>My normally very quiet G4 733 now sounds like a vacuum cleaner. Should I be
>worried?

Elsewhere I have read a number of comments that the 'Quicksilver' G4s
are noisy, more noisy than any previous mac. There is a thread on
noisy machines and ways to quieten them on www.xlr8yourmac.com. The
quicksilver, it appears, can suffer from either a
manufacturing/design or assembly fault in the air pathway causing
turbulence and noise.

Bearing in mind that (like motor cars) many people won't actually
hear properly the noises they make until they've owned them for a
while. And ambient noise can drown the fan at an office or during the
day.

I'd be looking for any foreign objects in or near the air path.

Should the fan be controlled? My 7600 fan note rises and falls as the
work demand varies. If your G4 is suddenly on 'full fan always'
perhaps the fan control system has died? (Does the Quicksilver have
an auto fan speed control anyone?)

btw - Microshaft don't do hardware, the vacuum cleaner analogy
doesn't really work, but we 'think different' people are more likely
to use a Dyson anyway...

P.

--
Cyber CDP
The Deptford Albany, Douglas Way, London SE8 4AG
Email: cybercdp@...  Website: http://www.deptfordnet.org.uk
Tel: (020) 8694 2386  Fax: 0870 734 5135

at the moment true, but wait until the X-box comes out and sinks like a
stone (I hope)

miock


> btw - Microshaft don't do hardware, the vacuum cleaner analogy
> doesn't really work, but we 'think different' people are more likely
> to use a Dyson anyway...

No different from the start point.

> I don't know about that...the logic gets kind of warped at this point.
>
>>> Except of course being MS it will suck 'cos it won't suck:-))
>>
>>
>>
>> You got it. Well done.
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: lmug-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe:    lmug-talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe:  lmug-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner:   lmug-talk-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.egroups.com/community/lmug-talk
>
> Please visit the London Macintosh User Group web page:
> http://www.lmug.org.uk
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

so are we all agreed then micro$oft product suck even when they don't suck

miock

-----

or 'especially', in the case of vacuum cleaners.

> so are we all agreed then micro$oft product suck even when they don't suck

I keep seeing review of XP saying 'wow' and 'jeepers' then telling us the real
story of how awful Win 95, 98 were with nudges of 'they're okay' towards NT,
2000. I even saw one that said setting up XP was easier than OS 9.2, or X.0.4
(X.1 only justa ppearing at that point). This particular reviewer had just
plugged in a UMAX scanner and it worked and let him order a T-shirt over the
web. (but in the US of course...). Has anyone put a 'X.1 vs XP' comparison
together (a sober one, not one of those 'well it doesn't run my games so it's
crap/of course it's crap it's Windows) but a more sober one. I need ammunition
for work but it needs to be respectable ammunition, now they are starting to
carp again...

I seem to remember something like this on Cnet.com and also in a recent UK
computing magazine, but I can't remember which one (might have been PCW or
Micromart) :-( as I get through so many.


Matt



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Davies [mailto:ucrajpd@...]
> Sent: 01 November 2001 12:31
> To: Recipient List Suppressed
> Subject: Re: [lmug-talk] noisy
>
>
> or 'especially', in the case of vacuum cleaners.
>
> > so are we all agreed then micro$oft product suck even when they
> don't suck
>
> I keep seeing review of XP saying 'wow' and 'jeepers' then
> telling us the real
> story of how awful Win 95, 98 were with nudges of 'they're okay'
> towards NT,
> 2000. I even saw one that said setting up XP was easier than OS
> 9.2, or X.0.4
> (X.1 only justa ppearing at that point). This particular reviewer had just
> plugged in a UMAX scanner and it worked and let him order a
> T-shirt over the
> web. (but in the US of course...). Has anyone put a 'X.1 vs XP' comparison
> together (a sober one, not one of those 'well it doesn't run my
> games so it's
> crap/of course it's crap it's Windows) but a more sober one. I
> need ammunition
> for work but it needs to be respectable ammunition, now they are
> starting to
> carp again...
>
>
> Community email addresses:
>   Post message: lmug-talk@yahoogroups.com
>   Subscribe:    lmug-talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   Unsubscribe:  lmug-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   List owner:   lmug-talk-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.egroups.com/community/lmug-talk
>
> Please visit the London Macintosh User Group web page:
>                       http://www.lmug.org.uk
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

At 12:30 pm +0000 1/11/01, Jason Davies wrote:

>I keep seeing review of XP saying 'wow' and 'jeepers' then telling us the real
>story of how awful Win 95, 98 were with nudges of 'they're okay' towards NT,
>2000. I even saw one that said setting up XP was easier than OS 9.2, or X.0.4
>(X.1 only justa ppearing at that point). This particular reviewer had just
>plugged in a UMAX scanner and it worked and let him order a T-shirt over the
>web. (but in the US of course...). Has anyone put a 'X.1 vs XP' comparison
>together (a sober one, not one of those 'well it doesn't run my games so it's
>crap/of course it's crap it's Windows) but a more sober one. I need ammunition
>for work but it needs to be respectable ammunition, now they are starting to
>carp again...

It's not an actual comparison, but there's an article about XP at:

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22533.html>
--

best wishes,

Paul

http://www.paulbradforth.com

on 1/11/01 12:30 pm, Jason Davies at ucrajpd@... wrote:

> Has anyone put a 'X.1 vs XP' comparison together (a sober one, not one of
> those 'well it doesn't run my games so it's crap/of course it's crap it's
> Windows) but a more sober one. I need ammunition for work but it needs to be
> respectable ammunition, now they are starting to carp again...

It's OS X vs. Windows 2000 (rather than XP), but news.com did an 'OS Death
Match' back in July which you can get here:

<http://home.cnet.com/software/0-429669-8-6112332-1.html?tag=st.cn.sr1.ssr.s
w_macos>

If you want sober and thorough criticism, you can't get much better than Ars
Technica, IMO. As far as I can tell, they haven't gone over XP yet, but
their review of OS X 10.1 is here:

<http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q4/macosx-10.1/macosx-10.1.html>

Cheers,
Lars

This is misleading though: it is a review of X before X.1, though it is headed
X.1
> http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q4/macosx-10.1/macosx-10.1.html

Thanks guys. The jibes are already coming (even 'are you determind to keep using
this fancy new OS?' when I got X.1...)

> http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q4/macosx-10.1/macosx-10.1.html

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/quicksilver_noise/quieting_quicksilver_2.html

Various comments and a mod to quieten a G4 fan, and at the bottom,
links to other fan pages.

P.
--
Cyber CDP
The Deptford Albany, Douglas Way, London SE8 4AG
Email: cybercdp@...   Website http://www.deptfordnet.org.uk
Tel: (020) 8694 2386   Fax: 0870 734 5135   also cybercdp@...

on 1/11/01 1:03 pm, Jason Davies at ucrajpd@... wrote:

> This is misleading though

No, it isn't - note the word 'Prelude' on the first page.

The review proper starts on the following page
<http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q4/macosx-10.1/macosx-10.1-1.html>

Cheers,
Lars

doh...thanks.
> > This is misleading though
>
> No, it isn't - note the word 'Prelude' on the first page.
>
> The review proper starts on the following page
> <http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q4/macosx-10.1/macosx-10.1-1.html>

So I have been reading, and learning about VM here. Is it fair to say that the
more windows one has open, the more memory is busy? If so, does this apply to
minimised windows? and would (eg) black text require anyless memory than blue
text in something like BBedit (which is just uniform text and the window
framework)?
> on 1/11/01 1:03 pm, Jason Davies at ucrajpd@... wrote:
>
> > This is misleading though
>
> No, it isn't - note the word 'Prelude' on the first page.
>
> The review proper starts on the following page
> <http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q4/macosx-10.1/macosx-10.1-1.html>
>
> Cheers,
> Lars
>
>
>
> Community email addresses:
>   Post message: lmug-talk@yahoogroups.com
>   Subscribe:    lmug-talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   Unsubscribe:  lmug-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   List owner:   lmug-talk-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.egroups.com/community/lmug-talk
>
> Please visit the London Macintosh User Group web page:
>                       http://www.lmug.org.uk
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

On 11/1/01 4:30 AM, Jason Davies at ucrajpd@... wrote:

> I keep seeing review of XP saying 'wow' and 'jeepers' then telling us the real
> story of how awful Win 95, 98 were with nudges of 'they're okay' towards NT,
> 2000.

There have been a couple of articles in InfoWorld and ComputerWorld which
suggest that there's no good reason for an enterprise to upgrade to Windows
XP Professional (and definitely not Home or Personal Edition) over Windows
2000 and several good reasons NOT to.  Check their web sites.

Bruce

--
Solomon Short says:
"A gentleman is one who doesn't demand a lady prove that she is."

At 7:01 AM -0800 11/1/01, Bruce Gerson wrote:
>  > I keep seeing review of XP saying 'wow' and 'jeepers' then
>telling us the real
>>  story of how awful Win 95, 98 were with nudges of 'they're okay' towards NT,
>>  2000.
>
>There have been a couple of articles in InfoWorld and ComputerWorld which
>suggest that there's no good reason for an enterprise to upgrade to Windows
>XP Professional (and definitely not Home or Personal Edition) over Windows
>2000 and several good reasons NOT to.  Check their web sites.

    As were similar articles with the release of 98, Me, and 2000 -
although there are more with this release than the others.
Realistically, however, experience tells me that most PC users will
make the move regardless of these articles.

    Buyers of new PC's will make the move without choice.  Microsoft's
license to PC makers doesn't give much flexibility in what version is
installed.

--
"You can't tell the kids to stop the violence with the mothers
running around like this."
--- Mary Ann Smith, after her son was shot by a Million Mom Marcher
---
New Pictures:
http://homepage.mac.com/stmoody

I want a cheap digital camera for snaps (as opposed to 'photos'). for instance
this one

  www.digitaldreamco.com/shop/espion.htm

  But I know next to nothing about what sort of pixels I should have etc etc. Is
this going to produce nice-ish pictures I can email to people? It says 352 x 288
resolution which means nothing to me...

At 5:55 pm +0000 1/11/01, Jason Davies wrote:

>I want a cheap digital camera for snaps (as opposed to 'photos'). for instance
>this one
>
>  www.digitaldreamco.com/shop/espion.htm
>
>  But I know next to nothing about what sort of pixels I should have
>etc etc. Is
>this going to produce nice-ish pictures I can email to people? It
>says 352 x 288
>resolution which means nothing to me...

If you go to my site, and click on the 'Contact' link, there's a
mention of some 'mini sites' on that page, with links. If you click
on the link called 'Countryside' and look at the first picture, it's
350px wide. That should give you some idea of what 352px looks like...

That size is OK for email, but you wouldn't be able to print them at
much of a size.

And beware; digital cameras are so fab, you'll wish you'd spent more :-)
--

best wishes,

Paul

http://www.paulbradforth.com

Does anyone know how I  can transfer all the names in my outlook express
address book on my imac onto my PC laptop?
Cheers
paul

--
paul.nancollas@...
07 01 070 28 64

On Thu, 01 November 2001, Paul Bradforth wrote:

> At 5:55 pm +0000 1/11/01, Jason Davies wrote:
>
> >I want a cheap digital camera for snaps (as opposed to 'photos'> > 
www.digitaldreamco.com/shop/espion.htm

352 x 288
> >resolution
beware; digital cameras are so fab, you'll wish you'd spent more :-)

I agree with Paul you'd wish you bought a better one.

However if it is not 2.1 megapixels 1600 X 1200 it will simply not be good
enough quality to touch up or even just mess about with

Spend the extra and get a good one with enough memory to take lots of pictures 
64MB = 100 shots @ 1600 X 1200
Believe me you take 100 very quickly

David

Since I now have independent verification of the problem, I thought I would
warn people with partitioned harddisks about installing iTunes 2 under OS X
at least until it's officially released by Apple.

It would appear that the installer which is available on Hotline and various
other warez channels will, in most configurations, wipe any and all
partitions that does *not* have OS X installed.

At this point it is unclear whether this is caused by a bug in the installer
script or whether it's a trojan that was added after it was pirated, but I
would certainly recommend backing up and unmounting relevant volumes before
using even the official installer when it's released in a couple of weeks
time.

Cheers,
Lars

Hi,

I've got a Mac network, with one Dell Windows 2000 computer. There's a
printer connected up directly to the Dell (via the parralel port)
locally. Now in Windows it is possible to "share" the printer and make
it available to certain other Windows computers on a network. I tried
"sharing" the printer to see whether it'd make itself available to a
couple of Macs on our network, with no luck. Does anyone have any
suggestions on how to make Macs print to a local Win 2000 printer which
is "shared" ?

Thanks,
Mike.

Eezee, where did you get yours from? I didnt' have my disk wiped but I have had
a few problems..
> Since I now have independent verification of the problem, I thought I would
> warn people with partitioned harddisks about installing iTunes 2 under OS X
> at least until it's officially released by Apple.
>

Has anyone tried a digital camera for OCR work?  I'm talking about
taking a pocket camera into a library, and rather than using a
copier, just capturing the entire page/s, then taking home and
running it through an OCR programme.  I';ve tried two cameras (a
Kodak and an Olypus).  Even in the Black & White setting, you get
'shades of gray" which means the OCR prog recognises the pixel as
filled, and you get a blur.

Is there any digicam which will give true black&white?
Has anyone tried this trick succesfully?

Michael
--
Dr Michael Ashkenazi
Regent's College
London, UK

At 12:00 pm +0000 2/11/01, Michael Ashkenazi wrote:

>Has anyone tried a digital camera for OCR work?  I'm talking about
>taking a pocket camera into a library, and rather than using a
>copier, just capturing the entire page/s, then taking home and
>running it through an OCR programme.  I';ve tried two cameras (a
>Kodak and an Olypus).  Even in the Black & White setting, you get
>'shades of gray" which means the OCR prog recognises the pixel as
>filled, and you get a blur.

This is normal. 'Black and White' means Black, White, and everything
in between, so as to be able to reproduce ordinary scenes as you see
them.

>Is there any digicam which will give true black&white?
>Has anyone tried this trick succesfully?

I don't think there's a camera with a 'Line art' setting as such,
which is what you're wanting, but a little playing around with
'Levels' in Photoshop or Graphic Converter (free trial) will work
wonders...

--

best wishes,

Paul

http://www.paulbradforth.com

Just max out your contrast, that will kill any greyscales.

On 2/11/01 12:00 PM, "Michael Ashkenazi" <ashkenam@...> wrote:

>
> Has anyone tried a digital camera for OCR work?  I'm talking about
> taking a pocket camera into a library, and rather than using a
> copier, just capturing the entire page/s, then taking home and
> running it through an OCR programme.  I';ve tried two cameras (a
> Kodak and an Olypus).  Even in the Black & White setting, you get
> 'shades of gray" which means the OCR prog recognises the pixel as
> filled, and you get a blur.
>
> Is there any digicam which will give true black&white?
> Has anyone tried this trick succesfully?
>
> Michael

I will be in London City today making some QTVRs.

If you are interested in seeing how it is done first hand, give me a ring
and you can meet me somewhere.

I will be in Trafalgar square shortly.

077 62 897 717

Regards,

Shane Anderson
Chief Evangelist
shane@...
http://www.MacEvangeList.com
ICQ: 6393614

On 11/2/01 1:04 AM, Clovis at paul.nancollas@... wrote:

> Does anyone know how I  can transfer all the names in my outlook express
> address book on my imac onto my PC laptop?

In the File menu, select "Export Contacts..."  This will result in a text
file which you should be able to import into a PC application.

Bruce

--
Solomon Short says:
"The nice thing about dying is that once you've gotten it over with, you can
stop being afraid of it."

On 11/2/01 2:37 AM, Mike Brass at mbrass@... wrote:

> I've got a Mac network, with one Dell Windows 2000 computer. There's a
> printer connected up directly to the Dell (via the parralel port)
> locally. Now in Windows it is possible to "share" the printer and make
> it available to certain other Windows computers on a network. I tried
> "sharing" the printer to see whether it'd make itself available to a
> couple of Macs on our network, with no luck. Does anyone have any
> suggestions on how to make Macs print to a local Win 2000 printer which
> is "shared" ?

If the printer is PostScript, you can use DAVE or PC MacLAN.  If it's
non-PostScript, you'll need to use PC MacLAN with GhostScript.

Bruce

--
Solomon Short says:
"Just when you think it's finally settled, it isn't."

>It would appear that the installer which is available on Hotline and various
>other warez channels will, in most configurations, wipe any and all
>partitions that does *not* have OS X installed.
>
b***l***x ;)

i got 3 HD's and this g4 5000 and no probs what so ever..if in doubt
run a virex check on the file or installers if ye must...

ps..mine came from caracho....
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Eezee E" *online roaming PR ambassador* & *webmaster*
   - interFACE Radio-----> http://www.interface-radio.co.uk
--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>---  Home >>>ICQ 4737801
and *newly* webmastering into the millenium...
   - Bar Rumba -----------> http://www.barrumba.co.uk
   - Cargo Club ---------->  http://www.cargo-london.com
+ too many more ----->. http://www.EezeeDoesIT.com

	 Real Men Don't Do Windows! • • • forever!