The Doctors Are In
The article on troubleshooting the Mac ("Mac Rx," October 2000) covered most of the basic techniques for getting a Mac back online, but it missed an important tip: your system could be corrupted, needing a clean reinstall. This happened to me, and a clean reinstall of the system, along with desktop rebuilding and Norton Utilities, brought my machine back to life.
Los Angeles, California
Ted Landau's "Mac Rx" contained good information, but it failed to address a common and simple-to-repair reason a Mac might fail on start-up: a dead battery. A friend managed to save a $50 diagnostics fee and 48 hours of downtime by replacing the battery in his Mac.
None of Landau's fixes would have diagnosed and repaired this problem, leaving unsuspecting users to shell out hundreds of dollars in software and repairs while the solution is only a cheap battery away.
Bill De Brauwer
Garner, North Carolina
A Cubed Reaction
Your coverage of the Power Mac G4 Cube was a great disappointment ( Buzz , October 2000). What happened to your in-depth coverage of new Mac products, with pictures and descriptions of all ports? What about technical specifications, such as interface speeds and Speedmark performance results? What software ships on the G4 Cube? Will it work with my non-Apple LCD screen? Macworld does not even mention whether the G4 Cube has Ethernet.
And what about comparisons between the G4 Cube and other Macintoshes, especially those just released? What about the basics? Instead, we read that the G4 Cube can be used as an entertainment hub. Who cares? Hey, I love the Cube's design and want to buy one - I just want to make sure it works for me. Macworld 's coverage didn't help me make such a determination.
Brian A. Foster
Castro Valley, California
Our October story on the Power Mac G4 Cube was based on the limited information available as that issue went to press. Our November 2000 issue features an in-depth review of the Cube. -Ed.
Macworld has printed one snide remark after another about the Apple round mouse, and I must rise to its defense. I am a full-grown adult woman who finds the round mouse both comfortable and easy to use, so Andrew Gore's assertion that it is "too small for adult-size hands" ( Reviews , October 2000) reveals a certain masculine bias. Not all of Apple's users are large males; in my household (of four Macs), four of the five users do not fit that profile, and all four prefer the iMac mouse to any other mouse hands down. My husband, being handicapped by large masculine hands and a shady past as a Windows user, is the only one who has a problem with it; for the sake of his disability we bought a Macally mouse with a wheel. The rest of us happily plug in the round mouse and go.
My Kodak DC215 camera turns out supercrisp images, suitable for 8-by-10-inch prints, and the colors not only are brilliant but also appear completely accurate to my eye. You led readers to believe exactly the opposite ( Reviews , October 2000).
Why do you extol the features of spot meters and adjustable ISO settings on low-end cameras? I really doubt that buyers of low-end cameras want all these adjustments, or have the time or the inclination to master their use. I thought we were headed in the direction of completely automated, one-step photography.
Peter W. Smith
Plainfield, New Hampshire
We're far from completely automated photography. No camera can accurately meter every circumstance, and complicated lighting situations require a spot meter or exposure-compensation controls. When a flash is inappropriate, adjustable ISOs can help ensure that you still get the shot. Even novice film users are accustomed to the idea of using films with different speeds. ISO controls allow digital-camera users the same sensitivity choices as film-camera users. The presence of a CCD in a camera doesn't solve all photographic problems. A few simple controls can make an inexpensive camera more flexible. -Ben Long
Allow me to point out an error. When reviewing Falcon 4.0 ( The Game Room , October 2000), Andy Ihnatko says, "Falcon is a slightly less meticulous simulation of an F-14 fighter." The fighter that Falcon simulates is the F-16 (Fighting Falcon). The F-14 is the Navy's twin-engine fighter (Tomcat).
Hey, anyone dumb enough to pilot a MiG into my sky won't live long enough to tell the difference, knowwhutimean? -Andy Ihnatko
Letters should be sent to Feedback, Macworld , 301 Howard St., 16th Fl., San Francisco, CA 94105; via fax, 415/442-0766; or electronically, to email@example.com. Include a return address and daytime phone number. Due to the high volume of mail received, we can't respond personally to each letter. We reserve the right to edit all letters. All published letters become the property of Macworld .