Where's Our Maps Gone! - Is Googlemap Update Another Gatesian Conspiracy?

May 7, 2006

Glad all you old clunky Wintel PC users have had your old GroundSource map window replaced by a jazzy new GoogleMap. Unfortunately GroundSource's downgrade in functionality has replaced the old map with an empty green box:

Given that MicroSoft last updated Internet Explorer in 2001 (5.2.3) and stopped support for IE Mac users in January 2006 has anyone found a workaround? I know that you can choose to display a GoogleMap in a separate window but surely someone must test these thing before inflicting there crafty plans on the rest of the GeoCaching community.

Maybe its an evil plan by the MS Tzar of Seattle to shift more soulless boxes.

Off to cuddle my iMac ......

May 7, 2006

It's a real pain isn't it.

I know quite a few Mac users are being very vocal in the main Geocaching.com website discussions section of the forum so hopefully TPTB are sitting up and taking notice.

It does work in Firefox on the Mac but I don't want to have to start using a different browser just for GC.com and Safari for all other things.

2.5k · May 7, 2006

One of the reasons I stopped using the Mac 4 years ago is that Apple are so poor on this front.

It works OK on Linux and K desktop, and on Gnome also

I would do what I did, and sell your old pile of ancient written technology and get a working OS!

May 7, 2006

Wake me up when you have finished

One of the reasons I stopped using the Mac 4 years ago is that Apple are so poor on this front.

It works OK on Linux and K desktop, and on Gnome also

I would do what I did, and sell your old pile of ancient written technology and get a working OS!

Edited May 7, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens

9.2k · May 7, 2006

I use Mozilla, also works on Firefox, if grease monkey OS Map replacement is turned off!

(OS10.3.9)

G

May 7, 2006

Absolutely - works perfectly in Firefox but I don't want to use another browser just for GC.com. If I get chance tomorrow I'll take a look at the code and get it working on Safari and post in the main GC.com website forum as I'm sure it can be done and it's something very simple causing the problem.

I use Mozilla, also works on Firefox, if grease monkey OS Map replacement is turned off!

(OS10.3.9)

G

May 8, 2006

Absolutely - works perfectly in Firefox but I don't want to use another browser just for GC.com. If I get chance tomorrow I'll take a look at the code and get it working on Safari and post in the main GC.com website forum as I'm sure it can be done and it's something very simple causing the problem.

I use Mozilla, also works on Firefox, if grease monkey OS Map replacement is turned off!

(OS10.3.9)

G

how have you found this to work with firefox? I tried it, netscrape & IE and nothing seemed to work on my Mac...

May 8, 2006

I have the latest version of Firefox (1.5.0.2) on my Mac and it works perfectly. Do you have an older version or Javascript turned off maybe?

how have you found this to work with firefox? I tried it, netscrape & IE and nothing seemed to work on my Mac...

May 8, 2006

Just had a peek with iCab v.B382(3.0.2)(Mac OS X) and everything works fine, have not looked at Opera, but as you say why should I use a different browser for GC.

Should say that I'm runing OSX 10.4.6 on a iMac Intel Duo. Maybe I should address Moote's "suggestion" by booting up the old Macintosh SE, it will run Netscape v3 on OS6. A bit slow, but then if MicroSoft had been telling the truth they should have called their millennium product Apple84 not Windows2000.

Edited May 8, 2006 by Jango & Boba Fett

1.8k · May 8, 2006

But then it wouldn't have supported USB!

May 8, 2006

I have the latest version of Firefox (1.5.0.2) on my Mac and it works perfectly. Do you have an older version or Javascript turned off maybe?

how have you found this to work with firefox? I tried it, netscrape & IE and nothing seemed to work on my Mac...

man, I HATE this! I SWEAR I tried every browser on my machine when this came out and none worked...now Firefox 1.5.0.3 seems happy....this on a machine running 10.4.3

strange though, I saw other usuers commenting on the showing of other cahces in the area on the embedded GE maps...I can only see the cache listed on the map...

still wish it worked in Safari...wonder why one & not the other? :laughing:

May 8, 2006

strange though, I saw other usuers commenting on the showing of other cahces in the area on the embedded GE maps...I can only see the cache listed on the map...

Click on the red pin and you should get a much more functional map! (if it works)

1.8k · May 8, 2006

IE6 on a PC at work only shows the old map and a blank box alongside it with an "error on page" message in the status bar. Presumably the pages now use an ActiveX control that is not "approved".

3.7k · May 8, 2006

man, I HATE this! I SWEAR I tried every browser on my machine when this came out and none worked...now Firefox 1.5.0.3 seems happy....this on a machine running 10.4.3

strange though, I saw other usuers commenting on the showing of other cahces in the area on the embedded GE maps...I can only see the cache listed on the map...

still wish it worked in Safari...wonder why one & not the other?

No idea what these browsers are, so I can't help. However, why not post your question in the main forum thread (here) where there are plenty of more knowledgeable people.

HH

May 8, 2006

Just looking at a cache page and I see they fixed the problem with Google Maps and Safari and it all works perfectly :laughing:

May 8, 2006

No idea what these browsers are, so I can't help. However, why not post your question in the main forum thread (here) where there are plenty of more knowledgeable people.

HH

Point was to find more Mac conversant knowledgeable people. And thanks to them. Seen all the fuss on the US Forums too, and glad to see that Safari is back, though it would be nice if IE v5 would work as we find it the most usefull (what a useful MS product) for shrinking down cache descriptions onto a single page, at the moment it seems to be making them extra long.

2.5k · May 9, 2006

Wake me up when you have finished

One of the reasons I stopped using the Mac 4 years ago is that Apple are so poor on this front.

It works OK on Linux and K desktop, and on Gnome also

I would do what I did, and sell your old pile of ancient written technology and get a working OS!

The point is that I have found lots of things in the past which the Mac fails to do, I sold my G3 and bought a PC.

This is not a Gatesian conspiracy as placed in the title, it is about Apple being years out on their uptake of modern web dev. Buy a black and white telly, don't expect to watch colour programs!

For informaton Google is a none MS environment through and through, read it's history!

May 9, 2006

Wake me up when you have finished :rolleyes:

The point is, I'm happy with my Mac - it does everything I need to do and more, including modern web applications. It does a whole lot more than my PC ever did and it does it in style.

You are happy with your PC, I LOVE my Mac....

To try and make broad based generalisations like you have about Mac's whilst at the same time admitting you have not used one for years is in my opinion totally meaningless.

Mac bashing is boring and hence my comment. I'm not about to do some Windows bashing as that's boring too. Each to their own - diversity is what makes the world a better place :laughing:

Wake me up when you have finished

One of the reasons I stopped using the Mac 4 years ago is that Apple are so poor on this front.

It works OK on Linux and K desktop, and on Gnome also

I would do what I did, and sell your old pile of ancient written technology and get a working OS!

The point is that I have found lots of things in the past which the Mac fails to do, I sold my G3 and bought a PC.

This is not a Gatesian conspiracy as placed in the title, it is about Apple being years out on their uptake of modern web dev. Buy a black and white telly, don't expect to watch colour programs!

For informaton Google is a none MS environment through and through, read it's history!

Edited May 9, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens

3.9k · May 9, 2006

.... It does a whole lot more than my PC ever did and it does it in style.

I'm not getting into the PC/Mac, MS/Linux/OS X, Atari/Commodore, Sinclair/Commodore, BMW/Merc debates or any others FWIW, but I AM curious as to what your Mac' can do that my PC can't?

[edit coz I can't not speel]

Edited May 9, 2006 by rutson

May 9, 2006

Lots of things - two immediate things that spring to mind are it does not get viruses and is not affected by spyware (I don't have anti-virus loaded as there is no need for it). I use my Mac rather than spending a considerable amount of my time making sure the various security software is up to date as you do with Windows. That's not to mention the media applications that are just fab on a Mac and a real PITA (IMHO) on Windows.

I could go on, but I won't as this is a geocaching forums and it's way off topic :rolleyes:

I do dual boot my Mac as I need Windows to run GSAK and Mapsource but that's all I have Windows for as there is no decent Mac alternatives :laughing:

I'm not getting into the PC/Mac, MS/Linux/OS X, Atari/Commodore, Sinclair/Commodore, BMW/Merc debates or any others FWIW, but I AM curious as to what your Mac' can do that my PC can't?

[edit coz I can't not speel]

Edited May 9, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens

2.9k · May 9, 2006

.... It does a whole lot more than my PC ever did and it does it in style.

I'm not getting into the PC/Mac, MS/Linux/OS X, Atari/Commodore, Sinclair/Commodore, BMW/Merc debates or any others FWIW, but I AM curious as to what your Mac' can do that my PC can't?

[edit coz I can't not speel]

You missed palm / pocket pc off that list :laughing:

Based on history graphic design, desk top publishing would be near the top of that list.

2.5k · May 9, 2006

Lots of things - two immediate things that spring to mind are it does not get viruses and is not affected by spyware (I don't have anti-virus loaded as there is no need for it). I use my Mac rather than spending a considerable amount of my time making sure the various security software is up to date as you do with Windows. That's not to mention the media applications that are just fab on a Mac and a real PITA (IMHO) on Windows.

I could go on, but I won't as this is a geocaching forums and it's way off topic

I do dual boot my Mac as I need Windows to run GSAK and Mapsource but that's all I have Windows for as there is no decent Mac alternatives

I'm not getting into the PC/Mac, MS/Linux/OS X, Atari/Commodore, Sinclair/Commodore, BMW/Merc debates or any others FWIW, but I AM curious as to what your Mac' can do that my PC can't?

[edit coz I can't not speel]

FACT

There are Mac Virus and spyware! So that don't wash!

Is the Mac Geocacher friendly? Try running GSAK without an emmulator!

May 9, 2006

No they are not - they do not exist. That's not a fact as it's not true.

There have been a couple of "proof of concept" so called viruses for the Mac which people have gone on about recently but none of these can automatically do anything on your Mac unless you enter the Administrator password in a clearly shown dialog box.

I'm not saying the Mac is totally immune to this kind of thing but I am saying there are no known viruses or spyware for the Mac at the moment and any that do emerge will require you to input the Administrator password in a very obvious way (this behaviour is in-built into the latest Mac OS from the ground up). You thus cannot get infected unless you are daft enough to give the virus your Administrator password.

FACT

There are Mac Virus and spyware! So that don't wash!

Edited May 9, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens

May 9, 2006

I AM curious as to what your Mac' can do that my PC can't?

[edit coz I can't not speel]

Mainly be allowed onto my desk. I do have a PC somewhere in a cupboard, its a bit like a pile of beer mats, it will come in useful from time to time.

Here's a test to see why i'm still using a Mac. I'll give you two examples of HTML files for a very simple webpage. One was written with BBedit and the second with Claris HomePage (both MacOS compatible).

========================= BBedit HTML Code ===============================

<HTML>

<HEAD>

<TITLE>BBedit Version</TITLE>

</HEAD>

<BODY >

The Document Title

The cat sat on the mat after chasing the bat which was wearing a hat that went splat because Mat thought he had smelt a rat. Drat that rat said Mat, purr went the cat.

<A HREF="http://www.google.co.uk">Search</A>'>http://www.google.co.uk">Search</A>

The End

</BODY>

</HTML>

======================= Claris HomePage v3 HTML Code =========================

<HTML>

<HEAD>

<TITLE>Claris Home Page Version</TITLE>

<X-CLARIS-WINDOW TOP=41 BOTTOM=575 LEFT=25 RIGHT=757>

<X-CLARIS-TAGVIEW MODE=minimal>

</HEAD>

The cat sat on the mat after chasing the bat which was wearing a

hat that went splat because Mat thought he had smelt a rat. Drat that

rat said Mat, purr went the cat.

<A HREF="http://www.google.co.uk">Search</A>

<ALIGN=CENTER>The End

</BODY>

</HTML>

====================================================================

Now you go and write the same webpage using any MS product you like (Word, Frontpage, ...) and check how elegantly your WinTel works

Nuff said

3.7k · May 9, 2006

No they are not - they do not exist. That's not a fact as it's not true.

There have been a couple of "proof of concept" so called viruses for the Mac which people have gone on about recently but none of these can automatically do anything on your Mac unless you enter the Administrator password in a clearly shown dialog box.

FACT

There are Mac Virus and spyware! So that don't wash!

I tried the Jango HTML examples, and I don't get your point - sorry. It looked fine. I still don't know what a Mac does that a PC doesn't (like Rutson, I'm not trying to say that a PC is superior, just curious to know what I'm missing - no-one ever seems to be able to explain).

I don't know about all these great advantages of Macs over PC's, as my PC is perfect for Photoshop and Quark (which is all that I've needed for graphic design - I believe the Mac uses the same software), and dozens (hundreds?) of other applications, and hasn't had a virus in years. I've nothing against Macs as I've never used one, but I've used the same PC for more than more than five years* now and it still copes with anything I throw at it.

I can't remember the last time it crashed, even though it's on all the time.

*(obviously I've replaced motherboards, graphics cards, hard drives, memory, processors etc in that time!).

By the way - watch out! Mac users complacent about security.

Apologies to the OP for off-topic discussion!

HH

May 9, 2006

That's a bit of a red herring as when challenged, McAfee admitted the points they were trying to make were not totally valid and well thought out (see http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/c...rity_software/). Obviously it's in their interest to hype up the possibility of viruses in any arena as that's how they make their money :rolleyes:

Obviously no-one should ever be complacent about security but it's a fact that it's MUCH less of an issue for Mac users.

I'm off to do some more interesting things now as this is getting very off-topic. I LOVE my Mac and would not swap it for a PC ever....I've never been so productive in my day job as I have since swapping from PC to Mac over a year ago....other people are equally happy with their PC's and that is perfectly ok too. It's all about personal choice <_< .

By the way - watch out! Mac users complacent about security.

Edited May 9, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens

3.7k · May 9, 2006

I've never been so productive in my day job as I have since swapping from PC to Mac over a year ago....other people are equally happy with their PC's and that is perfectly ok too. It's all about personal choice .

I'm glad that you're happy with a Mac - but that's the question: why? How does it make you so much more productive? Just interested, as it's a baffling mystery. My bro uses a Mac and thinks that it's streets ahead of a PC - but he won't say why either. Conspiracy?

Well, it's a nice sunny warm evening, so off I go to prepare gpx files ready for the weekend caching marathon :rolleyes:

HH

May 9, 2006

Here's Apple's page about why you should get a Mac: http://www.apple.com/getamac/. I've been pondering what I like about them whilst relaxing in the garden in the sun (they are in no particular order):

- they look good

- they are very fast (my iMac Intel Core Duo is way faster than any PC I've ever used - it's got two processors and takes whatever you throw at it with ease)

- the whole of my Mac - http://www.apple.com/imac/ - sits behind the screen on my desktop - it's about an inch thick and very neat - I do not have to have a HUGE grey / fawn box with lots of wires everywhere like I used to have when I had a PC. My Mac has a bluetooth keyboard and mouse and uses wireless internet so the only wire I have from it is the power cord.

- they do not have viruses or spyware

- they are intuitive - the best way I have seen to describe this is: with a mac the computer learns how you use it, with a PC you learn how to use the computer

- they come with all the things you need - built in wireless, ethernet, double head graphics (2 monitors for a desktop), webcam, sound, microphone, infra red, remote control, bluetooth - with a PC you have to get these as extras, often at a not insignificant cost

- they come with all the software most people would need out of the box - with a PC you have to get these as extras, often at a not insignificant cost

- no hardware conflicts as Apple makes the hardware and operating system - hardware conflicts are the main cause of crashes in windows

- fun software included like Garageband (record and mix your own songs, record your own podcasts), iMovie (make your own movies in minutes with an interface even a child can master), iPhoto (manage your digital photos), iDVD (create DVD's easily and quickly)

- the operating system is well designed, inherantly secure and a breeze to use

- virtually no regular admin tasks to keep the mac up to date - it does it all itself

- Mac OS X (the operating system) already has all the features that the next version of windows (Windows Vista) is supposed to be having. Windows Vista is now slipping towards a release date of mid 2007 - Mac users have all that functionality now and by the end of this year will have Leopard, the next version of OS X with even more advanced features that Windows users will not see for a considerable time to come

- I can also install Windows to run natively on my iMac so I can use GSAK and Mapsource as these are not available for the Mac and are the best of breed for geocaching. Garmin have started to port their software to OS X but I believe GSAK will not be (which is a shame but I can understand the pressures on the developer, having run a software firm in a previous life).

- Mac's are incredibly quiet - I can hardly hear that mine is switched on. All the PC's I've ever used are a LOT noisier.

- I'll probably think of lots more reasons later.

Edited May 9, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens

3.7k · May 9, 2006

I won't enter into any debate about all that: I asked the question and you did your best to answer. Thank you. :rolleyes:

I can't resist commenting that the strength of the PC is that you can customise your setup to do as much or as little as you want: these aren't "extras", as you just specify what you want when you buy it (or, like me, let the PC evolve into exactly what you want).

I'll shut up now and get back to the important business of cache shortlisting...

HH

May 9, 2006

One man's strength is another man's weakness :rolleyes:

I can't resist commenting that the strength of the PC is that you can customise your setup to do as much or as little as you want: these aren't "extras", as you just specify what you want when you buy it (or, like me, let the PC evolve into exactly what you want).

May 9, 2006

I tried the Jango HTML examples, and I don't get your point - sorry. It looked fine. I still don't know what a Mac does that a PC doesn't (like Rutson, I'm not trying to say that a PC is superior, just curious to know what I'm missing - no-one ever seems to be able to explain).

It looks fine on the screen, that's true, and I would agree you can achieve the same end result, but when you look at the HTML code the WinTel PC version of my simple HTML file generated, you can see why having done the task I've put it back in the box. However if you are happy with the end result that's fine by me, just don't expect me to ascribe to the view that WinTel route is better/more elegant/more efficient.

For the rest of you here is the MS Word version of my simple 3 line Webpage. Rock on Mr Gates!

========================= MS Word HTML Code ==============================

<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"

xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"

xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>

<meta name=Title

content="MicroSoft Word Version">

<title>The cat sat on the mat after chasing the bat which was wearing a hat

that went splat because Mat thought he had smelt a rat</title>

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>

<o:DocumentProperties>

<o:Author>Chae Cruickshank User</o:Author>

<o:Template>Normal</o:Template>

<o:LastAuthor>Chae Cruickshank User</o:LastAuthor>

<o:Revision>1</o:Revision>

<o:Created>2006-05-09T19:03:00Z</o:Created>

<o:LastSaved>2006-05-09T19:07:00Z</o:LastSaved>

<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>

<o:Lines>1</o:Lines>

<o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>

<o:Version>11.515</o:Version>

</o:DocumentProperties>

<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>

<o:AllowPNG/>

</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>

</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>

<w:WordDocument>

<w:Zoom>75</w:Zoom>

<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>

<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>

<w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/>

</w:WordDocument>

</xml><![endif]-->

<style>

<!--

/* Font Definitions */

@font-face

{font-family:"Times New Roman";

panose-1:0 2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3;

mso-font-charset:0;

mso-generic-font-family:auto;

mso-font-pitch:variable;

mso-font-signature:50331648 0 0 0 1 0;}

/* Style Definitions */

p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal

{mso-style-parent:"";

margin:0cm;

margin-bottom:.0001pt;

mso-pagination:widow-orphan;

font-size:12.0pt;

font-family:"Times New Roman";

mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;}

a:link, span.MsoHyperlink

{color:blue;

text-decoration:underline;

text-underline:single;}

a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed

{color:purple;

text-decoration:underline;

text-underline:single;}

table.MsoNormalTable

{mso-style-parent:"";

font-size:10.0pt;

font-family:"Times New Roman";}

@page Section1

{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;

margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;

mso-header-margin:35.4pt;

mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;

mso-paper-source:0;}

div.Section1

{page:Section1;}

-->

</style>

</head>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p>

The cat sat on the mat after chasing the bat which was

wearing a hat that went splat because Mat thought he had smelt a rat. Drat that

rat said Mat, purr went the cat.<o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p>

<a href="http://www.google.co.uk">Search</a><o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p>

The End<o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

====================================================================

My what efficency. Here's another challenge:

I'll boot up my 1989 Macintosh compact, log into www.geocaching.com, find a new cache, print off the details, find the cache and then log my find. You get out your 1989 IBM 386 and using only period hardware and software do the same thing. Meet you back here same time tommorow, although must admit I will not be using a 1989 Magellan Nav 1000, I find the 2 hour battery life, maximum of 4 satellites tracked and 1 kg weight somewhat limiting. :rolleyes:

Edited May 9, 2006 by Jango & Boba Fett

1.8k · May 9, 2006

I had no idea that Macs had a browser included when the Web had not even been deployed in a working form (1990). Now I am impressed!

BTW, the "looks good" arguement for Macs always irritates me.

They don't look good - they look boring and white - So does my fridge. Take the iPod - a design icon! A white box with a screen and a dial - I had a microwave oven that look similar in the late 70's!

And what is this about critisising Word for including in a Word document the info it needs for the features it offers users? If it is being suggested that is not a good HTML editor, then no wonder, it wasn't ever designed to be!

May 9, 2006

I think you will find that a 1990 Mac could happily run browser software from 1995 (or whatever).

The point about the "looks good" is my opinion - I was asked for my opinion and gave it. I did not say I expect everyone else to agree with it.

I agree with your comments about Word as a HTML editor - you would be mad to use it as such for any serious work. I've used web editors on both platforms (mainly Dreamweaver - it's part of my day job) and find them very similar on both Windows and Mac. I do admit to hand coding virtually all my HTML though as I prefer the tight control on code that gives me.

I had no idea that Macs had a browser included when the Web had not even been deployed in a working form (1990). Now I am impressed!

BTW, the "looks good" arguement for Macs always irritates me.

They don't look good - they look boring and white - So does my fridge. Take the iPod - a design icon! A white box with a screen and a dial - I had a microwave oven that look similar in the late 70's!

And what is this about critisising Word for including in a Word document the info it needs for the features it offers users? If it is being suggested that is not a good HTML editor, then no wonder, it wasn't ever designed to be!

Edited May 9, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens

3.7k · May 9, 2006

when you look at the HTML code the WinTel PC version of my simple HTML ...

Ah yes - the reason I couldn't see the problem was that I naturally copied and pasted the HTML into Notepad. I wouldn't dream of using Word, which isn't meant for this type of thing! Wordpad would have been OK too. The "other challenge" is a bit pointless, except perhaps that it could be of interest to computer historians (if there are any!).

HH

May 9, 2006

I wouldn't dream of using Word, which isn't meant for this type of thing!

The "other challenge" is a bit pointless, except perhaps that it could be of interest to computer historians (if there are any!).

Sorry not really a like for like comparison so here is the AppleWorks version of the HTML code - direct comparison now between MS Flagship product and clunky old Apple:

========================= AppleWorks HTML Code ===========================

<HTML>

<HEAD>

<TITLE>appleworks</TITLE>

</HEAD>

<BODY >

The cat sat on the mat after chasing the bat which was wearing a hat that went splat because Mat thought he had smelt a rat. Drat that rat said Mat, purr went the cat.

<A HREF="http://www.google.co.uk">Search</A>

The End

</BODY>

</HTML>

=====================================================================

Must admit though that my pre-GUI internet experience back in 1989 was on a IBM 286, oh the joys of dial up modems and the command line terminal. And of course you are correct as the MacOS flavour of Mosaic wasn't released until September 1993, does that mean you want to use a 486 and I get a Classic 2?

Anyway having first used an Apple II+ in 1983 and a PC in 1987 I'm not taking sides or pressing a party line. If you check at the top of the thread Happy H you will see that it was a complaint about releasing changes that will only work on one platform. I'm sure there would be an outcry if the next big leap in functionality ONLY worked on Mac Intel Duo's, of course maybe I'm wrong.

Keep whistling Humph :rolleyes:

1.8k · May 9, 2006

I think you will find that a 1990 Mac could happily run browser software from 1995 (or whatever).

Wouldn't it have been better to with the five years and get a more powerful computer at half the price?

May 9, 2006

Wouldn't it have been better to with the five years and get a more powerful computer at half the price?

Of course the Macintosh SE30 went on sale in 1989 at £4,500, but luckily NASA bought so many of them for their design department that the price soon came down. Despite being a tiny box with that 7" screen it could drive a second monster colour screen and a tablet digitiser - hence all those little Mac boxes in design houses and cartographic offices. So much more compact than a main frame and no need to spend thousands on the air conditioning and that nifty sandal sock combo.

Now if I recall the first time that I saw a serious cartographic work being done on a PC was ...... yawn, yawn, ArcInfo .. yawn, yawn ... raster versus vector ... yawn, yawn, yawn ...

Get a grip on it. This thread is begining to remind me of our old neighbours who were constantly arguing. She would always get the better of him so he'd stomp off with the dog returning an hour latter. We would hear him crunching up their drive, fling open the front door and utter the same opening gambit "and futhermore ...." :rolleyes:

May 10, 2006

LOL - this is starting to get really funny as it's turning into a playground thing where someone has to have the last say. I'll leave it at that and if you need to have the last word then so be it.

The thread was about GC.com making a change that did not work for a vast number of their members. Due to us standing up and letting them know, it is now fixed - result :mad: ! All this superfluous discussion is nice but it's not an operating system forum and I'm not here to talk about Mac's or to get embroiled in some pointless discussion with you about 1990 or 1995.

I'm happy with my Mac, you may be happy with the PC, who cares, does it matter in the grand scheme of things - no <_<

I think you will find that a 1990 Mac could happily run browser software from 1995 (or whatever).

Wouldn't it have been better to with the five years and get a more powerful computer at half the price?

Edited May 10, 2006 by The Bolas Heathens

Where's Our Maps Gone! - Is Googlemap Update Another Gatesian Conspiracy?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation