I secretly feel like hitting people in their faces with a chair when they do that![]()
Well, now that you've said it, it's no longer a secret.
I secretly feel like hitting people in their faces with a chair when they do that![]()
Is that supposed to impress? A 1996 OS running on a 2015 watch ?
That's not correct. System 7.5 could run back to a 68000, including my Macintosh SE.When System 7.5.5 was released in 1996, it required a full PowerPC-based Mac to run...
Indeed it was the last version to work on a 68000; 7.6 required a 68030 if my memory serves me correctly.That's not correct. System 7.5 could run back to a 68000, including my Macintosh SE.
...and the need for Conflict Catcher <cringe>Ah, the days of system extensions!
None of the chips used prior to the 601 were PowerPC-based.System 7.5.5 ran on a Mac SE released as far back as 1987. Motorola 68000 @ 8Mhz. This is FAR from Apple's earliest PowerPC-based Macs...
Exactly. I believe the Power Mac 6100 was the first with a PowerPC. Everything from the Lisa to the Quadra series used Motorola 68k.None of the chips used prior to the 601 were PowerPC-based.
When System 7.5.5 was released in 1996, it required a full PowerPC-based Mac to run…
Exactly. I believe the Power Mac 6100/66 was the first with a PowerPC. Everything from the Lisa to the Quadra series used Motorola 68k.
You existence makes me sick. . . and your name make my lady-friend cringe.Am I a bad person to find this to be a pointless waste of time? Just my humble opinion.. why do people do this? Run haggy old OS on new devices and announce it? Yes, software is much more efficient today and hardware is minimalistic compared to 20 years back. Also, bears crap in the woods. So? Please feel free to join in and bash my existence if you disagree.
As for the first OS that ran on a PowerPC Mac? I think it was a special version of 7.1.Like others have mentioned, Mac OS 7.5 ran on the 68000. It was
capable of running on the Macintosh Plus (from 1986!) provided the machine had 4MB of RAM and a hard disk drive.
Am I a bad person to find this to be a pointless waste of time? Just my humble opinion.. why do people do this? Run haggy old OS on new devices and announce it? Yes, software is much more efficient today and hardware is minimalistic compared to 20 years back. Also, bears crap in the woods. So? Please feel free to join in and bash my existence if you disagree.
Why climb Everest? "Because it's there."If you're a bad person, then I'm right there with you. What really is the point of this?
Nothing can truly run vistaNow let's make it run vista!!!
The OS doesn't make the chime, the firmware in a Mac does.No OS chime at the beginning...fail.
Am I a bad person to find this to be a pointless waste of time? Just my humble opinion.. why do people do this? Run haggy old OS on new devices and announce it? Yes, software is much more efficient today and hardware is minimalistic compared to 20 years back. Also, bears crap in the woods. So? Please feel free to join in and bash my existence if you disagree.
The chosen strap style remains the same from beginning to end. If something doesn't change, there is no reason to use video to capture it.
Capturing the strap wasted half of the available horizontal field of view even in portrait, and then wastes about 75% of the landscape viewing area on my display when played back.
Portrait video: always wrong
You are not alone.@Menopause, I'm a worse person for only being able to focus on the bloody portrait video!
Kudos on proper use of portrait video! Perfect for mobile viewing, ideally suited to the Watch's own portrait display, and elegantly showcasing the chosen strap style.
Even for PORTRAITS?
I love it when non designers try to show they understand basic design principles. Maybe if you ever visit the Eiffel Tower you might find a reason to film the hourly twinkling lights in portrait mode because it allows you to get as much tower in the frame as possible without wasting the frame real estate on a ton of blackness on either side. One can always crop to a horizontal aspect later but you can't do the opposite.