What's a Mac?emdoller said:
1995-1996 vs 1997-1999 NSX
- Thread starter kamikazi4you
- Start date
No, Sir, time for me to update to MacOS X Tiger!emdoller said:
Just saw that my actual program uses 1.341 as conversion rate
Maybe the calculation widget on the new Tiger is better...
That's this weird machine with an operating system for which no known virus was built for...at least I had not encountered one - but I fear this is very off topic here, sorry.nsxtasy said:
MAC - spread the word
I guess you haven't been watching the news, stories like this one...NSX-Racer said:
Monster patch tames the Panther
Thursday, May 05 2005
by Charlie Taylor
Apple has issued a number of security updates for its Panther OS in the wake of news that virus writers are increasingly targeting the firm's products.
The company has posted security updates to fix 20 vulnerabilities in its Mac OS X v10.3.9 operating system (OS), dubbed Panther. This comes less than a week after the launch of its successor, OS X 10.4, also known as Tiger.
The security updates, which patch both client and server versions of the software, cover a multitude of holes that could potentially allow virus writers to hi-jack machines.
One of the biggest flaws discovered is a vulnerability in the AppKit that relates to TIFF image files. Another worrying security hole affects Applescript and could lead users to accept script from a website containing code that had not been expected.
Two vulnerabilities were also found in Panther's Bluetooth wireless capabilities. One of the flaws could allow files to be shared without properly notifying the user, while another could be used to access files outside of the default file exchange directory. In addition, flaws in the libXpm library could allow code execution via another image format, XPM.
Apple's updates also include fixes for Finder, Foundation, Help Viewer, LDAP, lukemftpd, NetInfo, Server Admin, sudo, Terminal and VPN.
The new patches can be downloaded from Apple's website or via the operating system's software update service.
The latest Top 20 internet vulnerabilities study from the Sans Institute, which was released on Monday, indicates that virus authors are increasingly turning to other OS' such as Apple and Linux as Microsoft gets faster at patching flaws in Windows.
The Institute lists five criteria used to assess the criticality of security issues. These are, the number of users affected by the issue, the likelihood of the hole not having been patched in the majority of systems, the degree to which the issues allow remote control of a system, the fact that attackers are likely to know of an exploit, and how recent the issues are believed to be.
Antivirus programs and media players including Apple's iTunes, topped the list of the most pressing security problems discovered by the Institute during the first three months of the year.
As I wrote, I didn't encounter any virus since 1994 when I bought my first Mac with Internet connection. And I don't know any virus for the Mac by name or a user whose Mac was infected (do you?). Security problems and potential virus problems are another case - I always update the security patches.
And of course I'm always on top of the news (it's my business) but at least here in Germany I never saw or heard anything about Mac viruses.
And of course I'm always on top of the news (it's my business) but at least here in Germany I never saw or heard anything about Mac viruses.
I have to buck the general trend of the thread here. Although I've not driven a 95/96, I've owned a 93, then a 97, and currently an 00. I found the 5 speed in the 93 WAY more fun than a 6 speed since you can climb all the way to 60 in first gear. The 6 speed takes a shift to get to 60. Where I am in Mass, I've never even used 5th or 6th gear as you are already doing 150% of the speed limit long before you hit the red line in 4th and who wants to be driving the car under the Vtec sweet spot anyway.
On a seperate but related note, a question for the gearheads: If the car is doing 80mph when taching at 2900 in 6th, does that mean it would do 240mph at 8700? (This one has a comptech package which boosts red line a bit amongst boosting a few other things).
On a seperate but related note, a question for the gearheads: If the car is doing 80mph when taching at 2900 in 6th, does that mean it would do 240mph at 8700? (This one has a comptech package which boosts red line a bit amongst boosting a few other things).
boxer said:
Yes it would IF the engine has enough power to overcome the load that the car experiences all the way from 0 to 240.
Unfortunately the major part of the load at high speeds is aerodynamic drag and it goes up a the square of the speed. Which is why if you have a car that has 100 hp and is capable of 100 mph. Then you increase the power to 200 hp it will not do 200 mph. You will need roughly 400 hp. I say roughly because it’s a little more complex than that but it works surprising well as a rule of thumb.
Regards,
Patrick
NSX-Racer said:
NSX-racer, until you got your you Mac's OS updated, there is a nice quick link for many conversion factors, not only but mainly those of physical units:
http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemistry/general/units.html
sorry to all the others for being off topic.
Thanks Andy, I just learned that also the new Tiger system software has the same conversion error - in the calculator and also in the conversion widget of the dashboard - how come nobody was aware of this fault at Cupertino? 
Is there anybody with a correct widget?
Is there anybody with a correct widget?
I hope the other conversions are not faulty. BTW: I guess they work mistakingly with the conversion rate kW/(b)hp (which is indeed 1 kW = 1.341022 hp). So these Cupertino guys set 1 hp as 1 PS which is obviously not true: 1 PS = 0.9863201 hp as I saw in another converter.rickysals said:
Mirroredshades said:
I am in SC if you want to come down and test drive a 97! :wink:
I have owned 3 NSX's (1 91, and a 97 and 98, all manuals) and I personally prefer the 97+ ( I like the power, and power steering compared to my 91), but any year is a great car, and mileage does not really seem to hurt these things either. I would actually say you are more likely to have some issues with an extremely low mileage 10-15 year old one than one that gets 5-7K per year of driving. I have driven a lot of so-called exotics, and I am impressed with many of them in some ways (F-car styling and engine note), Viper (power), 911 handling (late model) and engine sound (air-cooled), etc. but the NSX is just a great car that does everything well, and is tame enough that my wife does not mind driving it. Most other cars have some major issue (F-car shifter and ergos on the one I drove,etc.) and none of them do it for me quite like the Acura.Lastly, the Acura is inexpensive enough to maintain to make it a reasonable purchase. The wife would not appreciate me selling one of my businesses to get cash to buy a new F-car, and then sell another to pay for upkeep! My only annoyance? Every 15 year old clapped out Civic and Prelude rev up the $50 coffee can they call a muffler when they get near me. Not sure if this is a sign of respect or wanting to race?
PS- The additional money you pay for the 97+ will likely be recouped in full or mostly in resale value.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 23 March 2005
- Messages
- 145
The '99 is my future car. If I had the cash to buy a '99 when I bought my '93 I would have in an instant. Not that I'm disappointed in my modified '93, but I'd love to have a '99-T.
I know it's not what you asked but,call me crazy, but why not go with a low mile 91-93, drop a Comptech S/C , some short gears in it and still have enough left over for a set of Volks, then compare the stock 97+ to it....Unless the Targa is that important to you, I'd take a coupe that looks just a good and would kill 95% of the cars you would encounter on the street, let alone a stock 97+...Besides, I much perfer the manual steering over power steering in a sports car anyday.....Now, that being said, if you're looking to resale 2 years later rather then keep, I'd go with the $45K '97 over a modded out 91-93...But as far as performance....well you know what I'd take.
If I had a check for $45K to spend on my next NSX, I'm taking the sick ass 91, blk on blk or silver :biggrin: over a stock 97+....Like I said, call me crazy :tongue:
If I had a check for $45K to spend on my next NSX, I'm taking the sick ass 91, blk on blk or silver :biggrin: over a stock 97+....Like I said, call me crazy :tongue:
91 X said:
Crazy azz mofo :biggrin:
I recently put 15/16 wheels on my 1995;
they wouldn't have cleared the brakes on a 97+.
they wouldn't have cleared the brakes on a 97+.
I think that is a stretch for a reason to buy a 91-96 over a 97.
How about "I have unlimted headroom in the Targa model"? :biggrin: :wink:
How about "I have unlimted headroom in the Targa model"? :biggrin: :wink:
It wasn't on my mind when I bought the '95.Shumdit said:
It was just an added benefit I later took advantage of. :biggrin:
boxer said:
I would like to understand how you managed that. First gear tops out at 45 mph in a stock 5 speed. Was your car modified, and if so how??
Thanks,
LarryB
Similar threads
