OT: Mac Classic users

Yeah, there's still a few around and I'm one of them sorta. I've switched to
OS–X three years ago mainly because I wanted a better newsreader and in the
end Hogwasher won out (a long ugly battle but tis now over). Anyway, on my
old baby downstairs I still have OS–9.2 (originally 8.6 and I don't know if
it applies here but I'm assuming so?) and decided to see if I could install
the Hog on the system. Installed perfectly and everything if fine. Had I
know this before I'd not been so much inclined to upgrade to OS–X yet it's
going to happen anyway, so no real regrets.
So, if you're using Classic Mac, don't hesitate to try the newsreader as they
do offer a sixty day trial run and by that time you should have decided on
whether or not to take the plunge. A bit of a pain to set up yet once done,
*almost* as good as Gravity is for Windows and they tell me it's still in the
development stage (like everything else is). And of course, you can probably
tell I don't have a spell checker installed yet :–)
No, I'm not involved with them and this isn't a spammer message to sell
something, just a happy camper...
Cheers
Dennis

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:14:18 –0700, Ruddell wrote:
You mean that they can't tell you what Mac apps run on what Mac
platforms?
It's going to get really fun as they go through their third major chip
iteration: first Motorola (now Freescale) 68xxx, then the PowerEating
PC, and finally Intel Inside like the rest of the free world?
(Excluding the developing–world hand–crank laptop that uses AMD
Instead, of course.) Two processor architecture switches over the past
ten years either indicates they've mastered the art of hitching the
wagon to the horses that wear out too soon or a bad case of Hardware
Attention Deficit Disorder.
Sounds like they're getting backward compatibility problems even worse
than Mister Softee has.
And to think this is with a system where Steve Jobs crows loud and
long he has control over the operating system and hardware. On second
thought, wasn't Mr. Jobs also responsible for "A Bug's Life" and "Toy
Story?" <grin/duck>
Mister Softee has hardware control, but it's not as obvious as sole
sourcing. It's called the "Designed for Windows" certification mark.
If it won't boot and run Windows, it just as well be an Amiga as far
as the market's concerned.
At least Apple can do slick design because they're a sole–sourced
product. There's nothing technical prohibiting a design like the Mac
Mini in the PC world but it basically isn't done because the boring
box can undercut the price of the slick box. They do have smaller form
factors but even those are designed to take standard PC optical drives
as compared to the tightly optimized Macintosh world. (Sometimes too
tightly optimized, IMHO: Apple reportedly took a Sony DVD burner
mechanism and removed the DVD+R and DVD+RW modes. Apple is a member of
the DVD Forum, not the DVD+RW Alliance, so it probably made sense from
a business point of view... but DVD+RW is arguably the better of the
two rewritable formats because it has better random rewrite
capabilities.)
Something on a Macintosh that's hard to set up? Must be a Windows port
in disguise. <grin/duck>
Maybe they need to do a Macintosh port but they'd probably have to add
non–removable training wheels for those who can only do one mouse
button. <grin/duck>

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:50:57 –0700, Charlie Perrin wrote
(in article <6u4nn15vlrhd08ojvh8m8253ro53bqf...@4ax.com>):
I guess what I missed here is that Hogwasher has been around for a while in
Classic setup, but I didn't like it back then. But the new version for OS–X
apparently is backward compatible and that wasn't an issue for me at the time
of purchase.
Actually no, Hogwasher isn't an Apple application. Believe it or not, there
is some third party software out there for both Classic & OS–X ;–)
––
Cheers!
Dennis
Remove 'Elle–Kabong' to reply

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:29:49 –0700, Ruddell wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:14:18 –0700, Ruddell wrote:
Yeah, there's still a few around and I'm one of them sorta. I've switched
to
OS–X three years ago mainly because I wanted a better newsreader and in the
end Hogwasher won out (a long ugly battle but tis now over). Anyway, on my
old baby downstairs I still have OS–9.2 (originally 8.6 and I don't know if
it applies here but I'm assuming so?) and decided to see if I could install
the Hog on the system. Installed perfectly and everything if fine.
You mean that they can't tell you what Mac apps run on what Mac
platforms?
As I wrote before, "You mean that they can't tell you what Mac apps
run on what Mac platforms?"
In other words, it should be plainly defined, in lieu of the
serendipitious discovery "apparently is backward compatible."
It isn't that hard to document the equivalent of "Requires Windows 98
OSR2 or later" in the Mac world... or is it?
I know that! There seems to be a lot of convergence in that area over
the years.
After all, I'm a fan of Guy Kawasaki, Apple Fellow. For some quotes
from the one and only Wise Guy:
http://sneakers.pair.com/g–k.htm#KawasakiGuy
Not only has he written about getting third party software authors,
he's had a great deal to say about sneakers in his writings. He wrote
me, when I asked about it and quoted what he said: "I had no idea that
sneakers enter my consciousness so often!"
Up to the time Microsoft Office for Windows really took off, Microsoft
made more off the average Mac application buyer than they did the
average PC application buyer.
For example, there were several spreadsheet programs in the DOS world
(some more popular than others), but Excel was pretty much standard on
Macintosh.
The early buggy attempts by WordPerfect and Lotus to jump from DOS to
Windows didn't help their cause.
Microsoft also had some aggressive rebate programs that also helped
catch customers. IIRC, you could get all of Office for the price of
upgrading a single app, and I remember that they gave me a pretty
cheap upgrade to jump to Visual BASIC from the DOS equivalent.