BeOS on Mac Powerbook (Pre-G3)?
Alex Wenzel
I know that officially Mac Powerbooks were never supported, and that BeOS
never worked on Apple machines that came natively with a G3.
But I have a Powerbook 3400c (240 MHz PPC 603e) that I'd like to continue to
use, but Mac OS 9 is just too buggy and Mac OS X is not an option in this
case.
So: Does anyone know if it's possible to get BeOS (I have a R5 Pro CD I
never used) working on such a machine? Any hacks/workarounds (similar
desktop systems were supported)?
TIA
Alex
John
it to boot. (tried cd, external hd, internal etc...). No go.
In article <BC2679A8.66A1%spamre...@aol.com>,
Alex Wenzel
> it to boot. (tried cd, external hd, internal etc...). No go.
Thanks for your reply (although it's not good news).
Meanwhile I tried to install R5, but it freezes at BeOS startup screen when
run from CD.
Looks like the end for my trusty 3400c.
Sigh ...
John
becuase i only have 40mb memory. I am downloading v5 pro as we are
speaking and also yellowdog linux 3.
It is a pity, i have it running on an old imb thinkpad. beos only
requires 16meg to run ...
In article <BC28D6F8.678B%spamre...@aol.com>,
Alex Wenzel
Linux would have been my next guess. I have Suse LinuxPPC 7.3 laying around
for quite some time, never dared to install it on any machine.
I have 144 MB RAM on my 3400c, but I'm not sure that would make it any
better.
Maybe I should just buy some old Thinkpad, too.
in Beitrag jmoj-F41811.2...@news.iprimus.com.au schrieb John unter
jm...@removethisyahoo.com am 14.01.2004 11:25 Uhr:
Herid Fel
I used to have a 3400, and tried to install despite Be's warnings anyway with
no luck. So, I feel your pain. However, if you're not going to use your
powerbook anymore, I'd love it. ;-) Let me know!
--Mark--
Alex Wenzel
> no luck. So, I feel your pain. However, if you're not going to use your
> powerbook anymore, I'd love it. ;-) Let me know!
Sorry, not likely.
Now that the little (well, not really so little) book outlived two dead
Kangas, I think I'm going to keep it anyway.
By now, I had several failed attempts to install BeOS R5 Pro, and I think
that was it.
The next project will be turning it into an Airport Base Station for my
flat. Any suggestions for an Airport-compatible WLAN PCMCIA card anyone?
Bill Leeper
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:46:23 +0100, Alex Wenzel
> <spamre...@aol.com> Gave us:
>
>
>>No good news, again...
>>Linux would have been my next guess. I have Suse LinuxPPC 7.3 laying around
>>for quite some time, never dared to install it on any machine.
>>I have 144 MB RAM on my 3400c, but I'm not sure that would make it any
>>better.
>>Maybe I should just buy some old Thinkpad, too.
>
>
> like LEARN what the protocols are, and follow them...?
I am sick and tired of comments about top posting. Who really cares? If
it bothers you so much don't read the posts. It is a stupid convention
that has no use anymore. It is a perfect example of the "That's the way
our fathers did it so thats the way we will do it" forever and will we
ever sock it to anyone who dares to do it differently.
And for the original poster: Top post all you want and ignore the snide
remarks. There are many of us out here who really don't care where the
post is, but do care about what is said.
Now, for all you died in the wool bottom poster, flame away. And if you
want to put your flames on the top feel free to do so. :-)
Bill
JmS
Bill Leeper
> What Bill said!
>
>
Thanks. :-)
Bill
Nomad
Here's a flame free question for you -- are you a fan of the Jeopardy
TV quiz show?
As for the rest of us, it's usually easier to work out what's going on
when you have the question _before_ the answer -- otherwise it often
doesn't make much sense...
Laters
--
Nomad
Wandering the vast emptyness of the 'net
in search of something cool.
Bill Leeper
That's fine when you only have a single answer to the question. But
threads can get quite lengthly at times. I, for one, can remember what
the question was after reading it a couple of times. After reading it
several hundred times it becomes a bit redundant. so it really doesn't
matter if the reply is on the top or the bottom. And if I am asking the
question I am just glad if someone replies. I will take to info anywhere
I can get it.
I guess what really gets me going is that I find top posting no excuse
to be rude to someone. Like I said before, if top posting upsets someone
so much then don't read the darn thing. Top posting, bottom posting,
middle posting, who cares. What is being said is the important thing,
not where it is placed in the message.
Anyway, nuff said on the subject.
First Prophet of Kaos
<wle...@actionnet.net> wrote:
>DarkMatter wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:46:23 +0100, Alex Wenzel
>> <spamre...@aol.com> Gave us:
>>
>>>No good news, again...
>>>Linux would have been my next guess. I have Suse LinuxPPC 7.3 laying around
>>>for quite some time, never dared to install it on any machine.
>>>I have 144 MB RAM on my 3400c, but I'm not sure that would make it any
>>>better.
>>>Maybe I should just buy some old Thinkpad, too.
>>
>> Or at least try to refrain from top posting in Usnet. You know...
>> like LEARN what the protocols are, and follow them...?
>
>I am sick and tired of comments about top posting. Who really cares?
Everyone who understands why the protocols are as they are.
Particularly those who still have less-than-perfect newsfeeds.
>If
>it bothers you so much don't read the posts.
Ever notice how that solution is always good enough for everyone *but*
the person offering it?
--
You can't claim the moral highground
By sinking to your enemy's level.
First Prophet of Kaos
>What Bill said!
What *did* Bill say?
Posting without context is worse than top-posting.
First Prophet of Kaos
Now, figure out which of your points I'm responding to. I've broken
my rule against top-posting just to see if you can.
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:05:23 -0800, Bill Leeper
Bill Leeper
down through your message. Which is about the same time it would take me
to scroll down to the bottom and read your reply there. I don;t see a
problem here.
I will stand by my assertion that it makes no difference. And also by my
assertion that if it bothers someone that much then don't read it. If
you can't remember what you have read for 5 seconds, and don't take this
personally as it is not aimed at you, then it is not going to make any
difference where the post is.
Bill Leeper
Bill Leeper
Ever notice how tradition is the bastion of the closed mind?
JmS
JmS
"First Prophet of Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:ktip109079a9ncf15...@4ax.com...
> That's exactly why top-posting is problematic.
>
> Now, figure out which of your points I'm responding to. I've broken
> my rule against top-posting just to see if you can.
>
The real problem is not top-posting.
It is losers such as yourself who add two or three lines to a whole jumbled
mass of responses and counter-responses.
Snip out all comments except those you are directly replying to.
BTW, you suck!
The first snuh is the deepest
Bill Leeper
Thank you for very convincingly proving one of my points. And
Archaeologists say Neanderthal died out 40,000 years ago.
Bill
Jamie Hart
"Bill Leeper" <wle...@actionnet.net> wrote in message
news:101q6m1...@corp.supernews.com...
> First Prophet of Kaos wrote:
>
> Ever notice how tradition is the bastion of the closed mind?
>
putdowns?
Perhaps you would care to explain why top posting is better, as you
obviously feel strongly about it.
But first, just to be fair, I'll explain why my own method is best :)
I tend to bottom post except where I want to reply to several points in a
post, then I intersperse my comments with the original text, placing my
reply directly below the point I'm replying to.
The main reason I do this is so that the person I'm talking to cannot
misunderstand which point I'm referring to.
I find that this method leads to fewer misunderstandings, a definite problem
on usenet.
Now, how about defending top posting. Over to you.
Bill Leeper
If your first comment was in reference to me I feel a one line response
was all that was warranted by the message I was responding to. Next, if
you read my remarks about posting you will find that I did not champion
one method over another. I was simply saying that just because someone
chooses to top post it is no excuse to be vulgar. I also said I couldn't
see what the big deal about it was. And I stand by those sentiments. It
really makes no difference to me where someone posts as I am reading the
message for the content and not the form.
In defense of top posting, in a very long thread it makes sense as most
people can remember what they have read long enough to just glance at
the reply at the top and integrate that into what they have previously
read. Again, it makes very little difference to me.
And BTW, you can't lose an argument when you are not arguing. :-) I
was not acting in defense of one way over another.
Bill
Jamie Hart
standards, you use phrases like "It is a stupid convention that has no use
anymore." and then try to tell me you are not acting in defence of one way
or the other? Really?
Well.... Ok then.
But let's not fall out over it. Deal?
Bill Leeper
OK. I probably went a bit overboard on my first reply. It was just
irritation over a rude response to a top posted message. Why I called it
a stupid convention was because it really does not matter to me where
someone post. Why do we all have to be the same?
and, deal. :-)
Bill