The MacOSX is superior than anything else yet goes for <$100 ;Windows
goes for more and they don't sell hardware and are making the all the money..

When Apple ports their OS to PC's they will dominate the market.

Please read this first: http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas

When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made
there, then come back here and tell us what they are.

If I had a penny for every time I'd seen someone ignorantly trott out,
"Apple should just put OSX on generic x86", like some sort of armchair
CEO, I'd have... well, about 10 or 11 pennies now...

This is excellent! Whenever I hear this asked again, I'm going to point
them to this page, and say no more. Assuming it's going to be around
for the foreseeable future that is.

--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

RE the posting:
<< The risk in moving to intel cpus is the potential creation and wide-spread disemination of bootleg MacOS X that runs on generic pc hardware. >>

I wouldn't be surprised if - within two years - Apple is selling a boxed version of "OS X for Intel-based computers".

Impossible, you say?

Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to boot Windows on a Mac?

But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs hit the shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker with them to install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD NOT support Windows-booting on Apple products?

Boy, times change fast around here. Never say "never".

- John
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

No. I recalll Apple issuing a standard "no comment".

But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to boot Windows on a Mac?

I recall just the opposite... a statement that they wouldn't do
anything to block it.

But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs hit the shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker with them to install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD NOT support Windows-booting on Apple products?

No, I don't recall that.

Can you offer cites for any of this?
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>,
John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

RE the posting:
<< The risk in moving to intel cpus is the potential creation and wide-spread >disemination of bootleg MacOS X that runs on generic pc hardware. >>

I wouldn't be surprised if - within two years - Apple is selling a boxed >version of "OS X for Intel-based computers".

Impossible, you say?

Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested that >Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the Intel >chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

I don't know for sure, but since Apple's general policy is not to
comment on unreleased products, I doubt they made any such fervent denials.

But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were >announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to >boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to >boot Windows on a Mac?

Apple never denied that.

But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs hit the >shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker with them to >install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD NOT support >Windows-booting on Apple products?

No, in fact, I don't remember that.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-12 13:26:47 -0700, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) said:

Roger Johnstone <news2006@roger.geek.nz> wrote:

In <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com> notell wrote:

Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?


They have been really missing the boat for many years...

iTunes etc is what has saved them..

The MacOSX is superior than anything else yet goes for <$100 ;Windows
goes for more and they don't sell hardware and are making the all the
money..

When Apple ports their OS to PC's they will dominate the market.

Please read this first:
http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas

When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made
there, then come back here and tell us what they are.

If I had a penny for every time I'd seen someone ignorantly trott out,
"Apple should just put OSX on generic x86", like some sort of armchair
CEO, I'd have... well, about 10 or 11 pennies now...

This is excellent! Whenever I hear this asked again, I'm going to point
them to this page, and say no more. Assuming it's going to be around
for the foreseeable future that is.

I notice that Jon only considers the case of the product being sold for
the same price, whether it's for a Mac or for a generic machine.

There is a large group of people who don't get to choose their
hardware, because of company-wide supply contracts that their IT
departments make with Dell or HP, but who nevertheless have the
authority to spend a grand on a software package. For those users, I'd
say go ahead and sell them OS X, but charge enough that the net is
about the same as selling them a Mac, plus a premium to allow for the
costs of supporting the product in Dell's crappy hardware. $600 for a
user install, $800 for a developer seat (same price as OpenStep 4.0)
should do it.

-jcr

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
chips. They never said anything about it.

But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to boot Windows on a Mac?

They never denied it would be possible. They even said they would do
nothing to prevent it.

But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs
hit the shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker
with them to install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD
NOT support Windows-booting on Apple products?

They said and say they will not support Windows. They did not say
anything about dual booting.

--
Charles
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1hdp78w.hzfzodb6x0xnN%me4@privacy.net>,
me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:

This is excellent! Whenever I hear this asked again, I'm going to point
them to this page, and say no more. Assuming it's going to be around
for the foreseeable future that is.

DaringFireball.net is John Gruber's web site, and all the articles are his. He posts them quite often, and the archive contains his articles all the
way back to 2002, which is probably when he started the site, and I expect they'll stay there for years to come.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to boot Windows on a Mac?

But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs hit the shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker with them to install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD NOT support Windows-booting on Apple products?

I remember the reverse; Apple was determined that Mac OS X would not
run on non-Apple hardware.
They've been pretty specific about that.
Are you sure that isn't the statement that you read?
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <120420061750288243%mitch@hawaii.rr>,
Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to
boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to
boot Windows on a Mac?

But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs hit the shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker with them to install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD NOT support Windows-booting on Apple products?

I remember the reverse; Apple was determined that Mac OS X would not
run on non-Apple hardware.
They've been pretty specific about that.
Are you sure that isn't the statement that you read?

There were two statements.

One was that OS X would not run on non-Apple hardware.

The other was that while Apple wasn't going to prevent loading Windows
onto Apple hardware, they weren't planning on facilitating it, either.
So the expectation was that third parties would produce something like
Boot Camp, not Apple themselves.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

John C. Randolph <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote:

On 2006-04-12 13:26:47 -0700, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) said:

Roger Johnstone <news2006@roger.geek.nz> wrote:

In <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com> notell wrote:

Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't >>> they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?


They have been really missing the boat for many years...

iTunes etc is what has saved them..

The MacOSX is superior than anything else yet goes for <$100 ;Windows
goes for more and they don't sell hardware and are making the all the
money..

When Apple ports their OS to PC's they will dominate the market.

Please read this first:
http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas

When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made
there, then come back here and tell us what they are.

If I had a penny for every time I'd seen someone ignorantly trott out, "Apple should just put OSX on generic x86", like some sort of armchair
CEO, I'd have... well, about 10 or 11 pennies now...

This is excellent! Whenever I hear this asked again, I'm going to point them to this page, and say no more. Assuming it's going to be around
for the foreseeable future that is.

I notice that Jon only considers the case of the product being sold for
the same price, whether it's for a Mac or for a generic machine.

There is a large group of people who don't get to choose their
hardware, because of company-wide supply contracts that their IT
departments make with Dell or HP, but who nevertheless have the
authority to spend a grand on a software package. For those users, I'd
say go ahead and sell them OS X, but charge enough that the net is
about the same as selling them a Mac, plus a premium to allow for the
costs of supporting the product in Dell's crappy hardware. $600 for a
user install, $800 for a developer seat (same price as OpenStep 4.0)
should do it.

<quote>
unlike Mac OS X installer DVDs, you can't burn copies of MacBooks or
iPods.
</quote>

--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

I seem to remember that I purchased a [now defunct] Apple PC card for my
old 6100/60. It booted into Windows ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
chips. They never said anything about it.

They even developed an Intel version of Darwin - a free download ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Roger Johnstone <news2006@roger.geek.nz> wrote:

http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas

When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made
there, then come back here and tell us what they are.

What we really need is a way of running Windows [applications]
concurrently with MacOSX, with full support of copy-and-paste ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

What we really need is a way of running Windows [applications]
concurrently with MacOSX, with full support of copy-and-paste ...

Coming real soon now to a mac near you:
<http://www.parallels.com/>
--
/Jon
For mail address, run the following in Terminal:
echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: storhaugen
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Jon <see_signature@mac.com.invalid> wrote:

Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

What we really need is a way of running Windows [applications]
concurrently with MacOSX, with full support of copy-and-paste ...

Coming real soon now to a mac near you:
<http://www.parallels.com/>

I have noticed:-).
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:25:28 -0700, Per Rønne wrote
(in article <1hdqqlq.tc9ap1i5pd1fN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):

Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested >>> that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on >>> the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
chips. They never said anything about it.

They even developed an Intel version of Darwin - a free download ...

Even during Job's Keynote address last year when Apple's first Intel machines were released, he stated publicly that Apple had been developing and RUNNING an Intel version of OS X right alongside OS X/PPC.

If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY be supported on Apple machines. In addition, he assured everyone that OS X
would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a generic version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.

In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs, including BIOS chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.

Because of this, I am inclined to believe that Apple's software labs had a means of dual-booting OS X/Intel and Windows XP by the time the second round of Intels were announced, and released it earlier than expected (and unfinished/crippled) because of user demand (they may be in the midst of developing commercial virtualization software).

--

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact. ========================================================

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-13, Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

What we really need is a way of running Windows [applications]
concurrently with MacOSX, with full support of copy-and-paste ...

You have slightly confused two different abilities here.

1) The ability to run Windows applications under Mac OS X
2) The ability to run Windows and Mac OS X concurrently

Personally I need these abilities like a fish needs a bicycle
but I do understand that there is a market for products which
provide them.

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <0001HW.C063F22900129846F0488530@news20.forteinc.com>,
Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:25:28 -0700, Per Rønne wrote
(in article <1hdqqlq.tc9ap1i5pd1fN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):

Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested >>> that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on >>> the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
chips. They never said anything about it.

They even developed an Intel version of Darwin - a free download ...

Even during Job's Keynote address last year when Apple's first Intel machines
were released, he stated publicly that Apple had been developing and RUNNING an Intel version of OS X right alongside OS X/PPC.

If I remember correctly,

You don't. Try watching the keynote again. http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf06/

Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY be
supported on Apple machines. In addition, he assured everyone that OS X would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a generic
version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.

In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs, including BIOS chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.

Because of this, I am inclined to believe that Apple's software labs had a means of dual-booting OS X/Intel and Windows XP by the time the second round of Intels were announced, and released it earlier than expected (and unfinished/crippled) because of user demand (they may be in the midst of developing commercial virtualization software).

--
reguarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

Because of this, I am inclined to believe that Apple's software labs had a means of dual-booting OS X/Intel and Windows XP by the time the second round of Intels were announced, and released it earlier than expected (and unfinished/crippled) because of user demand (they may be in the midst of developing commercial virtualization software).

That will make it optional for the user which system will be booted
into, and if booted into MacOS X, it will be able to run Windows as a
guest.

With the new Parallels, the partition used by DualBoot cannot be used.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

On 2006-04-13, Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

What we really need is a way of running Windows [applications]
concurrently with MacOSX, with full support of copy-and-paste ...

You have slightly confused two different abilities here.

1) The ability to run Windows applications under Mac OS X
2) The ability to run Windows and Mac OS X concurrently

I am fully aware of the two possibilities here - had I not I had not
mentioned "applications" - in brackets.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-13, Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

On 2006-04-13, Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

What we really need is a way of running Windows [applications]
concurrently with MacOSX, with full support of copy-and-paste ...

You have slightly confused two different abilities here.

1) The ability to run Windows applications under Mac OS X
2) The ability to run Windows and Mac OS X concurrently

I am fully aware of the two possibilities here - had I not I had not mentioned "applications" - in brackets.

What I meant by "confused" is that your statement gives us
no clue as to whether you think we really need 1) or really
need 2) or really need both 1) and 2).

Of course 2) does not imply 1) but at least in *theory* it
would seem that having 1) would make 2) redundant. In theory
there is no difference between theory and practice, but in
practice...

Neither 1) nor 2) implies the abilty to cut and paste between
Windows applications and Mac applications, so you were right
to add that as an additional requirement.

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

John Albert wrote:
[snip]

Boy, times change fast around here. Never say "never".

I think the tin foil lining on your baseball cap has got too tight again.


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

What I meant by "confused" is that your statement gives us
no clue as to whether you think we really need 1) or really
need 2) or really need both 1) and 2).

To me, it would be fully sufficient to be able to run a few Windows applications directly from MacOS X, namely a few dictionaries not
available for Mac + Access.

After all I have Windows computers too, one desktop and one IBM laptop.
I just need to be able to copy-and-paste. And not have to have more than
one computer running [which costs electricity] just in order to look up
a word in Oxford English Dictionary [the 23 volume version on CD-ROM].
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-14, Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

What I meant by "confused" is that your statement gives us
no clue as to whether you think we really need 1) or really
need 2) or really need both 1) and 2).

To me, it would be fully sufficient to be able to run a few Windows applications directly from MacOS X, namely a few dictionaries not
available for Mac + Access.

OK, thanks for the clarification and sorry for being pedantic:-)
It seems that it is possible to do this using Darwine, but it is
in an early stage of development and "definitely not ready for
prime time". The best resource I know of for information about
running Windows or Windows applications on an Intel Mac is:

http://www.macwindows.com/winintelmac.html

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

On 2006-04-14, Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

What I meant by "confused" is that your statement gives us
no clue as to whether you think we really need 1) or really
need 2) or really need both 1) and 2).

To me, it would be fully sufficient to be able to run a few Windows applications directly from MacOS X, namely a few dictionaries not
available for Mac + Access.

OK, thanks for the clarification and sorry for being pedantic:-)
It seems that it is possible to do this using Darwine, but it is
in an early stage of development and "definitely not ready for
prime time". The best resource I know of for information about
running Windows or Windows applications on an Intel Mac is:

http://www.macwindows.com/winintelmac.html

Well, I'll have to wait for it until I actually own a MacIntel.

But I've bookmarked the site:-).
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-13 03:18:23 -0700, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) said:

John C. Randolph <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote:

On 2006-04-12 13:26:47 -0700, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) said:

Roger Johnstone <news2006@roger.geek.nz> wrote:

In <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com> notell wrote:

Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't >>>>> they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?


They have been really missing the boat for many years...

iTunes etc is what has saved them..

The MacOSX is superior than anything else yet goes for <$100 ;Windows >>>>> goes for more and they don't sell hardware and are making the all the >>>>> money..

When Apple ports their OS to PC's they will dominate the market.

Please read this first:
http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas

When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made
there, then come back here and tell us what they are.

If I had a penny for every time I'd seen someone ignorantly trott out,
"Apple should just put OSX on generic x86", like some sort of armchair
CEO, I'd have... well, about 10 or 11 pennies now...

This is excellent! Whenever I hear this asked again, I'm going to point >>> them to this page, and say no more. Assuming it's going to be around
for the foreseeable future that is.

I notice that Jon only considers the case of the product being sold for
the same price, whether it's for a Mac or for a generic machine.

There is a large group of people who don't get to choose their
hardware, because of company-wide supply contracts that their IT
departments make with Dell or HP, but who nevertheless have the
authority to spend a grand on a software package. For those users, I'd
say go ahead and sell them OS X, but charge enough that the net is
about the same as selling them a Mac, plus a premium to allow for the
costs of supporting the product in Dell's crappy hardware. $600 for a
user install, $800 for a developer seat (same price as OpenStep 4.0)
should do it.

<quote>
unlike Mac OS X installer DVDs, you can't burn copies of MacBooks or
iPods.
</quote>

This is true, but software licensing control is a well-developed technology.

-jcr

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:41:11 -0700, Robert Moir wrote
(in article <bLS_f.31337$g76.12036@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>):

notell wrote:

Well I have a better reason.. Scratch that..


Well, can it be inferior if the machine is now running 4 times faster?


But here would be the better reason to lay of SJ


Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

Have you seen the state of some of the cheap knockoff boxes out there that their manufacturers have the nerve to call a computer? I won't waste time claiming that Windows XP is perfect, but I'd be willing to bet a good percentage of the people moaning about stability problems with it are actually suffering from hardware faults due to below spec parts, and not the fault of the software at all.

I heartily agree. Apple's "just work" for a simple reason: Apple has TOTAL control over the hardware environment as well as the software environment.

Microsoft, on the other hand, tried to put a computer on ANYONE's desk, not just the desks of the Elitists. With the thousands of device manufacturers and software developers out there who produce products for the Windows OS, it's no wonder they don't always work as they should.

And I also agree that poorly-written device drivers are the main reason for Window's instability. But Microsoft, unlike Apple, does not, as a general rule, write device drivers. They leave that up to the Market, while Apple controls EVERY aspect of its OS and machine, even providing the device drivers.

Again, Microsoft chose a different path. They chose to make THOUSANDS millionaires, rather than a FEW, as Apple did. This is because of Mr. Job's greediness, pure and simple.

I think keeping out of that mess is the smartest thing Apple have done on their road to Intel.

How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95. I purchased it in 1979, and was SO HAPPY TO HAVE it), RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your
desks? Come on, now, be honest...

--

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact. ========================================================

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:27:21 -0700, Gnarlodious wrote
(in article <C061A578.17CDA%gnarlodious@yahoo.com>):

Entity Robert Moir uttered this profundity:

I'd be willing to bet a good
percentage of the people moaning about stability problems with it are
actually suffering from hardware faults due to below spec parts

I hate to denigrate the American Way, but the Profit Motive shot themselves in the foot on this one. All those PeeCees are made with the absolute cheapest components that are ordered in bulk from the cheapest bidder.

I MUST take issue with your statement made in ignorance. The fact is, NOT
ALL PCs are made with inferior devices, as you claim. Many manufacturers of PCs want to give their customers value for their money. As an example, I point to Asus, which produces the BEST motherboards (logic board to you) in the world. ASUS even produced APPLE PPC logic boards (they may even be producing the Apple/Intel logic boards today. If I am mistaken, please forgive me).

My PowerMac G5 dual-cpu machine is the BEST-engineered computer I have EVER seen, and I would only trade it for an Apple/Intel Core-Duo 30" iMac, especially since Mr. Jobs gave in to customer demand, and released BootCamp.

But I would trade even THAT for an equally-equipped Intel PC which is able to run OS X natively alongside Vista. Maybe the box would be ugly and white. The OUTSIDE is irrelevant to me. What is INSIDE is what I am after.

--

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact. ========================================================

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine
was a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95. I purchased it in 1979,
and was SO HAPPY TO HAVE it), RAVED about actually having a REAL
COMPUTER on your desks? Come on, now, be honest...

Ahh. I'm an apple loving elitist huh?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/mvp/bios/moir.mspx

that'll be the egg on your face.


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <0001HW.C067CB4A004FA5A2F0488530@news20.forteinc.com>,
Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

Again, Microsoft chose a different path. They chose to make THOUSANDS millionaires, rather than a FEW, as Apple did. This is because of Mr. Job's
greediness, pure and simple.

Hah, hah hah.
You seem to be suggesting that Microsoft chose a path sepcifically to
make a lot of people wealthy -- as if that was the motivation.
An you are specifically saying that Jobs chose Apple's path just
because of his own particular greediness.

That is such nonsense I can't believe you've paid any attention at all.

It is common knowledge, and held rue by the individuals that know, that
Gates was trying to build a business, and Jobs was trying to build a
great computer. Those are different goals, but nothing like what you
suggest, and neither of them are _anything_ like what you suggest here.

This is not the place for childish and STUPID accusations -- there are
too many knowledgable people here, and there is a particular topic to
be discussed.
I'm sure you're welcome to join in if you want to be truthful and
reasonable. No BS, period.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <0001HW.C067CB4A004FA5A2F0488530@news20.forteinc.com>,
Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

Again, Microsoft chose a different path. They chose to make THOUSANDS millionaires, rather than a FEW, as Apple did. This is because of Mr. Job's greediness, pure and simple.

McDaniel, you *do* tend to go on about things of which you clearly know nothing.

You really ought to cut back on it; it doesn't actually make you look
better in society.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:41:11 -0700, Robert Moir wrote
(in article <bLS_f.31337$g76.12036@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>):

notell wrote:

Well I have a better reason.. Scratch that..


Well, can it be inferior if the machine is now running 4 times faster?


But here would be the better reason to lay of SJ


Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

Have you seen the state of some of the cheap knockoff boxes out there that >> their manufacturers have the nerve to call a computer? I won't waste time >> claiming that Windows XP is perfect, but I'd be willing to bet a good
percentage of the people moaning about stability problems with it are
actually suffering from hardware faults due to below spec parts, and not the
fault of the software at all.

I heartily agree. Apple's "just work" for a simple reason: Apple has TOTAL control over the hardware environment as well as the software environment.

By that logic, all DIY Linux boxes should 'just work', because the
builders have complete control over all aspects of the machine. It's
certainly possible to build such a system, but it requires a fair bit of thought too.

Microsoft, on the other hand, tried to put a computer on ANYONE's desk, not just the desks of the Elitists.

So did Apple. They were succeeding for awhile.

With the thousands of device manufacturers
and software developers out there who produce products for the Windows OS, it's no wonder they don't always work as they should.

That same problem should extend, then, to Linux drivers--but it doesn't.

And I also agree that poorly-written device drivers are the main reason for Window's instability. But Microsoft, unlike Apple, does not, as a general rule, write device drivers. They leave that up to the Market, while Apple controls EVERY aspect of its OS and machine, even providing the device drivers.

That is their own fault.

Again, Microsoft chose a different path. They chose to make THOUSANDS millionaires, rather than a FEW, as Apple did. This is because of Mr. Job's
greediness, pure and simple.

Jobs had absolutely nothing to do with that. Indeed, he even figured out
the stupidity of trying to compete with integrated systems when he was
running NeXT--why do you think NeXT clones existed?

I think keeping out of that mess is the smartest thing Apple have done on >> their road to Intel.

How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95. I purchased it in 1979, and was SO HAPPY TO HAVE it), RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your desks? Come on, now, be honest...

I wasn't old enough for it to be a novelty. By the time I got my first computer, they were commonplace.


--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:25:28 -0700, Per Rønne wrote
(in article <1hdqqlq.tc9ap1i5pd1fN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):

Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested >>>> that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on >>>> the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
chips. They never said anything about it.

They even developed an Intel version of Darwin - a free download ...

Even during Job's Keynote address last year when Apple's first Intel machines
were released, he stated publicly that Apple had been developing and RUNNING an Intel version of OS X right alongside OS X/PPC.

If you'll look back, you can probably find my predictions of exactly
that move. IIRC, my comments were something to the effect of "Apple
would be insane not to maintain an x86 version of OS X". OS X was an x86 operating system well before it was ever released on PPC.

If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY be supported on Apple machines. In addition, he assured everyone that OS X would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a generic
version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.

And they aren't supporting Windows on a Mac. Really, go call up Apple's
tech support and ask for Windows help with your dual-booting Mactel.

In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs, including BIOS chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.

OS X was originally developed on x86 machines, well before EFI was even conceptualized. See; early Rhapsody developer releases.

Because of this, I am inclined to believe that Apple's software labs had a means of dual-booting OS X/Intel and Windows XP by the time the second round of Intels were announced, and released it earlier than expected (and unfinished/crippled) because of user demand (they may be in the midst of developing commercial virtualization software).

I would be very disappointed if Apple wasn't developing a VM monitor for Leopard. Particularly since they are using Intel chips, and have ready
access to Intel's hardware VT solution.


--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <OoR0g.3769$iB2.2376@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:

OS X was an x86
operating system well before it was ever released on PPC.

Huh?
At that time, Apple was entirely developing on and for PPC; why do you
suppose that x86 code predates PPC code?

If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY be
supported on Apple machines. In addition, he assured everyone that OS X would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a generic
version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.

And they aren't supporting Windows on a Mac. Really, go call up Apple's
tech support and ask for Windows help with your dual-booting Mactel.

Why?
Why would you go to Apple for support with a product made by Microsoft,
written by Microsoft, and supported by Microsoft? Isn't that like going
to a surgeon for help with your pet dog?

In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs, including BIOS
chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.

OS X was originally developed on x86 machines, well before EFI was even conceptualized. See; early Rhapsody developer releases.

SDKs released to for x86 processors does not mean that the OS was ever
being made to work under x86 -- it was just recognizing that some
developers used x86 hardware to produce.
I think you are talking about the tools, not the product.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:50:25 -0700, TheLetterK wrote
(in article <OoR0g.3769$iB2.2376@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:25:28 -0700, Per Rønne wrote
(in article <1hdqqlq.tc9ap1i5pd1fN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):

Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested >>>>> that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on >>>>> the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
chips. They never said anything about it.

They even developed an Intel version of Darwin - a free download ...

Even during Job's Keynote address last year when Apple's first Intel
machines
were released, he stated publicly that Apple had been developing and
RUNNING
an Intel version of OS X right alongside OS X/PPC.

If you'll look back, you can probably find my predictions of exactly
that move. IIRC, my comments were something to the effect of "Apple
would be insane not to maintain an x86 version of OS X". OS X was an x86 operating system well before it was ever released on PPC.

If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY >> be
supported on Apple machines. In addition, he assured everyone that OS X
would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a
generic
version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.

And they aren't supporting Windows on a Mac. Really, go call up Apple's
tech support and ask for Windows help with your dual-booting Mactel.

Well, I CAN purchase XP on the Apple Shop online. All I have to do is purchase a version of Virtual PC for Macs (that piece of crap!) which includes a license for Windows.

In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs, including
BIOS
chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.

OS X was originally developed on x86 machines, well before EFI was even conceptualized. See; early Rhapsody developer releases.

I actually was not aware that the NeXT OS was developed on an Intel. Thank you for educating me. I assumed that Mr. Jobs built the NeXT cubes and developed an OS (the NeXT OS) for it.

Because of this, I am inclined to believe that Apple's software labs had a >> means of dual-booting OS X/Intel and Windows XP by the time the second
round
of Intels were announced, and released it earlier than expected (and
unfinished/crippled) because of user demand (they may be in the midst of
developing commercial virtualization software).

I would be very disappointed if Apple wasn't developing a VM monitor for Leopard. Particularly since they are using Intel chips, and have ready access to Intel's hardware VT solution.

Well, my friend, at least we can agree (at least in this case) about
software. Too bad we can't agree about Christianity. But, we can't always get what we want, can we? (Didn't even the Rolling Stones, who are as far
away from love for God as anyone, say that?. Well, in this instance, I certainly agree with them.)

--

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact. ========================================================

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

"Mitch" <mitch@hawaii.rr> stated in post 170420060908396065%mitch@hawaii.rr
on 4/17/06 12:08 PM:

In article <OoR0g.3769$iB2.2376@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:

OS X was an x86
operating system well before it was ever released on PPC.

Huh?
At that time, Apple was entirely developing on and for PPC; why do you suppose that x86 code predates PPC code?

Likely talking about NeXT, which is where much of the OS X code came from.

If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY be
supported on Apple machines. In addition, he assured everyone that OS X >>> would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a
generic version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.

And they aren't supporting Windows on a Mac. Really, go call up Apple's tech >> support and ask for Windows help with your dual-booting Mactel.

Why?
Why would you go to Apple for support with a product made by Microsoft, written by Microsoft, and supported by Microsoft? Isn't that like going
to a surgeon for help with your pet dog?

Apple will almost certainly support Boot Camp or whatever the final version
is called but will *not* support Windows unless they sell it directly to you pre-installed - which may never happen.


--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:50:25 -0700, TheLetterK wrote
(in article <OoR0g.3769$iB2.2376@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:25:28 -0700, Per Rønne wrote
(in article <1hdqqlq.tc9ap1i5pd1fN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):

Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested >>>>>> that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on >>>>>> the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that? >>>>> They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel

chips. They never said anything about it.

They even developed an Intel version of Darwin - a free download ...

Even during Job's Keynote address last year when Apple's first Intel
machines
were released, he stated publicly that Apple had been developing and
RUNNING
an Intel version of OS X right alongside OS X/PPC.

If you'll look back, you can probably find my predictions of exactly
that move. IIRC, my comments were something to the effect of "Apple
would be insane not to maintain an x86 version of OS X". OS X was an x86
operating system well before it was ever released on PPC.

If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY >>> be
supported on Apple machines. In addition, he assured everyone that OS X >>> would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a
generic
version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.

And they aren't supporting Windows on a Mac. Really, go call up Apple's
tech support and ask for Windows help with your dual-booting Mactel.

Well, I CAN purchase XP on the Apple Shop online. All I have to do is purchase a version of Virtual PC for Macs (that piece of crap!) which includes a license for Windows.

In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs, including >>> BIOS
chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.

OS X was originally developed on x86 machines, well before EFI was even
conceptualized. See; early Rhapsody developer releases.

I actually was not aware that the NeXT OS was developed on an Intel. Thank you for educating me. I assumed that Mr. Jobs built the NeXT cubes and developed an OS (the NeXT OS) for it.

Nextstep *was* developed for m68k, but *OS X* (Rhapsody was an early
version) is a specific variant of Nextstep, and was originally developed
for x86.

Because of this, I am inclined to believe that Apple's software labs had a >>> means of dual-booting OS X/Intel and Windows XP by the time the second
round
of Intels were announced, and released it earlier than expected (and
unfinished/crippled) because of user demand (they may be in the midst of >>> developing commercial virtualization software).

I would be very disappointed if Apple wasn't developing a VM monitor for
Leopard. Particularly since they are using Intel chips, and have ready
access to Intel's hardware VT solution.

Well, my friend, at least we can agree (at least in this case) about software.

--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and >old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just >because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior >technology.

Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac >Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in >jeaopardy and danger.

The soul of the Mac Platform is not just the OS. It is all, the
Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.

Ok, I can understand the sentiment, but here is the situation:

1) IBM have FAILED to meet their promises regarding the G5 CPU:

a) We are well beyond two years after the date IBM promised to get
the G5 to go over 3GHz, and they have YET to break that barrier. This
was an embarrassment to Jobs who, for whatever reason, promised all of
us that this would happen within a year, back in 2003. Consider him
suitably ticked off at IBM.

b) IBM also FAILED to meet their promise of making a low
wattage/power/heat G5 processor that could be used in laptops. They have
in fact perpetrated the lie that this technology was imminent as
recently as last August. We are still waiting. Consider Apple as a whole suitably and entirely skeptical about anything IBM says about the G5.

2) Yes, the G5 Quad Core uses the superior pure RISC technology, versus
the crappy old and inefficient CISC technology. Yes, it is just as fast
as ANYTHING that either AMD or Intel have to offer. It is 64 bit. Intel
chips are NOT. AMD has superior/faster chips compared to Intel on every
level EXCEPT for laptops.

3) The ONLY things the Intel Core Duo chips are good for, at the moment,
are:

a) Power efficiency/wattage/heat, exactly what is required in Apple laptops.

b) Massive speed compared to ye olde G4 processors which are the ONLY
PPC chips that will work in laptops.

4) Apple has NOT NOT NOT (NOT DAMMIT!) cut the Mac platform off from the PowerPC chip. Go to Apple's website and look up 'Universal Binary'!!!!
In brief, programs that are written and compiled as Universal Binary
will continue FOREVER to work on PowerPC chips. I hope that is simply
and clear.


Results:

A) Apple can CONTINUE to use PowerPC chips on into the future. And they
very well might do that! Notice how the G5 towers have NOT been moved
over to Intel! Notice how NONE of the Intel chips are 64 bit capable!
Notice how professional Mac users REQUIRE 64 bit computing because they absolutely DEMAND using more than a measly 4 GB of RAM. Do you think
Apple are going to abandon their professional users by hobbling their
tower Macs? No way, no how. And if they did, guess what would happen: No
one would buy them. When will Intel go 64 bit? Not for AT LEAST another
year.

B) Apple can jump to AMD if they like! In fact, if they want to they can
sell Intel, AMD and PowerPC Macs all the time, any time they like. This
has NOT even remotely compromised the Mac platform. Instead it has
OPENED UP MORE POSSIBILITIES! This gives the Mac a much BETTER future
than if it was stuck with PowerPC chips.

C) FAST Mac laptops. Deal with it: ALL Mac laptops were slower than an
average (AVERAGE!) Wintel laptop.

D) Thanks to the virtualization technology war going on between AMD and
Intel, the Mac is very soon going to be capable of hardware
virtualization. This means running other operating systems along side
Mac OS X, at the same time, at full speed. No more Virtual PC slug mode.

E) This also opens up the ability of DarWine to run at reasonable, near
native speeds. DarWine is still vaporware, but theoretically it will
allow running a large number (not all) of Windows specific applications
inside Mac OS X without ANY installation of stupid old Windows.


Conclusion: Lots more choice, lots more speed in laptops, lots more
choice of software to run, lots of second looks from traditional Windows
PC users.

So do you still think Jobs should be tossed out for screwing the Mac? I
don't think so.



In article <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com>,
notell <jeep4parts2@verizon.net> wrote:

Well, can it be inferior if the machine is now running 4 times faster?

Agreed!

But here would be the better reason to lay off SJ

Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

Because Apple want to STAY IN BUSINESS!

I never understand why people ignore history. History is an incredible teacher. Go back and review exactly what happened when Apple DID license
the Mac OS to other companies. Did Apple benefit? Even a little? Did
their marketshare go up? Did sales of Macs, including clones, increase?
Did the sale of Mac OS to 3rd party companies allow Apple to break even
in profit? --> No. No. No. No. And No.

Apple's genius, their soul, is in controlling EVERYTHING in their
computers. They are a hardware designer, manufacturer and distributor.
Their software, all of it, is designed to work almost PERFECTLY with
their hardware. The hardware and software are MARRIED. They could not be
more compatible. This is why Apple continue to have REAL 'Plug and Play'
and Windows has to this day been consistently stuck with 'Plug and
PRAY'! Windows has to run on God-Knows-What hardware with God-Knows-What peripherals. The same goes with the software written for Windows.
Developers have only a superficial idea what actual hardware their
software will run on. Programs cannot take full advantage of PC hardware without a lot of luck. The result is HELLISH. It is one of the prime
reasons I personally avoid Windows PCs like the plague. To me it is like trying to have a conversation with either a retard or a crazy person, depending upon the machine and software.

One thing Jobs brought with him from NeXT was YEARS of experience
selling and supporting an OS for PCs. It was called NeXTStep/OpenStep. I
have the BOOKLET that was distributed with the NeXT OS that described compatible PC hardware. The thing is over 50 pages long!!! And guess
what: if your PC happens to have one piece of hardware that NeXT did not support then you were SCREWED. You could not run the NeXT OS. Imagine
that.

Now imagine what Apple would have to put up with SUPPORTING Mac OS X on
the chaotic variety of PC hardware! Technical support is EXPENSIVE! It
is no wonder tech support is being shipped overseas to the 3rd world!
Consider the simple (lord help you) example of being a tech support representative at Apple, having to know that entire 50 page booklet of compatible hardware, then going through that list with Joe Blow PC user.
About 2% of PC users may comprehend what such hardware is, let alone
know what particular hardware versions and models are incorporated into
their specific PC. If you ever have pity on Microsoft, pity their
technical support staff. They have a hard life.

The result: MASSIVE INCREASED COSTS to Apple, NOT profits, if they sold
Mac OS X for any-old-PC. You can bet that the actual cost of buying Mac
OS X would skyrocket to make up for the resulting losses in profit.

They have been really missing the boat for many years...

Disgree. Again, history tells all. Read about it on the net!

iTunes etc is what has saved them..

HAHAHAHA! You have to be kidding.

1) It would be more accurate to say that the iPod is what brought in
their recent rise to fame and exponentially higher profits and stock
price. iTunes as a program is FREE and actually costs Apple money.

2) The iTunes Music Store does little more than BREAK EVEN! Nearly all
the profits made there go to the record companies. (And in case you did
not know, record companies make significantly MORE profit per downloaded
song than they make per song on CD or single. Don't believe the RIAA and record company lies).

3) Apple, the Macintosh company, is doing just fine. Mac profits have
risen steadily over the last two years as has marketshare (despite
outright lies and ignorance to the contrary). If Apple dropped the iPod
and iTunes Music Store tomorrow, they would continue as a company just
fine, making a decent profit, pleasing millions and millions of Mac
buyers every year. Never underestimate the continued success of the
Macintosh.

BTW: How much cash does Apple currently have on hand, just in case they stopped making a profit on their products for a period of time? Only $8 BILLION, enough that they just created a spinoff company this month to
invest and manage their assets. Apple are what you call a 'Cash Rich'
company. Oh! And how much of that $8 BILLION was made by iPod profits?
Less than half. Before the iPod was released Apple had $4 BILLION in the
bank, again pointing out that Macintosh profits have been doing just
fine keeping Apple afloat, iPod or no iPod.

The MacOSX is superior than anything else yet goes for <$100 ;

And as I noted above, one reason is that Apple know EXACTLY what
hardware it runs on. There is no such thing as mystery PC hardware to
deal with. Therefore technical support can be kept to a minimum. AND you
get real (versus MS-style fake) Plug and Play along with the cheaper
price.

Windows
goes for more and they don't sell hardware and are making the all the
money..

Again, MS have significantly higher support costs to pay for due to
hardware chaos in the PC. Whether they actually gouge people with prices
or not I will leave up to the courts. But I can tell you the every New
York citizen who bought Windows is getting free vouchers worth several
dollars (sorry I forgot the figures) to buy computer software because
good old NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer kicked M$ in the ass and
forced them to settle the NYS monopoly lawsuit against them out of court.

When Apple ports their OS to PC's they will dominate the market.

Yawn. I hope all my chatter above has put that stupid idea out of your
head.

Other points I can throw at you:

1) Macs have the lowest Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of any computer.
This would disappear if MOSX was sold for generic PCs.

2) Mac have the best Return On Investment (ROI) of any computer. This
would disappear if...

3) The number of IT staff required to provide support on a per computer
basis is lower with the Macintosh versus the PC by a factor of 10x. This
would disappear if...


Grand conclusion: Apple have NO compelling reason to sell Mac OS X for
generic PCs. None.

The only way Mac OS X would make it to a Joe Blow PC would be if Apple
decide to fold up shop and made Mac OS X 100% OpenSource. (It is already
about 90% OpenSource BTW. It's called the Darwin OS. It's free. It
already runs on generic PC machines. DIY tech support). At that point
the OpenSource revolution would reach its climax and Microsoft would be
killed dead. Man, wouldn't that be great?! But it would also mean the
death of the 'Macintosh' as well, which is that wonderful marriage of
hardware AND software. That would truly suck.


Please stick around Mr. Jobs. You kick ass!

You let me be: Microsoft-Free Forever.

:-D

--
Fortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today?
Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/12/8363107/> [Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975]
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Derek Currie wrote:

<snip>

Results:

A) Apple can CONTINUE to use PowerPC chips on into the future. And they
very well might do that! Notice how the G5 towers have NOT been moved
over to Intel! Notice how NONE of the Intel chips are 64 bit capable!

Erm... the Pentium D is 64 bit. So are the EMT types as well.
But these chips are *power* hungry and requires a copper heat sink to dissipate the heat.
Of course the only o/s that M$ offers is their x64 version. Running XP
on a Pentium D is pretty stupid.

<snip>

Well, can it be inferior if the machine is now running 4 times faster?

Tests have shown it to only be just barely twice as fast. Where they
get the 4x speed is beyond any reasonable belief.

<snip>

--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <XI2dnUnqrP94edvZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@bresnan.com>,
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

Derek Currie wrote:

<snip>

Results:

A) Apple can CONTINUE to use PowerPC chips on into the future. And they very well might do that! Notice how the G5 towers have NOT been moved
over to Intel! Notice how NONE of the Intel chips are 64 bit capable!

Erm... the Pentium D is 64 bit. So are the EMT types as well.
But these chips are *power* hungry and requires a copper heat sink to dissipate the heat.

This is heading off topic, but:

Considering the demand for professional users to have 64 bit Macs in
order to break the 4 GB barrier, do you think Apple will toss the
Pentium D into Mac towers this year? It is entirely possible my
predictions about Apple waiting for 64 bit Core Duo chips could be blown
out of the water.

This might be acceptable to current Mac tower (PowerMac) users if and
only if the Pentium D can beat the speed of the upcoming Quad Core G5s.

Feasible?

Thanks for the info GreyCloud.

:-D

--
Fortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today?
Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge. <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/12/8363107/> [Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975]
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Derek Currie wrote:

In article <XI2dnUnqrP94edvZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@bresnan.com>,
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

Derek Currie wrote:

<snip>

Results:

A) Apple can CONTINUE to use PowerPC chips on into the future. And they >>>very well might do that! Notice how the G5 towers have NOT been moved >>>over to Intel! Notice how NONE of the Intel chips are 64 bit capable!

Erm... the Pentium D is 64 bit. So are the EMT types as well.
But these chips are *power* hungry and requires a copper heat sink to >>dissipate the heat.

This is heading off topic, but:

Considering the demand for professional users to have 64 bit Macs in
order to break the 4 GB barrier, do you think Apple will toss the
Pentium D into Mac towers this year?

Nope. I did enough research to know that the PPC still kicks the
Pentium Ds butt. The PPC has a much lower power dissipation than that
power hog called a Pentium D. You should see the size of the copper
heat sink! Big enough to cool a Ford V8.

It is entirely possible my
predictions about Apple waiting for 64 bit Core Duo chips could be blown
out of the water.

I'm only guessing at this point in time, but Intel has been working on
that processor called the Itanic. It is 64-bit, but a bit slower than
the AMD64. But in time, they may have all the bugs wrinkled out of it.
Currently, the HP super Dome can't use the chips yet as the Itanium
can't perform to the expected specs.
The point being that Intel will gain some significant experience and advantages once the hurdles are cleared. Then we may see some serious
cpus from Intel.

This might be acceptable to current Mac tower (PowerMac) users if and
only if the Pentium D can beat the speed of the upcoming Quad Core G5s.

It can't. The quad cores are the best still. But I also see AMD
pushing the limits on chip space by pushing into the quad cpu per chip
space. The battle is on, but I hope that both companies don't get into
a free for all like Texas Instruments and Atari did in the 80s and
destroying each other in the process.

Feasible?

Thanks for the info GreyCloud.

:-D

--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95. I purchased it in 1979, and was SO HAPPY TO HAVE it), RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your desks? Come on, now, be honest...

Gee, wait till GOD hears about your claims.

The ZX81 came out in 81 (who would have guessed) and cost a little under
$100 for the kit.
--
Lars T.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:08 -0700, Lars Träger wrote
(in article <1he2oma.w6shvfm7re3fN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>):

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a
Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95. I purchased it in 1979, and was SO
HAPPY TO HAVE it), RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your
desks? Come on, now, be honest...

Gee, wait till GOD hears about your claims.

The ZX81 came out in 81 (who would have guessed) and cost a little under
$100 for the kit.

Well, Lars, I bought my first computer (a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81) , and it
cost less than $30 in a drugstore, whenever I bought it. It must have been close to 1979, but that is the year I remember having purchased it. Of course, I am now 61, and I was still in my early 30's at the time (I had only recently married my second wife, whom I married when I was 32). This was sometime after the "zx-81" was released. I purchased a "Timex-Sinclair ZX-81". Perhaps it may have been $100 in Europe, but in Oklahoma, where I purchased it, it cost less than $30.

The box itself was about 8"x 6", and had chicklet keys, which were marked
with various Basic commands in addition to the alphanumeric keys. I had to connect a tape recorder to save files or load them. If I remember correctly, it had 8k of memory.

Call me a liar all you want. I know what I did.

--

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact. ========================================================

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <0001HW.C06D5E980003C26FF0407530@news20.forteinc.com>,
Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

Well, Lars, I bought my first computer (a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81) , and
it cost less than $30 in a drugstore, whenever I bought it. It must have been close to 1979, but that is the year I remember having purchased it. Of
course, I am now 61, and I was still in my early 30's at the time (I
had only recently married my second wife, whom I married when I was 32). This
was sometime after the "zx-81" was released. I purchased a "Timex-Sinclair ZX-81". Perhaps it may have been $100 in Europe, but in Oklahoma,
where I purchased it, it cost less than $30.

You're 61, and married her when you were 32.

29 years ago, then. 2006 - 29 = 1977

The ZX-81 was released in 1981 at a price of $99.95 in kit form,
$149.95 assembled. <http://oldcomputers.net/zx81.html>

I think you're misremembering the date. I believe the price you're
quoting, but that would likely have been mid 80s as the ZX-81 was being liquidated, not late 70s before it was introduced.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:08 -0700, Lars Träger wrote
(in article <1he2oma.w6shvfm7re3fN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>):

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a >> Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95. I purchased it in 1979, and was SO >> HAPPY TO HAVE it), RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your
desks? Come on, now, be honest...

Gee, wait till GOD hears about your claims.

The ZX81 came out in 81 (who would have guessed) and cost a little under $100 for the kit.

Well, Lars, I bought my first computer (a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81) , and it cost less than $30 in a drugstore, whenever I bought it. It must have been close to 1979, but that is the year I remember having purchased it. Of course, I am now 61, and I was still in my early 30's at the time (I had only recently married my second wife, whom I married when I was 32). This was sometime after the "zx-81" was released. I purchased a "Timex-Sinclair ZX-81". Perhaps it may have been $100 in Europe, but in Oklahoma, where I purchased it, it cost less than $30.

The box itself was about 8"x 6", and had chicklet keys, which were marked with various Basic commands in addition to the alphanumeric keys. I had to connect a tape recorder to save files or load them. If I remember correctly, it had 8k of memory.

Call me a liar all you want. I know what I did.

Yeah, you just don't know WHEN you did it. And we are supposed to
believe what you tell us about dates when you didn't even where there.
--
Lars T.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:16:18 -0700, Dave Balderstone wrote
(in article <200420061716182643%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>):

In article <0001HW.C06D5E980003C26FF0407530@news20.forteinc.com>,
Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

Well, Lars, I bought my first computer (a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81) , and
it cost less than $30 in a drugstore, whenever I bought it. It must have
been close to 1979, but that is the year I remember having purchased it. >> Of
course, I am now 61, and I was still in my early 30's at the time (I
had only recently married my second wife, whom I married when I was 32). >> This
was sometime after the "zx-81" was released. I purchased a
"Timex-Sinclair ZX-81". Perhaps it may have been $100 in Europe, but in >> Oklahoma,
where I purchased it, it cost less than $30.

You're 61, and married her when you were 32.

29 years ago, then. 2006 - 29 = 1977

The ZX-81 was released in 1981 at a price of $99.95 in kit form,
$149.95 assembled. <http://oldcomputers.net/zx81.html>

I just browsed to the site. This definitely is the computer I purchased (whenever it was).

I think you're misremembering the date. I believe the price you're
quoting, but that would likely have been mid 80s as the ZX-81 was being liquidated, not late 70s before it was introduced.

You're probably right, sir. As I get older the years become harder to remember, and I also tend to "round off" dates, or associate them with events or memories, any of which could be in error on the timing. I wouldn't doubt that I may have misremembered the year I purchased the thing. In addition, it was not the kit, it was assembled and finished, in a box from Timex-Sinclair.
It didn't even come with a cable to connect a tape recorder. I had to purchase one separately at Radio Shack.

In fact, sometimes I can put a cold drink down on the counter in the kitchen, then walk a few feet into the living room and immediately forget that I even poured myself a drink.

But I do remember correctly the price I paid for the Timex-Sinclair Zx-81. You're probably right about it being liquidated about that time. I just cant imagine it being in a local shopping mall for the price I paid for it. I
just happened to walk into a local pharmacy, and saw it in the case with the watches. I guarantee you, I snatched it up immediately. It was ok, for awhile, till I got a Radio Shack CoCo2 or a VIC-20 or some such. But it did teach me Basic. And it DID put my hands on a "REAL computer", in the days when everyone else had to pay $250+ for anything else.

I also owned an Adam around that time, if I remember correctly. Don't remember where I got it from, though.

--

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact. ========================================================

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:32:14 -0700, Lars Träger wrote
(in article <1he4euo.1md57k7x69622N%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>):

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:08 -0700, Lars Träger wrote
(in article <1he2oma.w6shvfm7re3fN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>):

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a >>>> Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95. I purchased it in 1979, and was SO >>>> HAPPY TO HAVE it), RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your >>>> desks? Come on, now, be honest...

Gee, wait till GOD hears about your claims.

The ZX81 came out in 81 (who would have guessed) and cost a little under >>> $100 for the kit.

Well, Lars, I bought my first computer (a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81) , and it
cost less than $30 in a drugstore, whenever I bought it. It must have been >> close to 1979, but that is the year I remember having purchased it. Of
course, I am now 61, and I was still in my early 30's at the time (I had
only
recently married my second wife, whom I married when I was 32). This was
sometime after the "zx-81" was released. I purchased a "Timex-Sinclair >> ZX-81". Perhaps it may have been $100 in Europe, but in Oklahoma, where I >> purchased it, it cost less than $30.

The box itself was about 8"x 6", and had chicklet keys, which were marked
with various Basic commands in addition to the alphanumeric keys. I had to >> connect a tape recorder to save files or load them. If I remember
correctly,
it had 8k of memory.

Call me a liar all you want. I know what I did.

Yeah, you just don't know WHEN you did it. And we are supposed to
believe what you tell us about dates when you didn't even where there.

Lars, there really is no reason to respond so hatefully, sir.

But I suggest you read my response to Dave Balderstone. It should help to clear up what I have said.

By the way, what does "where there" mean?

--

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact. ========================================================

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:32:14 -0700, Lars Träger wrote
(in article <1he4euo.1md57k7x69622N%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>):

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:08 -0700, Lars Träger wrote
(in article <1he2oma.w6shvfm7re3fN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>):

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a >>>> Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95. I purchased it in 1979, and was SO
HAPPY TO HAVE it), RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your >>>> desks? Come on, now, be honest...

Gee, wait till GOD hears about your claims.

The ZX81 came out in 81 (who would have guessed) and cost a little under >>> $100 for the kit.

Well, Lars, I bought my first computer (a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81) , and it >> cost less than $30 in a drugstore, whenever I bought it. It must have been
close to 1979, but that is the year I remember having purchased it. Of
course, I am now 61, and I was still in my early 30's at the time (I had >> only
recently married my second wife, whom I married when I was 32). This was >> sometime after the "zx-81" was released. I purchased a
"Timex-Sinclair ZX-81". Perhaps it may have been $100 in Europe, but
in Oklahoma, where I purchased it, it cost less than $30.

The box itself was about 8"x 6", and had chicklet keys, which were marked >> with various Basic commands in addition to the alphanumeric keys. I had to
connect a tape recorder to save files or load them. If I remember
correctly,
it had 8k of memory.

Call me a liar all you want. I know what I did.

Yeah, you just don't know WHEN you did it. And we are supposed to
believe what you tell us about dates when you didn't even where there.

Lars, there really is no reason to respond so hatefully, sir.

And that's why I didn't respond hatefully at all. Stop projecting.
--
Lars T.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113