Papyrus' Atari Heritage
From
Ian Baker
I enjoyed your review of
Papyrus, long a favourite word processor on the Atari. This
heritage might explain why it was less Windows-like than you
expected.
Many years ago I used Papyrus on my Atari to print a book my
father had written using Word on a PC. In those days Word could not
handle printing A5 pages on A4 paper ready for folding into a
book.
Regards,
Ian Baker
Hi Ian,
Thanks for the interesting backgrounder.
I don't imagine it will be news to you that iCab,
another German app, also started out as an Atari app.
Charles
Papyrus Sounds Tempting
From Jim Strickland
That's impressive stuff. If I were not so stuck on Nisus Writer,
I'd be sorely tempted to go with Papyrus. Thanks.
In the spirit of good German software, you might also want to
look at www.pl32.com - photoline
32 for Mac. It has many of the same qualities that so impressed you
with Papyrus. It's a Photoshop replacement and works with some
(though not all) Photoshop filters. It costs about the same as
Elements.
Jim Strickland
Hi Jim,
NisusWriter is a great word processor, too.
Thanks for the tip about photoline 32 for Mac.
I'll check it out. I do love Elements 3.0 though.
Charles
Is Upgrading to Photoshop Elements 3 Worth
It?
From Jim Strickland
I haven't tried [Photoshop] Elements 3; I'm still using Elements
2. Is it worth upgrading?
Jim Strickland
Hi Jim,
Short answer: yes. Elements 3 is a much better
program than Elements 2.
You can read my review of the software, Photoshop Elements 3.0: All You Need?,
here on Low End Mac.
Charles
WallStreet Keyboard Failure
From Michael Allen
I am so glad to find you. I am using a G3 WallStreet (beige). My keyboard
failed, and I have to use an ADB through the serial port. I had to
disconnect the ribbons and clean them just to get it to boot. Still
no keyboard. Please to advise.
Mike Allen
Hi Mike,
I'm a bit confused by your reference to "beige"
(all WallStreets were black as far as I know), but Wegener Media
has WallStreet keyboards for $24. They can also probably help you
if you need replacement ribbon cables as well.
Also, pre-USB Macs had both serial ports (marked
for printer and modem) and ADB ports for keyboards and mice.
Charles
Re: Keyboard Failure
From Michael Allen
Me too on the confusion. I assumed you meant beige in your
transcripts for all Wallstreets.
I think mine is black as you mentioned. I'll follow through with
your advice. I sincerely appreciate your time. My next project
delves into recovering an Adobe PDF writer from an older HD. I
don't have the CD to reinstall; I just have it on the HD.
Regards,
-M
SeaMonkey Is a Workhorse
From: Christoph Trusch
Hello Charles,
I was very glad to see the SeaMonkey Suite reviewed on Low End
Mac. Some comments I would like to make:
Seamonkey pretty much continues where Mozilla 1.8 (yes, there
was a 1.8, but it never got beyong the beta stage) left off. I
don't need the email module (Apple Mail rocks!), but I use Composer
to make my website, and
I can say that I wouldn't know the difference between the Composer
modules in Mozilla 1.8 and SeaMonkey 1.1 alpha. They are, like the
browser modules, virtually identical. There are some differences to
the now "final" Mozilla 1.7 version, though, but most of them were
already present in 1.8 beta.
Nvu, which is the new
"outsourced" Composer module (like Thunderbird is the outsourced
email module), isn't ready for prime time yet, so Firefox +
Thunderbird + Nvu are no serious replacement for the suite,
especially since Firefox can't keep up with the finetuning
capabilities of SeaMonkey. Also, this solution would install the
Gecko engine 3 times on your Mac while it's really needed only once
in the suite.
The only thing I can't confirm is the startup time: Safari takes
just one bounce in the dock to start on my iBook G3 800 MHz (two or three
bounces uncached), while Seamonkey takes much longer. It
doesn't matter, because it never crashes, but it is definitely not
the fastest starting browser on my system. iCab, Camino, and
Internet Explorer also start faster.
I'm happy that the suite is being continued, and I test &
report bugs frequently. But there are only some very minor bugs
(mostly cosmetic) even in SeaMonkey 1.0 alpha, most of which
have been carried over from Mozilla 1.8. I've been using the suite
in various alpha versions (the nightly builds are already at 1.1)
for the last few months and also found it to be as stable as the
previous Mozilla versions.
I'm glad that there is such a myriad of high quality browsers
for the Mac to choose from (probably more than for any other OS). I
currently have 21 browsers installed, but SeaMonkey continues to be
my workhorse.
Best regards,
Christoph Trusch
Hi Christoph,
Thank you for your comments and observations. I
think it's too bad that SeaMonkey Is not more widely known and
used. I certainly found it extremely stable and quite fast.
If you are looking to have to your collection of
browsers, checkout this site: http://darrel.knutson.com/mac/www/browsers.html
Re: startup times. you're right; Safari starts up
faster than SeaMonkey, 8 seconds and 11 seconds respectively on
this iBook G3 700 MHz. Firefox takes 17 seconds, and Opera forever.
As you say, Internet Explorer is a quick starter, too, but it's not
a browser I use if I can avoid it.
Charles
Browser Startup Times
Your startup times seem (partly) unduly long in my eyes. Does
the 100 MHz difference to my 800 MHz G3-iBook (10.3.9, 640 MB RAM)
really make that much difference? Safari *never* takes more than 3
seconds to start. On the other hand, SeaMonkey takes longer on my
Mac. I just tested startup times (averaged of 2 measurements each)
after a complete reboot of OS X and then again cached. Clicked stop
on the watch when all window/menu elements were completely
drawn.
- Camino 1.0a1 fresh: 7 sec, cached: 1.5 sec
- Firefox 1.5b1 fresh: 9.5 sec, cached: 3.5 sec
- iBrowser 1.6b4 fresh: 3 sec, cached: 1 sec
- iCab 3.0.0b fresh: 3 sec, cached: 1.5 sec
- IE 5.2.3 fresh: 4 sec, cached: 1.5 sec
- Opera 8.5 fresh: 15.5 sec, cached: 6 sec
- Safari 1.3.1 fresh: 2.5 sec, cached: 1 sec
- Shiira 0.9.2.2 fresh: 2 sec, cached: 1.5 sec
- Sunrise Browser 0.7.8 fresh: 2.5 sec, cached: 1.5
sec
- SeaMonkey 1.1a fresh: 12.5 sec, cached: 4.5 sec
If you are looking to add to your collection of
browsers, checkout this site:
http://darrel.knutson.com/mac/www/browsers.html
I know about this website. Look who hinted Darrel at the Jazilla
browser. I try to stay more or less up-to-date with the most
important browsers and also try them out for several days each. So
my favorite one, Mozilla/SeaMonkey, is constantly being challenged,
which is a good thing and helps me to make informed decisions when
it comes to choosing the preferred web browser. It pains me that
there are still so many Windows users out there who equal the
Internet with Internet Explorer, but also Mac users who never go
beyond the pre-installed Safari. Although I have to say that Safari
is a very acceptable browser.
As you say, Internet Explorer is a quick starter, too, but it's
not a browser I use if I can avoid it. It's a relief to see that
there are hardly any website left that only work correctly with IE.
This is also in part due to the fact that Gecko compatibility is
now mandatory since Firefox has reached considerable popularity.
Very interesting times for browsers nowadays, and especially on the
Mac!!
Best regards,
Christoph Trusch
Hi Christoph,
My iBook also has 640 MB of RAM, but I wasn't on
an especially fresh restart (four days) when I timed the browser
startups. I also had about 15 applications open, and the system had
accumulated some swapfiles, which slows things down. I'm running OS
10.4.3.
Odd, though, that SeaMonkey started up faster on
my Mac than the times you recorded. Goes to illustrate the danger
of generalizing.
Charles
Re: $100 Laptop Project Shuns Free OS X
From Proz:
Seems to be a bit more complex than the MIT headline leads one
to think...
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2005/11/15/1834
scroll down 2/3 of the way to one of the comments about it,
links to...
http://news.com.com/2061-10793_3-5954333.html?part=rss&tag=5954333&subj=news
Proz,
Thanks for the feedback.
CM
Code Built-into OS X to Supports Dual and
Multicore CPUs
From Alvin
Hi, is it possible for Apple to have a built-in code in OS X
that takes advantage of dual and multicores without depending on
developers to include support for dual and multicores? For example,
OS X users don't need to worry if a particular application is
using all of the cores and CPUs. Does Linux for PowerPC already
have this built-in code already?
If they have that technology, it'd be good to then buy a
Playstation 3 [and] use its 7 cores (as well as with Xbox 360 and
Revolution multi and dual cores) which is shipping with Sony's
Linux (after a hacked OS X)? That'd be a cheap Cell chipped
desktop PC replacement for the Apple and Dell desktops.
God bless,
Alvin
Hi Alvin,
Answering your question is way beyond my level of
knowledge and expertise in the workings of operating systems.
Perhaps someone in readerland will be able to help.
Charles
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
