Re: Welcome!!!
finally found a way to lose weight that works and is actually healthy for you! let me know if you have any questions about it. Question: Would you please take some more of that berry stuff? I mean, just enough to get to weight 0. -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Faxing from Mac - wanting Free Software other than built in
On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:52 PM, Kris Tilford wrote: Fax is a dying technology, it would certainly be easier to scan the documents and then email them, which I would think would nearly always be the preferred solution. Legally speaking, possessing faxed documents with a signature are usually considered the same as possessing the original; emailed attachments are not. (despite the process being essentially identical, technologically) The law is a conservative, slow-moving, ponderous luddite at times. Fax machines are not going away any time soon. -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Faxing from Mac - wanting Free Software other than built in
Fax is a dying technology, it would certainly be easier to scan the documents and then email them, which I would think would nearly always be the preferred solution. Legally speaking, possessing faxed documents with a signature are usually considered the same as possessing the original; emailed attachments are not. (despite the process being essentially identical, technologically) The law is a conservative, slow-moving, ponderous luddite at times. Indeed so. I once conducted a very complicated, multi-party real estate sale, all by Kinko's FAX service. Documents which were signed by one of several parties were FAXed to all the others, and the (locally) signed FAXes were then FAXed back to a party whom actually executed the documents. It is most convenient, for me, if the executor has an 800 number to which I can send such FAXes by my 5-in-1 device. Otherwise, I am forced to walk three blocks to the nearest public FAX site to return the (signed) documents. Still, I have conducted such legal processes, even a continent or two away, all via FAX. -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Faxing from Mac - wanting Free Software other than built in
On Apr 5, 2011, at 1:42 PM, peterh...@cruzio.com wrote: The law is a conservative, slow-moving, ponderous luddite at times. Indeed so. I don't believe a FAX is necessary unless the transactions are unilateral, meaning the parties involved don't have a prior written agreement to abide by the Uniform Electronics Transaction Act (UETA). Once there is a prior written agreement, such as is the case with all checking accounts with banks, the electronic record (no matter how it was produced or transmitted) carries the same force of law as any other paper record. This is why banks no longer keep or return the actual paper check, and why you can scan a check at a business and complete the transaction without the physical paper check and associated signature ever being reproduced as physical paper on the bank's receiving end (as would be the case with a FAX). It appears that for one off legal transactions, using a FAX machine is easier than getting a valid signed written agreement prior to the electronic transaction. Since Bruce is involved with pharmacy business, I assume he knows something about this subject related to signatures required on prescriptions, but I would certainly think that having a prior written agreement between a pharmacy and a doctor would preclude the need for a FAX in preference to any other electronically generated document that has legal linkage between the electronic signature and the sending receiving parties. Perhaps the advantage of FAX is that it's an integrated solution that for common transactions probably only requires pressing a single button on a FAX machine, whereas the alternative of generating a electronic file and sending it via email or by other network means probably requires more steps on both ends of the transaction, and also some prior standardization and integration of the software used on both ends of the transaction. -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Faxing from Mac - wanting Free Software other than built in
On 2011/04/04 21:52, Kris Tilford wrote: Fax is a dying technology, it would certainly be easier to scan the documents and then email them, which I would think would nearly always be the preferred solution. When I purchased my NOS (New Old Stock) Power Mac G5 in February of 2008, I could not register the AppleCare at apple.com, by email, or at an Apple Store. I had to fax the receipt to Apple before they would acknowledge the warranty. I don't know why faxing was accepted and emailing wasn't, but apparently Apple has a reason. Tina -- iMac 20 USB 2 1.25GHz G4 2GB RAM GeForceFX5200 Ultra 64MB VRAM 10.4.11 PB G4 15 HR-DLSD 1.67GHz G4 2GB RAM Radeon 9700 128MB VRAM 10.4.11 Mac Pro Mid-2010 2.8 GHz QC 6 GB RAM Radeon HD 5770 1GB VRAM 10.6.6 -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Faxing from Mac - wanting Free Software other than built in
On Apr 5, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Kris Tilford wrote: It appears that for one off legal transactions, using a FAX machine is easier than getting a valid signed written agreement prior to the electronic transaction. Precisely. Also, (and hopefully) one of the outcomes of the current mortgage records morass will come more stringent record-keeping which may revive the fax. Since Bruce is involved with pharmacy business, I assume he knows something about this subject related to signatures required on prescriptions, but I would certainly think that having a prior written agreement between a pharmacy and a doctor would preclude the need for a FAX in preference to any other electronically generated document that has legal linkage between the electronic signature and the sending receiving parties. In pharmacy, there's a bunch of different rules in place depending on the drug (some drug prescriptions cannot even be faxed, but the patient must show up with an original signed one), and it's complicated that pharmacies (particularly large chains) and insurance companies often have their own rules and/or systems. At issue in many of these cases is an assured chain of physical handling: something sent via email can be intercepted and changed in transmission; a fax cannot. -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Differences between single and dual G4 Quicksilvers [CORRECTION]
Sorry. This is wrong. A dual processor card from a Gigabit Ethernet won't fit *physically* into a Digitial Audio/Quicksilver/Quicksilver 2002. It is mirrored in its design – it would extend towards the memory banks and overlap them, hence won't be fittable at all (even though the connector is compatible). The opposite is also true: a dual card from a DA/QS/QS2002 won't fit into a AGP/GE – it would overlap the IDE2 connector on the logic board, hence won't fit. Apple intentionally designed its processors so they COULD NOT be interchanged, between the 100 MHz bus models and the 133 MHz bus models and, indeed, amongst 133 MHz bus models. Not so, with Giga-Designs, and perhaps others. The physical connector is the same between 100 MHz and 133 MHz, but the location is quite different. Also, there is the issue of overlap of the ATA port connector (133 MHz proc in a 100 MHz machine) and overlap of the RAM sockets (100 MHz proc in a 133 MHz machine). Also, the power system is different between the two 133 MHz bus machines (DA and QS). Giga-Designs carefully worked around the physical and electrical differences, and produced single and dual processors which can accommodate ALL of these differences, in one product, both by jumper selection and by mounting of the fan unit. -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Will a QS2002 Dual-1GHz CPU work in a QS?
Hi! Merely out of confusion: Will a Dual-1GHz G4 processor card, which obviously comes from a QS2002, work in an original QS from 2001? I ask because I've read an item description on eBay once stating that the Dual-800 is the highest usable stock processor for the original QS. The seller specifically discouraged buying the Dual-1 GHz processor card due to incompatibility. True? Or just a marketing strategy that worked? I have such Dual-800 MHz processor right now, but I'm thinking about giving it this other 2×200 MHz boost… That is, if I can sell the Dual-800 for a reasonable price. BUT… before I can do that, I need to know for sure if the Dual-1 GHz QS2002 has any issues in a QS2001. Because otherwise (both cases) I'll have to wipe the dream of 2×1 GHz out of my mind… Anyone ever done such an /upgrade?/ Thanks, Andreas aka Mac User #330250 -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Faxing from Mac - wanting Free Software other than built in
- Original Message From: Bruce Johnson john...@pharmacy.arizona.edu . At issue in many of these cases is an assured chain of physical handling: something sent via email can be intercepted and changed in transmission; a fax cannot. Well, sort of -- certainly in the electronic transmission of a document. My business includes a public fax service. I have seen some folks grab a bottle of whiteout and change the content of the legal documents they are faxing. So the document faxed is not the original but an edited copy. Is this legal? Don't know, I'm not in a position to judge. I have noticed over the past year or so my fax revenues have greatly increased due to real estate transactions, debt management issues and also court related legal problems. Some folks have spent more on faxes at my establishment than a new AIO machine from Stables would cost. But I do agree with Kris that the fax technology is on the way out but perhaps not for a few more years. Just my take --glen -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Differences between single and dual G4 Quicksilvers [CORRECTION]
-- Original message -- Subject: Re: Differences between single and dual G4 Quicksilvers [CORRECTION] Date:Tuesday, 05. April 2011 From:peterh...@cruzio.com To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Giga-Designs carefully worked around the physical and electrical differences, and produced single and dual processors which can accommodate ALL of these differences, in one product, both by jumper selection and by mounting of the fan unit. Yes, the 3rd party upgrade cards have it all worked out. But not only Giga Designs: FastMac, Sonnet, OWC and maybe some others as well. Most of them work from the AGP to the QS2002. Only some PowerPC G4 7447/7448 cards work only in DA/QS/QS2002 models. And for dual processors there is this instability issue with AGP models that have a Uninorth revision lower than 7, which seems to be Uni-N Rev 3 mostly. (All other G4 Power Macs have Uni-N Rev 7 or higher.) Cheers, Andreas aka Mac User #330250 -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Will a QS2002 Dual-1GHz CPU work in a QS?
BUT… before I can do that, I need to know for sure if the Dual-1 GHz QS2002 has any issues in a QS2001. Because otherwise (both cases) I'll have to wipe the dream of 2×1 GHz out of my mind… Any QS 2001 proc will work in a QS 2002. Any QS 2002 proc will work in a QS 2001. Actually, the only significant difference is the ROM on the mobo, and it DOES NOT support LBA48 in the QS 2001, whereas it DOES support LBA48 in the QS 2002. I have several QS 2001 Macs which have had dual 1.0 GHz QS 2002 procs installed. But not the other way. -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Will a QS2002 Dual-1GHz CPU work in a QS?
Speaking of LBA48... Yellow Dog Linux and Debian Linux both report and use the full 250 GB (because that is the size of my HD) in my QS 2001. But Mac OS 10.5 sees it as a 128 GB drive. I know this has nothing to do with the thread. But good info none the less. Actually, the only significant difference is the ROM on the mobo, and it DOES NOT support LBA48 in the QS 2001, whereas it DOES support LBA48 in the QS 2002. -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Will a QS2002 Dual-1GHz CPU work in a QS?
Speaking of LBA48... Yellow Dog Linux and Debian Linux both report and use the full 250 GB (because that is the size of my HD) in my QS 2001. But Mac OS 10.5 sees it as a 128 GB drive. I know this has nothing to do with the thread. But good info none the less. MacOS X is pretty blind. It is depending upon the Open Firmware definition of the two ATA channels. On any Macs which have a Key Largo ATA chip, you may override the O.F. definition with a patch. Either one or both channels. As the patch is persistent in the read-only storage, it is good until the PRAM is reset. Unlike the High Cap kext, the O.F. patch is good at all times. -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Using HD 128GB in G4 Macs!
Il giorno 6-04-2011 1:42, peterh...@cruzio.com ha scritto: Speaking of LBA48... Yellow Dog Linux and Debian Linux both report and use the full 250 GB (because that is the size of my HD) in my QS 2001. But Mac OS 10.5 sees it as a 128 GB drive. Woah! :-o So it isn't an hardware limitation (as I always had thought)... On any Macs which have a Key Largo ATA chip, you may override the O.F. definition with a patch. Either one or both channels. As the patch is persistent in the read-only storage, it is good until the PRAM is reset. Unlike the High Cap kext, the O.F. patch is good at all times. Really aroused from your comments :-D I did some research and found many info about using HDs bigger than 128GB in G3-G4 Macs (caution: if you want to try that, read carefully, you could lose your data): http://4thcode.blogspot.com/2007/12/using-128-gib-or-larger-ata-hard-drives. html (this has a link for the enable-lba48 script) http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list/browse_thread/thread/22ffcb9d07ffa9 48 https://groups.google.com/group/pci-powermacs/browse_thread/thread/04380ae39 d2e1fa1?hl=en Oh, Man! I never knew this! :-o If I only had knew it before... I have a 250GB HD now, using only the first 128GB (of course)... and quite full. I wonder... if I'll use the script and enable the 48bit LBA, I think Disk Utility will then show the unused portion of the drive. Will I be able to partition and format that portion and using it, WITHOUT DAMAGING the already existing partitions??? Using the script and enabling the 48bit LBA, can in itself be dangerous for the data residing on the drive(s)? Please advise, I'm tempted AND scared! :-/ -- 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 particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
