To One and All–
There may very well be no satisfactory answer to this. Does anyone know if it is possible, with a Mac, to send Greek font code through Yahoo Messenger? Our group uses Yahoo Messenger for chats and up until now all of our members have used Windows and IBM-compatible PCs. Now, we have a member with a Mac and nothing she sends is relayed without boxes on our end. She sends Unicode, Unicorn, Sapho-keys, and God knows what else…it always looks good on her end, but doesn’t make it through Yahoo Messenger.
Usually, with Yahoo Messenger, any font that the group shares–which every member has installed–will show up on the screen. But, something happens with Mac-generated code. Any suggestions? Thanking you in advance.
Christopher Shelton
Fort Lauderdale
christophershelt@bellsouth.net
(my father is from Ft. Lauderdale)
Anyway, on my Mac I usually use either Sophokeys (which has unicode output) or SPIonic (which is definitely not unicode), depending on the situation. However, when I’m on a foreign computer whose capacities I do not know, I goes to this website - http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tayl0010/letters_table_caretpos2.htm - and get unicode from there.
Wow…and you have a Mac?? Gosh, I just find more and more reasons to adore you 
FWIW, I use Sophokeys, but sometimes when I am texting William and I am (lamentably) on my Windows machine, I get the box thing that you are talking about Christopher.
I dunno if there is a fix for it, but I am still relatively new to Mac’s (I’ve been a PC user for quite a while) and I am still finding my way.
Well, we’ve only had this mac for about a year … our other computer runs Linux, and quite frankly, it’s the better computer - it’s faster, it has more memory, etc. On the other hand, my dad prefers that computer, and since he owns both computers, he gets to choose which one to use, so I’m usually relegated to the Mac. Also, he’s always tinkering with that computer’s software, and I get tired of learning the ins and outs of this and that distribution of Linux (when the Linux computer does get messed up, it’s usually because he tinkered with it, though occasionally the hardware will go bad too).
Anyway, there is some software which one gets on the Mac which isn’t readily availible on Linux, which is one of the reasons my dad got this Mac. On the other hand, when I need to do something for which the Linux computer is vastly superior (usually watching a DVD - the Linux computer has the better monitor, better sound system, and the DVD viewing software is not as liable to crash), I use the Linux computer.
Salve, GGG!
Your post insipired me to do the (basic) research I wanted to do for a long time, i.e., Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac. And I have to say, it confused the heck out of me. I currently have the now-archaic Windows98 
and am thinking of upgrading soon, but not before the release of Vista and before I have the results of my findings. So, if you don’t mind, a few questions:
-Is it possible to do (almost) everything on Linux (or Mac) that you would do on Windows?
-If not, are these Windows-only-tasks essential to the average user or are they just for gammers and sound/video editors?
-Do these OSs have their own versions of Microsoft Office, and what is their performance?
On the other hand, when I need to do something for which the Linux computer is vastly superior (usually watching a DVD - the Linux computer has the better monitor, better sound system, and the DVD viewing software is not as liable to crash), I use the Linux computer.
Ut iam dictum est, the quick research confused me, but not so much that I couldn’t understand what Linux is: an Operating System, not Computer Hardware. Bene? 
Vale!
Linux is an operating system which can run on either PC hardware or Mac hardware (though my dad has never worked with Linux on a mac, and he is wary of trying to install it on the mac lest he mess up). So, we could install Windows on the computer which runs Linux, but we do not.
The comparison between our Mac and our PC running linux is not scientific, because practically all the hardware is much better on the Linux!PC, so it’s going to perform better on almost any task. Even the mac’s DVD playing software would probably crash less if our mac had more RAM or other hardware improvement.
The most recent version of Windows we have ever installed on one of our computers was Windows 3.1 (actually, we didn’t install it - it came with the computer), so Windows 98 still sounds new and flashy to me. Most of the computers at my high school ran Windows 2000, and they were lousy computers, but I don’t know how much is due to the fact that they were Windows, and how much was due to whatever hardware they had.
Almost anything I really want to do with any computer I can do with the mac, or at least with a hypothetical mac which has better hardware (by the way, our mac is a mac mini from when they first went on sale - nowadays the mac minis have changed, I’ve heard). The major thing that the mac can do which the Linux computer can’t is my dad can get digital TV (which annoys me, because the extra stuff you can get on digital TV, in my opinion, does not justify the inconvinience of the contraption, but this is my dad’s computer).
There are two main disadvantages to Linux. The first is that there is less software for Linux, and the software has less support. It’s not as much of a problem as it used to be. Unless you absolutely must buy THAT paticular game, you can probably get most stuff done on Linux for which you would use a computer - unless you have very specific needs. I’m not a computer gamer, and the most popular games do get ported to Linux (eventually). Even as I speak, my dad is playing Civilization on Linux on the other computer.
The second disadvantage is less obvious, and the one which (in my experience) is the most likely to turn people off - in spite of the efforts of many people, Linux is more programmer-friendly than user-friendly. My dad happens to be a computer programmer, so that is precisely what he likes about Linux - he can get more out of it than the Windows or Mac OS. I have been raised with Linux since I was a little kid, so even though my computer programming skills are pretty weak, I could probably manage running Linux on my own, though if I had real trouble I would need my dad’s advice.
I know nothing about Microsoft Office, so I can’t answer your question.
Arrgghh! Where’ve you been? You do know that Microsoft is no longer giving any kind of support to Windows98 (and WindowsME) users, thereby making the OS history?
Almost anything I really want to do with any computer I can do with the mac, or at least with a hypothetical mac which has better hardware. […] There are two main disadvantages to Linux. The first is that there is less software for Linux, and the software has less support.
So, I guess my decision comes down between buying a Mac or a PC (or maybe both). Linux sounds like a great enterprise: it is open source, but until it gains more of the market share and can provide more technical support, I’ll have to pass for now.
I know nothing about Microsoft Office, so I can’t answer your question.
… Nah, just kidding.
Vale!
There is Microsoft Office 2004 for the Mac. I have it installed and it works fine. It is not optimized for Intel Macs (the new ones) but it performs well enough.
I would recommend buying an Intel Mac…then you can have the best of both worlds. You can run Windows on it for all that software you simply have to have, but you get the stability and reliability of a Mac. I still use both Mac and PC, and will continue to use both, but if you ask me which one I like more, right now I’d have to say I greatly prefer working on my Mac. OSX is very nice, and the new OS that Mac has announced (Leopard coming Spring of 07) is going to be even slicker than Tiger.
The stability is really the biggest plus for me. I restart my Mac about once every 2 or 3 months (usually)…I have to restart my Windows machine all of the time…it’s just too buggy. Not to mention having to update software almost constantly. Anyhow…when I buy another computer…it will be an Intel Mac, so that I can run both systems (there is even a product out for Mac that allows you to run Windows in a window on your desktop) at the same time and have the best of both worlds.
One side note…Macs cost a LOT!! BUT…they are worth it in my opinion. You will be able to find semi-comparible windows machines at about half the cost…but that is because Mac only uses top notch components and because of that they are VERY stable.
Yeah, it’s like buying the Cadillac of computers. Besides being better, I have also notice that they hold their value better. PCs are worthless before they show up at your front door.
I like Linux a lot and use it for most things, but you have to look at it as sort of a hobby, too. Unless you like tinkering around and searching the net when things go wrong, you will probably find it frustrating at times (though since I’ve switched to Ubuntu things rarely go wrong).
As far as MS Office goes, you should look at OpenOffice.org It’s a free, open source replacement for MS Office that runs on essentially any platform (at least, there are windows, MAC OS and Linux versions). It lacks some of the features of the Microsoft office, but it is free, and it reads and writes most, if not all, MS document formats. It’s also a nice way (along with GIMP) to get into open source world without having to switch over to a new operating system.
For me, the biggest reason to continue to use PCs is for powerpoint. While OpenOffice.org has its own version, and while you can run powerpoint (and all of office for that matter) on a Mac, things never transfer easily or perfectly and almost every time I have to lecture it ends up being in a room with installed computers demanding a PC-powerpoint version of the slides. Of course, I perceive this as a problem with everyone else, not me, but what else can I do? (Bringing my own laptop, which does run linux, is not always possible).
I’ve heard about OpenOffice because I love the open source world (I have Firefox, Thunderbird, Audacity, PSPad editor et cetera), but I just never visited the site. Well, today I did, and the only potential problem is that OpenOffice requires 128 RAM and I only have 96 RAM (not gonna waste more money on RAM for this hunk of junk that is my computer). Thanks for the link!
Vivat atque valeat qui fontem apertum amat! 
Edit: Oh, I see the minimum RAM is 64MB. Yayy!
Salvete! Χαι?ετε!
Just wanted to update everyone. Yesterday, I bought an iMac (17 inch screen, 2.0 GHz, 160 GB, and 1 GB RAM), and it’s great! Perhaps it’s because of the OS, perhaps because I was so used to that old Win98 PC that anything new just seems out of this world. Anyway, now I can read the beautiful polytonic greek of this forum and I can compose text files using unicode. Now I only have to buy myself a laser printer, and I’m ready to go create my classics library.
Thanks to all who recommended the Mac!
P.S.: The only drawback I’ve had is that my old MSOffice is incompatible with OSX and now I have to buy MS Office for Mac (almost $400!).
Have you tried Open Office? I’ve used it for a while now and it’s actually not half-bad and seems like a pretty good replacement for microsoft office, and best of all, it’s free.
Well, since I just bought the computer, I can’t really tell you why it is superior. I only know from what I’ve read or heard that the Mac is not as vulnerable as Windows to viruses, it is more stable (i.e. less crashes), has many more accesories (ichat, iTunes, iPhoto, PhotoBooth, etc) and, well… Have you seen the “Get a Mac” commercials? 
I haven’t had much trouble getting used to the OS. There are a few differences with Windows (I still don’t know how to right-click with the mouse, because Mighty Mouse is just one big button), but it is not something out of this world.
Yeah, I’ve been meaning to download that software, but in my job I have to use a template or plug-in that only works with MSWord. So, I’m s***ed.
Being stable is good of course, but I understood that being not as vulnerable is one way of interpreting the fact that there are not as many virus producers out there that target Macs because there are not as many Macs.
I’d like to address the issue of stability of the Mac over a PC running Windows. While it’s true that Macs tend to use better-quality components (and are therefore more expensive) I believe the real reason that they are more stable is much more fundamental: OS X is a Unix shell, wheras Windows (in spite of what they say) is still a DOS shell. Unix is a real operating system built up over many years by real computer programmers. Windows is a congeries of progressively more incompetent hacks written by…well, I won’t finish that; I live in Seattle and so my hatred of Microsoft is even more virulent than the norm. Unix is also much more secure against viruses; sure, OS X is a smaller target, but ONE virus versus how many thousands? That’s stretching the smaller target theory quite a ways!
For those of us who are poor, also, the question of expense can be looked at another way. There’s no upgrade path in Mac OS: you pay the same as anybody else for 10.4 for example, even if you own 10.3. This sounds less user-friendly, but consider: I’m writing this on a G3 imac for which I paid $75. It’s running OS X 10.3.9, which it is perfectly legal for me to use, because the former owner is no longer using it. If I had bought a PC, in order to stay legal (not that I care) the store I bought it from would have had to wipe the OS off the hard drive and charge me $89.95 for Windows XP. And my imac is perfectly useable for everything I use it for, wheras a PC of similar vintage would be just about worthless. So expense isn’t always on the Mac side. Sorry to be so long-winded, but if I can steer one person away from the Dark Side, this will have served its purpose.
Except for the above paragraph you did a good job promoting Mac. Now I’m not sure if you are accurate or just vindictive.
Has it served its purpose if it has steered me further from the Dark Side? (I use Linux, and although I have access to Windows operating systems, I don’t use them because “Windows is a congeries of progressively more incompetent hacks written by…well, I won’t finish that”).