Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #53263 > unrolled thread

Recommend a GOOD CFL

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Recommend a GOOD CFL Joe <none@given.now> - 2013-12-11 23:00 -0800
    Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-12 01:14 -0800
      Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2013-12-12 17:45 +0000
    Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-19 13:10 +0000
      Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Joe <none@given.now> - 2013-12-19 23:42 -0800
        Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL android <here@there.was> - 2013-12-20 10:01 +0100
          Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-20 17:52 +0000
            Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-21 06:11 +0000
              Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-21 14:30 +0000
                Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-12-21 07:59 -0700
                  Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-21 15:25 +0000
                Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-21 19:40 +0000
                  Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-21 21:41 +0000
                    Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Joe <none@given.now> - 2013-12-21 14:19 -0800
                      Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-22 04:55 +0000
                        Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL David Ryeburn <david_ryeburn@telus.netz> - 2013-12-21 21:26 -0800
                        Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-12-22 20:33 +1300
                          Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-22 15:44 +0000
                            Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-12-23 11:07 +1300
                Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2013-12-22 09:09 +1100
                  Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-21 22:42 +0000
        Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-20 17:49 +0000
        Re: Recommend a GOOD CFL "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2013-12-20 21:34 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#53263 — Recommend a GOOD CFL

Please 'scuse the off-topicness of this.

I'd like to purchase some CFLs that have light output and color 
temperature very similar to a standard 100 Watt incandescent bulb.  
Also, it would be best if it fits within the size envelope of a standard 
100 Watt incandescent bulb, so that it will fit in some enclosed 
fixtures.

Anyone have a specific CFL that fills the bill?

Thanks.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#53266

In article <none-8CB3ED.23004711122013@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
 Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

> Please 'scuse the off-topicness of this.
> 
> I'd like to purchase some CFLs that have light output and color 
> temperature very similar to a standard 100 Watt incandescent bulb.  
> Also, it would be best if it fits within the size envelope of a standard 
> 100 Watt incandescent bulb, so that it will fit in some enclosed 
> fixtures.
> 
> Anyone have a specific CFL that fills the bill?
> 
> Thanks.

The CFLs sold at IKEA fit this bill and they're generally cheaper than 
what you'll find at Home Depot.  They seems to be phasing out CFLs and 
pushing CREE LED "bulbs" and still carry tungsten incandescents.

http://www.homedepot.com/s/led?NCNI-5

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53275

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:14:08 UTC, Michael Vilain 
<vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <none-8CB3ED.23004711122013@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
>  Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
> 
> > Please 'scuse the off-topicness of this.
> > 
> > I'd like to purchase some CFLs that have light output and color 
> > temperature very similar to a standard 100 Watt incandescent bulb.  
> > Also, it would be best if it fits within the size envelope of a standard 
> > 100 Watt incandescent bulb, so that it will fit in some enclosed 
> > fixtures.
> > 
> > Anyone have a specific CFL that fills the bill?
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> The CFLs sold at IKEA fit this bill and they're generally cheaper than 
> what you'll find at Home Depot.  They seems to be phasing out CFLs and 
> pushing CREE LED "bulbs" and still carry tungsten incandescents.
> 
> http://www.homedepot.com/s/led?NCNI-5
 
The January 2014 Consumer Reports magazine has a good article about 
LED bulbs and Kelvin ratings. LED 60-watt equivalents sell for $13 
or $14 but brighter ones still cost $30 to $40.

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53481

On 2013-12-12, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
> Please 'scuse the off-topicness of this.

Okay. Can you do us a return favor though? Please indicate in the
subject line that your post is off topic in the future. Something as
simple as "OT: Blah" or "[OT] Blah"  would suffice.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53555

In article <bhg9heF6uafU3@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2013-12-12, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
> > Please 'scuse the off-topicness of this.
> 
> Okay. Can you do us a return favor though? Please indicate in the
> subject line that your post is off topic in the future. Something as
> simple as "OT: Blah" or "[OT] Blah"  would suffice.

Goodness, it took a week for you to NOT figure out, FROM THE TOPIC, that 
is was off-topic.  Plz, Rog, go back to sleep.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53558

In article <none-4583DF.23421619122013@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
 Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

> In article <bhg9heF6uafU3@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 2013-12-12, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
> > > Please 'scuse the off-topicness of this.
> > 
> > Okay. Can you do us a return favor though? Please indicate in the
> > subject line that your post is off topic in the future. Something as
> > simple as "OT: Blah" or "[OT] Blah"  would suffice.
> 
> Goodness, it took a week for you to NOT figure out, FROM THE TOPIC, that 
> is was off-topic.  Plz, Rog, go back to sleep.

QV is dead 'n his restless. He's eagerly awaiting QVII and the 
relegalization of British piracy....
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53571

On 2013-12-20, android <here@there.was> wrote:
> In article <none-4583DF.23421619122013@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
>  Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
>
>> In article <bhg9heF6uafU3@mid.individual.net>,
>>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On 2013-12-12, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
>> > > Please 'scuse the off-topicness of this.
>> > 
>> > Okay. Can you do us a return favor though? Please indicate in the
>> > subject line that your post is off topic in the future. Something as
>> > simple as "OT: Blah" or "[OT] Blah"  would suffice.
>> 
>> Goodness, it took a week for you to NOT figure out, FROM THE TOPIC, that 
>> is was off-topic.  Plz, Rog, go back to sleep.
>
> QV is dead 'n his restless. He's eagerly awaiting QVII and the 
> relegalization of British piracy....

I just love it when asshats like "android" assume the rest of the world
will automatically know what things like "QV" and "QVII" mean. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53591

In message <bhjee3Frgi2U2@mid.individual.net> 
  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2013-12-20, android <here@there.was> wrote:
>> In article <none-4583DF.23421619122013@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
>>  Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <bhg9heF6uafU3@mid.individual.net>,
>>>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> > On 2013-12-12, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
>>> > > Please 'scuse the off-topicness of this.
>>> > 
>>> > Okay. Can you do us a return favor though? Please indicate in the
>>> > subject line that your post is off topic in the future. Something as
>>> > simple as "OT: Blah" or "[OT] Blah"  would suffice.
>>> 
>>> Goodness, it took a week for you to NOT figure out, FROM THE TOPIC, that 
>>> is was off-topic.  Plz, Rog, go back to sleep.
>>
>> QV is dead 'n his restless. He's eagerly awaiting QVII and the 
>> relegalization of British piracy....

> I just love it when asshats like "android" assume the rest of the world
> will automatically know what things like "QV" and "QVII" mean. 

Obviously It's Q5 and Q7.

Didn't they force you to learn Roman Numerals in grade school when you
were a kid?

-- 
Always be sincere, even if you don't mean it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53594

On 2013-12-21, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <bhjee3Frgi2U2@mid.individual.net> 
>   Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-12-20, android <here@there.was> wrote:
>>
>>> QV is dead 'n his restless. He's eagerly awaiting QVII and the 
>>> relegalization of British piracy....
>
>> I just love it when asshats like "android" assume the rest of the world
>> will automatically know what things like "QV" and "QVII" mean. 
>
> Obviously It's Q5 and Q7.
>
> Didn't they force you to learn Roman Numerals in grade school when you
> were a kid?

Are you slow or something? Of course I know what roman numerals are. How
stupid do you think I am?  I can read. Yet somehow, I'm supposed to
magically know what is meant by Q5 and Q7 in this context? Apparently
"android" wants us to know that Q5 (whatever the fuck that is) is dead,
and that I'm reportedly eagerly awaiting Q7 (whatever the fuck that is)
and the "relegalization of British piracy" (whatever that might have to
do with Q5 and Q7 or me)? 

I'm just trying to understand the words he uttered so I can get the
punch line, assuming there is one - and you're being no help whatsoever.

Perhaps this endevour simply isn't worth the fucking effort. I suspect
"android" is simply trolling. If he is, he's FAILING hard, because he
can't seem to convey his point in a way anyone but himself and the
crazies can comprehend.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53596

In article <bhln0lFbq9pU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> I'm supposed to magically know what is meant by Q5 and Q7 in this
> context?

I have no idea what Q5 and Q7 mean.  However, I took QV and QVII to
mean Queen Victoria and Queen Victoria the Second; he's apparently
awaiting the eventual arrival of the latter.  But if there will ever be
a QV II, she will be a long time coming.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53597

On 2013-12-21, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <bhln0lFbq9pU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm supposed to magically know what is meant by Q5 and Q7 in this
>> context?
>
> I have no idea what Q5 and Q7 mean.  However, I took QV and QVII to
> mean Queen Victoria and Queen Victoria the Second; he's apparently
> awaiting the eventual arrival of the latter.  But if there will ever be
> a QV II, she will be a long time coming.

Considering that the rest of the modern world has long since moved on
from idiotic monarchies, I think it's quite presumptuous of "android" to
just assume the rest of us will make that connection and get whatever
fucked up "had to be there" joke that might be hidden inside. From now
on I will expect nothing useful from this British wanker.

We can end this sub-thread now. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53608

In message <bhln0lFbq9pU1@mid.individual.net> 
  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2013-12-21, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <bhjee3Frgi2U2@mid.individual.net> 
>>   Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On 2013-12-20, android <here@there.was> wrote:
>>>
>>>> QV is dead 'n his restless. He's eagerly awaiting QVII and the 
>>>> relegalization of British piracy....
>>
>>> I just love it when asshats like "android" assume the rest of the world
>>> will automatically know what things like "QV" and "QVII" mean. 
>>
>> Obviously It's Q5 and Q7.
>>
>> Didn't they force you to learn Roman Numerals in grade school when you
>> were a kid?

> Are you slow or something? Of course I know what roman numerals are. How
> stupid do you think I am?

It was a joke.

> I can read. Yet somehow, I'm supposed to magically know what is meant
> by Q5 and Q7 in this context?

I have no idea what QV and QVII referred to, and honestly, I thought it
was some oblique reference to "Queen Victoria" and having to wait for
"Queen Victoria II" (Like the QE and QEII cruise ships, perhaps?).

> Apparently "android" wants us to know that Q5 (whatever the fuck that
> is) is dead, and that I'm reportedly eagerly awaiting Q7 (whatever the
> fuck that is) and the "relegalization of British piracy" (whatever
> that might have to do with Q5 and Q7 or me)? 

That's why I thought Queen Victoria. But none of it makes any sense.

> I'm just trying to understand the words he uttered so I can get the
> punch line, assuming there is one - and you're being no help whatsoever.

Oh, I wasn't trying to be HELPFUL, I was being silly.

> Perhaps this endevour simply isn't worth the fucking effort. I suspect
> "android" is simply trolling. If he is, he's FAILING hard, because he
> can't seem to convey his point in a way anyone but himself and the
> crazies can comprehend.

Seems about right.

-- 
The PSP could have voice recognition too, so when you go
"nyuuurrrrrrrr-uuuuuurrrrrrrrrrr-uuuuuuurrrrrrrrr" you go faster, an
when you go "Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" you stop

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53616

On 2013-12-21, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <bhln0lFbq9pU1@mid.individual.net> 
>   Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you slow or something? Of course I know what roman numerals are. How
>> stupid do you think I am?
>
> It was a joke.

Ah - I take it back, then. Apologies. : )

>> I can read. Yet somehow, I'm supposed to magically know what is meant
>> by Q5 and Q7 in this context?
>
> I have no idea what QV and QVII referred to, and honestly, I thought it
> was some oblique reference to "Queen Victoria" and having to wait for
> "Queen Victoria II" (Like the QE and QEII cruise ships, perhaps?).
>
>> Apparently "android" wants us to know that Q5 (whatever the fuck that
>> is) is dead, and that I'm reportedly eagerly awaiting Q7 (whatever the
>> fuck that is) and the "relegalization of British piracy" (whatever
>> that might have to do with Q5 and Q7 or me)? 
>
> That's why I thought Queen Victoria. But none of it makes any sense.

I suppose as my name is that of a pirate flag, I am expected to be able
to decipher the gibberish; but alas, no such luck.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53621

In article <bhmg89Fh28qU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

<Snip>
> Ah - I take it back, then. Apologies. : )

> I suppose as my name is that of a pirate flag, I am expected to be able
> to decipher the gibberish; but alas, no such luck.

Will somebody please grumble, grouse, kvetch, whine, or complain about 
how difficult it is to access the internals of their Mac in order to 
upgrade the hard drive?  Then the ol' ensign can forsooth explain, 
pontificate, preach, or declaim how the Mac's Gordian knot design was a 
logical and necessary design feature.  Gotta keep him cheerily occupied!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53629

In message <none-4B1215.14191721122013@earthlink.us.supernews.com> 
  Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
> In article <bhmg89Fh28qU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> <Snip>
>> Ah - I take it back, then. Apologies. : )

>> I suppose as my name is that of a pirate flag, I am expected to be able
>> to decipher the gibberish; but alas, no such luck.

> Will somebody please grumble, grouse, kvetch, whine, or complain about 
> how difficult it is to access the internals of their Mac in order to 
> upgrade the hard drive?

It's not bad on the Macbook Pro. It's tedious on the Mac mini (this is
not the same thing as difficult though).

The iMac... well, yeah, I'm not doing that. But then again, every iMac
has been difficult to swap the HD (well, I never had a G5 iMac, maybe
that one was easy. I doubt it.)

-- 
If lawyers are disbarred and clergymen defrocked, doesn't it follow that
electricians can be delighted, musicians denoted?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53633

In article <slrnlbcs5l.1dfu.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <none-4B1215.14191721122013@earthlink.us.supernews.com> 
>   Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
> The iMac... well, yeah, I'm not doing that. But then again, every iMac
> has been difficult to swap the HD (well, I never had a G5 iMac, maybe
> that one was easy. I doubt it.)

You shouldn't doubt it. I replaced the hard drive in my wife's 2005 G5 
20 inch iMac (the middle version, after the one with the bad 
electrolytic capacitors but before the one with built-in camera) about a 
year and a half ago. No problem at all.

However you're right about more recent iMacs. I have a 2010 27 inch one 
whose hard drive developed bad blocks. After reading about how to 
replace the hard drive, I took it in to a local shop. First time I've 
done that since back when my Mac SE's hard drive needed to be replaced, 
which was not a task to undertaken lightly!

David

-- 
David Ryeburn
david_ryeburn@telus.netz
To send e-mail, change "netz" to "net"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53637

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <none-4B1215.14191721122013@earthlink.us.supernews.com> 
>   Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
> > In article <bhmg89Fh28qU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > <Snip>
> >> Ah - I take it back, then. Apologies. : )
> 
> >> I suppose as my name is that of a pirate flag, I am expected to be able
> >> to decipher the gibberish; but alas, no such luck.
> 
> > Will somebody please grumble, grouse, kvetch, whine, or complain about
> > how difficult it is to access the internals of their Mac in order to
> > upgrade the hard drive?
> 
> It's not bad on the Macbook Pro. It's tedious on the Mac mini (this is
> not the same thing as difficult though).
> 
> The iMac... well, yeah, I'm not doing that. But then again, every iMac
> has been difficult to swap the HD (well, I never had a G5 iMac, maybe
> that one was easy. I doubt it.)

The early iMac G3s with tray-loading optical drives were a bit fiddly
but easy enough. The only hard part for the iMac G3 models with
slot-loading drives was popping off the lower case.

The iMac G4 was a mixed bag: easy to swap one DIMM, but the other one
and the hard drive required removing another layer which in theory
required replacement of thermal paste when reassembling. I've pulled
apart a dead one to extract its hard drive and didn't see any evidence
of this thermal paste.

The early iMac G5 models were by far the easiest iMacs to open and do
component swaps: three screws, pull the back off, and you can get to the
entire innards, including the hard drive, RAM and I think you can even
swap the power supply.

The iMac G5 models with an iSight camera got difficult again (I haven't
tried one of them), and of course this was in the middle of the
capacitor plague, so are more likely to need drive scavenging than most.

I've recently pulled apart two early Intel iMacs: one to replace a dead
hard drive and one to extract the drive when the iMac's power supply
blew up. Bloody irritating to put it mildly. Tricky to release the clips
that hold the back cover (it was easier the second time once I knew
where they were), and peeling off the shielding tape around the display
is tedious.

I haven't had to open a mid 2007 or later iMac yet, but I know it
requires pulling the glass off the display.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53640

In message <1leaqxd.n859n31ohbv2xN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> 
  David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <none-4B1215.14191721122013@earthlink.us.supernews.com> 
>>   Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
>> > In article <bhmg89Fh28qU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > <Snip>
>> >> Ah - I take it back, then. Apologies. : )
>> 
>> >> I suppose as my name is that of a pirate flag, I am expected to be able
>> >> to decipher the gibberish; but alas, no such luck.
>> 
>> > Will somebody please grumble, grouse, kvetch, whine, or complain about
>> > how difficult it is to access the internals of their Mac in order to
>> > upgrade the hard drive?
>> 
>> It's not bad on the Macbook Pro. It's tedious on the Mac mini (this is
>> not the same thing as difficult though).
>> 
>> The iMac... well, yeah, I'm not doing that. But then again, every iMac
>> has been difficult to swap the HD (well, I never had a G5 iMac, maybe
>> that one was easy. I doubt it.)

> The early iMac G3s with tray-loading optical drives were a bit fiddly
> but easy enough. The only hard part for the iMac G3 models with
> slot-loading drives was popping off the lower case.

The G3 iMacs required removing the motherboard to get to the hard drive,
as I recall.

> The iMac G4 was a mixed bag: easy to swap one DIMM, but the other one
> and the hard drive required removing another layer which in theory
> required replacement of thermal paste when reassembling. I've pulled
> apart a dead one to extract its hard drive and didn't see any evidence
> of this thermal paste.

The G4 iMac was a nightmare. Mine had a bar across the entire
motherboard that was not on any schematic I could find that was very
hard to remove. I ended up just busting the machine apart since the only
reason I needed to get to the hard drive was to destroy it. 

> I've recently pulled apart two early Intel iMacs: one to replace a dead
> hard drive and one to extract the drive when the iMac's power supply
> blew up. Bloody irritating to put it mildly. Tricky to release the clips
> that hold the back cover (it was easier the second time once I knew
> where they were), and peeling off the shielding tape around the display
> is tedious.

> I haven't had to open a mid 2007 or later iMac yet, but I know it
> requires pulling the glass off the display.

Which practically requires you have a 'clean room' as the slightest bit
of dust getting behind the glass will be trapped there forever. It's not
a job I'd ever consider doing at home.

-- 
It's better to burn out than it is to rust -- Neil Young as quoted be
Kurt Cobain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53664

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1leaqxd.n859n31ohbv2xN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> 
>   David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> >> In message <none-4B1215.14191721122013@earthlink.us.supernews.com>
> >>   Joe <none@given.now> wrote:
> >> > In article <bhmg89Fh28qU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > <Snip>
> >> >> Ah - I take it back, then. Apologies. : )
> >> 
> >> >> I suppose as my name is that of a pirate flag, I am expected to be able
> >> >> to decipher the gibberish; but alas, no such luck.
> >> 
> >> > Will somebody please grumble, grouse, kvetch, whine, or complain about
> >> > how difficult it is to access the internals of their Mac in order to
> >> > upgrade the hard drive?
> >> 
> >> It's not bad on the Macbook Pro. It's tedious on the Mac mini (this is
> >> not the same thing as difficult though).
> >> 
> >> The iMac... well, yeah, I'm not doing that. But then again, every iMac
> >> has been difficult to swap the HD (well, I never had a G5 iMac, maybe
> >> that one was easy. I doubt it.)
> 
> > The early iMac G3s with tray-loading optical drives were a bit fiddly
> > but easy enough. The only hard part for the iMac G3 models with
> > slot-loading drives was popping off the lower case.
> 
> The G3 iMacs required removing the motherboard to get to the hard drive,
> as I recall.

The tray-loading ones involved removing a few cables then pulling out a
module which contained the hard drive, optical drive, logic board, CPU
and memory modules. The hard drive was easy to access inside the module.

The slot-loading ones involved removing part of the outer case, then the
motherboard was visible, and the hard drive was easily accessible
without further disassembly. (There was an external hatch which gave
access to the memory and Airport card.)

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53619

In article <bhln0lFbq9pU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> Perhaps this endevour simply isn't worth the fucking effort. I suspect
> "android" is simply trolling. If he is, he's FAILING hard, because he
> can't seem to convey his point in a way anyone but himself and the
> crazies can comprehend.

It is interesting that you think a crazy can *comprehend* something 
that you - who regard himself as anything but - cannot.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web