Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On 10/05/11 12:50 PM, "Bruce Johnson" wrote: > > Go to these sources: > > > > > For a wealth of information on building a Hack that DOES NOT REQUIRE altering > the OS X installer; you install from the standard OS X disk.

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On May 14, 2011, at 1:25 AM, Ralph Green wrote: > I insist on no such thing. I just steer clear of it. No fear > mongering is involved. Just rational analysis. Hence the use of rational, non-emotional words like 'treacherous' and 'His Steveness' and 'control freak'. 8-/ The *hardware* can

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On 10/05/11 12:50 PM, "Bruce Johnson" wrote: > > On May 10, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Jack Countryman wrote: > >> "IPC 10.5.6"?? What's IPC mean here, or where do I find that version of >> 10.5.6? Yeah, I know...you know what you mean, but I'm not that much up to >> speed on this stuff anymore, and m

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 15:15 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote: > On May 13, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Ralph Green wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 09:46 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote: > >> On May 12, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Ralph Green wrote: > >> > >>> I called Apple hardware treacherous. I did not come up with > >

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

. JML --- On Fri, 5/13/11, Alex Barnes wrote: From: Alex Barnes Subject: Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess. To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Date: Friday, May 13, 2011, 12:25 PM That already happened. I have found that iMovie is superior to WMM and iWork is far, far superior to M

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On May 13, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Ralph Green wrote: > On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 09:46 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote: >> On May 12, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Ralph Green wrote: >> >>> I called Apple hardware treacherous. I did not come up with >>> that term. It is widely used, >> >> No it isn't because you're t

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 09:46 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote: > On May 12, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Ralph Green wrote: > > > I called Apple hardware treacherous. I did not come up with > > that term. It is widely used, > > No it isn't because you're the only person I've ever read or heard making > that c

Re: TPM (was: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.)

>> I believe he's referring to TPM, not EFI. My understanding of TPM is >> that it's a set of cryptographic keys that prevents software from >> running on any "untrusted" system (meaning, "unapproved" hardware). Quite a few generic motherboard now have TPM, either on-board, or available in a plug

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On May 13, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Kris Tilford wrote: > On May 13, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > >> If you believe that EFI is some great conspiracy to prevent you from running >> another OS on a Mac it is YOU who doesn't understand what EFI is. > > I believe he's referring to TPM, not E

Re: TPM (was: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.)

I highly doubt that Apple actually decides that your Mac can run Linux or not. I have run Solaris, many different Linux distros, Winders, and Mac OS X (even the Lion Beta). I don't think Apple would waste money telling the devs to let TPM know that stuff like OpenSUSE is "trusted". -- You rece

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

Bruce, EFI is fine. BIOS had major problems, since it runs in real mode. It is TPM that is the problem. Apple certainly used TPM on their early x86 hardware. If they have removed it, that is a good thing. I will have to search for some real evidence on that matter. Ralph On Fri, 2011-05-13

Re: TPM (was: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.)

Il giorno 13-05-2011 22:01, Kris Tilford ha scritto: > I believe he's referring to TPM, not EFI. My understanding of TPM is > that it's a set of cryptographic keys that prevents software from > running on any "untrusted" system (meaning, "unapproved" hardware). AFAIK, is rather the opposite: the "

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On May 13, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote: If you believe that EFI is some great conspiracy to prevent you from running another OS on a Mac it is YOU who doesn't understand what EFI is. I believe he's referring to TPM, not EFI. My understanding of TPM is that it's a set of cryptogr

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

Il giorno 13-05-2011 20:29, Jonas Lopez ha scritto: > soon you will find Apple programs that are far superior to Microsoft Soon? This has ALWAYS been true. :-D -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particu

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

That already happened. I have found that iMovie is superior to WMM and iWork is far, far superior to M$ Office (even AppleWorks is better). On May 13, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Jonas Lopez wrote: > > As Apple moves into bigger market share, soon you will find Apple programs > that are far superior to

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

of use in. It is just a matter of money. JML --- On Fri, 5/13/11, Bruce Johnson wrote: From: Bruce Johnson Subject: Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess. To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Date: Friday, May 13, 2011, 9:46 AM On May 12, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Ralph Green wrote: >   I cal

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On May 12, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Ralph Green wrote: > I called Apple hardware treacherous. I did not come up with > that term. It is widely used, No it isn't because you're the only person I've ever read or heard making that claim. > because Apple sells hardware that obeys > Apple and not the

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On May 12, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Ralph Green wrote: > but the fact that Apple releases enablers to allow other operating > systems to run seems to indicate that the TPM is really there and > implemented. Apple releases Windows drivers for it's hardware, not 'enablers for other operating systems'

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

Just because you have an issue with a store doesn't mean everyone else does. My CompUSA is 1 mile from my house. On May 12, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Charles Lenington wrote: > On 5/10/11 1:51 PM, Alex Barnes wrote: >> You can also go with Linux Mint 10. I prefer it to Ubuntu. You can build a >> cheap q

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 20:03 -0600, Alex Barnes wrote: > The reason why the battery can't be replaced is because it is so large, lasts > 10, > 7 or 8 hours depending on your model and can take up to 1000 cycles. How does > Steve Jobs decide what runs on Mac OS X??? An iMac with a Radeon 6970 >

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 20:33 -0600, Alex Barnes wrote: > Just because you have an issue with a store doesn't mean everyone else does. > My CompUSA is 1 mile from my house. > On May 12, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Charles Lenington wrote: > > > On 5/10/11 1:51 PM, Alex Barnes wrote: > >> You can also go with

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On 5/10/11 1:51 PM, Alex Barnes wrote: You can also go with Linux Mint 10. I prefer it to Ubuntu. You can build a cheap quad core system for under $500. Just get your parts form CompUSA. Oh sure, drive from OKC to where ever there is a CompUSA to buy parts from a store that laid me off in 20

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

The reason why the battery can't be replaced is because it is so large, lasts 10, 7 or 8 hours depending on your model and can take up to 1000 cycles. How does Steve Jobs decide what runs on Mac OS X??? An iMac with a Radeon 6970 coupled to a Sandy Bridge Core i7 is a bad hardware decision???

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 15:14 -0700, Bruce Johnson wrote: > On May 12, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Ralph Green wrote: > > > Apple's hardware is worthless to me, since I won't buy treacherous > > hardware. > > Whaaa??? Apple's x86 hardware uses Intel TPM. There are some at Apple who deny this, but the fa

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On May 12, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Ralph Green wrote: > Apple's hardware is worthless to me, since I won't buy treacherous > hardware. Whaaa??? -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs -- You recei

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On May 12, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Ralph Green wrote: I used an Ubuntu box, since Firefox 4 doesn't run on any of my macs. The 1.2 GHz G4 I am eying should be fast enough, if FF4 gets recompiled for PPC. Already been done, FF4 for PPC: -- You re

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 11:17 -0700, Brian Kemp wrote: > I've been Flash- > free for years and with the rise in popularity of IOS, I suddenly have > peers. > I have never installed Flash. I could not get past their license agreement. So, you have always had peers. > HTML5 will never include s

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

> Linux with it's open-source concepts can't make changes to the proprietary > code that is Flash. If Adobe doesn't compile it for Power PC there's really > nothing the open-source world can do about it. There are a few Free Software tools to play Flash files but all are lacking in some way - wh

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

I tried it. And hated it. I don't know why though... On May 10, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Jerry Kemp wrote: > What happened to Yellow Dog Linux PPC? > > At least at some point in the past when Apple was still on PPC, that was > the Linux to run, if you needed to run it on Apple hw. > > Jerry > > > On

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

At 19:18 -0500 5/10/11, Jerry Kemp wrote: >What happened to Yellow Dog Linux PPC? > >At least at some point in the past when Apple was still on PPC, that was >the Linux to run, if you needed to run it on Apple hw. > I think the OP's original problem was the fact that Adobe Flash and other byproduc

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

What happened to Yellow Dog Linux PPC? At least at some point in the past when Apple was still on PPC, that was the Linux to run, if you needed to run it on Apple hw. Jerry On 05/10/11 15:58, Alex Barnes wrote: > PPC linux has terrible 3rd party support. Most versions of software say linux > b

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

At 10:21 PM -0500 5/9/2011, Kris Tilford wrote: On May 9, 2011, at 9:36 PM, admin wrote: [with more context] Adobe Flash 10.2 Intel only, I believe. Web sites are starting not to work under Leopard and Firefox Camino 2.0.7, Firefox 3.6.17, Safari 5.0.5. I haven't encountered any problems wi

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

PPC linux has terrible 3rd party support. Most versions of software say linux but don't specify that it's x86 or x64 only. You can pull it off though. You'll need Debian Linux as it has the best PPC support. On May 10, 2011, at 2:08 PM, imrazor wrote: > > > On May 10, 1:46 pm, Doug McNutt wro

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On May 10, 1:46 pm, Doug McNutt wrote: > > Give some serious consideration to using ubuntu Linux on a used or otherwise > cheap Intel machine. If the OP wants Flash, Linux PPC is not the way to go. Last time I tried Ubuntu on a G5, Flash support was horrible. Had a lot of trouble with Bluetoot

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

For web browsing, movie watching, and word processing, you wouldn't even need a quad core. You could easily use a P4 system. I'm using a P4 3.2GHZ machine and it runs pretty fast. You could get a descent P4 system for $100-$150 easy. -Jonas -- You received this message because you are a member o

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

You can also go with Linux Mint 10. I prefer it to Ubuntu. You can build a cheap quad core system for under $500. Just get your parts form CompUSA. On May 10, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Doug McNutt wrote: > At 22:36 -0400 5/9/11, admin wrote: >> Adobe Flash 10.2 Intel only, I believe. Web sites are star

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

At 22:36 -0400 5/9/11, admin wrote: >Adobe Flash 10.2 Intel only, I believe. Web sites are starting not to work >under Leopard and Firefox Camino 2.0.7, Firefox 3.6.17, Safari 5.0.5. I can >do everything I need to and still use Classic Programs with my G4 computers. >I'd rather invest in r

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote: > A hand me down PC laptop and a copy of Leopard might even be cheaper. In my experience, Leopard is only inexpensive if you happen to already own a retail copy of it which you can re-purpose. Otherwise Snow Leopard is IMO a better

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

IPC is the distro of 10.5.6 that I used. I recommend it, out of all the ones I've tried, it's the best. It has all the drivers and patches needed for the two systems I mentioned before. -Jonas -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

Well, if you know Kalyway, then you know that any hack disc image is going to have a name. IPC 10.5.6 Final was just one that worked for this poster. Google it, you'll see downloads available. On May 10, 12:27 pm, Jack Countryman wrote: > "IPC 10.5.6"??  What's IPC mean here, or where do I find t

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On May 10, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Jack Countryman wrote: > "IPC 10.5.6"?? What's IPC mean here, or where do I find that version of > 10.5.6? Yeah, I know...you know what you mean, but I'm not that much up to > speed on this stuff anymore, and must have missed the post somewhere that > talks about

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

"IPC 10.5.6"?? What's IPC mean here, or where do I find that version of 10.5.6? Yeah, I know...you know what you mean, but I'm not that much up to speed on this stuff anymore, and must have missed the post somewhere that talks about what IPC is in this context?(Last one I built that reall

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

Il giorno 10-05-2011 4:36, admin ha scritto: > Adobe Flash 10.2 Intel only, I believe. Do you really need Flash 10.2? Why? ... Is it because Adobe told you so? ;-D > Web sites are starting not to > work under Leopard and Firefox Camino 2.0.7, Firefox 3.6.17 Try using TenFourFox (PPC/10.4-compati

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

I'm using a machine with an Intel D915GAG board. Fully supported, though I'm only running Leopard. I installed with IPC 10.5.6. Here is the guide I posted on my blog. I posted guides for a few other cheap Hackintosh machines. If you want to buy a complete machine that will work, I suggest the Del

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On 2011/05/09 20:36, admin so eloquently wrote: Adobe Flash 10.2 Intel only, I believe. Web sites are starting not to work under Leopard and Firefox Camino 2.0.7, Firefox 3.6.17, Safari 5.0.5. I can do everything I need to and still use Classic Programs with my G4 computers. I'd rather invest in

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

I haven't encountered any problems with the final PPC Adobe Flash 10.1.102.64. What problems have you encountered? Didn't document but an online mainstream newspaper asked for 10.2. I did just install 10.1.102.64, so will see how that does. Web sites are starting not to work under Leopar

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On May 9, 2011, at 9:36 PM, admin wrote: Adobe Flash 10.2 Intel only, I believe. I haven't encountered any problems with the final PPC Adobe Flash 10.1.102.64. What problems have you encountered? Web sites are starting not to work under Leopard and Firefox Camino 2.0.7, Firefox 3.6.17, S

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

I moved to Intel, but there is no way I'm ever going to pay Apple prices. You can pick up a PC for under $100 and run Leopard on it. That is the cheapest way to go Intel. -Jonas -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs

Re: I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:36 AM, admin wrote: > Adobe Flash 10.2 Intel only, I believe. Web sites are starting not to work > under Leopard and Firefox Camino 2.0.7, Firefox 3.6.17, Safari 5.0.5. I can > do everything I need to and still use Classic Programs with my G4 computers. > I'd rather i

I am forced to go Intel? Common rant, I guess.

Adobe Flash 10.2 Intel only, I believe. Web sites are starting not to work under Leopard and Firefox Camino 2.0.7, Firefox 3.6.17, Safari 5.0.5. I can do everything I need to and still use Classic Programs with my G4 computers. I'd rather invest in redundancy with machines and external d