Prev: WTB: C64 to IEEE-488 interface
Next: 8032 tx voltages
From: BruceMcF on 20 Mar 2010 11:43
On Mar 19, 8:42 pm, Ed Prochak <edproc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder. Supposed to be OS X compatible, that could be interesting!

When they say "user install only", that's a red flag that something's
up.

What I would rather see available, though, is just a mini-ITX case-in-
keyboard, ready to take a half-height drive out the left hand side and
mini-ITX motherboard.
From: Golan Klinger on 20 Mar 2010 15:58
Ed Prochak wrote:

> I wonder. Supposed to be OS X compatible, that could be interesting!

The Cybernet Zero-FootPrint-PC can't run OS X and slapping a Commodore
logo on it won't change that. Wouldn't be legal anyway.

--
Golan Klinger
Dark is the suede that mows like a harvest.
From: BruceMcF on 20 Mar 2010 17:16
On Mar 20, 3:58 pm, Golan Klinger <n...(a)sp.am> wrote:
> Ed Prochak wrote:
> > I wonder. Supposed to be OS X compatible, that could be interesting!
>
> The Cybernet Zero-FootPrint-PC can't run OS X and slapping a Commodore
> logo on it won't change that. Wouldn't be legal anyway.

The slideshow skirts the issue of whether it can *legally* run OS X
when it notes that its only "user installable". That puts the onus on
whether the installation is legal on the user doing the installation.

Seems like their marketing person thought that claiming Windows 7, XP,
Vista, OS X, Ubuntu *and* Linux made for a more impressive "name
recognition" slideshow (I especially enjoyed that it could use *both*
Ubuntu *and* Linux ... who would have thunk it?).
From: winston19842005 on 20 Mar 2010 18:17
On 3/20/10 5:16 PM, in article
a5812b23-1728-428b-8b48-6ffccec03843(a)e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, "BruceMcF"
<agila61(a)netscape.net> wrote:

> On Mar 20, 3:58�pm, Golan Klinger <n...(a)sp.am> wrote:
>> Ed Prochak wrote:
>>> I wonder. Supposed to be OS X compatible, that could be interesting!
>>
>> The Cybernet Zero-FootPrint-PC can't run OS X and slapping a Commodore
>> logo on it won't change that. Wouldn't be legal anyway.
>
> The slideshow skirts the issue of whether it can *legally* run OS X
> when it notes that its only "user installable". That puts the onus on
> whether the installation is legal on the user doing the installation.
>
> Seems like their marketing person thought that claiming Windows 7, XP,
> Vista, OS X, Ubuntu *and* Linux made for a more impressive "name
> recognition" slideshow (I especially enjoyed that it could use *both*
> Ubuntu *and* Linux ... who would have thunk it?).

Pray tell what *is* the difference between Ubuntu and Linux?
And no extra points for telling me it is spelling.
I was pretty sure Ubuntu was a Linux distro. Did I miss something? I usually
do.
Or is my sarcasm detector faulty? That must be it... been a bad week!

From: Graham Prout on 20 Mar 2010 18:37

"winston19842005" <bjjlyates(a)NOSPAMbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:C7CAC19F.142DB%bjjlyates(a)NOSPAMbellsouth.net...
> On 3/20/10 5:16 PM, in article
> a5812b23-1728-428b-8b48-6ffccec03843(a)e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com,
> "BruceMcF"
> <agila61(a)netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 20, 3:58 pm, Golan Klinger <n...(a)sp.am> wrote:
>>> Ed Prochak wrote:
>>>> I wonder. Supposed to be OS X compatible, that could be interesting!
>>>
>>> The Cybernet Zero-FootPrint-PC can't run OS X and slapping a Commodore
>>> logo on it won't change that. Wouldn't be legal anyway.
>>
>> The slideshow skirts the issue of whether it can *legally* run OS X
>> when it notes that its only "user installable". That puts the onus on
>> whether the installation is legal on the user doing the installation.
>>
>> Seems like their marketing person thought that claiming Windows 7, XP,
>> Vista, OS X, Ubuntu *and* Linux made for a more impressive "name
>> recognition" slideshow (I especially enjoyed that it could use *both*
>> Ubuntu *and* Linux ... who would have thunk it?).
>
> Pray tell what *is* the difference between Ubuntu and Linux?
> And no extra points for telling me it is spelling.
> I was pretty sure Ubuntu was a Linux distro. Did I miss something? I
> usually
> do.
> Or is my sarcasm detector faulty? That must be it... been a bad week!

No you did'nt miss anything at all Ubuntu and Linux are one in the same.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: WTB: C64 to IEEE-488 interface
Next: 8032 tx voltages