15 New Messages
Digest #9594
Messages
Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:21 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
Should there be a link? I can't see one.
Otto
On 11 June 2013 19:57, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Anyone think this image a tad dull? No contrast, no luminous greens, OMHO.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Otto
On 11 June 2013 19:57, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@yahoo.
> Anyone think this image a tad dull? No contrast, no luminous greens, OMHO.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:30 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"HAL9000" jrswebhome
http://images.apple.com/home/images/osx_hero_2x.jpg
Sorry folks. here it is. Its just dull in contrast and color to me.
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@...> wrote:
>
> Should there be a link? I can't see one.
>
> Otto
>
> On 11 June 2013 19:57, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@...> wrote:
>
> > Anyone think this image a tad dull? No contrast, no luminous greens, OMHO.
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Sorry folks. here it is. Its just dull in contrast and color to me.
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
> Should there be a link? I can't see one.
>
> Otto
>
> On 11 June 2013 19:57, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@
>
> > Anyone think this image a tad dull? No contrast, no luminous greens, OMHO.
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:33 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
Thanks. I can't say I have much opinion either way.
Otto
On 12 June 2013 08:30, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@yahoo.com > wrote:
> http://images.apple.com/home/images/osx_hero_2x.jpg
>
> Sorry folks. here it is. Its just dull in contrast and color to me.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Otto
On 12 June 2013 08:30, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@yahoo.
> http://images.
>
> Sorry folks. here it is. Its just dull in contrast and color to me.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:24 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"halfhoff" halfhoff
OS X 10.9 Mavericks System Requirements
http://osxdaily.
OS X 10.9 Mavericks Developer Preview available for download
http://osxdaily.
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2013, Pete Nalda wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering the same thing, with my early 2009 model macbook pro. I
> > guess we'll have to wait until fall to see.
> >
> >
> > On Jun 10, 2013, at 8:16 PM, "N.A. Nada" <whodo678@
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I look forward to Mavericks. I just hope my early 2008 MBP has the stuff
> > it takes to upgrade
> >
>
> Apple Insider posted a list of compatible macs, gleaned from conversations:
> http://appleinsider
>
> "People familiar with the Mavericks Developer Preview have informed *
> AppleInsider* that the OS supports the following Macs:
>
> - iMac (Mid-2007 or later)
> - MacBook (13-inch Aluminum, Late 2008), (13-inch, Early 2009 or later)
> - MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid-2009 or later), (15-inch, Mid/Late 2007 or
> later), (17-inch, Late 2007 or later)
> - MacBook Air (Late 2008 or later)
> - Mac Mini (Early 2009 or later)
> - Mac Pro (Early 2008 or later)
> - Xserve (Early 2009)"
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:27 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Michael King" prudencehalliwell507
All I can tell you if you are able to run 10.8.4 Mountain Lion you be able
to run 10.9 Mavericks
Mike
On 6/11/13, 6:24 PM, "halfhoff"; <gerrysair@shaw.ca > wrote:
>
> OS X 10.9 Mavericks System Requirements
>
>
> http://osxdaily.com/2013/06/11/os-x-mavericks-system-requirements/?utm_source=
> feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+osxdaily+%28OS+X+Daily%29
>
>
> OS X 10.9 Mavericks Developer Preview available for download
>
> http://osxdaily.com/2013/06/10/os-x-mavericks-developer-preview-1-download/?ut
> m_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+osxdaily+%28OS+X+Dai
> ly%29
>
Michael King
2.3GHz Quad Core i7 15 inch MacBook Pro (Retina) •
10.9 Mavericks
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
to run 10.9 Mavericks
Mike
On 6/11/13, 6:24 PM, "halfhoff"
>
> OS X 10.9 Mavericks System Requirements
>
>
> http://osxdaily.
> feedburner&utm_
>
>
> OS X 10.9 Mavericks Developer Preview available for download
>
> http://osxdaily.
> m_source=feedburner
> ly%29
>
Michael King
2.3GHz Quad Core i7 15 inch MacBook Pro (Retina) •
10.9 Mavericks
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:47 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
Did you deliberately misspell v...? How else would you pronounce "regina"?
It's Latin for "queen" if you didn't know.
Damn colonials. ;)
Otto
On 11 June 2013 23:12, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.net > wrote:
> How could you miss, Regina, Saskatchewan? It is only the provence capital.
> Which I was told by the locals is correctly pronounced sounding like
> viagina.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It's Latin for "queen" if you didn't know.
Damn colonials. ;)
Otto
On 11 June 2013 23:12, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.
> How could you miss, Regina, Saskatchewan? It is only the provence capital.
> Which I was told by the locals is correctly pronounced sounding like
> viagina.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:12 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Pat Taylor" pat412255
I had a similar situation with the phone company here a few years ago, switched to Comcast & couldn't be happier. Our own Denver Dan explained the difference to me & his insight helped me make the switch so I appreciate him every day!
On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Bekah <bekah0176@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
> Well - the saga continues - I asked that very question and the second technician yesterday said that sometimes the modems fry out - but … this is a new modem - clean lines. Anyway, he gave up and said it had to be the distance - I was over their max. Imo, it's easily possible that they added a bunch of ATT customers between me and the source (whatever that is that sends the signal).
>
> Anyway, the lower speed stopped working, too. This morning the new modem at lower speed was doing the same thing as everything before. After some thought I called another service provider here, an old established company but a bit more costly, and they'll be out here tomorrow to check "IF" I can get reception. I used them from 1996-2000 or so. If they can't do it then there are a couple other sources - Charter Cable - ??? If worse comes to worse, I still can use the Verizon hot spot (4G but expensive). Verizon broadband doesn't extend out here, though - (heh). I'm at the very edge of town, the next to last house on the block before the wet-land area.
>
> Anyway, then I called ATT and discontinued service. And yes, they did it right quick - no problems. I guess I'd already gone through all the hoops by trying all that stuff and working with techs and technicians and new modems and stuff. If I can't get service per their own technicians then that's a pretty good reason ~ The person doing my discontinue wasn't surprised a bit - even gave me my full month refund (so she said - we'll see). I kept my ATT phone land line - since 1980, I think. That's no problem.
>
> Bekah
>
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.net > wrote:
>
>> If it works, run with it!
>>
>> But it makes no sense. It worked for 8 months, and now you are now "just a wee tad out of range". Did you upgrade speeds and not mention it, or did they move the CO for the DSL "a wee tad"?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Bekah wrote:
>>
>> And the end of story is that the second tech finally, after a couple more hours (techs at the house from 9:30 AM to 6PM), decided that I'm just a wee tad out of range for the high speed DSL. He advised me to downsize the speed. I called ATT and got that done, saved a bit of money - not a lot - and they did what they do and I'm now getting a lower speed DSL but it seems to come in a bit faster. That was a long tiring weekend!
>>
>> Bekah
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Group FAQ:
>> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Bekah <bekah0176@sbcglobal
> Well - the saga continues - I asked that very question and the second technician yesterday said that sometimes the modems fry out - but … this is a new modem - clean lines. Anyway, he gave up and said it had to be the distance - I was over their max. Imo, it's easily possible that they added a bunch of ATT customers between me and the source (whatever that is that sends the signal).
>
> Anyway, the lower speed stopped working, too. This morning the new modem at lower speed was doing the same thing as everything before. After some thought I called another service provider here, an old established company but a bit more costly, and they'll be out here tomorrow to check "IF" I can get reception. I used them from 1996-2000 or so. If they can't do it then there are a couple other sources - Charter Cable - ??? If worse comes to worse, I still can use the Verizon hot spot (4G but expensive). Verizon broadband doesn't extend out here, though - (heh). I'm at the very edge of town, the next to last house on the block before the wet-land area.
>
> Anyway, then I called ATT and discontinued service. And yes, they did it right quick - no problems. I guess I'd already gone through all the hoops by trying all that stuff and working with techs and technicians and new modems and stuff. If I can't get service per their own technicians then that's a pretty good reason ~ The person doing my discontinue wasn't surprised a bit - even gave me my full month refund (so she said - we'll see). I kept my ATT phone land line - since 1980, I think. That's no problem.
>
> Bekah
>
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.
>
>> If it works, run with it!
>>
>> But it makes no sense. It worked for 8 months, and now you are now "just a wee tad out of range". Did you upgrade speeds and not mention it, or did they move the CO for the DSL "a wee tad"?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Bekah wrote:
>>
>> And the end of story is that the second tech finally, after a couple more hours (techs at the house from 9:30 AM to 6PM), decided that I'm just a wee tad out of range for the high speed DSL. He advised me to downsize the speed. I called ATT and got that done, saved a bit of money - not a lot - and they did what they do and I'm now getting a lower speed DSL but it seems to come in a bit faster. That was a long tiring weekend!
>>
>> Bekah
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> Group FAQ:
>> <http://www.macsuppo
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:26 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"N.A. Nada"
Dan or Pat,
Can you give us the bare bones of what was said that made Pat switch to cable over DSL? I know they both have a distance limit, but I thought that cable had a much longer distance.
Brent
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Pat Taylor wrote:
I had a similar situation with the phone company here a few years ago, switched to Comcast & couldn't be happier. Our own Denver Dan explained the difference to me & his insight helped me make the switch so I appreciate him every day!
On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Bekah <bekah0176@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
> Well - the saga continues - I asked that very question and the second technician yesterday said that sometimes the modems fry out - but … this is a new modem - clean lines. Anyway, he gave up and said it had to be the distance - I was over their max. Imo, it's easily possible that they added a bunch of ATT customers between me and the source (whatever that is that sends the signal).
>
> Anyway, the lower speed stopped working, too. This morning the new modem at lower speed was doing the same thing as everything before. After some thought I called another service provider here, an old established company but a bit more costly, and they'll be out here tomorrow to check "IF" I can get reception. I used them from 1996-2000 or so. If they can't do it then there are a couple other sources - Charter Cable - ??? If worse comes to worse, I still can use the Verizon hot spot (4G but expensive). Verizon broadband doesn't extend out here, though - (heh). I'm at the very edge of town, the next to last house on the block before the wet-land area.
>
> Anyway, then I called ATT and discontinued service. And yes, they did it right quick - no problems. I guess I'd already gone through all the hoops by trying all that stuff and working with techs and technicians and new modems and stuff. If I can't get service per their own technicians then that's a pretty good reason ~ The person doing my discontinue wasn't surprised a bit - even gave me my full month refund (so she said - we'll see). I kept my ATT phone land line - since 1980, I think. That's no problem.
>
> Bekah
>
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.net > wrote:
>
>> If it works, run with it!
>>
>> But it makes no sense. It worked for 8 months, and now you are now "just a wee tad out of range". Did you upgrade speeds and not mention it, or did they move the CO for the DSL "a wee tad"?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Bekah wrote:
>>
>> And the end of story is that the second tech finally, after a couple more hours (techs at the house from 9:30 AM to 6PM), decided that I'm just a wee tad out of range for the high speed DSL. He advised me to downsize the speed. I called ATT and got that done, saved a bit of money - not a lot - and they did what they do and I'm now getting a lower speed DSL but it seems to come in a bit faster. That was a long tiring weekend!
>>
>> Bekah
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Group FAQ:
>> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Group FAQ:
<http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
Yahoo! Groups Links
Can you give us the bare bones of what was said that made Pat switch to cable over DSL? I know they both have a distance limit, but I thought that cable had a much longer distance.
Brent
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Pat Taylor wrote:
I had a similar situation with the phone company here a few years ago, switched to Comcast & couldn't be happier. Our own Denver Dan explained the difference to me & his insight helped me make the switch so I appreciate him every day!
On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Bekah <bekah0176@sbcglobal
> Well - the saga continues - I asked that very question and the second technician yesterday said that sometimes the modems fry out - but … this is a new modem - clean lines. Anyway, he gave up and said it had to be the distance - I was over their max. Imo, it's easily possible that they added a bunch of ATT customers between me and the source (whatever that is that sends the signal).
>
> Anyway, the lower speed stopped working, too. This morning the new modem at lower speed was doing the same thing as everything before. After some thought I called another service provider here, an old established company but a bit more costly, and they'll be out here tomorrow to check "IF" I can get reception. I used them from 1996-2000 or so. If they can't do it then there are a couple other sources - Charter Cable - ??? If worse comes to worse, I still can use the Verizon hot spot (4G but expensive). Verizon broadband doesn't extend out here, though - (heh). I'm at the very edge of town, the next to last house on the block before the wet-land area.
>
> Anyway, then I called ATT and discontinued service. And yes, they did it right quick - no problems. I guess I'd already gone through all the hoops by trying all that stuff and working with techs and technicians and new modems and stuff. If I can't get service per their own technicians then that's a pretty good reason ~ The person doing my discontinue wasn't surprised a bit - even gave me my full month refund (so she said - we'll see). I kept my ATT phone land line - since 1980, I think. That's no problem.
>
> Bekah
>
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.
>
>> If it works, run with it!
>>
>> But it makes no sense. It worked for 8 months, and now you are now "just a wee tad out of range". Did you upgrade speeds and not mention it, or did they move the CO for the DSL "a wee tad"?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Bekah wrote:
>>
>> And the end of story is that the second tech finally, after a couple more hours (techs at the house from 9:30 AM to 6PM), decided that I'm just a wee tad out of range for the high speed DSL. He advised me to downsize the speed. I called ATT and got that done, saved a bit of money - not a lot - and they did what they do and I'm now getting a lower speed DSL but it seems to come in a bit faster. That was a long tiring weekend!
>>
>> Bekah
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> Group FAQ:
>> <http://www.macsuppo
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
------------
Group FAQ:
<http://www.macsuppo
Yahoo! Groups Links
Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:00 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Pat Taylor" pat412255
Dan talked about the distances involved & various other technicalities that I don't really remember because my understanding of the issue is woefully lacking. My bottom line is that the switch certainly has provided me with a much more pleasant WiFi experience every day.
Sent from my iPad...î…
On Jun 11, 2013, at 10:26 PM, "N.A. Nada" <whodo678@comcast.net > wrote:
> Dan or Pat,
>
> Can you give us the bare bones of what was said that made Pat switch to cable over DSL? I know they both have a distance limit, but I thought that cable had a much longer distance.
>
>
> Brent
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Pat Taylor wrote:
>
> I had a similar situation with the phone company here a few years ago, switched to Comcast & couldn't be happier. Our own Denver Dan explained the difference to me & his insight helped me make the switch so I appreciate him every day!
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Bekah <bekah0176@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
>
>> Well - the saga continues - I asked that very question and the second technician yesterday said that sometimes the modems fry out - but … this is a new modem - clean lines. Anyway, he gave up and said it had to be the distance - I was over their max. Imo, it's easily possible that they added a bunch of ATT customers between me and the source (whatever that is that sends the signal).
>>
>> Anyway, the lower speed stopped working, too. This morning the new modem at lower speed was doing the same thing as everything before. After some thought I called another service provider here, an old established company but a bit more costly, and they'll be out here tomorrow to check "IF" I can get reception. I used them from 1996-2000 or so. If they can't do it then there are a couple other sources - Charter Cable - ??? If worse comes to worse, I still can use the Verizon hot spot (4G but expensive). Verizon broadband doesn't extend out here, though - (heh). I'm at the very edge of town, the next to last house on the block before the wet-land area.
>>
>> Anyway, then I called ATT and discontinued service. And yes, they did it right quick - no problems. I guess I'd already gone through all the hoops by trying all that stuff and working with techs and technicians and new modems and stuff. If I can't get service per their own technicians then that's a pretty good reason ~ The person doing my discontinue wasn't surprised a bit - even gave me my full month refund (so she said - we'll see). I kept my ATT phone land line - since 1980, I think. That's no problem.
>>
>> Bekah
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.net > wrote:
>>
>>> If it works, run with it!
>>>
>>> But it makes no sense. It worked for 8 months, and now you are now "just a wee tad out of range". Did you upgrade speeds and not mention it, or did they move the CO for the DSL "a wee tad"?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Bekah wrote:
>>>
>>> And the end of story is that the second tech finally, after a couple more hours (techs at the house from 9:30 AM to 6PM), decided that I'm just a wee tad out of range for the high speed DSL. He advised me to downsize the speed. I called ATT and got that done, saved a bit of money - not a lot - and they did what they do and I'm now getting a lower speed DSL but it seems to come in a bit faster. That was a long tiring weekend!
>>>
>>> Bekah
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Group FAQ:
>>> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Group FAQ:
>> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sent from my iPad...î…
On Jun 11, 2013, at 10:26 PM, "N.A. Nada" <whodo678@comcast.
> Dan or Pat,
>
> Can you give us the bare bones of what was said that made Pat switch to cable over DSL? I know they both have a distance limit, but I thought that cable had a much longer distance.
>
>
> Brent
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Pat Taylor wrote:
>
> I had a similar situation with the phone company here a few years ago, switched to Comcast & couldn't be happier. Our own Denver Dan explained the difference to me & his insight helped me make the switch so I appreciate him every day!
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Bekah <bekah0176@sbcglobal
>
>> Well - the saga continues - I asked that very question and the second technician yesterday said that sometimes the modems fry out - but … this is a new modem - clean lines. Anyway, he gave up and said it had to be the distance - I was over their max. Imo, it's easily possible that they added a bunch of ATT customers between me and the source (whatever that is that sends the signal).
>>
>> Anyway, the lower speed stopped working, too. This morning the new modem at lower speed was doing the same thing as everything before. After some thought I called another service provider here, an old established company but a bit more costly, and they'll be out here tomorrow to check "IF" I can get reception. I used them from 1996-2000 or so. If they can't do it then there are a couple other sources - Charter Cable - ??? If worse comes to worse, I still can use the Verizon hot spot (4G but expensive). Verizon broadband doesn't extend out here, though - (heh). I'm at the very edge of town, the next to last house on the block before the wet-land area.
>>
>> Anyway, then I called ATT and discontinued service. And yes, they did it right quick - no problems. I guess I'd already gone through all the hoops by trying all that stuff and working with techs and technicians and new modems and stuff. If I can't get service per their own technicians then that's a pretty good reason ~ The person doing my discontinue wasn't surprised a bit - even gave me my full month refund (so she said - we'll see). I kept my ATT phone land line - since 1980, I think. That's no problem.
>>
>> Bekah
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, N.A. Nada <whodo678@comcast.
>>
>>> If it works, run with it!
>>>
>>> But it makes no sense. It worked for 8 months, and now you are now "just a wee tad out of range". Did you upgrade speeds and not mention it, or did they move the CO for the DSL "a wee tad"?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Bekah wrote:
>>>
>>> And the end of story is that the second tech finally, after a couple more hours (techs at the house from 9:30 AM to 6PM), decided that I'm just a wee tad out of range for the high speed DSL. He advised me to downsize the speed. I called ATT and got that done, saved a bit of money - not a lot - and they did what they do and I'm now getting a lower speed DSL but it seems to come in a bit faster. That was a long tiring weekend!
>>>
>>> Bekah
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> Group FAQ:
>>> <http://www.macsuppo
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> Group FAQ:
>> <http://www.macsuppo
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:07 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jon Kreisler" jonkreisler
Don't you just love liquid cooled CPUs :)
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Don <y-photo.96705@hawaiiantel.net > wrote:
> **
>
>
> Interesting history on the Cray 1604. I worked at Remington Rand's Univac
> division, starting just a few months after Cray left. Cray and a group of
> engineers were working on a new computer design in the back room where they
> had developed the Navy shipboard computers. The engineers presented their
> concept to management and it was rejected out of hand.
>
> The offices for CDC were at 501 S 7th St. in Minneapolis. The biggest
> Univac commercial computer system was the 1103. The lawyers deny any
> connection but 1103+501=1604.
>
> In the late 80's I was at NASA Ames. We had a Cray-2, a Cray Y-MP, and an
> Amdahl 470 as a front end and disk farm. Nasa wanted another Y-MP but
> Congress would not approve the purchase, had to spread the money around.
> NASA bought a CDC supercomputer but it was so bad it was only powered up
> for Congressional visits.
>
> I was the system administrator on the Amdahl 470. The 470 was an upgraded
> IBM 370. We were adding hard disks to an eventual 196 separate drives. The
> old ones were 500MB, newer ones were 1GB.
>
> One day a logic card in the Y-MP exploded. The cards were about 5x7
> inches. There were holes blown in the cards above and below, but nothing
> was found of the card that exploded except what was in the backboard
> connector.
>
> We had several IC's blow (literally) on the Cray-2. Had to replace the
> Fluorinert every time. Only fifty gallons at $50.00/quart.
>
> Don at 21.9N 159.6W
> Mac Pro OS X 10.7.5
>
>
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 13:20, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
>
> > (OT)
> >
> > I see that Cray has come back to the top. I had no idea.
> > <
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supercomputing#Historical_TOP500_table
> >>
> >
> > Otto
> >
> > On 10 June 2013 22:51, Jon Kreisler <jonkreisler@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, the Cray Y-MP...
> >> That brings back memories, or should I say nightmares...
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Group FAQ:
> > <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Don <y-photo.96705@
> **
>
>
> Interesting history on the Cray 1604. I worked at Remington Rand's Univac
> division, starting just a few months after Cray left. Cray and a group of
> engineers were working on a new computer design in the back room where they
> had developed the Navy shipboard computers. The engineers presented their
> concept to management and it was rejected out of hand.
>
> The offices for CDC were at 501 S 7th St. in Minneapolis. The biggest
> Univac commercial computer system was the 1103. The lawyers deny any
> connection but 1103+501=1604.
>
> In the late 80's I was at NASA Ames. We had a Cray-2, a Cray Y-MP, and an
> Amdahl 470 as a front end and disk farm. Nasa wanted another Y-MP but
> Congress would not approve the purchase, had to spread the money around.
> NASA bought a CDC supercomputer but it was so bad it was only powered up
> for Congressional visits.
>
> I was the system administrator on the Amdahl 470. The 470 was an upgraded
> IBM 370. We were adding hard disks to an eventual 196 separate drives. The
> old ones were 500MB, newer ones were 1GB.
>
> One day a logic card in the Y-MP exploded. The cards were about 5x7
> inches. There were holes blown in the cards above and below, but nothing
> was found of the card that exploded except what was in the backboard
> connector.
>
> We had several IC's blow (literally) on the Cray-2. Had to replace the
> Fluorinert every time. Only fifty gallons at $50.00/quart.
>
> Don at 21.9N 159.6W
> Mac Pro OS X 10.7.5
>
>
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 13:20, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
>
> > (OT)
> >
> > I see that Cray has come back to the top. I had no idea.
> > <
> >
> http://en.wikipedia
> >>
> >
> > Otto
> >
> > On 10 June 2013 22:51, Jon Kreisler <jonkreisler@
> >
> >> Ah, the Cray Y-MP...
> >> That brings back memories, or should I say nightmares..
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > Group FAQ:
> > <http://www.macsuppo
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:18 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Dave C" davec2468
When I worked Apple, a Cray was purchased for the engineering group. They wanted to name it, something short, to be used as a command prompt on the user's terminal. And cool.
The group decided on my submission: "TMA-1".
Dave
On 11 Jun 2013, at 07:07 PM, Jon Kreisler wrote:
In the late 80's I was at NASA Ames. We had a Cray-2, a Cray Y-MP, and an Amdahl 470 as a front end and disk farm.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The group decided on my submission: "TMA-1"
Dave
On 11 Jun 2013, at 07:07 PM, Jon Kreisler wrote:
In the late 80's I was at NASA Ames. We had a Cray-2, a Cray Y-MP, and an Amdahl 470 as a front end and disk farm.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:14 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
Buried in a couple of more recent analyses of Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks
is the notice that AFP (Apple Filing Protocol) is taking a back seat in
favor of SMB2 for file sharing.
Apparently AFP will still be present and the Mac running Mavericks
would revert to AFP when connecting with older OS X running Macs.
Still this is IMO a pretty big change.
I have questions about how SMB2 might handle a number of Mac features
such as keeping track of Macintosh meta data and use of Creator Codes
and Type Codes. The AppleInsider article mentions that NTFS drives
will still be read only and not write to without 3rd party drivers.
AppleInsider article:
<http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/06/11/apple-shifts-from-afp-file-sharing-to-smb2-in-os-x-109-mavericks >
Denver Dan
Buried in a couple of more recent analyses of Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks
is the notice that AFP (Apple Filing Protocol) is taking a back seat in
favor of SMB2 for file sharing.
Apparently AFP will still be present and the Mac running Mavericks
would revert to AFP when connecting with older OS X running Macs.
Still this is IMO a pretty big change.
I have questions about how SMB2 might handle a number of Mac features
such as keeping track of Macintosh meta data and use of Creator Codes
and Type Codes. The AppleInsider article mentions that NTFS drives
will still be read only and not write to without 3rd party drivers.
AppleInsider article:
<http://appleinsider
Denver Dan
Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:25 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jon Kreisler" jonkreisler
NTFS is still an issue. May have something to do with the fact Microsoft
owns the rights to NTFS. Paragon has a decent NTFS driver for Mac that will
allow read & write access. The only drawback is, when Paragon NTFS is
active, the Startup Disk preference pane does not recognize a NTFS volume
as bootable (eg, BootCamp.) You need to set an NTFS boot volume from within
the Paragon NTFS for Mac preference Pane.
http://www.paragon-software.com
Jon
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.net > wrote:
> **
>
>
> Howdy.
>
> Buried in a couple of more recent analyses of Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks
> is the notice that AFP (Apple Filing Protocol) is taking a back seat in
> favor of SMB2 for file sharing.
>
> Apparently AFP will still be present and the Mac running Mavericks
> would revert to AFP when connecting with older OS X running Macs.
>
> Still this is IMO a pretty big change.
>
> I have questions about how SMB2 might handle a number of Mac features
> such as keeping track of Macintosh meta data and use of Creator Codes
> and Type Codes. The AppleInsider article mentions that NTFS drives
> will still be read only and not write to without 3rd party drivers.
>
> AppleInsider article:
>
> <
> http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/06/11/apple-shifts-from-afp-file-sharing-to-smb2-in-os-x-109-mavericks >
>
>
> Denver Dan
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
owns the rights to NTFS. Paragon has a decent NTFS driver for Mac that will
allow read & write access. The only drawback is, when Paragon NTFS is
active, the Startup Disk preference pane does not recognize a NTFS volume
as bootable (eg, BootCamp.) You need to set an NTFS boot volume from within
the Paragon NTFS for Mac preference Pane.
http://www.paragon-
Jon
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Denver Dan <denver.dan@verizon.
> **
>
>
> Howdy.
>
> Buried in a couple of more recent analyses of Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks
> is the notice that AFP (Apple Filing Protocol) is taking a back seat in
> favor of SMB2 for file sharing.
>
> Apparently AFP will still be present and the Mac running Mavericks
> would revert to AFP when connecting with older OS X running Macs.
>
> Still this is IMO a pretty big change.
>
> I have questions about how SMB2 might handle a number of Mac features
> such as keeping track of Macintosh meta data and use of Creator Codes
> and Type Codes. The AppleInsider article mentions that NTFS drives
> will still be read only and not write to without 3rd party drivers.
>
> AppleInsider article:
>
> <
> http://appleinsider
>
>
> Denver Dan
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:39 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"HAL9000" jrswebhome
http://osxdaily.com/2013/06/10/ios-7-screen-shots-features/
Why would anyone design w white type on light pastel colored icons?
I look at the present interface beside the future 7 interface and wonder
what price my eyes will pay?
Why would anyone design w white type on light pastel colored icons?
I look at the present interface beside the future 7 interface and wonder
what price my eyes will pay?
Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:45 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
I'm confused. The subject line says Maverick but this is about iOS7, not
10.9. Does Maverick mean 10.9 *and/or* iOS7?
I agree about the poor contrast though, like the Apple hardware that has
light grey-on-white type.
Otto
On 12 June 2013 08:39, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@yahoo.com > wrote:
> http://osxdaily.com/2013/06/10/ios-7-screen-shots-features/
>
> Why would anyone design w white type on light pastel colored icons?
>
> I look at the present interface beside the future 7 interface and wonder
> what price my eyes will pay?
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
10.9. Does Maverick mean 10.9 *and/or* iOS7?
I agree about the poor contrast though, like the Apple hardware that has
light grey-on-white type.
Otto
On 12 June 2013 08:39, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@yahoo.
> http://osxdaily.
>
> Why would anyone design w white type on light pastel colored icons?
>
> I look at the present interface beside the future 7 interface and wonder
> what price my eyes will pay?
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
