At 12:52 AM -0700 05/03/2006, James Fraser wrote:
>At 7:15 PM -0500 05/01/2006, pegleg wrote:
>>Bravo! One of the beautiful things about the old Beige Mac hardware
>>is that it lasts forever.
Say what? Old computers fail. Period. In general, I really don't
see any one model as being longer or shorter lifed as the others,
from my experience. The only exception that is the iMac FP -- way
too many goose neck failures. And even that's not a serious failure.
>>If you buy a Blue and White, you may have to replace it sooner,
>>increasing the cost of maintaining your network.
>I'll bite: what is this assertion based on?
Yea, what James said. What's this about?
>If there are B&W shortcomings, please tell me what they are. I ask
>this because I'm looking to a acquire one in the near future.
The only shortcomings, IMO -- and none are showstoppers:
1) Max DIMM size is 256 MB. I keep ending up with cheap 512's.
2) No bezel to do an internal JAZ drive nicely. ZIP sux.
3) My ADB keyboard difficulties. See thread "Tiger ate my keyboard
and snacked on my mouse!" in the old g-list archives.
Go for it, James!
Just make sure it's rev 2. Less hassle.
> > I am using some of my old Macs at file servers.
>That comment segues into the question I've meant to ask: why is
>there a need to exceed the 32-character limit for filenames?
Long filenames are like fleas - they accumulate. There are some in
OS X itself. Many apps use/create them. Then there are email
attachments, and other downloads...
Having a file server that only supports smaller filenames is a PITA.
Right now, I'm using an old PowerMac running OS 8 as the "house
server", afp, ftp, and http. It's good for most things. But more
and more we're having to zip files up before pushing them to it, so
they don't corrupt the names... Gonna replace that box with
something running OS X shortly.