From: Mark Gaffney <markgaffney@me.com>

Date: November 15, 2009 5:27:55 PM MST

To: Astro_IIDC@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Astro_IIDC] Re: ST3 Pro Exposure calculator...

BTW...Perry, Leopard took a good couple of hours to install & left me with no space on the 30 GB HD when finished (I had to dump everything which could be easily replaced leaving me with a paltry 125 MB!) I wouldn`t be without it though-some things like "Spaces" have become indispensible to me!

Mark.

On 16/11/2009, at 11:03 AM, H P wrote:

Milton, Mark,

Thank you, Milton, for your very understandable and concise pro-con analysis. All of it really helped.

Thanks, Mark. I don't need the RAM, but I do appreciate your offer. After I bought my iBook G4, I ordered the 1 GB RAM memory card that I'll use to give me 1.5 GB total RAM with the 512 MB already "on chip." I guess yours only has 256 MB "on chip." I know some iBook G4s did.

I like OWC's in-house memory. Used it to upgrade RAM in several Macs. Never a problem.

BTW, Mark, I'm very satisfied with OS 10.4.11 altho I do have the 10.5 disk.

Thanks to you both, again.

Regards,

Perry

--- In Astro_IIDC@yahoogroups.com, Mark Gaffney <markgaffney@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Perry,
> I understand you obtained an iBook G4 at much the same time I did, I
> don`t know if it was from the same seller. The reason I`m writing is
> that mine came with a small 256 MB memory chip which was stopping me
> upgrading to Leopard besides being really slow. Milton heard about
> this & very kindly offered me 2 x 512 MB chips as he was upgrading his
> MacBook. I`ve installed one of these chips myself using the iFixit
> site for instructions (the link to this site was also provided by
> Milton!) & my memory has doubled up to 768 MB in tandem with the
> original 256 MB chip. I can`t use the 2nd 512 MB chip though from
> Milton & I was wondering if you could or would be interested in it.
> You can have it for free-it`d be my way of passing on the good will! I
> `d just have to get to a post office (which I don`t often do these
> days, having other family members pick up my parcels!) & have your
> address if you`re interested..
>
> Mark.
> On 15/11/2009, at 1:53 AM, H P wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hey to all,
> >
> > I read this collection of posts with great interest.
> >
> > As a result, I want to pose a question. I know the answer is fraught
> > with the effect of many variables, including from the equipment used
> > down to the skill and eyesight of the observer!
> >
> > But please, don't dismiss it because of that. My intentions are
> > quite honorable!! I have no reason to start a conflict here!
> >
> > Milton, your tolerance would be most appreciated, since this
> > question perhaps should be in the autoguiding group or the
> > macastronomer group.
> >
> > Just how well can one manually guide with an OAG, as compared to
> > autoguiding with same,:
> >
> > a) strictly manually, or
> >
> > b) manually with software?
> >
> > Let's limit exposures to 30 minutes or less and have FOVs similar of
> > those in scopes with less than 7-800mm FL - no cassegrains, please.
> >
> > I've almost stopped reading the posts on the Stark Labs group
> > because of all the problems presented by the writers. Gawd, I've
> > gotten so I don't want to open the daily digest. It's become a forum
> > of gloom and despair not to mention a significant increase in the
> > minutiae of technical details. As a neophyte to guiding, I'm not
> > interested in those.
> >
> > Aren't most of those from PHD users using PCs and not Macs??? Well,
> > that's question number two. I've tried several times to get those
> > posters to put either "PC" or "Mac" in their subject line but to no
> > avail.
> >
> > Well, I'm also venting a little here. Please excuse that. However,
> > your input to the query would be most appreciated.
> >
> > And thanks,
> >
> > Perry
> >
>