Not suitable for Macintosh users.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-SillyDog)
The most useful keyboard
Moderator: Edward
37 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
The most useful keyboard
by Antony » Sun 26 Jan, 2003 9:50 pm
Well, this is the most useful keyboard you've ever needed.
Not suitable for Macintosh users.
Not suitable for Macintosh users.
-
Antony - diamond member
- Posts: 14510
- Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
by DJGM » Tue 28 Jan, 2003 12:00 pm
<rant>
Mac OS is NOT a piece of junk! If you've never used it, DON'T diss it!
</rant>
Cmd+Option+Esc performs the same function in Mac OS as Ctrl+Alt+Delete.
Mac OS is NOT a piece of junk! If you've never used it, DON'T diss it!
</rant>
Cmd+Option+Esc performs the same function in Mac OS as Ctrl+Alt+Delete.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
-
DJGM - diamond member
- Posts: 4572
- Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
- Location: Manchester, England, UK
by Mandrake » Tue 28 Jan, 2003 12:42 pm
Oh, on the contrary - I've used Mac OS 9.1 and Mac OS X quite a bit - it only runs on proprietry hardware, a bit far behind the likes of Redhat Linux - which runs on Sparc, UltraSparc and x86 - among other architectures! Not to mention Redhat 8 is considerably cheaper, and comes with more software than one would ever need! But, for games, one still must keep a copy of Windows - for now 
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
-
Mandrake - Moderator
- Posts: 4193
- Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am
by Edward » Tue 28 Jan, 2003 5:46 pm
DJGM wrote:<rant>
Mac OS is NOT a piece of junk! If you've never used it, DON'T diss it!
</rant>
Cmd+Option+Esc performs the same function in Mac OS as Ctrl+Alt+Delete.
So on the Mac: the Command is to Escape the Option.
That is more understandable than CTRL-ALT-DELETE.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
-
Edward - Moderator
- Posts: 3584
- Joined: Sun 01 Dec, 2002 7:15 pm
by DJGM » Thu 30 Jan, 2003 1:48 am
On that premise, in Windows, there's a Control to Alternate Deletions . . . !
BTW, the only proprietary hardware in most Macs these days, is the CPU.
Even that, is made by a 3rd party company, which I believe is Motorola.
HDD's in modern Macs, are the same standard ATA-IDE drives as those
used inside most PC's. In fact, my iMac, I'm writing this with, currently
has an 18.5GB 7200RPM Seagate HDD, that would've originally been
installed inside a PC, had I not purchased it for UK£30 last year!
One curse of generic and/or non-proprietary computer hardware on a PC
running Windows, is that badly installed drivers, or just bad driver files
in general, can cause the infamous, but familiar "Blue Screen of Death!"
Mac OS doesn't "build a driver information database" when you install
a new peripheral or other hardware. In most cases, it just works! With
external hardware, just plug it in, and it's ready to use within seconds!
On a PC running Windows, that is rarely the case . . . if ever!
As for the architectures that Mac OS runs on, it's an unfair comparison to
put it up against a fully open source OS maker like RedHat Inc. But then,
as Mac OS X is built upon a UNIX codebase, Apple could port it to x86
and other platforms, but this would be a very big risk . . . there'd no
longer be any compelling reasons to buy an Apple Mac, apart from
the novelty value and to have a hi-tech art deco ornament! Apple
would become a maker of operating systems and software only.
In other words, they'd be just like Microsoft, only without the
underhand monopolistic business practises!
Now, which architechtures does Windows run on natively? Let's see . . .
there's x86 . . . and . . . um, that's it! What are the chances of Windows
running natively on Sparc, UltraSparc, PowerPC, or any other hardware?
That's not a difficult question to answer . . . absolutely none whatsoever!
Seeing snowfall and icebergs, in the fiery pits of hell is far more likely!
BTW, the only proprietary hardware in most Macs these days, is the CPU.
Even that, is made by a 3rd party company, which I believe is Motorola.
HDD's in modern Macs, are the same standard ATA-IDE drives as those
used inside most PC's. In fact, my iMac, I'm writing this with, currently
has an 18.5GB 7200RPM Seagate HDD, that would've originally been
installed inside a PC, had I not purchased it for UK£30 last year!
One curse of generic and/or non-proprietary computer hardware on a PC
running Windows, is that badly installed drivers, or just bad driver files
in general, can cause the infamous, but familiar "Blue Screen of Death!"
Mac OS doesn't "build a driver information database" when you install
a new peripheral or other hardware. In most cases, it just works! With
external hardware, just plug it in, and it's ready to use within seconds!
On a PC running Windows, that is rarely the case . . . if ever!
As for the architectures that Mac OS runs on, it's an unfair comparison to
put it up against a fully open source OS maker like RedHat Inc. But then,
as Mac OS X is built upon a UNIX codebase, Apple could port it to x86
and other platforms, but this would be a very big risk . . . there'd no
longer be any compelling reasons to buy an Apple Mac, apart from
the novelty value and to have a hi-tech art deco ornament! Apple
would become a maker of operating systems and software only.
In other words, they'd be just like Microsoft, only without the
underhand monopolistic business practises!
Now, which architechtures does Windows run on natively? Let's see . . .
there's x86 . . . and . . . um, that's it! What are the chances of Windows
running natively on Sparc, UltraSparc, PowerPC, or any other hardware?
That's not a difficult question to answer . . . absolutely none whatsoever!
Seeing snowfall and icebergs, in the fiery pits of hell is far more likely!
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
-
DJGM - diamond member
- Posts: 4572
- Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
- Location: Manchester, England, UK
by Antony » Thu 30 Jan, 2003 4:53 am
What!?!Mandrake wrote:Ah, still Linux
UNIX is better than Linux.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (CK-SillyDog)
-
Antony - diamond member
- Posts: 14510
- Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
by DJGM » Thu 30 Jan, 2003 4:54 pm
Mandrake wrote:Ah, still Linux
Linux is good. Although Linux is not UNIX, but is only based upon UNIX, in
much the same way as Mac OS X is based upon UNIX. Oh, and Macs can
run Linux, so you don't really have to use Mac OS X, if you want to run
a stable and up to date UNIX based operating system on a Macintosh.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
-
DJGM - diamond member
- Posts: 4572
- Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
- Location: Manchester, England, UK
by Mandrake » Thu 30 Jan, 2003 7:42 pm
Speaking of UNIX, a friend of mine has a Silicon Graphics Workstation, he got a copy of AIX 5 and is runnning it as a webserver, very good. My favourite flavour of UNIX is Solaris, and Linux would be Redhat 8.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.0.3705)
-
Mandrake - Moderator
- Posts: 4193
- Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am
by DJGM » Thu 30 Jan, 2003 9:47 pm
Well, AFAIK a new G4 Mac is probably more affordable than a new SGI!
(Aren't SGI's more for professional/industrial designers and the like?)
(Aren't SGI's more for professional/industrial designers and the like?)
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021207 Phoenix/0.5
Last edited by DJGM on Fri 31 Jan, 2003 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
-
DJGM - diamond member
- Posts: 4572
- Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
- Location: Manchester, England, UK
by DJGM » Fri 31 Jan, 2003 12:25 am
In your own personal opinion . . .
Which of these do you think is fastest . . . . a 1.7Ghz Pentium PC, or
an 867Mhz Power Mac, each with the same amount of RAM installed?
Which of these do you think is fastest . . . . a 1.7Ghz Pentium PC, or
an 867Mhz Power Mac, each with the same amount of RAM installed?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021207 Phoenix/0.5
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
-
DJGM - diamond member
- Posts: 4572
- Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
- Location: Manchester, England, UK
37 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Registered users: Google [Bot]
