YouTube Videos on a Pismo
From Eli Fleming:
Just read Lonnie's response:
Dear Lonnie,
- Open Safari
- Surf to YouTube. You can stroke my ego and go to my channel if you
want: <http://www.youtube.com/user/superslydotcom>
- Right (or control) click on a full-size video thumbnail
- Select Quality - >Low
- Wait for the video to load completely
Enjoy the smooth(er) playback
Works for me on my 400 MHz Pismo running 10.4.11, Safari 3, 30 GB HD
(maybe 5400 rpm?), and 768 MB RAM. Remember, YMMV.
Good Luck, and keep on "Pismo-ing"
-Eli
Eli,
Thanks for sharing the info. I've forwarded your email
to Lonnie.
Dan
More Tips for Viewing YouTube with Older Macs
From Isaac Smith:
Hey,
In response to Lonnie's recent letter about YouTube viewing on older
Macs, I've experience the "macosx: QT doesn't support any appropriate
chorma" error as well. However, there is a (semi-)easy way to fix this.
QuickTime 7.4 and 7.4.1 don't mesh well with VLC 0.8.6-c. This issue
has been fixed with 0.8.6-d. However, to install this version, you must
have Leopard or Tiger.
I own a 333 MHz
Lombard, so installing Tiger won't be quite so easy, and I don't
feel like it would be worth it. In order to allow VLC to play the
YouTube files while still keeping Panther as the OS, one must revert
back to QuickTime 7.3.1. In order to do this, you need to have a piece
of Freeware called Pacifist.
You download the QuickTime 7.3.1 update from Apple's website, and open
up the Installer package using Pacifist. This will allow you to
overwrite the newer version of QuickTime, and will then allow you to
play YouTube videos in VLC.
My preferred method for getting these YouTube videos on my computer
is actually a free plugin for Firefox, known as DownloadHelper. It's
much like the KeepVid link, but instead meshes perfectly with the
browser. The only "issue" that I have had is that before starting the
download, you have to wait for the YouTube video to load completely,
which I would imagine would be bothersome on a slower Internet
connection.
The faster and easier way out (that doesn't work on all computers)
is to simply wait for the YouTube video to load completely. While this
doesn't help anywhere near as much as VLC does on slow G3s, I have
found that it does help quite a bit on my 466 MHz DA. Before the load
is complete, the video is choppy. After it's done loading, it's
smooth.
I hope these tips help. Keep up the great work on the site.
Isaac
Isaac,
Thanks for sharing your experiences and your tips.
I've forwarded your email to Lonnie.
Dan
Flash 9 Can Help Some Older Macs
From Nathan Hill:
Hi Dan,
Just to continue this good conversation...
It might also be worthy to upgrade to
the latest version of the Adobe Flash Player (version 9). I
participated in some of the beta testing of these new drivers, which
promised to offload more of the work on to the video card. Those
drivers are now available. So, with this latest version, if you have a
slow processor but a decent video card, you might notice better Flash
performance than with the older driver.
You can find the system requirements here.
Adobe recommends a minimum of a 500 MHz G3 processor to use Flash.
It works with Mac OS X 10.1 and above. You will notice that there is
another set of recommended requirements for HD quality playback, and
there they recommend nothing short of a 1.8 GHz G5 and a video card
with 64 MB of RAM.
I did test this is on a stock G4 Cube (450 MHz with ATI Rage
128 Pro), and I noticed some improvement from the Flash driver that
came with Tiger. Still, I couldn't watch a YouTube video full screen,
and you could tell there were a few frames dropped from time to
time.
These sorts of technologies are only going to become more processor
hungry over the years, which makes it another growing area where old
Macs may be left behind. It is fun to try to find these workarounds
though and squeeze as much performance as possible from our old
Macs.
Peace,
Nathan Hill
Nathan,
Thanks for the info. I have to admit that I don't pay
any attention at all to Flash technology. If something says I need a
newer version, I upgrade. If not, I putter along with whatever's
installed.
I'll share you email with Lonnie.
Dan
The Importance of Expandability
From Trevor Howard:
I found a good chunk of the 11 Reasons To Choose Macs over PCs quite
good, if not maybe a bit "heavy handed" at times . . . I
disagreed on a few things though....
#9: Eh, I point this out a lot, but no matter how much Microsoft
does, a good pirate is still going to get around every measure they put
in there to stop piracy; the only person all that stuff hurts is the
honest consumer
#3: I still have regrets about selling both my Pismo and original Mac mini, and my PowerMac G5 is
the first computer I've ever had where I almost cry when I think I
might have to get rid of it, or replace it...
#2: ...however it is feeling very lethargic these days, and it's
actually getting to that "I need a new computer now" point, and
I'm eagerly waiting for the holy time when the MacBook Pros refresh and
my wallet aligns to allow me to purchase a nice new powerhouse that can
actually do what I need it to do without it feeling very sluggish
(photo editing mostly - Aperture is too slow due to the crappy graphics
chip, which also hurts my Leopard experience, and Lightroom uses way
too much of my processor and slows to a crawl when I'm doing big
batches of photos, and if I'm drawing in CS2, there is a very long lag
if I'm coloring a large area)
That said, I used to upgrade my PCs far more often, and if I had
spent the money for a faster G5 with a better graphics card, I'd
probably not be in this situation. I doubt my G5 is going to end up
like an old PC, tossed in a corner somewhere; I'm thinking I might turn
it into a personal backup server in my room . . . or
something.
I think the issue is back to the one about Apple having better
customers because their products are more expensive. I'd probably wager
that a lot of them, instead of complaining about their Mac being slow,
just go and buy a new one
And also, being a fairly hard-core gamer, I have also never
ever gone that absurd, I think the most I spent on a gaming rig
was my last one, and it came in below the price of my G5, and that was
because I needed to replace almost everything. I also sit back and am
very verbal when I say, "Some games are not for consoles" and "The PC
still offers the best form of input for 90% of games." Not even the
Wiimote is as nice as my Razer Lachesis or a good Logitech mouse when
it comes to a first person shooter, and I can't even imagine trying to
play Company of Heroes with a PS3 controller....
Simply, the reason I never spent that much was that the return
wasn't all that great: that high end card that $700 now will be matched
or exceeded by a $250 one in a few months, or there will be a new
technology shift (DX10, DX10.1) that will warrant that card being
completely obsolete. You don't have to spend one grand to get a good
gaming machine that will run 90% of what's out there, and anyone who
spends $5,000 or so on a gaming rig really needs to have their heads
examined, because it will be just as obsolete in two years as the one I
spent $700 building because of a new version of Direct X or some other
big hardware or architechture-related change. The big difference is
that $4,300 I saved, I have still to spend $700 on another new gaming
rig . . . or, more realistically, replace the parts that are
really in bad need of replacing....
Anyways, that's just my 2 cents....
Trevor,
Thanks for writing. One of the great joys of using
Macs used to be their expandability. You could buy a Mac IIci, put in
lots of RAM, get a much larger hard drive, add a much better video
card, and even install a 68040 or PowerPC processor upgrade. In the
Power Mac 7500-9600 era, you had several PCI slots and could completely
replace the stock CPU. Most G4 Power Macs take a wide range of AGP
video cards, support 1.5-2.0 GB of RAM, work with fast hard drives, and
take CPU upgrades reaching near the 2 GHz mark.
PC users have had even more access to that, and today
Apple has boxed low-end Mac users out of expandable new Macs: The only
one available is the Mac Pro,
and that starts at US$2,200! We keep wishing Apple would introduce
something more than a mini, less than a Pro in the $400-800 range, but
Apple doesn't seem to be interested in that market.
Fortunately Macs last a long, long time, and there's a
great market for used Macs. All but two of my Macs have been used,
refurbished, or bought at the end of their life, and I've been using
Macs for 18 years now.
Dan
Annoyed by Mac Users who Bash Windows
From Joe Eager:
Hi,
I've been reading your site for awhile now. I don't own an Apple,
nor do I plan on buying one, I just enjoy reading about the older Macs
I used in high school. I have been getting annoyed lately by the people
who write in to say how much better Mac is than Windows. I will address
some of their beliefs.
#1 You have to constantly upgrade your PC.
Wrong, you do not have to. I used a Windows 98 machine from
1999-2005 without issues. And being a programmer I enjoy doing some
coding at home on it. Add more RAM, and it worked fine. (Just like an
older Mac)
#2 Windows constantly gets infected with virus/spyware.
Only if you have no clue about computers. Sorry, I don't run
antivirus or spyware detection removal software on my computers. Why?
Because I don't click on the stupid Flash ads, I don't visit adult
content sites, I don't download illegal software/movies/music. And I
use Internet Explorer.
#3 Windows crashes all the time.
Strange, my systems at home (and work) never seem to crash. No BSOD
here.
#4 Mac's are not more expensive when you price out a similar
Windows machine.
Well sure, but look at what is being said. A similar windows
machine. What if I don't want a similar machine, what if I want one
that is cheaper that I can upgrade however I feel like. Oh, then Mac
loses. And the quality vs. cost argument is false.
#5 Mac's last longer.
Wrong, I work in a research facility, and we still have old
equipment in our clean room that runs on 486s just fine.
#6 "I work in IT supporting a few hundred machines, so I know
what I'm talking about" attitude.
I'm sorry: I've worked in IT supporting 100K+ machines. Thus by some
people's logic my opinion is superior (though I do not believe so).
For the record, I don't hate Apple, I just think they are
overpriced, and my favorite operating system is not Windows, but in
fact BeOS (I still have a BeBox at home). I feel that Apple
users really need to shake this "I'm better because I run Apple
attitude."
Joe
Joe,
I'm jealous. I played around with BeOS a bit on a
Power Mac at work a long, long time ago. Very impressive. It would be
cool to have a BeBox in my computer collection, although it's vastly
underpowered by today's standards. I wonder how well the x86 version of
BeOS would do on a modern quad-core CPU?
We don't condone fanboyism at Low End Mac, but we
can't prevent it. Some people have a religious attachment to Macs (or
Linux, Windows, BeOS, OS/2, etc.) and want to paint the rest of the
world as wrong and/or evil. As to your points:
1. You only need to upgrade your computer, Mac or PC,
if you need more RAM, a bigger hard drive, better video, a faster CPU,
a dual-layer 18x SuperDrive, more USB ports in the box, etc. A lot of
users, Mac and Windows users alike, never upgrade their hardware or
their operating system.
That said, there is a subclass of computer users who
thrills to squeeze every iota performance out of a computer no matter
the cost.
2. Windows users are constantly under attack from
malware, and casual users are very likely to get infected. Savvy users
know better, but for the casual user, the fact that no OS X
malware has yet spread in the wild is a big advantage for the
Macintosh.
3. See point 2. Malware will make Windows PCs sluggish
and more prone to crashing. Antivirus software will also make them more
sluggish.
4. It depends on what you're pricing. Compare a
top-end custom Dell box and the Mac Pro. Apple tends to win hands down.
Compare a Mac mini to any $400 Windows box, and the mini loses hands
down because it has no expansion slots, no second drive bay, no graphic
upgrades possible.
5. The point is that Macs tend to remain in daily use
much longer than Windows PCs do. And even when they're retired from
regular use, Macs tend to be set up as file servers, messaging/email
terminals, computers for the grandparents or kids, etc. And they rarely
end up in landfills. I think part of that is the emotional attachment
Mac users have to their computers; we hate to orphan them.
6. You're right. 6 million Frenchmen can be wrong.
Everyone once thought the world was flat. 10-12 years ago, almost
everyone believed Apple was doomed. And hundreds of millions of Windows
users think it's the only real choice. The masses can be wrong - and
often are.
Dan
iSub Broken in Leopard
From Scott Caldarelli:
Hello Dan,
I've
enjoyed your site for a long time. I'm hoping someone in the Low End
Mac world can help. I, like many others, love the iMac form. I've had a
Harman/Kardon iSub since 2001 when we bought our first iMac G3. We just
upgraded our G5 iMac to Leopard. While I love it, it apparently has
dropped support for the iSub. I'm hoping someone has either written a
driver or can point me to where to find one. I'm willing to pay a few
bucks to keep this great complement to the iMac running.
Thanks for your help,
Scott Caldarelli
Scott,
Thanks for writing. I wasn't aware of this issue, but
I Googled it, and the bottom line is that the iSub is not supported
on Intel Macs, later Power Macs, or in Leopard. If anyone has written a
driver, I can't find it. Perhaps a Mailbag reader will have a better
solution than buying a new subwoofer.
Dan
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
