It is an IntelliKeys USB keyboard.
(http://store.cambiumlearning.com/ProgramPage.aspx?parentId=074003405functionID=00908site=itc)
It was originally designed school aged students with disabilities, but
it also is great for adults who have trouble using a standard keyboard.
I have been
You do not know of any mouse like this do you?
A friend of mine with CP uses an Easy Ball (An old product) from MS
and it only has one mouse button instead of two, plus I think it is serial.
Stewart
At 01:12 PM 8/29/2009, you wrote:
It is an IntelliKeys USB keyboard.
Stewart,
My preference has been the Kensington Expert Mouse
trackball. It has 4 buttons that be programmed. I think it is great
for people with CP. The ball is about the size of a cue ball. You can
set them for different or the same functions. I like setting one for
click,
A client of mine got the 64-bit version of Windows Vista on his new
computer and was no longer able to use his adaptive Keyboard (which by
itself costs $395). I went to the website today and it still does not
have 64-bit version.
Steve
TPiwowar wrote:
On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:49 AM, Jeff
A client of mine got the 64-bit version of Windows Vista on his new
computer and was no longer able to use his adaptive Keyboard (which by
itself costs $395). I went to the website today and it still does not
have 64-bit version.
You'd think for a $400 peripheral, he would have made that
What make/model of keyboard?
Jeff Wright wrote:
A client of mine got the 64-bit version of Windows Vista on his new
computer and was no longer able to use his adaptive Keyboard (which by
itself costs $395). I went to the website today and it still does not
have 64-bit version.
You'd
Can any of our developers enlighten us as to how hard it is to port a driver
from 32-bit to 64-bit, all other things being equal?
It depends completely on how the original code was written. It can be pretty
easy, or it can be quite difficult.
On Aug 28, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Jeff Wright wrote:
Can any of our developers enlighten us as to how hard it is to port
a driver
from 32-bit to 64-bit, all other things being equal?
Apple is making a big push on drivers and beefing up its software
update process to include more drivers. In SL
Apple is making a big push on drivers and beefing up its software
update process to include more drivers. In SL when you add a new
peripheral, software update will go out and look for drivers.
I guess I don't have to point out that Windows has been doing this since *at
least* 2002 with the
Now you are being silly just to prove a point. Most people do not dual
boot and may who try find themselves in a world of pain.
As if you have a point. Who cares if most people don't? Most people
don't use Macs, but that doesn't stop you from using them.
You can dual boot between 32 and 64
Do you understand binary numbers, Tony? A 32-bit binary number cannot
go beyond 4,294,967,296 (4 gigabytes, 4*1024*1024*1024), so a 32-bit
system cannot address more than 4 GB.
Thank you,
Mark Snyder
-Original Message-
The 4gb memory limit is just a Windows licensing issue though.
I should have, for those who do not know binary numbers, shown how to
see this. Binary numbers are similar to base-10 numbers, in that each
digit to the left is 2-times as large as the digit to the right. In
base-10, each digit to the left is ten-times as large, for example 10
vs. 100. In
Mark is correct. 4 GB is a physical limitation of 32-bit kernels, which is
the best reason to go 64-bit: no real limitation to the amount of RAM you
can use, other than what the motherboard will support. However, I can
recall when 32-bit came around in the 90's, Wow! 4 GB of RAM! We'll never
Vista's problem wasn't 64 or 32bit related it was that drivers were not
written for vista until it had been out nearly a year. You can blame this
on MS only in that they may have not given the code to software writers soon
enough.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:06 PM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:
My understanding of the Mess Vista got introduced to was yes it was
MS not releasing code and not allowing coders access to needed knowledge.
I remember a few of the antivirus folks complaining quite publicly about this.
Seems that they did a lot more work with 7.
Stewart
At 07:57 AM
My understanding of the Mess Vista got introduced to was yes it was
MS not releasing code and not allowing coders access to needed knowledge.
I remember a few of the antivirus folks complaining quite publicly about
this.
Seems that they did a lot more work with 7.
The anti-virus folks,
Vista's problem wasn't 64 or 32bit related it was that drivers were not
written for vista until it had been out nearly a year. You can blame this
on MS only in that they may have not given the code to software writers
soon
enough.
I don't even blame MS for that.
The Vista beta's were out
Thanks for the quick lesson. But it has nothing to do with what I
said. You probably missed the link Vicky gave which explains it better
than I can. Tom never actually told us if previous versions of 32 bit
Mac OS have been able to use more than 4gb ram, instead going off on a
rant.
That 32-bit
Tony, you are confusing schemes to virtually address modestly more than
the 32-bit limit by stretching it to a number some 4-16 times the actual
limit for a 32-bit binary number. Apple never played those virtual
address games with 32-bit operating systems (starting with MAC OS 7 or
7.1 in about
No, not 'we', I was just talking to you.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:
On Aug 25, 2009, at 3:42 PM, mike wrote:
MS has not because no that they are running 64bit or
32bit.
Got it. Official M$ line is that 64-bit is useless, something that no one
would
The OS loads either the 32 or 64-bit kernel at startup. Default is
32. At some point the default will be 64. This doesn't paint
customers into a corner. Yes very nice -- typical Apple engineering.
No matter how you slice and dice it, the fact remains that Vista and Win7 are
fully 64-bit out
Not sure why you're flailing on this. Mac OS 10.6, Snow Leopard, can be
set to load 64-bit, every time, if desired, or left to the default, to
load the 32-bit kernel. Windows users must install one or the other.
This is not a huge difference. Why split hairs? I like Apple's
approach; if I need
I not surprised?, and we all know it.
-Original Message-
From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:computerguy...@listserv.aol.com]
On Behalf Of Snyder, Mark
- IdM (IS)
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:31 AM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition
Okay, Chris, I guess I am getting miffed at the cross-jabs on this one.
Seems to be lame attempts at petty one-ups. I think his small point was
OS X does not need to be re-installed to go between 32- and 64-bit. A
small thing, but a better design. M$ often charges for these
differences. I'm
As I said before 99% of windows or mac users don't know and/or don't care
about 32 vs 64 bit. I'd wager most mac users if confronted with the choice
of the two won't know which to choose or why to choose which one.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS)
mark.sny...@ngc.com
Ah, but most of us on this list know the issues (or know who to ask).
This is/was a discussion of a design issue, not the merits of 32-bit vs.
64-bit.
Thank you,
Mark Snyder
-Original Message-
As I said before 99% of windows or mac users don't know and/or don't
care about 32 vs 64 bit.
But the mac design issue leads into a normal user having to choose 32 or 64
unless I read wrong?
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS)
mark.sny...@ngc.com wrote:
Ah, but most of us on this list know the issues (or know who to ask).
This is/was a discussion of a design
Mike, you already asserted that the average user would not know which to
pick or how to tell which was running, so how is this now an issue for
normal users?
Thank you,
Mark Snyder
-Original Message-
But the mac design issue leads into a normal user having to choose 32 or
64 unless I
I'm not flailing here. I just don't understand and I'm not afraid to
ask apparently ignorant questions. Keep in mind that I'm an experienced
computer user, not a tech., so I don't quite understand the whole kernel
level aspects of the discussed feature set.
I have a Vista 64 machine that
The most common issue is with drivers and other system functions. Most
updating or replacing an operating system (not a server) just need to
find out if their applications run okay in the new OS. For most, this
is a handful of commercial applications, so is a short process. Those
with
The 4gb memory limit is just a Windows licensing issue though. Unless
Mac OS also has such licensing issues, this shouldn't be as big an
advantage.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Snyder, Mark - IdM
(IS)mark.sny...@ngc.com wrote:
A large advantage of 64-bit is getting past the 4B address limit.
Explain what you mean by a licensing issue?
Stewart
At 04:18 PM 8/26/2009, you wrote:
The 4gb memory limit is just a Windows licensing issue though. Unless
Mac OS also has such licensing issues, this shouldn't be as big an
advantage.
Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net
The 32 bit Windows versions have always limited people to addressing
4gb of memory. Not so with e.g. 32 bit Windows Server 2008, which I
think comes with as much as like 80gb ram.
In fact, I asked about this on the list a while back. How can I
ensure that PAE is turned on so I know my WinXP is
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Tony B wrote:
The 4gb memory limit is just a Windows licensing issue though. Unless
Mac OS also has such licensing issues, this shouldn't be as big an
advantage.
Right. The 32-bits specified is the size of a virtual memory address.
Physical memory can actually be larger,
On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Tony B wrote:
In fact, I asked about this on the list a while back. How can I
ensure that PAE is turned on so I know my WinXP is using all 6gb of my
ram. It was only much later I discovered the consumer versions of
Windows don't include PAE, and so are limited to 4gb
On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:49 AM, Jeff Wright wrote:
And Windows has been 64-bit for several years now. The problem has
been in
driver support and app compatibility, no surprise there.
Precisely. Apple knows that some drivers won't work right with the 64
kernel, but it doesn't know if you have
On Aug 26, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Mark A. Metz wrote:
I have a Vista 64 machine that runs Photoshop CS4 at 64 bit. It
runs Photoshop 7 at 32 bit. It even runs older apps at 16 bit, I
think. So even though the OS is 64 bit, and I realize that means I
can run 64 bit apps., it doesn't limit my
On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS) wrote:
Not sure why you're flailing on this. Mac OS 10.6, Snow Leopard,
can be
set to load 64-bit, every time, if desired, or left to the default, to
load the 32-bit kernel. Windows users must install one or the other.
This is not a huge
Sure is a huge difference. Reinstalling Windows is not quick and will
probably mess up many installed apps. Not something that is done
lightly. Definitely not something you would want to switch back and
forth.
You can dual boot with 32-bit and 64-bit versions. I know people who do it
now.
On Aug 26, 2009, at 10:41 PM, Jeff Wright wrote:
You can dual boot with 32-bit and 64-bit versions. I know people
who do it
now.
Now you are being silly just to prove a point. Most people do not dual
boot and may who try find themselves in a world of pain.
Not too far I already have pre-orders in for a few copies.
Stewart
At 09:58 AM 8/25/2009, you wrote:
This explains a lot. Some things run in 32 bit, some in 64 bit. It
all depends.
http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html
There is a lot of confusion about the fact
Was someone asking?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:58 AM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:
This explains a lot. Some things run in 32 bit, some in 64 bit. It all
depends.
http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html
There is a lot of confusion about the fact that Snow Leopard
I was wondering why some authors have already claimed the new Mac OS
was going to have better compatibility with old 32 bit apps than Win7.
Now I see - basically because the OS is still 32 bit itself.
I'm not at all sure what the comment about Win7 being way in the
future means. Many people -
On Aug 25, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Tony B wrote:
Now I see - basically because the OS is still 32 bit itself.
You don't see all that well (why am I not surprised?).
OS X.6 is set to run a 32-bit kernel as the default. It can be set to
run a 64-bit kernel or you can just press the 6 and 4 keys
You are kicking me off the list for asking? Nice.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:27 AM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:
On Aug 25, 2009, at 11:34 AM, mike wrote:
Was someone asking?
Then butt out. You are not invited to this conversation.
On Aug 25, 2009, at 11:34 AM, mike wrote:
Was someone asking?
Then butt out. You are not invited to this conversation.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a
On Aug 25, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:
Not too far I already have pre-orders in for a few copies.
Yes I saw, M$ wanted to be paid 3 months ahead on the promise of
delivering an operating system and the faithful got their credit
cards out.
On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:45 PM, mike wrote:
You are kicking me off the list for asking? Nice.
Cue the violins.
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member
Gimme the little one. Plaintive and sorrowful.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:34 AM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:
On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:45 PM, mike wrote:
You are kicking me off the list for asking? Nice.
Cue the violins.
Then why the F didn't you just say that without expecting us to read
that long article?
So now you're saying the only difference is the new Mac OS will
combine both 64 and 32 bit versions in the same package, and the
installer must choose 64 bit manually. Win7 will come in two different
binaries,
On Aug 25, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Tony B wrote:
So now you're saying the only difference is the new Mac OS will
combine both 64 and 32 bit versions in the same package, and the
installer must choose 64 bit manually. Win7 will come in two different
binaries, and the installer must use the correct one.
This is interesting stuff. Some if the things I read in the late 90s and
early 2000s seemed to suggest that the Linux and BSD type platforms were
antiquated.
Probably FUD.
But Apple is still moving forward and further refining and updating the
OS X core.
TPiwowar wrote:
This explains a lot.
I can't imagine the need to switch between them will occur often.
Presumably there will be a few people that upgrade their systems in
mid-install, but not many I would imagine. Fewer still will be those
that will do it without _expecting_ to reinstall the OS.
So you're saying if I install OSX 32
MS has not because no one would notice that they are running 64bit or
32bit. The only ones choosing 64 are those who know what it is, the ones
who don't know..well they wouldn't use it anyhow and if they did, they
wouldn't even know it.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:16 PM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com
From what I understand this really is an under the hood update. It's not
meant to be feature ridden for the end user. I've also read that this
update will introduce technologies that will only be taken advantage of over
time as applications are written specifically for the update. This is also
On Aug 25, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Rich Schinnell wrote:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/snow-leopard-just-cheap-
windows-7-knockoff-798
Oh pleeese! A half-baked WFB spouting about the wonderfulness of
Vista plus claims that X.6 is somehow a copy of M$'s yet to be
released OS. Tell us about
On Aug 25, 2009, at 3:42 PM, mike wrote:
MS has not because no that they are running 64bit or
32bit.
Got it. Official M$ line is that 64-bit is useless, something that
no one would notice.
You think we are stupid?
I would think that you'll be dead meat after this post :))
Richard P.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Rich Schinnellrichnrockvi...@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting article in Info World.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/snow-leopard-just-cheap-windows-7-knockoff-798
Maybe I will get
On Aug 25, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Tony B wrote:
So you're saying if I install OSX 32 bit today, then change my mobo
and CPU, I can simply switch to 64 bit next year? Just throw a switch
and no OS reinstall will be required? Nice, if true.
The OS loads either the 32 or 64-bit kernel at startup.
Nope they don't get paid until it is shipped! Did not order through
MS, ordered through merchants who cannot charge until it is shipped.,
Who's on first? is very important to Tom. Humor him and maybe he'll shut
up about it.
Good show old boy! Maybe next time is when we catch the weasel in
60 matches
Mail list logo
