Hi All,

What do you think about Apple PowerBook G4 17-inch laptop? Please share
Your personal experience.

Regards
Narendra

"Narendra Kushwah" <Narendra.Kushwah@Sun.COM> wrote in message
news:cb752j$a08$1@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM...
Hi Narendra,

While I don't have the 17 inch I do have an original G4 12-inch PB. I can
share my thoughts:

Pros:

- Very stable OS (based around Unix)
- Rarely crashes compared to Windows.
- No viruses in the wild for OS X
- back-lit keyboard on 15/17" models
- bluetooth & wireless build-in
- excellent sound on the 17"
- monitor spanning
- can be used as desktop replacement
- Save as PDF built into OS X
- Sleep - way better then Windows standby/hibernation.

Cons (for the 17"):

- Quite big & heavier then smaller models
- Not as suited for traveling much
- Not quite as good for gaming as PC's IMO. But then any laptop is not as
good for games as a desktop.

It really depends on your needs, in some way the 17" might be over kill. If
you might travel around on a semi regular basis the 12" would be better.
It's the size of a sheet of paper and fits perfectly on a tray when flying
or on the train etc. Not to mention quite a bit cheaper then the 17". If you
won't be traveling much or want it as a desktop replacement then I would do
an excellent job.

PC's are a decent system; I've been a certified PC/network tech for 15
years. But having bought my first Mac 10 months ago for my I.T company. I'm
very impressed with OS X over the older Mac OS which I used part time over
the years. OS X can do everything Windows can but in less steps. If your
similar with Windows OS X isn't that hard to learn.

If you want to know more feel free to mail me directly and I can try and
answer your questions.

Rick

Thanks Rick.


Rick Blythin wrote:

You're thinking of the old Windows. XP Pro is based on NT
and it rarely crashes. However explorer.exe does still crash
e.g. while rotating images. You'd think they would get it
right eventually but they have mostly Indian programmers

"ziliath" <ziliath@myway.com> wrote in message
news:6b963d7f.0406220929.76ff87ef@posting.google.c om...
Actually NT still crashes & blue screens more then it ever should. Granted
it's either due to a hardware issue, bad programming, or a RAM issue. But it
still happens more then it should. 15 years supporting PC I've seen my share
of NT crashes. Yes the NT lines is more stable then 9.x but it's still not
as stable as OS X, Linux or any OS based around Unix. I still run my Athlon
XP Pro system for CAD and a gaming system. I still have to put up with
sudden lock-ups and BSOD for now apparent reason. I think the only way
Windows will improve to Unix stability is if they make it open source... But
of course Gates won't ever allow that.

Windows is still a decent operating system. The more people that run
Windows the more money I make on call-outs to fix things so I'm not
complaining :-).

"Rick Blythin" <newsgroup_post@yahoo.ca> wrote in message

It's like this: libertarians say that "everything should be owned",
even for instance the water supplies, which they want to privatize,
and of course software... So gates will never open up Windows because
doing so would be against his religion (corporate libertarianism).

I am against all that, because total ownership creates is a situation wherein
people who own more have more power. Property has monetary value, plus
it can bring in rents, plus it's an excuse for police to abuse people, etc.,
and when the political system is so corrupt that votes don't matter
(in which direction we're heading) it follows that $1 equals 1 vote,
i.e. those who have no money or property have no vote -- and that's not
democracy.

Which gates also realizes...He only gives out free money for AIDS etc
because the tax system makes it cheaper for him when he does.

Anyway the more I think of it, the more it seems that software should be like
the common space. Not free as in beer, but free as in air.
It should be common property, public domain, and not a thing to be
exploited by the corporations.

Well yes, people will always use Windows, it's at least half decent,
but Windows will never be perfect, therefore people will always panic about it
and run into your arms. In this sense, Windows' flaws are a good thing
for you. And you can't make them use Linux, because they have free will
and anyway Linux isn't suited toward non-technical users.

Snuffelluffogus wrote:

Good points. But, as anyone here will attest, I'm not what you would call a
real "technical user" and Linux works great for me.

Snuffelluffogus wrote:

Gates certainly gets a tax break for his charitable contributions, but it's
hardly "cheaper" for him to make these contributions than not to make them.
Even with tax breaks, $300 million in contributions leaves him with less
money than before he made the donations.
Let's use some small numbers to make the math reasonable. Let's say he
only earns $1 million in income over the course of a year, and he donates
$200,000 to charity. Further, let's assume that his overall tax rate is
%40. If he doesn't donate any of his earnings, he pays 40% of one million
dollars in taxes, leaving him with $600,000 in his pocket.

Instead, if he donates $200,000, he can deduct that from his earnings, so
he's only taxed on $800,000. His tax would be 40% of $800,000, or
$320,000. After the taxes he paid and the money he donated, he's now left
with $480,000 instead of $600,000. So, his $200,000 contribution really
only cost him $120,000 out-of-pocket, but it still wasn't "cheaper" for him
to make the contribution than not to make it. Even with all the tax breaks
in the world, no one ever increased his net worth by making charitable
contributions.

Scott Gardner

Scott Gardner <gardners14@cox.net> wrote in message news:<BQ8Cc.17130$cj3.2250@lakeread01>...

No, the IRS makes it cheaper when the money is given away through a *foundation*.
That is why all the robber barons like Carnegie and now Gates set up
foundations. The idea is that it helps society but it also plays on their hubris.
You can call the IRS about this, it's rock solid and has been for decades.
Foundations are key. Now if only I could find out which robber baron(s)
were involved in setting up the FSF...

FYI, a great novel that deals with this is "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater",
by Kurt Vonnegut.

Snuffelluffogus wrote:
Broke linuxfux (tautology) whose only asset was a stack of empty paypal
accounts.

Snuffelluffogus wrote:

great, now the bad guys are the ones that donate to the needy

nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote in message news:<yikCc.142$rh.137@okepread02>...

Always has been. It's the bad guys who don't give that worry me...
they're the ones who got rid of the social safety net in the US,
and their euroclones are trying to do the same to European countries.

Snuffelluffogus wrote:

don't you see how ass backwards that looks? how can you spin a legit
charitable organization into a crooked organization?

you probably hate the fact that Bill Gates is the single largest
contributor to the African continent. you probably think it's just his
way of saving a buck and look good at the same time don't you?

nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote in message news:<AzqCc.2534

Actually, I love it. Think about it (if a troll *can* think) :
if the feds were to instead just tax them more, we'd have no guarantee
that the feds would use the money responsibly. They'd actually
probably just use it to bomb another lame-ass country to smithereens

I don't know how it's like in the U.S., but in the U.K. £1 does not equal 1
vote.

Vast amounts of money doesn't buy you everything, and votes isn't one of
them. The other things are happiness, fulfillment, a family etc. etc.

Everyone in the modern world needs money as an intermediary between
providing a service to the community and maintaining their livelihoods, but
I don't know how much difference it makes to your life if you earn £50,000
or £500,000 or £5,000,000, in anything less than a superficial way.

Of course, what I think is superficial may much more important to someone
else.

Duncan.

"Snuffelluffogus" <darkred@myway.com> wrote in message
news:5f063e31.0406221849.75f9599c@posting.google.c om...

Duncan James Murray wrote:
Real meaning: People in the UK are cheap cunts and the cost of living is
very high, as is the cost of a vote.

"Duncan James Murray" <dm319@remove.this.bit.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<cbg14b$bnq$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
But the UK is also a stratified society like any other.
I heard that in London the public schools are so bad that if
a child doesn't get into a good private school, their changes
of getting into a college of any merit are nil.

Snuffelluffogus <darkred@myway.com> wrote:

Nonsense. I think you've listened to a very biased or uninformed news
source.

Yes, there are bad state schools, but there are also many good, and even
excellent state schools in London and elsewhere in the UK. Just like
everywhere else, be it the UK, the US, Germany, Canada. Anywhere really.

mh


--

mark.haynes@despammed.com (mark haynes) wrote in message news:<1gg39up.1etjkvv13ta6faN%mark.haynes@despamme d.com>...
My source was National Public Radio, which it's true is biased
according to reliable sources e.g. F.A.I.R.

Snuffelluffogus <darkred@myway.com> wrote:

Yeah. News sources are like that. Please don't take my post as a
criticism of you, btw. That wasn't intended.




--