Another 7500 update
Well, I flashed one of my 2940UW cards with the apple rom. It was seen by OS 9 with the new memory, but it wouldn't access the Apple CD drive. After re-installing the old RAM, it was fine. I guess it is time to give up. I've just never seen memory do this and I have been a PC tech for 15 years......oh well....thanx for all the suggestions. __________________________________________________________________ Look What The New Netscape.com Can Do! Now you can preview dozens of stories and have the ones you select delivered to you without ever leaving the Top Home Page. And the new Tool Box gives you one click access to local Movie times, Maps, White Pages and more. See for yourself at http://netcenter.netscape.com/netcenter/
On Monday 10 October 2005 02:18 pm, larrystotler@netscape.net wrote:
Well, I flashed one of my 2940UW cards with the apple rom. It was seen by OS 9 with the new memory, but it wouldn't access the Apple CD drive. After re-installing the old RAM, it was fine. I guess it is time to give up. I've just never seen memory do this and I have been a PC tech for 15 years......oh well....thanx for all the suggestions. __________________________________________________________________
That's what always happens when you let Apple play with hardware! ;-) They should have stayed with software and let the clone makers do the hardware. Might be more Apples out there and better, cheaper hardware too! You tried Larry. Guess it just wasn't meant to work smoothly. Rusty
On 10/10/05 2:31 PM, "BandiPat" <penguin0601@earthlink.net> wrote:
That's what always happens when you let Apple play with hardware! ;-)
They should have stayed with software and let the clone makers do the hardware. Might be more Apples out there and better, cheaper hardware too! You tried Larry. Guess it just wasn't meant to work smoothly.
Rusty
You have GOT to be kidding. -- Thanks, George Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. Mark Twain
On Monday 10 October 2005 03:10 pm, george wrote:
On 10/10/05 2:31 PM, "BandiPat" <penguin0601@earthlink.net> wrote:
That's what always happens when you let Apple play with hardware! ;-)
They should have stayed with software and let the clone makers do the hardware. Might be more Apples out there and better, cheaper hardware too! You tried Larry. Guess it just wasn't meant to work smoothly.
Rusty
You have GOT to be kidding. ==========
Actually George, I'm not. :-) There would be a lot more PPC machines around, if Jobs had left the hardware to others and the clone makers alone. And you certainly can't deny that with more machines available, they would have been cheaper! end of line Rusty
On 10/10/05 11:19 PM, "BandiPat" <penguin0601@earthlink.net> wrote:
You have GOT to be kidding. ==========
Actually George, I'm not. :-)
There would be a lot more PPC machines around, if Jobs had left the hardware to others and the clone makers alone. And you certainly can't deny that with more machines available, they would have been cheaper!
end of line Rusty
Apple would then have to support how many hardware vendors...? possibility deal with crappy hardware...? I've had many clones and many apple-macs. The clones had many more hardware issues than any one of my apple hardware boxes. Out of our intel based hardware, I can't tell you how many power supplies, ram, drives, motherboards, etc. I've had to change due to crappy parts. If you let any hardware company hold something over your head, you have to bow down to them...think IBM vs Moto. Apple kept bouncing back and forth as to who would give him the best product. I guess he finally got pissed off at IBM and decided Intel would be the best for his company. Also keep in mind it isn't how many widgets you sell, it's how much $ you make on each widget. Many people I know would never buy anything else other than a apple hardware mac. Their hardware is very reliable. ___________________ IPod, Mac to highlight Apple report By Rex Crum, MarketWatch Last Update: 7:17 PM ET Oct. 10, 2005 <snip> Analysts surveyed by Thomson First Call estimate Apple will earn 37 cents a share on $3.72 billion in sales for the period ended Sept. 30. As has been the case with nearly every Apple quartely report of late, sales of the iPod music player will be a crucial component of Apple's results. Some analysts are looking for Apple to report iPod sales of 8.5 million units, which would be an increase of more than 300% over the 2.02 million iPods shipped a year ago. The company will also have about a month's worth of sales of its new iPod nano flash memory music player to add to the mix. But analysts say that while the iPod might be the source of most of the investment and retail worlds' attention toward Apple, sales of the company's flagship Macintosh computer line should not be discounted. Richard Farmer, of Merrill Lynch, wrote in a recent research note that a strong back-to-school selling season likely helped Apple's Mac sales, and that he expects Apple's Mac revenue to grow by 25% over the $1.23 billion the company reported a year ago. What Apple reports, and has to say about its current fiscal quarter, will certainly have an immediate effect on the company's stock. When Apple reported blowout third-quarter results in July, investors reacted by driving Apple shares up about 10% the next day. For the year, Apple's stock has risen about 70%, to a split-adjusted price of $50.61. As if Apple's numbers wouldn't be enough to gain attention, the company event the next day will likely keep Apple's stock momentum charging along. Industry speculation is high that Apple will release a video iPod capable of playing music videos and other video content. ____________________ How many other hardware companies can say this? -- Thanks, George "They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 02:23 pm, george wrote:
On 10/10/05 11:19 PM, "BandiPat" <penguin0601@earthlink.net> wrote:
You have GOT to be kidding.
==========
Actually George, I'm not. :-)
There would be a lot more PPC machines around, if Jobs had left the hardware to others and the clone makers alone. And you certainly can't deny that with more machines available, they would have been cheaper!
end of line Rusty
Apple would then have to support how many hardware vendors...? possibility deal with crappy hardware...? I've had many clones and many apple-macs. The clones had many more hardware issues than any one of my apple hardware boxes. Out of our intel based hardware, I can't tell you how many power supplies, ram, drives, motherboards, etc. I've had to change due to crappy parts. If you let any hardware company hold something over your head, you have to bow down to them...think IBM vs Moto. Apple kept bouncing back and forth as to who would give him the best product. I guess he finally got pissed off at IBM and decided Intel would be the best for his company.
Also keep in mind it isn't how many widgets you sell, it's how much $ you make on each widget. Many people I know would never buy anything else other than a apple hardware mac. Their hardware is very reliable.
___________________ IPod, Mac to highlight Apple report By Rex Crum, MarketWatch Last Update: 7:17 PM ET Oct. 10, 2005 [...] (iPod sales) How many other hardware companies can say this? ========
First of all George, just one email to the list please! There is no need to send me a copy as well, I'm on the list, so one will suffice. I could make an Apple user joke here, but you might misconstrue that as being rude and that's not my intention. The hardware coming from the clone makers during that period were no less reliable or worse than what was coming from Apple. The clones had already started a nice increase in Apple rom based computers, so you can't say it was a bad thing! Increased Apple sales, better OS, after 10 that is, and better hardware in the end with some standards being produced. Now obviously you are an Apple computer person and I respect that, but be reasonable. The only reason Apple is doing anything right now financially is the iPod and accessories, because their computer sales suck! From your last few sentences, you sound like you are pulling words right out of Jobs' mouth! That has always been his thoughts as well and one of the big reasons Mac computers have always been so pricey. Apple would have never had to support clone hardware, only their OS running on that hardware. Did you ever hear of Windows having to support all clone makers? Or LinuxOS or BeOS or... Your statement is just not reasonable. I doubt very much that Steve Jobs got pissed off at either Motorola or IBM, but rather got a lot of incentive from Intel to make the move. Read some of the articles on the web about this move. It also indicates that Apple was never a hardware company, but a software company, else they would have the good sense to continue with PPC! I don't really wish them ill by going to Intel, but I do consider it a bad move on their part, as they are going to have to make OS10.x look awfully attractive for folks to start using it, when Linux is an overall better, faster system and free to boot! regards, Rusty
BandiPat wrote:
On Monday 10 October 2005 03:10 pm, george wrote:
On 10/10/05 2:31 PM, "BandiPat" <penguin0601@earthlink.net> wrote:
That's what always happens when you let Apple play with hardware! ;-)
They should have stayed with software and let the clone makers do the hardware. Might be more Apples out there and better, cheaper hardware too! You tried Larry. Guess it just wasn't meant to work smoothly.
Rusty
You have GOT to be kidding.
==========
Actually George, I'm not. :-)
There would be a lot more PPC machines around, if Jobs had left the hardware to others and the clone makers alone. And you certainly can't deny that with more machines available, they would have been cheaper!
end of line Rusty
Jobs wasn't the Apple CIO when the 7500 has been released, he was the NEXT CIO, he came back to Apple only with the iMac in '99. ___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
On 10/10/05 2:18 PM, "larrystotler@netscape.net" <larrystotler@netscape.net> wrote:
Well, I flashed one of my 2940UW cards with the apple rom. It was seen by OS 9 with the new memory, but it wouldn't access the Apple CD drive. After re-installing the old RAM, it was fine. I guess it is time to give up. I've just never seen memory do this and I have been a PC tech for 15 years......oh well....thanx for all the suggestions.
I can't say if this matters for what you are doing, but I know there is a difference in ram for when you have a G3 or G4 upgrade card in the older macs. If you are running a upgrade card, the original ram doesn't work. (this is what I'm told by a few ram dealers. I don't' remember having any issues, but...) One of the dealers that told me this was smalldog.com And no, I don't work for them or anything. They may be able to help.(?) Good luck- -- Thanks, George "They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
participants (4)
-
Aymeric GILLAIZEAU -
BandiPat -
george -
larrystotler＠netscape.net