Advice on buying a G4 please
Kevin Duggan
I am getting a new Mac next week:
I thought about the 1 ghrz G4 on the
Apple site w/ school discount its 1299.00
but today at Comp USA I see I can get
a G4 double processor 847 mghz.
For about the same price maybe a little less,
these models have been out or a while and were
about 1800.00 a little while back
The 1 ghrz model is a single processor and brand new
Any Ideas?
The person I talked w/ was a Apple rep.
So I am trying to make up my mind now.
I have OS 8.6 on my G3 266 mghrz over here,
so I am eagerly anticipating 10.2
--
Thanks
Kevin Duggan
JK
I am amazed at how expensive Macs seem to be compared
to PCs.
JK
or a $300 one? How much ram? How large a hard drive? DVD writer
or just CD writer?
Steve Hix
wrote:
> Do your applications make use of two processors?
> I am amazed at how expensive Macs seem to be compared
> to PCs.
You get what you pay for.
George
I've read. Be aware that the DP's that came out last Fall were very
noisy and might drive you crazy in a dorm room. Apple has a hardware
fix out for them but the recent releases (2003) are supposed to be more
quiet.
Jucius Maximus
poster is replacing a 266 MHz machine. I think you do pay more for apple
machines than PCs (I own both) but the Apple has a longer lifespan before
it becomes useless. How many people still do anything useful with a 266
MHz desktop or laptop PC?
JK <JK9...@netscape.net> wrote in news:3E5823B5...@netscape.net:
> Do your applications make use of two processors?
> I am amazed at how expensive Macs seem to be compared
> to PCs.
>
(snip)
David Chanderpaul
"v1r...@despammed.com" <v1r...@despammed.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 01:28:21 UTC, JK <JK9...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Do your applications make use of two processors?
>> I am amazed at how expensive Macs seem to be compared
>> to PCs.
>>
>
> I'm amazed that folks still put up with the crashes and the bloat on
> WinTel machines.
>
> k
>
Pick up the dual processor for sure. The G4s process symmetrically, your
apps will blaze whether they are written for dual-proccessor machines or
not. We use them at our service depot for schematics and printed circuit
board design and we use simple apps like Office. They run a lot faster than
they do on uniprocessor Macs.
I think your decision has been made.
Kevin Duggan
plus I use a lot of graphics programs....
cant wait to have a CD burner,
plus be able to back up everything.
OS 10 is pretty cool.
But,...there is nothing like a computer
to remind you of how fast time is going by.
Thanks
Kevin
--
JK
appears to mostly be a problem of the past. I have been using
Windows XP for 10 months, and it has only crashed twice on me in
that time.
v1r...@despammed.com wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 01:28:21 UTC, JK <JK9...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Do your applications make use of two processors?
>>I am amazed at how expensive Macs seem to be compared
>>to PCs.
>>
>
>
JK
word processing, and business software. Your comment doesn't really
help your point though, as a 266 mhz Mac might be expected to perform
like a 400-500 mhz or so PC? It is a pity that Apple is still making
hardware,and did not evolve into a software only company. If it had,
perhaps we might have seen a nice operating system from Apple for PCs?
Perhaps in the future we might see Macs based on AMD processors?
Jason
> Hi
> I am getting a new Mac next week:
> I thought about the 1 ghrz G4 on the
> Apple site w/ school discount its 1299.00
> but today at Comp USA I see I can get
> a G4 double processor 847 mghz.
> For about the same price maybe a little less,
> these models have been out or a while and were
> about 1800.00 a little while back
>
> The 1 ghrz model is a single processor and brand new
>
> Any Ideas?
>
> The person I talked w/ was a Apple rep.
>
> So I am trying to make up my mind now.
>
> I have OS 8.6 on my G3 266 mghrz over here,
> so I am eagerly anticipating 10.2
Go the DUAL :)
Burt Johnson
> I would vote for the DP since OSX makes better advantage of it from what
> I've read. Be aware that the DP's that came out last Fall were very
> noisy and might drive you crazy in a dorm room. Apple has a hardware
> fix out for them but the recent releases (2003) are supposed to be more
> quiet.
I can personally vouch for that. I had one of the original dual 1GHz
machines. It was a lemon (first I've had in over 30 Macs) and Apple
replaced it with the latest version last week -- MUCH quieter.
--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
StovePipe
> Not to start a flame war here or anything, but consider that the original
> poster is replacing a 266 MHz machine. I think you do pay more for apple
> machines than PCs (I own both) but the Apple has a longer lifespan before
> it becomes useless. How many people still do anything useful with a 266
> MHz desktop or laptop PC?
> > (snip) see previous
> >> I have OS 8.6 on my G3 266 mghrz over here,...
Amen to the Mac's lifespan, brothers and sisters. In fact I really enjoy
collecting working models; I still own and love a Mac Plus, SE/30,
Centris 610, PowerBook 100, PPC 4400 and an iBook G3 (SE) and 3
different Apple Newtons. ALL machines were already at least second-hand.
I also have 2 old ImageWriters (LC and regular) that work better than my
Epson Stylus Photo 780 (ink cartriges gum up). I think I paid a grand
total of $1000 over the years on these various machines (minus the
iBook, of course). The PowerBook has been to Hell and back and still
keeps trucking with 20 Megs. Maybe Macs are more $$$, but you have to
admit the above list is an impressive blood line. If the original poster
sits down and analyzes his needs, maybe he'll forego the idiocy of what
I've done over the years, but it is entirely possible the G4 he buys
will still be alive and useful 20 years from now! He should *never* let
go of the G3 and the OS 8.6. It's a workhorse.
Cheers and good nite!
SD
--
Reply: take out the trash
Jason
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 01:28:21 UTC, JK <JK9...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Do your applications make use of two processors?
> > I am amazed at how expensive Macs seem to be compared
> > to PCs.
> >
>
> I'm amazed that folks still put up with the crashes and the bloat on
> WinTel machines.
Yeah, people on IRC seem thrilled by Windows uptimes of a few days :)
Jason
> My computer has an AMD processor. As for Windows crashing often, it
> appears to mostly be a problem of the past. I have been using
> Windows XP for 10 months, and it has only crashed twice on me in
> that time.
A widespread problem that leads to crashing are the cheap and nasty power supplies in
Chintel boxes. I find that most PC enthusiasts, people who build their own boxes, have
fewer problems.
That said, I still regularly see even experienced PC users getting frustrated with their PCs.
For example, a guy last night was cursing at having to re-install drivers so he could use
the DVD drive in his PC...
It's just something you rarely see with Macs.
Jason
> George <georg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I would vote for the DP since OSX makes better advantage of it from what
> > I've read. Be aware that the DP's that came out last Fall were very
> > noisy and might drive you crazy in a dorm room. Apple has a hardware
> > fix out for them but the recent releases (2003) are supposed to be more
> > quiet.
>
> I can personally vouch for that. I had one of the original dual 1GHz
> machines. It was a lemon (first I've had in over 30 Macs) and Apple
> replaced it with the latest version last week -- MUCH quieter.
Well done Burt. A new machine... nice score :)
Luigi Mattera
Jason <matreya...@currawong.net> wrote:
I remember last year someone found a bug under Win9x that guaranteed a
computer crash after being on for a certain period of time.
The magazines reported it as "important," but anyone and everyone
laughed that a world record would have been set if a Win9x box had
managed to stay up for even half of that length of time.
--
Email address is totally fake, I've lost accounts to (Taiwanese)
spam as is, sorry. Try lmatte AT rcn DOT com.
Melba's Jammin'
Kevin Duggan <kevin_...@student.uml.edu> wrote:
> Hi I am getting a new Mac next week: I thought about the 1 ghrz G4 on
> the Apple site w/ school discount its 1299.00 but today at Comp USA I
> see I can get a G4 double processor 847 mghz.
OK, don't hurt me, please. What's the dual processor about? I've seen
the term/references here and other places but don't understand what it's
about. Thanks.
-Barb
--
-Barb --
<www.jamlady.eboard.com> -
My Funny Valentine 2/12/03.
David C.
>
> I am getting a new Mac next week:
> I thought about the 1 ghrz G4 on the Apple site w/ school discount
> its 1299.00 but today at Comp USA I see I can get a G4 double
> processor 847 mghz.
> For about the same price maybe a little less, these models have been
> out or a while and were about 1800.00 a little while back
I assume the dual-867 you're looking at is new and not used,
refurbushed or a display model, right? If it's refurbished, you
should have a lower price. I wouldn't buy a used or display model
for any money.
Personally, I'd recommend the dual-867, and for several reasons:
1: It's an older generation. Meaning it will boot OS 9, if you think
you might have a need for it. I'm pretty sure that the current
models will only boot OS X. On the other hand, if you're like me,
you'll be using OS X exclusively anyway, so this might not really
matter.
2: Dual processors seem to keep the system more responsive under
stress. If one application is hogging all the CPU on a single
processor box, the user interface will slow to a crawl and you
might not be able to kill the runaway process. On a dual
processor system, the OS will schedule the non-runaway processes
to a different processor, and you'll usually be able to jump in
and kill the runaway process.
3: If your un multiple programs at once (as a lot of people do), the
second processor will help out. The OS will schedule processes to
processors as needed.
Don't think you'll run programs at once? Think again about what
you do. For instance, right now, my Mac is running:
- AOL Instant Messenger
- Mozilla (web pages and e-mail)
- Emacs (my news reader)
- iTunes (background music)
This isn't counting the many background programs that all UNIX
systems (including OS X) will run in the background.
4: Mulithreaded apps will take advantage of the multiple processors
all by themselves.
Personally, I'm a big fan of all dual-processor systems. I think
having a second processor is a big deal, even if it means a lower
clock speed.
> I have OS 8.6 on my G3 266 mghrz over here, so I am eagerly
> anticipating 10.2
FWIW, you can install 10.2 on your G3/266. It won't be very fast,
but many people here have reported being happy with the results. If
you do this, be sure to max out the memory - IMO, 512M is really
necessary for good OS X performance.
-- David
Greg Weston
Melba's Jammin' <barbsc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <kevin_duggan-FD78...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> Kevin Duggan <kevin_...@student.uml.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi I am getting a new Mac next week: I thought about the 1 ghrz G4 on
> > the Apple site w/ school discount its 1299.00 but today at Comp USA I
> > see I can get a G4 double processor 847 mghz.
>
> OK, don't hurt me, please. What's the dual processor about? I've seen
> the term/references here and other places but don't understand what it's
> about. Thanks.
It's about spreading the load of all active processes (of which there
are usually several _not_ counting user processes in a modern desktop
OS) among multiple CPUs within the same box to truly do multiple things
at the same time.
G
Wayne C. Morris
Melba's Jammin' <barbsc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Hi I am getting a new Mac next week: I thought about the 1 ghrz G4
> > on the Apple site w/ school discount its 1299.00 but today at Comp
> > USA I see I can get a G4 double processor 847 mghz.
>
> OK, don't hurt me, please. What's the dual processor about? I've
> seen the term/references here and other places but don't understand
> what it's about. Thanks.
It means it has two computer processor chips. Two "brains", so it can
effectively do two things at once. Here are a couple of quotes from
Apple's web site which explain why it's a good thing:
"For example, Mac OS X could encode video for a DVD on one processor,
while an email application and an image-editing application run on the
second processor. In this way, different tasks can be completed
simultaneously ‹ and faster than ever ‹ on a dual processor system."
"... when you render a transition between two clips of HD video, the
process entails decoding the first clip, decoding the second clip,
rendering the transition and then re-encoding the transition into the
original format. In Mac OS X, the two clips can be decoded at the same
time, one on each processor. Later, while the transition is rendering
on one processor, finished frames can be re-encoded on the second
processor. Because threads are processed in parallel, the task is
completed in significantly less time."
AES/newspost
Jucius Maximus <ju...@i.hate.spam.graffiti.net> wrote:
> Not to start a flame war here or anything, but consider that
Speaking from same motivation as this poster, my strong impression is
that 95% of ordinary type Mac owners should purchase, and will be
totally happy with, the lowest/slowest level Mac that appeals to them;
and then put all the money they save on the Mac itself into peripherals
(including memory upgrades) and software.
(And those who truly need the highest-end highest-performance Macs will
be totally aware of what they need, and will have little need for this
or any other advice.)
--
"Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton (1834-1902)
"Dependence on advertising tends to corrupt. Total dependence on
advertising corrupts totally." (today's equivalent)
JETman
in January of 2001. He is on broadband while I am stuck on dial up and
guess which one is faster on the net???
<g>
JT
Melba's Jammin'
<wayne.morris-CC06...@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>, "Wayne
C. Morris" <wayne....@this.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <barbschaller-DB9E...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> Melba's Jammin' <barbsc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Hi I am getting a new Mac next week: I thought about the 1 ghrz G4
> > > on the Apple site w/ school discount its 1299.00 but today at Comp
> > > USA I see I can get a G4 double processor 847 mghz.
> >
> > OK, don't hurt me, please. What's the dual processor about? I've
> > seen the term/references here and other places but don't understand
> > what it's about. Thanks.
>
> It means it has two computer processor chips. Two "brains", so it can
> effectively do two things at once.
So, I, as a mom, could bill myself as a dual processor, eh? Kewl. :-)
Thanks for the explanation, Wayne.
-Barb
--
-Barb --
<www.jamlady.eboard.com> -
Cook-in pics posted 2-23-03.
Joe Davison
Well, he didn't answer yet, but my 18 month old "standard" single CPU
867MHz G4 included
867 MHz G4
133 MHz bus (PCI)
256K L2 Cache
2MB L3 Cache
128 MB RAM (I think 256 is standard these days -- I added 256 when I bought)
GHz ethernet
Firewire
2 USB busses, with a hub in the keyboard
60GB ATA hard drive
DVD-R/CD-RW (or Superdrive)
NVIDIA Geforce2 MX video card (4MX is standard now)
I don't know about the "sound card" but I don't know what your need
would be to buy a different one from what's built in. The built in
speaker is about what you'd expect, but there is, of course,stereo
output.
So, when you compare the "High priced" apple to an "inexpensive" PC,
you need to include a few "add-on" cards for the PC. A couple of
years ago one of the computer mags compared "comparably equipped"
macs & pcs -- the PC was probably cheaper, but less than $100 different,
I think -- anyway nowhere near what looks like the "list" price
difference.
joe
Jason
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <siegman-F4CA08...@news.stanford.edu>, AES/newspost <sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> In article <Xns932AEB2A8A...@199.212.134.7>,
> Jucius Maximus <ju...@i.hate.spam.graffiti.net> wrote:
>
> > Not to start a flame war here or anything, but consider that
>
>
> Speaking from same motivation as this poster, my strong impression is
> that 95% of ordinary type Mac owners should purchase, and will be
> totally happy with, the lowest/slowest level Mac that appeals to them;
> and then put all the money they save on the Mac itself into peripherals
> (including memory upgrades) and software.
>
> (And those who truly need the highest-end highest-performance Macs will
> be totally aware of what they need, and will have little need for this
> or any other advice.)
I bought a top of the line G4 in October 2001, so that I would have a machine
that could run OS X nicely for the longest number of years :)
Jason
> I have a neighbor that bought my old PowerTower 166 when I bought my G4
> in January of 2001. He is on broadband while I am stuck on dial up and
> guess which one is faster on the net???
Why are you stuck with dialup when your neighbour has broadband? That sounds ludicrous...
D. Icktop
> Do your applications make use of two processors?
> I am amazed at how expensive Macs seem to be compared
> to PCs.
High end Dell with 17" LCD $3999 (March Computer Shopper; also note
it's the BOTTOM OF THE BAREL IN PERFORMANCE!)
High End Mac (1.4 Ghz x2) with 23" Studio $4999 (Apple Store, 17" LCD
would pit it right next to the Dell)
iMac with DVD Burner $1699 (or so) and 15" LCD
???? on the PC side???
iBook - $1299, 12" Screen, 16x CD Burner, 4 hour battery life
What on the PC side? ($999 laptops suck)
Yeah, the Mac's may be more expensive than the $599 PC, but those $599 PC's
are TOTAL GARBAGE (spoken as a tech for 10 years)....
D. Icktop
FD786E.201...@news.bellatlantic.net:
> but today at Comp USA I see I can get
> a G4 double processor 847 mghz.
> For about the same price maybe a little less,
> these models have been out or a while and were
> about 1800.00 a little while back
Check CompUSA for some of the old Dual 1Ghz boxes. Saw one about 2
weeks ago at CompUSA - DP 1Ghz DDR, 512MB, DVD-R, FW400, $1999. Definitely
a great bang for the buck.
JK
systems with a gig of ram, CD burner, DVD drive, 120 gig 7200 rpm hard
drive, Windows XP Pro,etc. for around $1900 without a monitor.It would
not surprise me if a dual Athlon MP2600+ system vastly outperformed
a dual Mac 1.42 ghz. I am looking for some benchmarks on these systems
running Photoshop.
D. Icktop
> I am not looking at Dell systems. I was looking at dual Athlon MP2600+
> systems with a gig of ram, CD burner, DVD drive, 120 gig 7200 rpm hard
> drive, Windows XP Pro,etc. for around $1900 without a monitor.It would
> not surprise me if a dual Athlon MP2600+ system vastly outperformed
> a dual Mac 1.42 ghz. I am looking for some benchmarks on these systems
> running Photoshop.
Where? The CPU's alone are ~$500...
JK
http://www.elitepc.com/pages/S-8700.asp
One might be able to find a local shop to build one for even less?
Wayne C. Morris
Melba's Jammin' <barbsc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > OK, don't hurt me, please. What's the dual processor about? I've
> > > seen the term/references here and other places but don't understand
> > > what it's about. Thanks.
> >
> > It means it has two computer processor chips. Two "brains", so it can
> > effectively do two things at once.
>
> So, I, as a mom, could bill myself as a dual processor, eh? Kewl. :-)
Nope. You only have one processor/brain, but you're capable of
pre-emptive multi-tasking. You can do two things at once, but not as
afficiently as two people.
Kevin Duggan
hil
theory.... It works for *today* but my feeling, buying in (on my 4th Mac
now) g4/867...... Is that if you buy the most muscle you can afford at
purchase, you may eek out another year on the other end. I recall losing a
job a few years ago because my 7500/100 was just too slow to verify Quark
books on cd's before the company sent them out to a service bureau when a
200 machine was doing the trick in their office. Something to think about
at the very least.
On 2/23/03 2:52 PM, in article
siegman-F4CA08...@news.stanford.edu, "AES/newspost"
Jacques Clouseau
ju...@i.hate.spam.graffiti.net says...
> Not to start a flame war here or anything, but consider that the original
> poster is replacing a 266 MHz machine. I think you do pay more for apple
> machines than PCs (I own both) but the Apple has a longer lifespan before
> it becomes useless. How many people still do anything useful with a 266
> MHz desktop or laptop PC?
TONS of people. I help people in their homes with computer issues
(repairs, tutoring). Probably half of the people I help have older,
slower computers -- yes, even ones with 266 mhz processors! Generally,
these machines do what their owners want them to do.
Jacques Clouseau
Jacques Clouseau
> My computer has an AMD processor. As for Windows crashing often, it
> appears to mostly be a problem of the past. I have been using
> Windows XP for 10 months, and it has only crashed twice on me in
> that time.
Yes, that silly simplistic dichotomy (Macs are stable, Windows machines
crash a lot) doesn't reflect reality any more, if it ever did, and
people who still repeat that kind of thing only show how little they
understand where we are now. Windows XP, and Windows 2000, changed the
landscape quite a bit.
I'm friendly with a woman who is the tech at my daughter's elementary
school, where they use exclusively Macs. Guess what she does much of the
time? She fixes Macs that've crashed, or need repair.
Jacques Clouseau
hil
I'm the tech at my school and we're all Mac too..... Hundreds...... In a
school district with 27 other schools. All Macs too.....
Sure, I do much of the same that your friend does, but it's a modern miracle
given the level of abuse...... abuse the likes of which would shock and
appall most you not in education today...... That Macs DO take a licking and
keep on ticking.
I mention this only to say that an educational setting is not the barometer
to judge the stability of any platform.. Windows or Mac.
Hil
MPG.18c4c945a...@news.earthlink.net, "Jacques Clouseau"
dude2
> George <georg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I would vote for the DP since OSX makes better advantage of it from what
> > I've read. Be aware that the DP's that came out last Fall were very
> > noisy and might drive you crazy in a dorm room. Apple has a hardware
> > fix out for them but the recent releases (2003) are supposed to be more
> > quiet.
>
> I can personally vouch for that. I had one of the original dual 1GHz
> machines. It was a lemon (first I've had in over 30 Macs) and Apple
> replaced it with the latest version last week -- MUCH quieter.
So Apple admitted that a 1Ghz dual Quicksilver was too noisy? Great!
I hate mine too and would like to swop it for a quieter model. I'd be
happy with a 1Ghz Cube because I guess the latest GG4 model won't boot
OS 9, right?
dude2
RRaider
applications no longer have to be written to do so, the OS is written in
such a way that it uses both processors for whatever you are running.
"JK" <JK9...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3E5823B5...@netscape.net...
> Do your applications make use of two processors?
> I am amazed at how expensive Macs seem to be compared
> to PCs.
>
> Kevin Duggan wrote:
> > Hi
> > I am getting a new Mac next week:
> > I thought about the 1 ghrz G4 on the
> > Apple site w/ school discount its 1299.00
> > but today at Comp USA I see I can get
> > a G4 double processor 847 mghz.
> > For about the same price maybe a little less,
> > these models have been out or a while and were
> > about 1800.00 a little while back
> >
> > The 1 ghrz model is a single processor and brand new
> >
> > Any Ideas?
> >
> > The person I talked w/ was a Apple rep.
> >
> > So I am trying to make up my mind now.
> >
Adam Bartley
capable of operating in dual-processor mode a la Photoshop, or just that
all applications can be shared out between the processors?
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, it was written:
David C.
>
> A quick qustion about that. Does that mean that all applications are
> capable of operating in dual-processor mode a la Photoshop, or just
> that all applications can be shared out between the processors?
A single application that uses a single thread will only run on a
single processor.
But you (as the user) will still see an advantage to having dual
processors, because there are always multiple programs running at
once.
-- David
Adam Bartley
instances a fast single processor would 'feel' faster than a slower dual,
where only a few proocesses were running, but the mission critcal one was
not multi-threaded? I'm a big fan of MP in general but felt that concepts
were getting mixed about sometimes.
David C.
>
> Thanks for that. So it's conceivable (though unlikely) that in a few
> instances a fast single processor would 'feel' faster than a slower
> dual, where only a few proocesses were running, but the mission
> critcal one was not multi-threaded? I'm a big fan of MP in general
> but felt that concepts were getting mixed about sometimes.
For most applications, you probably won't notice much difference
either way. Any modern Mac is fast enough for most common
applications. (Exceptions being CPU-intensive things like multimedia
production.)
My personal preference is MP, but there are those who prefer a single
fast processor. A single 1GHz processor will run apps more
efficiently than a dual-500MHz system, since there's no
multiprocessing overhead in the system. But when the difference in
clock speed is closer (like dual-867MHz vs. single 1GHz), I think it's
much harder to make that argument.
-- David
JETman
Easy... He has cable, I do not...
--
Regards,
JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)
Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4.......
Jason
> Jason wrote:
> >
> > In article <3E5964EC...@worldnet.att.net>, JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I have a neighbor that bought my old PowerTower 166 when I bought my G4
> > > in January of 2001. He is on broadband while I am stuck on dial up and
> > > guess which one is faster on the net???
> >
> > Why are you stuck with dialup when your neighbour has broadband? That sounds ludicrous...
>
>
>
> Easy... He has cable, I do not...
Does that mean you can get cable, but can't afford it?
Steve Hix
Jason <matreya...@currawong.net> wrote:
Perhaps he's not particularly interested in cable's offerings,
overall.
StovePipe
What about DSL (high band width modem) lines? We use them in the Health
Industry to transmit data to the various insurance companies that we
deal with. Those who use them for regular internet are usually quite
satisfied. They are an intermediate compromise between the phone (low
band width modem) and cable systems. You might want to look into this as
a solution. Another thing is to do the internet with the graphics turned
off.
Hope this helps...
Cheers SP
--
Reply: take out the trash
JETman
No, I just don't choose to participate in one of the vast wasteland
venues. Perhaps DSL at some point...
JETman
Bingo!!!
JETman
I gave SWB DSL a shot a couple of years ago and it was disastrous.
Server's down, lousy news server, etc. AT&T dialup may be slow but it
is rock solid...
Steve Hix
stovetr...@globetrotter.net (StovePipe) wrote:
> Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <010320031632385758%matreya...@currawong.net>, Jason
> > <matreya...@currawong.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3E5EC74D...@worldnet.att.net>, JETman
> > > <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jason wrote: > > In article <3E5964EC...@worldnet.att.net>,
> > > > JETman > <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > I have a neighbor
> > > > that bought my old PowerTower 166 when I bought my G4 > > in January
> > > > of 2001. He is on broadband while I am stuck on dial up and > > guess
> > > > which one is faster on the net??? > > Why are you stuck with dialup
> > > > when your neighbour has broadband? That > sounds ludicrous...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Easy... He has cable, I do not...
> > >
> > > Does that mean you can get cable, but can't afford it?
> >
> > Perhaps he's not particularly interested in cable's offerings, overall.
>
> What about DSL (high band width modem) lines?
They're great...if you happen to live within about 15K' of the local
digital switch. That's wire distance, not as the crow flies.
We have it here, and it's great. Only about a half of the local area
is in range, though. (And of those who are, service from some so-called
suppliers is less than stellar.)
There is a company in the area that has begun offering broadband
wireless, my boss has a connection and she is delighted with it.
Setup cost isn't cheap, but performance has been very good.
Joe Davison
> > > Easy... He has cable, I do not...
> >
> > Does that mean you can get cable, but can't afford it?
>
>
>
> No, I just don't choose to participate in one of the vast wasteland
> venues. Perhaps DSL at some point...
I'm all for not participating in the vast wasteland; I don't have cable
TV.
On the other hand, I do have cable internet. AT&T Broadband when I got it,
now, or soon to be, Comcast.
joe