Power Macintosh 4400/200 Clean Reinstall

[paws]

Then why did I just purchase a Mac OS X Leopard Family Pack? :?: Now I'm confused.

Because Apple Legal believe their own hype.

You're not breaking copyright law by copying programmes from a CD you purchased to a computer you own, that's been proven in courts as well (and should be obvous to anyone who doesn't work for *IAA et al). The EULA is bunk, that's been proven in courts - so you're not breaking any laws by running the either. It's a scam, basically.

 

[The Macster]

Making a backup copy of the installation CD and running a copy on two machines aren't the same thing though - you can copy the disc for personal use but most software is only licensed for use on one machine at a time. Not that most people are bothered about it though, it only really matters if you're running a business as you can then get busted by people like the BSA if you don't follow the licences to the letter. As a home user it's largely irrelevant, maybe a moral issue for some people with newer stuff like OS X but it doesn't really make any difference for abandonware as you can't pay Apple for additional licences any more anyway.

 

[paws]

most software is only licensed for use on one machine at a time.

... according to the End User License Agreement, which, as it has been proven in American courts, is completely non-binding and invalid. The rights that you have and haven't are described elsewhere, you don't give or get anything by clicking 'I accept'.. You have a right to run software that you have legally aquired. Like I said.

 

[The Macster]

Aren't you buying the right to use the software as opposed to the software itself though? I'm sure this has been discussed before and that's what we thought. I don't know what the situation is if you change the contents of the Eula before you click "I agree" though, which you could as you only agree not the modify the software when you agree to the licence!

 

[Quadraman]

most software is only licensed for use on one machine at a time.

... according to the End User License Agreement, which, as it has been proven in American courts, is completely non-binding and invalid. The rights that you have and haven't are described elsewhere, you don't give or get anything by clicking 'I accept'.. You have a right to run software that you have legally aquired. Like I said.

If you are right then Microsoft is breaking the law with Product Activation. It would be illegal of them to deny you the ability to install your copy of Windows as many times as you want to on as many machines as you want to. I do not think MS would expose themselves to the potential lawsuits and/or government prosecution if they weren't sure they were on firm legal ground.

 

[bmacsys]

terrible terrible mistake there but its your mac

Some people would saying owning a 4400 is a terrible mistake! [] ]'>

 

[MacTCP]

terrible terrible mistake there but its your mac

Some people would saying owning a 4400 is a terrible mistake! [] ]'>

Not at all!

 

[Temetka]

I had a 4400 once. Worst Mac I ever owned.

 

[QuadSix50]

From the specs and the descriptions I've seen on the usual old Mac sites, it doesn't seem like that bad a Mac technically. It was just the most PC-looking Macintosh that's existed for its time. I think the only REAL complaint that I've seen was the sharpness of the case and how difficult it might be, but I could even be wrong on that. I had a Moto StarMax 4000 for a bit and I loved it. I probably would have liked the 4400 but I'd have to experience one for myself.

 

[MacTCP]

Putting it back together is torture, but it otherwise is a good mac. I have an Xclaim VR in mine to use it as a TV with AppleDesign II speakers.

 

[bmacsys]

The real problem with the 4400 was the expensive ram it used. Not to mention the 144 megabyte ram ceiling.

 

[alk]

Max RAM is 160 MB (1x 32 MB and 2x 64 MB).

The 3400c has a max ram of 144 MB.

Peace,

Drew

 

[QuadSix50]

160 MB was the same for my Motorola StarMax 4000. If that's the big deal then really it's not that bad a Mac. I would probably love it then, although as mentioned I'm sure it's not as easy to get into as my StarMax was.

For Mac OS 9.1, 160 MB was more than enough for the StarMax. I also had bypassed the internal video by using a 16 MB Voodoo3 2000 PCI card and that helped tremendously. It also ran Debian "Sarge" nicely albeit not as speedily as Mac OS 9.1.

 

[bmacsys]

The real problem with the 4400 was the expensive ram it used. Not to mention the 144 megabyte ram ceiling.

Yeah, my mistake. I actually have had a bunch of surplus 4400's. The ram was expensive. 3.3 volt 168 pin dimms iirc. One plus of the 4400 is it used ide drives imho.

 

[MacMan]

...I think the only REAL complaint that I've seen was the sharpness of the case and how difficult it might be....

I can back that one up: my 4400 once gave me a rather nasty cut on the back of my hand. I'm very reluctant to work inside it again now.

 

[QuadSix50]

...I think the only REAL complaint that I've seen was the sharpness of the case and how difficult it might be....

I can back that one up: my 4400 once gave me a rather nasty cut on the back of my hand. I'm very reluctant to work inside it again now.

I guess I've cut myself so many times on some old PC cases that I've just gotten used to getting around those sharp sections. I guess this might be the reason I don't see this as a major drawback to the 4400, and I've had my share of REALLY good internals on other Macs. :-/