Slashdot Mirror
Ready or Not, Here Comes Service Pack 2
I_am_Rambi writes "On Tuesday, April 12, Microsoft will turn off the blocking feature that has made it possible for some enterprises to block Windows XP Service Pack 2 downloads by employees who use Automatic Update. That means in companies that used the blocking tool, SP2 will be downloaded automatically to desktop computers that use Windows' Automatic Update feature." An anonymous reader adds "Microsoft has published a list of known software that will not work with Service Pack 2. Most of the software will either not run or will display a blue screen of death during installation of the software or when you start up your computer." That may be why, as ErichTheWebGuy writes, "In a survey of PCs at 251 businesses in the U.S. and Canada, asset tracking company AssetMetrix of Ottawa found that only 24 percent of the systems running Windows XP had been upgraded to Service Pack 2."
" You vill download zee program and you vill love it!" I for one would not want to be on the end of the help desk phones. "What do you mean you installed SP2?!!? Our company policy specifically prohibits that Service Pack because of incompatibility X"
Seriously though, looking at the list, there are some stunning show stoppers. Photoshop CS!!?! Live Motion! and perhaps the most surprising of all, Microsoft's own Virtual PC.
Yeah, I think I will stick with OS X for my daily productivity which makes me wonder just what Microsoft is planning on doing for those individuals who switch to OS X. Microsoft does not appear to be doing anything to stop the emigrating hoards or doing anything to retain folks on the Windows platform. For instance, our Windows based systems are locked down pretty hard and our students are not allowed to surf the Internet or do anything else on them that does not have to do with the specific tasks they are set up for. We have provided them with OS X boxes that they can do anything with or install anything they want onto. At meetings I attend, there has been a sharp upswing in the numbers of Apple laptops seen in the last couple of years and the resounding response to why has been, "it's just easier after getting tired of dealing with all the crap Windows puts one through". There has been no compelling reason for folks to remain on the platform other than reasons where you might be locked into a particular piece of software or other Microsoft specific needs.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
how many run Windows Update automatically?
Either to download and install (for the brave of heart) or to download and review (for the sound of mind).
I bet there's a strong corellation between the numbers.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Assuming you download SP2, inavertently because you allow auto-update, will it install with the Windows firewall defaulting to On?
The most sure-fire way to attract the attentions of any virus (including human virus/worm authors) is to have a dense population of the same thing. Naturally, a large number of SP2 firewall enabled computers will provide a challenge to the vermin who write virus/worms will be focusing on it and what a lovely day it will be when they've cracked it.
At least I didn't see my firewall listed, and I ain't revealing what it is, either.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is particularly nice when one of the execs is on the road somewhere, and his laptop starts downloading the service pack while he is dialed in via modem. Assuming he stays connected long enough for it to download (which is likely, since now that his connection is really really slow it takes longer to read email) the patch autoinstalls and breaks things? Sweet!
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
If it is just downloaded and not installed?
"employees who use Automatic Update"
My company blocks all access to windowsupdate.microsoft.com so I don't see why this is an issue.
Oh well, we don't use XP yet either but that's neither here nor there I think.
I don't understand all the negative hype around SP2. Everyone I know has had a painless experience running SP2 and their Windows computers are more secure for having SP2 installed on it.
Doesn't this seem insane to anyone? I'm not exactly a "Microsoft hater" like many of the people around here, but this sort of thing doesn't make much sense to me. If someone wants to block the download of something exclusive on the autoupdater in Windows, there should be no circumventing it by the company. This should apply in any situation (including the way Steam updates itself, even though I'm sure it's incompatible otherwise). Meh, the general shadiness of it just rubs me the wrong way.
schild
editor, f13.net
Anyone using SUS (another MS product) to roll out updates to their client computers has another layer of defense against unwanted updates. The adminstrator decides what updates get published to the clients, and they retrieve updates from an internal server.
Read More
Nothing to see here
Every Enterprise that uses a Windows network should have their own SUS or something more sophisticated to manage the patches that are deployed.
with this you can control what patches are deployed and when
Thats why clever administrators will be using MS SUS Server. A free MS product that lets administrators choose when patches get pushed out.
Setup correctly with group policy you can prevent users from running windows update and installing updates themselves.
Which is essential with XP SP2 as I look after around a thousand desktops and SP2 has been NOTHING but trouble in all our testing so far.
That's interesting that they list Photoshop CS 8.0 among the programs that don't work with SP2. I happen to have used this version of Photoshop on several machines running SP2 without any problems whatsoever.
SP2 IS A PIG!!!
I have a question. Is there any compelling reason why shouldn't remove it?
The outright stupidity of Microsoft doesn't cease to amaze me. SP2 is known to be buggy, and some of us are perfectly happy with our SP1 machines. Ah, well, I've been meaning to reinstall Gentoo... :)
A wise man once said, "wtf h4x."
Come on people, you have had time to get ready for this.
/250 machines, all XP have been SP2 for months since I flipped the switch in WUS //99.5% spyware free ///Properly implemented and secured Windows network
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
Some applications will cause a load of problems with SP2. A BSOD isn't exactly a painless experience, especially when it could have been avoided if M$ wasn't forcing down incompatible updates down everyone's throats.
Granted, this was on a trailing-edge machine, but SP2 made copy to the clipboard crash the system every time, for every app. That's a pretty major screw-up in my book.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
In Soviet Russia, software updates you.
Of course, companies using the software in question could simply tell their emplyees not to installl SP2...
heh... of the programs known not to work*, included is Microsoft's own VirtualPC.
(ok, technically the page says it will work, but will be much slower than before Sp2)
If you don't want your machine automatically updated, get this, turn off automatic updates!
Now wasn't that easy?
Le français vous intéresse?
Disconnect your computer from the internet. It can't download SP2 then. Problem solved!
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
You can still block automatic updates. I was blocking mine for ever because I didn't want to have the "latest and greatest" fix as usually they broke something else.
For users of windows who have automatic updates, they will HAVE to get XP SP2. OR, they can turn off automatic updates.
As far as XP SP2 not being on a lot of business machines, the whole hey-some-applications-won't-work thing turns people, I don't know, sort of off, wouldn't you say? I know I didn't deploy it at one office for months in fear it wouldn't work with some highly specialized/critical software.
Is any of this surprising? No. I don't know why it's been spun as "shocking" at most media outlets.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
C'mon Timothy. This was posted in Febuary
-gjr
Just so you know. I've used it on SP2 with no problems, other than it won't run Knoppix 3.6 (i think?) right (there's no titlebars, like the WM is having some serious problems).
For context, click Parent.
"Microsoft has published a list of known software that will not work with Service Pack 2."
Did anyone take notice of the fact that only one software package from Microsoft doesn't play nice with SP2?
Microsoft will counter any criticism of their move by pointing out that this is a thrid-party vendor problem. While they may technically be correct, what happened to the tightly-integrated developer network that Microsoft has worked to cultivate. While they have made apps easier to write and execute in the Windows environment, they have also had to play the role of whipping boy when the OS didn't play well.
It is shitty being at the top.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
I have some sympathy for Microsoft here. If they don't force this patch, they're damned for perpetuating known security issues. If they do, they're damned for being bullies and for breaking compatibility with older applications.
Given the choices they're facing, I have to admit this seems reasonable: a few months for businesses to make the move on their own, after which they flip the switch so anyone on Automatic Update receives the patch.
I think it might have something to do with power management, that the system spins the drive down, but does not spin it up, but even disabling all power management in the OS didn't help.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
How much longer would it take, if Microsoft wanted to hold of a release of Windows, to make it right so that service packs are not needed? Is it a matter of months, or is the computer operating system a beast that can't be predicted until it is used by a large number of people?
And just to rant, because it is Microsoft, I hate service packs because they can force a different EULA on the user. I had one copy of Windows I paid for, and installed it the way I wanted it to work. I then had to download the security patches and updates, and I had to click a new EULA and had some settings changed (such as having automatic update turned on). I now firewall my system like a son of a bitch because I don't trust those fuckers in Richmond.
How about if you sell me something, and you promise it works, when you find out that it does not work, you don't offer me the fix and then change the rules?????
I would love to see an OS made for specific hardware that is bullet proof. That would be a cool thing.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Why does this whole idea of remotely turning off a feature remind me of the fictional USR company in I, Robot switching off the 3 laws software?
Know the quality of XP SP2, if my computer were a robot this would be like switching some ethical software feature.
Most of the software will either not run or will display a blue screen of death during installation of the software or when you start up your computer.
I'm at work (win2k) but if i remember correctly all you have to do to fix most of the problems is enable the program to make rpc calls or shut down the firewall that comes w/ sp2.
If you read the KB http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875357/ To unblock the program, click Unblock this program in the Security Alert dialog box, and then click OK. Sounds like most users can handle that. Not sure about the BSOD, that sounds like shitty code to me.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
The list fails to mention that most of my spyware no longer runs.
:(
I upgraded expecting to continue having all the parasites and tracking that I am used to
liqbase
The shit has hit the fan.
Say hello to my little sig.
Many of our customers have come in needing computer repairs because they said "that big microsoft patch" messed up their system. As usual, at least 90% of the couple hundred computers I've seen since SP2 came out had problems because their kid was downloading the pr0n or using KaZaA. Their computers were just crawling to a standstill. With SP2, Norton AntiVirus 2005, Microsoft AntiSpyware Installed and running all the time, only a couple of the computers have come back with problems. And yet again, it was because junior can't stop surfing the bad sites.
From my experience the Windows Firewall puts itself at the front of the line with the default of everything blocked (except some popular programs including Microsoft programs)
I was using Norton Internet Security and it continued to run and monitor program activity and port usage, but *behind* Windows' Firewall. After installation you have to shut off Windows Firewall and tell Windows that's okay and that you're running NIS.
(Or you could download the patch from Symantec that does that for you and notifies Windows that it's the Preferred Firewall vendor.)
Indeed, for users who have (wisely) set Automatic Update to prompt for the selection of updates to be downloaded and be noticed when they are ready to be installed, they will be prompted every bloody day for SP2! So Automatic Update shall have to be turned off and they'll have to visit Windows Update every other day ... :-(
(Disclaimer: I haven't got the guts to install the SP2 update, I have only installed Windows XP SP2 streamlined systems from scratch -- understand I must be one of the most unlucky people around; e.g. I chose to try Linux just when the SUSE installer prevented from booting into Windows on dual-boot!)
Both Clearcase and Norton2003 will not work. Of course we want to stop all employees from being able to continue working on their coding projects as well as open up all computers to any and all viruses that exist out there...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
With some service packs, after the instal, the update is turned on automatically; where joe blow won't know how to turn it off. In some ways, it is worse than Real Player.
And that gets to the heart of my critisism of Microsoft. They sell a product the end user has less and less control over. That is not how it used to be back in the glory days of computers.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I also had a pirated copy of WIndows -- I think all of them were, including the one that came with my first PC.
I made the switch. I use Fedora Core 3, which seems to make a nice desktop. Hello, Gimp, goodbye Photoshop.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
So having fewer software choices (which I don't agree with) is worse than having hundreds of choices that may or may not be compatible with OS updates??? Interesting.
Love, Stalfros All the other girls are the stars, you are the Northern Lights. - Josh Ritter
Most of the software will either not run or will display a blue screen of death during installation of the software or when you start up your computer. This is simply not a true statement. A few programs will not start, but they won't Blue Screen the OS.
If anyone who doesn't want/need virus scanning or has a hardware firewall is finding the "security centre" nags annoying, they can be turned off under services...
:-)
It you apps don't work any more, see if they run under wine
Also, there is a legal tool going around to change the maximum number of outgoing TCP connection imposed (only 50(!) by default), so you can keep using bittorent.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
does anyone have any details/numbers about people giving up on windows pc and switching to macs?
That nearly all the programs on that list are very old, or already have updates for SP2. Hey what the hell, it's Microsof so lets bash them anyways. Sp2 does a LOT of good things for the average Joe in protecting him from his own stupidity. ---- test ----
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - HHGTTG
Thanks for the present, Microsoft. Can I return it for something better?
Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk -- coldacid.net
Because I don't have the disk space for it.
01/20/09
That's why you don't depend on Microsoft to push stuff down to you. I've been using a Windows SUS server and I blocked all clients from getting updates that create conflicts and problems with other packages.
You complain when the OS has too many bugs, you complain that there are too many patches and hotfixes, you complain when MS decides to roll them all into an SP, you complain when it available for download, and you complain when its mandated.
... you can't have it both ways ...
I know this post will probably be karmically pounded, but in all honesty
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
I don't think these "hordes" are really materializing. MS is far more worried about linux than Apple. When's the last time MS even mentioned Apple? No real threat to them, Apple's marketshare hasn't really taken a big jump. To disclose: I own a powerbook, so no accusations of being a Wintel zealot, please.
MS's biggest competition - and their biggest problem for non-server machines - continues to be their own old versions. I'm not sure how a forced XP update to SP2 will convince 2K or even '98 users to upgrade from their current versions to XP.
I read the list of software that doesn't work with SP2. And out of tens of thousands of software packages that run on XP......
10 give blue screens (and 4 of them are old versions af ZoneAlarm)
6 don't run
18 have reduced functionality.
Also, from reports of above commenters, much of the software on the list only fails on some computers. I don't think that is evidence that SP2 is going to be a support nightmare. NOT installing SP2 is more of a support nightmare.
SUS (soon to be WUS) make it so easy to manage Windows patches that you'd have to be an idiot to not use it if you manage more than 10 computers.
We slowly rolled SP2 out in our organization (small at only 150 PCs) several months ago and have found no compatibility issues. Although I disagree with MS forcing users to install it, I can see it from their point of view. If they're going to continually get nailed for their lack of security, releasing a major security pack that people don't install doesn't improve their situation. I also think the user posts thus far are extremely exaggerating potential problems. The only problems we have had are a few power users being hindered by the Firewall. Of course, the solution was to open up the firewall for that application or that port. But that's an issue you'll have with any personal firewall software (otherwise it's not doing a good job at blocking).
I would be interested to know how such a bad experience with SP2 could prompt somone to switch their primary OS to OS X or Linux. It seems to me that the inconvenience of switching OS's is far greater than that of suffering through a few incompatible programs (especially if those programs or others are not even available on the other OS).
I'm waiting to see what Microsoft does with Longhorn. If it lives up to its long-awaited potential, then I'll stick around. Otherwise, I too will have had enough with Microsoft and will migrate completely to Linux.
Many of the most interesting Mac programs are shareware, freeware or open source - which also holds true for Windows, and certainly for Linux/BSD. You probably don't limit your view of the software available for "PCs" (Windows?) to the boxed software at the local computer store; don't do that to Mac software.
And for what it's worth, creating a customer base the size of around 25 million isn't screwing up; failing to expand might be, but they're working on that.
Give it up. The slashbots don't understand humor.
Microsoft knows that there's a lot software (some new, like PS CS) that will not work when the patch is autoinstalled. This is something they know will cause problems for system admins.
d efault.mspx
This is why they provided a tool for system admins to control the updates delivered to their machines.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sus/
Imagine a whole graphics department (company) running Photoshop CS and XP. They would essentially be put out of business. Is Microsoft's EULA tight enough to stave off the public when this happens? A buffer overflow exploit doesn't wave a big blue screen in your face when you try and run your favorite app.
If nothing else, MS tends to be good at hiding failures from the public. A scary looking bright blue screen is not hidden.
-- Tim
Bad Windows problem.
My helpsvc.exe keeps growing and growing and taking up tens of megs of RAM!
Don't tell me they're going to make me get SP2 to fix it???
Yes!!!? What can I do?
Hey, now, this is how /. editors should do their work! 3 stories joined (coherently) togheter about the same subject! way to go. This way I like reading slashdot and, well, telling friends abot this website =o)
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Yeah, I mean by "grok" do you mean "brought him a soda" or "gave him a blow job"? According to the original book, it could mean both.
:)
Alternately, it could just mean that you really understood him, on a deep and intimate level.
looking at that list, i can assume that updates are available for most of them, if not all that will render it usable with SP2.
i personally have several of those programs on my computers and they've been working fine and i have yet to see a BSOD.
that includes:
PhotoShop CS 8.0
Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal 5.0
Norton AntiVirus 2003
Pinnacle Studio 9
ZoneAlarm 5.5
HD Trailers
VirtualPC: When you run a Windows XP SP2-based virtual machine, it will perform slowly compared to a Windows XP SP1-based virtual machine.
So, it'll be just like if you were running Windows XP on a PC then?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
dude i feel for you , you even beat him by like 1 whole minute....
I noticed that Microsoft lists their virtual PC software as a problem with SP2. According to their page, it performs slower than a virtual PC with sp1 loaded. I noticed the same thing when I tested it months ago. However, disabling the firewall increased performance dramatically.
Also, my wife's 1.2ghz machine with 256mb of ram was brought to its knees by SP2. Sure enough, disabling the firewall brought the machine back up to snuff. We're behind a hardware based firewall, so I'm not terribly concerned, but what exactly is going on here? There are a lot of sub 1ghz machines with XP deployed out there, and it looks to me like for those unfortunate users the performance of a spyware ladden PC is roughly the same if not better as one running the supposedly more secure SP2.
Like my comments? Try my podcast: http://www.baldmove.com
How many different word processors do you need?
But when you buy a computer, if you want games or certain software, you normally buy it at the store. Most people who use computers don't want to have to download the software, even if it is free. Plus, it might require having to get a faster internet connection, because 56k modem is too slow, or go somewhere and burn a cd. Most people don't want that hassel. In the store, Windows looks like the best choice because everything you want is right there, and it looks like less of a hassel.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Yes!
Also, given what I've heard about how MS bends over backwards to ensure backwards compatibility, it's obvious that anything they break, they intended to screw over...
Most of the posts I am reading are contradictory to most the posts I read right after XPSP2 was released. Then the general sentiment was that Microsoft was finally taking steps to secure their OS and sometimes breaking third-party compatibility was a necessary means to that end. Sooner or later a line had to be drawn in the sand and generally folks agreed that it was past due.
Since XPSP2 was released the third-party companies have had adequate time to revise their products to be compatible with XPSP2. And, as I have read on a couple of posts, some of the apparent compatibility issues are resolved by allowing the program executable access through the Windows Firewall. The ones that aren't this simple have had time to bring their products up to speed.
Look how long it's been since XPSP2 has been released for downloading. It's about time it's automatically prompted as a Windows Automatic Update option isn't it? What's the big deal? I support a Windows corporate environment and haven't encountered any BSOD's where the PC's won't even boot up due to installing XPSP2. Methinks a bit of extra FUD on the fire...
You need to make sure you use the services manager to disable the windows update service (and stop it too!). Not only will that prevent it from doing any kind of update... but it prevents a few random crashes that their update utility itself seems to cause (at least, so sayeth the event log).
Also, although it should be obvious, disable all the remote registry stuff and remote administration stuff. If any of that is enabled, it can turn the other services back on. Frequently, MS patches will re-enable things you shut off... so make sure you re-check whenever a patch does get applied.
Having said that, Microsoft is an interesting game. You have to either embrace them and keep your system 100% up to date, or choose a point in time and never update ANYTHING beyond that point. I've found if you update every day, major bugs do get fixed -- just more new ones show up. The show-stoppers usually don't stick around too long. The worst thing you can do is update every few months... because you're likely to exchange one set of bugs for another worse set that you'll have to live with for months.
Similarly, if you're using an older version of a product that fails to work in SP2, you should be seeking a solution (in the form of a patch or other workaround) from the software vendor, not Microsoft. If it is an internal program your company wrote itself for internal workflow, there should have been a project to make it work under SP2 all this time. Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on Microsoft's part.
The security benefits of SP2 to the average user are real, and worth having. It isn't Microsoft's fault that 3rd party developers are still dragging their feet after all this time.
That said, it is unfortunate when otherwsie perfectly good software stops working in SP2 and the poor user is forced to perform a non-free upgrade to a new version. But again, this is not Microsoft's fault.
And finally, please don't tell my copies of NAV 2003 and Photoshop CS to stop working on my computer because SP2 is installed. They both work fine now, so I guess they didn't get the memo.
I'm sure I'll be modded down, but keep in mind I'm writing this with Firefox under Ubuntu. ;-)
It's not too late to switch now. Yes, even old dogs can learn new tricks. Assuming you are employed, the extra you pay for a Mac is worth it. You get quality hardware. Funny how people pay for quality in cars, sound systems and what not but when it comes to computers, they always want to pay rock-bottom as if it was the only acceptable way. You get what you pay for most of the time.
The update, much like the "Critical Potentially Unwanted Software remover" requires that you agree to it's license to install it.
I can confirm this, as I went to a client site (to repair a laptop screen) and checked the ever present (for that user) "You Have Updates waiting to be installed" dialogue. The computer was set for auto-update (by me) and did not install SP2 automatically. It seems that you need to agree to it's license to instll, therefore will not be installed by users who "do not know what the flashy alert thingy was, and so left it alone."
What services have been screwed up or acted flaky on your computer since installing SP2?
For my computer:
* command-line ftp allows me to login to a remote site, then hangs whenever I try and do any type of file listing or transfer
* eMule always logs me on with a lowID, even if I plug the computer directly into the cable modem
* Windows Firewall is now "corrupt" and refuses to start the service.
Anybody else?
you know, this is what makes me laugh every time. mac users love their macs (I don't blame them, I love my PC), but they always deny the inexistence of lots of software. Sure, Apple provides many programs, and many software companies also do too.
But you can't deny that there are fewer programs for the Mac! After a while, Mac users accept this fact, but try to minimize it by saying "well there IS fewer software, but the software that exists, it's better than the PC's!". Oh, I'm sorry. I thought Photoshop CS for the PC was as good as its OS X counterpart.
Also, you can't deny that there is a HUGE amount of games for PC and FAR fewer games for the Mac. And that's where Mac users can't go with their usual crap about "I prefer better software to more options". I'm sorry, as a gamer, I'll take both. Lots of games, some good, some bad, but a lot to choose from.
So they pull one of two cards: the "I don't play games anyway" card or the, "for gaming, I prefer to use a console". Dickhead. I'd like to see you patching a NOCD on a console (non-xbox anyway), or a Trainer (yes, I cheat for fun).
"When you run a Windows XP SP2-based virtual machine, it will perform slowly compared to a Windows XP SP1-based virtual machine."
My 1.25 Ghz G4 takes 25 seconds to open a webpage in Firefox in WinXP SP2 though VPC.
Time to do an upgrade that is actually a downgrade to SP1.
I guess it's not the first time that two products made by Microsoft did not play will with EACH OTHER.
Unlike children from the same parents who get along with each other, Microsoft apps sometimes act like distant cousins who only see each other at during the holidays and who end up tearing at each others' hair before the presents are even opened.
WE should gladly accept updated that breaks critical software whenever M$ wants. I mean, why should consumers want to use the tool(computer and OS) instead of just sitting there looking at the pretty desktop.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
SuiteSisterMary contributed the italicized text:
Why, it gave people months and months and months of information, and beta versions to test against, and release candidates to test against, and so on and so fifth.
Agreed. But this is my biggest gripe about the constant refrain from the Microsoft crowd regarding integration with the OS. Microsoft will berate other OSs for not having the tight coordination between the software and hardware developer community that they enjoy. Their conclusion, therefore, is that the lack of integration is sign of poor design.
The fact that some vendors may have been unwilling or unable to actually do anything with it all is beside the point.
No argument here. Now if we could just get Microsoft to get past that piece of FUD we could all go back to discussing the real merits of a computing platform.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
The only major failings that OS X has are in dealing with Windows code (it doesn't have all of the windows coding environments, perhaps obviously so), and it has very little CAD/other architectural programs and it has fewer games. It has a lot more games now than it used to, though, with big ones being Doom 3, WoW, and Unreal Tournament 2005.
All of the major apps are cross platform (adobe, macromedia, 3d apps, video apps, Office) and open up files the same regardless of where they were authored. In some cases, for the more "basic" software there are MORE choices, if only because the userbase is growing more from people who aren't simply using old mIRC or whatever, and there's a great number of linux/bsd programmers who are porting their work simply and quickly.
Recently I was looking for a decent IRC client. There's like 10 different apps, all with a different look and feel and how they handle the various features of OSX. For some of them, i emailed the developer asking about some functionality, and in every case, the guy got back to me right away. And this wasn't about compiling the software, but rather again just simply copying the app somewhere on my HDD and double-clicking it.
It's the same with FTP clients, text editors, video playback, and more. Perhaps the biggest difference is that there's a great deal of free software that isn't shareware with infinite nag screens.
So for people who are stuck using specific windows software, sure, you're going to have issues. But for pretty much everything besides games and CAD, there's really nothing that you can't do on OS X.
But you can't tell that by walking into a b&m and looking at what's on the shelf. You would need to actually look for it. Most Windows users are very comfortable looking for software online and know of the resources available to get it. To think that the same resources aren't available for OS X is kind of short sighted. As anyone who uses a mac will tell you, once you have it and are looking for programs, finding them is the easy part. But if you don't have the mac and aren't looking for the software, of course you're not going to know what's out there.
Anyone using XP has had 8 months to fix compatibility problems, or figure out a way to keep SP2 off of their machines.
If they can't figure it out in that amount of time, then they have bigger problems.
I just get tired of (and have worked for) companies that keep duct-taping their outdated, fucked-up software rather than spend some money and fix it.
I would not switch from windows to a mac is because of the lack of software. The last time I was at the computer store I walked into the Mac section to look around. Their selection of software was 1/4th that of the PC's, and mostly graphical software.
If most people think like you Windows will dominate forever, even if it sucks. For me, OS X has all the applications I use (including some not available for windows). It is a chicken and egg problem. Developers don't port applications unless their are enough users and users don't switch unless their are applications. Luckily it is a problem that is mostly solved at this point. Macs even play pretty much all of the popular PC games these days. Their are a few stragglers who trapped themselves by basing everything on DirectX and similar technologies and used less portable languages but for the most part I can't think of anything I want that is not available.
What is really amazing for switchers is not the applications though. Most of them are pretty much the same. The difference is how much the underlying OS changes the user experience. I really did not know what I was missing until I got multitasking that actually works and modular system wide services that let me spell check or speak aloud or translate to german any text in any application with three clicks. Standard UI elements that provide user feedback, expose, scriptable everything, UNIX tools and CLI, and some great included applications were icing on the cake.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Have fun with Windows. Personally, I dread using it (I still use it for compatibility testing and when I need some more terminals just to display info). Maybe some day soon the applications you want will migrate.
I thought about switching. But I am cheap. Not so cheap I won't spend money on quality, but more of a frugal cheap. I want to know exactly where the extra $$ is going, what I am getting for it. I don't blow cash on good advertising, or on hype. I'd rather save it.
The funny thing is, my last 2 computers I purchased were both off ebay. A PII266 that I got 2 and a half years ago which was pretty nice for the time. The only reason I upgraded was it took a long time to compile Java programs (back when I was studying programming). The next one I got was a PIII550 dual CPU, which I figure when I upgrade again, I will use the dual cpu as my home server. I got both computers for under $120. I looked for used macs, but even the G3 processors that were slower than the PIII's were selling for hundreds more. And I have zero Mac software, so finding it would be a pain.
I would love to get a chance to try out a Mac. What would be a good one that is kinda cheap but works??
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Most mainstream software stores severely under represent the Mac software base. This is a vicious cycle in my opinion - they don't stock it because they don't believe there is demand and there is no demand because they don't stock it.
When I go into my local PC software store to buy the Mac software I'm after they very rarely have it, and I'm sure they don't capture the fact that I asked about it.
So I tend to use specialist stores or buy online. Amazon or the online AppleStore are not bad.
To get an idea of the amount of software out there, here's Amazon's 30 pages of Mac games - probably the Mac's weakest category.
Or look here to get an idea of the shareware/freeware available.
I just love the way that sp2 keeps SAV clients from being about to be managed from the server...
yes, security is important, just as long as it's from M$
USR is most definitely NOT a fictional company.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Before this gets out of hand, let it be known that SP2 is only downloaded it is not installed.
In order to install the service pack, the user has to be an admin and aceept the EULA as well as click through several disclaimers before manually installing the service pack.
THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC INSTALL OF SP2
Good point.
Some of us are running OSes other than Windows on x86 hardware, believe it or not. :-)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Photoshop CS runs fine on my XP SP2 64-bit processor machine.
I'm, uh, not ready I guess. I have a Mac.
Why aren't we all using Macs in the first place?
Because the Mac has no serious equivalent for things like ISA Server, SQL Server, Commerce Server, Content Management Server, Systems Management Server, Exchange Server, Operations Manager, or even the level of capability afforded by Windows Server 2003 or Windows 2000 Server. This utter lack of matching enterprise-level capability is part of what keeps Macs firmly out of my company's infrastructure.
The coolest voice ever.
Check out a comprehensive listing of third-party products that might have compatibility issues under XPSP2. "Breaking critical software?" Hardly. Almost a full year has gone by to allow the third-party companies time to being their products up to speed so they will function correctly under XPSP2. IMHO that's enough time.
What the hell is going on? When did slashdot start defending anything by MS. Come on people, SP2 sucks, linux is better...blah..blah...nazi bastards pushing SP2 down our throats and breaking my old ass apps... Shutup and patch it's good for you.
Suggested New Title for this article:
Ready or not, patch your fucking computer, you incompetent nimrod.
It's a service pack, it fixes bugs, its a required update if you want support in the future.
If it breaks a program or driver, guess what, I'm going to bet someone didn't follow the programming guidelines for the OS.
The blame should be placed on the developer of the app and the end-user for using uncertified software, not Microsoft. MS put a program in place to avoid this (Windows certification), the end-user ignores it, and then it's someone else's fault when it breaks.
Why do you let users use the Windows AutoUpdate feature in the first place?
/. makes another mountain out of an MSFT molehill. There are dozens of ways to block SP2 if you really need to.
Similarly, if you don't want users updating their Gentoo boxes, because you have a specific version of some library installed, and an emerge -u world will screw everything up, don't put the users in the Portage group.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
For those of us who have configured Windows Update to "Notify me but don't automatically download or install them", will SP2 automatically be installed? Or is there some other mechanism for blocking that they're referring to?
how will I read your post on how to get the internet back???
I have installed sp2 on two laptop and since then ,even withe firewall turned off, ican no longer ping the machines and cant remote in with either pc anywhere or Dameware.
But..we also have a bunch of laptop that came with xp sp2 and i have no problems with them.
Anybody have a clue?
Sure, it would be nice if more vendors had fixed their software in the past 3/4 of a year, but that's really not such a terribly long time--you can't expect all of them to have done it. Besides, this is a service pack--I've always thought that a major distinctions between patches/services packs and new versions is that there is a much lower tolerance for incompatibilities in SP's. If anyone complains when longhorn comes out and it breaks some apps, they'd have a much weaker argument than those who complain about the SP.
The way I see it, this problem comes down to a general philosophical opposition to open standards and api's at MS. As a web developer, I see these problems all the time. MS refuses to use web standards in IE, therefore web developers are forced to work with what they have. The result is nonsensical code that doesn't follow any type of guideline, whether open or belonging to MS. That's a big part of why there hasn't been a new version of IE for so long -- MS knows that anything they come out with will break all of that makeshift pseudo-html that's out there. I'm not a windows programmer, but I'd imagine that while the specific problems those guys run into are different, they stem from the same root causes.
SP2 is only available as a large monolithic patch, which means it's an all-or-nothing proposition.
If they were to break the patch up into various smaller patches against individual areas of the OS, the chances are good that most of them would work at a given site.
It's the overly-simplistic approach that Microsoft takes to system fixes that helps to cause this type of problem...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Macs even play pretty much all of the popular PC games these days. Their are a few stragglers who trapped themselves by basing everything on DirectX and similar technologies and used less portable languages but for the most part I can't think of anything I want that is not available.
How about... every single MMORPG except World of Warcraft?
I'll give you this though: MacOS has at least one game in every genre of gaming, except perhaps racing.
Comment of the year
We have updated your computer with the latest version to protect you from harm. Your account has been adjusted. To protect you, we have included Digital Rights Management features which will allow you to properly view authorized media. Should you wish to purchase authorized media, your media player will point you to authorized media vendors online. The next version of Windows will be delivered to your Personal Computer* and your account will be adjusted appropriately in the next few months. Thank you for using Windows XP, the only alternative.
* By "your Personal Computer" we really mean the personal computer that you purchased which we now control.
Knight37 - Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer
Dude, you're asking this (assumed) mac fanboy to employ logic and rational. /., you _do_ get modded down for not being an Apple fan here.
/.
One time I had an argument with a guy who claimed that Catholocism could not be called a "religion", because it was true.
I suspect that the argument I had, and the suggestion you are making will share the same fate.
Besides, you're also doing this on
In any case, I know Mac users who do realize Apple is fallible, but they are rare and you probably won't find them on
The BSODs that could occur during software install would be limited to those programs that install some sort of driver (ring 0). Antivirus software, firewall software, CD-Burning software would all be *theoretically* susceptible. Of course, this also means that games which install the infamous anti-piracy/DRM driver could be affected.
I think the parent was a troll man.
pfft... "I don't know how the things have changed in the last few years..". He could take a look at OS X, on Apple's website. (Complete with cool and exciting new movies.)
He's probably sitting at his freelance gig too.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
So for people who are stuck using specific windows software, sure, you're going to have issues. But for pretty much everything besides games and CAD, there's really nothing that you can't do on OS X.
No, no, no.
Most business users who use Windows do so because they have one or two vertical market apps that require Windows. PERIOD.
These are places like doctors offices, lawyers offices, misc. professionals, trucking dispatch offices, printing companies, all those thousands of businesses which uses millions of PCs.
They shop for an entire system - server, workstations, printers - etc. My wife works with such a company. A quote from them covers everything you need - all the software, servers, hardware, printers, all of it - and gives you one bottom line price. And they get Windows!
This is how Windows is sold. Everytime this company makes a sale, Microsoft makes 100. The app in question integrates with Office, Small Business Server, Exchange, and SQL Server. The product they sell is not a piece of software, it is an integrated package to solve a real world problem.
There is no equivalent for this in the Mac, Linux, or alternative platform world.
So only 1 in 24 computers running WinXP has installed SP2? I'm seriously not trolling here, but shouldn't that be considered a minor success for Microsoft's update features? I would think that in the heyday of Nimda/Code Red/etc, they would have almost been pleased with that many PCs being patched!?
...about monolithic patches.
If they really cared about their users being able to apply patches and have a secure system, they would create smaller patches against individual Windows subsystems that a user could mix and match accordingly.
Instead, they insist on releasing ONE mega-patch containing security patches, slipstreamed feature updates, and other items not related to security.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
I thought about switching. But I am cheap. Not so cheap I won't spend money on quality, but more of a frugal cheap. I want to know exactly where the extra $$ is going, what I am getting for it. I don't blow cash on good advertising, or on hype. I'd rather save it.
I completely agree with your sentiment, but sometimes hype isn't hype and is, rather, truth. Macs are better machines, in every aspect except for gaming. I named my second son after Ben Franklin; his frugality is one of the many characteristics I admire about the man. I'm no spendthrift.
I bought a G5 a little over a year ago. Up until then I was purely a PC guy, from DOS 3.0 to WinXP. On average I was spending $400/yr on hardware: memory, CPUs, HDs, etc. Since I got the G5 (a 1.8GHz with 1G RAM), my hardware outlay has been exactly $0. Not to mention the fact that it has been as stable as a rock, whereas with Windows for various reasons I was having to reinstall the OS at least once a year, which I hated and took time I would rather not spend.
My PowerMac was $1600, and I have never once regretted spending that money, and consider myself frugal over the long run for spending it. Sometimes a higher initial investment pays out over the long term. That's been my experience here. If a PowerMac is out of your range, perhaps you could try a mini; they're $500, and are apparently quite a good machine.
Now, software. I have spent $0 there, as well. A friend of mine had a copy of Office he let me borrow, and every other piece of software I needed came preinstalled on the box: Quicken, Mail, iCal, iPhoto, etc. I did buy iLife '04 for $20 at Fry's, but that had a $20 mail in rebate, so there's that. I use Camino (think Gecko rendering engine with Cocoa look-and-feel) for a browser, and the open source software available is volumnious. I've never needed a piece of software that I couldn't find.
Your mileage may vary, but I've been very happy (as opposed to frequently frustrated) with my home computer ever since I "switched." I've never even had to crack open the case, although I have done so just to check it out. But the combination of rock-solid hardware with elegant, stable, secure software is extremely satisfying.
Win NT/95/98/ME/2K
methinks that SP2 will be a small roadbump in the path of botnets and various other nasties
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I don't see how you can blame the vendors for this. Fact is, the reason that software breaks in unpredictable ways is because windows closed API's act unpredictably. The full details are never published, so therefore incompatibilities for future versions can be very difficult to predict.
Um, that's why they are closed? There's a perfectly good list of API's you are supposed to use. Quick tip, they are not the ones you are have to reverse engineer.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I used it with success for a while, and then my computer just refused to boot. At first it seemed to be a video card issue, but I wiped and reinstalled Windows and SP1 worked fine, my card's drivers installed and worked fine, I installed all available updates with no problems...
and then I installed SP2 and the blue screen issue came back
Fuck it
The last time I was at the computer store I walked into the Mac section to look around. Their selection of software was 1/4th that of the PC's, and mostly graphical software.
What part of Adobe Photoshop (et al and Macromedia *) don't you understand? You expect JASC to bring out a version of Paint Shop Pro for the Mac? Dream on.
Apple is missing a lot of types of software but graphical software is not one of them.
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
Mac OS's Software Update does not automatically install patches. The most you can do is to have it download stuff in the background and make it available - you still have to tell it to patch, and you have to give it an administrator password for anything dangerous.
Apple does both security patches and point releases between major yearly (or so) updates. It's rare for either kind of patch to break existing applications - the recent spate of point releases that broke stuff was news because it's rare.
I think it's legitimate to beat Microsoft up on security and patching strategies when other commercial entities exist that do them better on all counts.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
SP2 must have gotten some really bad press in order to achieve numbers that low; it's not just anti-Microsoft slashdot readers who dislike SP2 after all.
For a mainstream OS, I'd imagine that most Joe Users who bother to update think that an update is automatically better and will download it regardless of what it does.
Not only does this mean that major Windows-using businesses have been avoiding SP2, but that many Joe Users don't bother with Windows Update at all, though I suppose that's obvious.
Hopefully MS will take SP2's failure to catch on to heart and do a better job with Longhorn...
I love to work on computers, it's not only my hobby but my profession. I would LOVE to get into Apple systems but until I can piece buy the parts I want and upgrade anything like on a PC I'm not going near them.
Even with M$ A PC can be had for MUCH cheaper than an APPLE, even with the mini out there.
In any case, I know Mac users who do realize Apple is fallible, but they are rare and you probably won't find them on /.
I prefer Macs because I have experience with both PCs and Macs. Macs are better machines. It has nothing to do with zealotry; I've tried both, and found the differences to be substantial enough to warrant "switching."
If that makes me a zealot, then so be it.
A couple of points...
First, in regards to Mac software in stores, you might want to look a little closer at the PC section, where you'll be surprised to find that some of those CDs work just fine on Macs. Of course, they don't put this in the Mac software section because it also works on PCs. My local MicroCenter, for example, places these sorts of titles in a separate aisle with a little sign in the Mac section saying "More software available in Aisle 13."
I may be wrong but, for example, World of Warcraft ships on a disk (CD or DVD, I don't know) which contains both the Mac and Windows version. Go to the Mac section of a computer store and you probably won't find it. Thus, there's no "World of Warcraft" for Mac.
Second, if you're referring to the sum total of software titles, there can be no argument. There is simply more software available for Windows than Mac. However, if you break it up into categories, you'll find the Mac is pretty well represented in the types of things it can do. However, the names of the companies may not be ones you recognize.
For example, for years I was told that Macs couldn't do accounting because there was no QuickBooks from Intuit (there is now). The fact that there was AccountEdge and probably three or four other products was beside the point--no QuickBooks, no accounting.
That said, I'd also point out that you may have less competition in the Mac market. For example, a few years ago I thought it would be fun to learn some Vietnamese (my roomate is Vietnamese). Not having time for real classes, I figured I'd buy one of those programs that is supposed to teach you the language. On the PC, there were three or four choices. On the Mac? One. Take it, leave it, or write your own.
Where I find the Mac falls short is in software that interfaces with external devices--usually proprietary devices. For example, years ago when I had some money burning a hole in my pocket, I was debating getting an AIBO. Of course, the software to program it was only available for Windows. Another example is some cool software that let me read information off the chip in my car--nope, Windows only. These both sound like fun projects, though, and someday when I don't have paid work all over me, I'd still like to write something to handle it...
The other place is in "brand" software--almost exclusively games. You want to play Doom 3--not some other FPS game. Fun analogy: Everyone else can watch "Three's Company" and all you can watch is "Man of the House." Yeah, it's basically the same show, but...
I won't disagree with you when you say that there is "less software available for the Mac." But short of programming robots, tuning your car, running a sewing machine, or playing the latest "hip" game, you'll probably find that you are fine with a Macintosh.
I find it interesting that so many people complain that the /. readership is overly anti-Microsoft. Has anyone other than me noticed that every Microsoft related thread is flooded by people either defending MS or complaining that we are too anti-ms?
./, but I would have the EXACT same reaction if either of those companies forced an update on me that broke services or programs that I use often. If they can't come up with a way to fix the security holes without breaking software then give people a choice.
Anyway, more to the point, I cannot believe the audacity of Microsoft at forcing and update to SP2. I laud them for attempting to fix the security holes that have been so prevalent, but the way to do it is NOT by breaking popular software that many people use. Yes, I know that many of the problems were only for 64-bit version, but many companies and probably a significant number of individuals either currently use or are moving to 64-bit processors. The corporate mindset that allows Microsoft to force this non-backwards compatible update on users is not acceptable.
I'll admit that I'm a fan of Apple and Google, seemingly the two poster children of
A good, user centric approach to software maintenance DOESN'T force people to break what they use. If this is how they want to do business, goodbye Microsoft, I'll read about you from my Mac.
Also - ANY company that is running SMS or Software Update Services (FREE on 2K+ Server) can simply not approve the update and it won't be distributed. Any company that implemented the optional blocking of SP2 when it was first released should be able to do this without hassle.
...and you've eaten your pen. simply stunning.
Notice one of the software listed on the incompatibilities list:
;-)
Encyclopedia Britannica 2000 Deluxe 1
Encyclopedia Britannica 32-bit and 64-bit (NX)
http://www.encyclopediabritannica.com
Java rendering does not function after you install this program.
well, how fucking convenient. It's Microsoft software, but it's Java that doesn't work
Enjoy an e-piphany
gee, isn't 4/12 three days before taxes are due (in the US)? what if SP2 breaks my tax software?
Sorry. Too much beer. I made an oops:)
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
I'm working for a very large company, with a group that has to write drivers and GUIs that run under Windows. So far the reliability of the documentation coming from MSFT about the current WinXP APIs has been about as reliable as the press releases by the Iraqui Minister of information under Saddam Hussein. Reverse engineering is usually faster than asking for more information.
With the betas of new MSFT releases, frequent undocumented changes to the APIs are the rule, not the exception.
It's no wonder no one wants to change anything: it's a certainty that something will blow up with SP 2 that is critical to the business.
has an update available from the vendor you simply need to download and install.
Ummm, check out the real deal. These are their supposedly "closed API's." The fact that the source code used to build their OS is closed doesn't mean that the programming interfaces to work with their OS are as well. Big difference. I'm not getting into the fact that Microsoft can/has purposely changed their software in order to break competitor products (or at the least make them look subpar). But it's not like these companies have sat in a dark, closed room for almost a year being totally unable to bring their products up to speed.
In France 20% of the Doctors use macs. Btw. you can buy complete systems from Apple as well.
Jonathanjk.com
There's a port of SDL for the 'Mac, right? So you should be able to compile nearly everything on happypenguin.org onto a 'Mac, no? Thezza no shortage of racing games to be found by following links from happypenguin.org
This is a signature virus. Copy to your signature to propagate.
Now that's a user base you really dont want to anger.
Yeah, I had to refrain from pointing this out myself. Given the choice between having a hundred shitty office suites and having only a couple good, polished ones, I'd choose the latter every time.
How many word processors does one need? On every single PC I work on, the user runs ... wait for it ... MS Word. Spreadsheet? Excel, of course. In every case, it's just Office (available for Mac, too, BTW). These jillions of other apps not available for Mac don't seem to appear on the PCs I service.
Except games and specialty apps (more cross-stitch pattern generators for PCs, for example). In most cases that I encounter, the surplus of PC apps is superflous.
I think too much is made of the "lack" of software for the Mac. There's a difference, indeed, but in practical terms it's overblown.
Completely unacceptable. Breaking one of the best RTS's ever made is just the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.
Noone's gonna read this, but that's completely out of line.
My little site.
I am happy for France, but unfortuantely, in the united states for example, virtually 100% of all major billing packages are designed heavily for Windows.
There will never be a change until Mac has..
DEVELOPERS.. DEVELOPERS... DEVELOPERS...
Mock Ballmer all you want, but he knows why Windows is used...
You bitch if it's broken; you bitch when they fix it. Is there any way to win with some of you guys?
And, what other company would go so far as to test with so many other vendors' products and then publish a list of those products that are broken.
Also try to keep in mind that it's not Microsoft's fault that a SW product won't run. It's the vendor of the product.
Using non-microsoft antivirus or firewalls.
Uhhhh... If I knew I couldn't peice buy part to upgrade my G4 Cube I wouldn't have done so... As it was: 450 Mhz G4, DVD-ROM drive, 256MB RAM, 20GB drive, ATI Rage 128 Upgraded with: 1.4 Ghz G4 w/ 2MB L3 Caches, 2X Superdrive (DVD-R, -RW, and -RAM), 1 GB RAM and 120GB 7200RPM drive, ATI Radeon 9000...and still all in a 9" acrylic cube. It could have easily lasted me a few more years if you hadn't told me it couldn't be upgraded.
I don't see how you can ignore the above fact -- it's all interrelated. MS's competitors cannot survive unless they can write windows software that's on par with what MS themselves write. That simply can't be done without going beyond the published API's.
It's like saying that GWB is an environmentalist because he talks a lot about hydrogen. Sure, he talks the talk, but everyone who knows a thing or two about environmentalism knows he's just skirting the issue. Sometimes a token effort is worse than doing nothing, because it muddles things up.
MS may talk a lot about allowing comptetition by publishing their API's, but unless it's a complete and thorough documentation of ALL API's, it just doesn't fly in my book. I don't think anyone is arguing that, for example, a windows open office programmer has all the benefits of a MS office programmer. Part of MS's business model is to keep a little piece of everything just for themselves. As long as they continue to do business that way, they'll never have a truly reliable platform.
Yes, and if you stick to using those published APIs you will never be able to achieve the features and integration that a competing Microsoft product does. Good luck with that.
Random and weird software I've written.
hahahahahahaha, you so veddy funny.
Like in life, Microsoft API docs are full of shades of grey. In this case, let's say white is things working how microsoft says they work, black is absolutely nothing working as documented, and the spectrum in between is where all their API's live. I believe the *'FULL DETAILS'* aren't even necessarily understood by microsoft: like any other progs, they've got too much to do, too little time, and too little time to backtrack, refactor, clean and document. And as the old saw goes, I choose to not attribute to evil what can be explained by incompetence (or distractions, laziness, or pointy-haired bosses).
Dig into WinCE's API, or MFC or any other published microsoft code, and you'll see plenty of supporting evidence. 3rd party coders would have to be psychic to anticipate which way things'll break due to a new SP.
and i see no problems at all, i even have lots of audio and graphics apps and i see no problems at all
we're all using Linux.
and have not gone to SP2 yet, you have ZERO rights to bitch. I snagged SP2 off a torrent (right here at /.) the day it officially hit MSDN and have not had an issue. I have rolled it out professionally on over 600 machines with no issues, there are no serious application compatability issues if you patch your apps. Combine SP2 with MS anti-spyware beta and some decent anti-virus software and you are in for a much better experience and far fewer worries. I am kind of shocked at how low the SP2 install base currently is, this just proves that most people want to bitch about Windows but when given the chance to fix it they won't. If MS gives you the tools to secure your PC but you can't be bothered then whose responsibility is it?
Take a look at that list; mainly firewall programs, routing programs, and spyware stuff. HMMM anybody else smell something fishy?
Most companies don't WANT their software to break under SP2 or screw their customers. Most of them wrote their software to work under XP. Now MS has changed the specs on them. And they have to fix it. That's time and money for something that they didn't consider was broken. And by the way they have to fix it soon according to MS timetables or their customers will start screaming at them.
If it is an internal program your company wrote itself for internal workflow, there should have been a project to make it work under SP2 all this time. Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on Microsoft's part.
For a small company with limited development staff, it's always about resources. By blocking the SP2 update, they thought that they buying themselves some time. Now MS has decided time is up. My company wrote some internal code that was XP compliant. The problem is that most of the authors are no longer with the company due to normal attrition. Yes we have the source code, but on top of the bazillion things that is demanded of our development team, they have to change code that was stable and relatively bug-free.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Firefox will be one of the apps that "doesn't work".
Where'd you get the braindamaged idea that slashdot readers have the same opinion on everything?
Some commenters say one thing, some say the opposite. Holy bejesus what a crazy concept. Have you ever talked to more than person before?
How about... every single MMORPG except World of Warcraft?
If you read my comment it said, "I can't think of anything I want that is not available." Seeing as I am not a gaming fanatic I find myself unwilling to play games that require a monthly fee. It is too expensive for the amount of free time I have and encourages people to play more the get "more value" for their purchase. I use a computer for about 10 hours each day doing useful things (and wasting time on Slashdot). When I play games it is usually a spur of the moment thing or a LAN party. I don't need games that require more of my time than my girlfriend does.
If you are a MMORPG fan or a huge gamer in general Macs are probably not for you right now. If you use your machine for work, misc. tasks, science, arts, and like to play the occasional game you're probably more likely to enjoy using a Mac.
I always knew microsoft controlled my companies firewall...
s/borrow/steal/
Before installing SP2, I backuped my stuff (favorites, emails, etc), then I used nLite to make a bootable install CD of XPSP2 with things removed like support for TabletPC that I do not need, and upgraded drivers for my video card and printer, directly into it. Then I booted on the CD and did a fresh install copy of XPSP2, it is very solid, no problem with it.
How many people do u know running PhotoShop CS on the beta 64-bit Windows XP?? I just wish people would read the whole article before making stupid comments!
And therein lies the difference between the two systems. In the Mac world, buying boxed software is quite rare; much of what you need comes preinstalled on the computer, and pretty much everything else is available online. It's been this way for the past 10 years.
On the Macintosh, Shareware isn't synonymous with badly programmed VB apps that have limited functionality -- many gaming houses provide their games solely via online download.
Now, this also means that as file sizes get larger, broadband is becoming close to a requirement for OS X users; if you install vanilla 10.3 on a Mac, the software updates alone are around 300MB. Of course, this includes updates for the web browser, instant messenger, video editing program, music management program, photo management program, text editor/word processor, etc.
ipchains -A output -d windowsupdate.com -j REJECT
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Of the 265 posts I can see all but one modded 2+ is pro-Windows. Weird. Has Slashdot changed that much?
It's too late to be paranoid about computers in this day and age, because the complexity has grown beyond the grasp of any one mind; if people really want to know what's on your system they'll find a way to get at it. Just accept the invasion of privacy that is assumed when fire up a computer.
You complain when the OS has too many bugs, you complain that there are too many patches and hotfixes, you complain when MS decides to roll them all into an SP, you complain when it available for download, and you complain when its mandated.
You hit the nail on the head exactly.
Personally, I'll stop complaining when:
1. The OS runs ZERO listening services by default.
2. The browser is not only NOT a default part of the OS, but refuses to run executable content.
3. The media player is not only NOT a default part of the OS, but refuses to run executable content.
4. The email client is not only NOT a default part of the OS, but refuses to run executable content.
At that point, quite frankly I couldn't care less about bugs, patches, service packs, or automatic updating. Because there would be no need for any of it. Those 4 issues above cover pretty much every critical Windows update in the past umpteen years.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I can safely say this is a gross exaggeration or simply you haven't been comparing prices recently. I would say at worst case Apple's are 25% more expensive than some brand of PCs. Then again I'd rather pay more for a Toyota Avalon than a Ford Focus. iBooks and Xserves are $ for $ competitive and the Powerbook G4 and PowerMac G5 are slightly more expensive ( ~25% more ), but when you look at the construction and the quality of the components next to a Dell, that extra cost is fully justified
Aside from some of the latest games and a few CAD packages like AutoCAD, CATIA, Pro/E, Fluent. I find that 95% of what people need on Windows can be found on Mac OSX. Plus you add all that great ported open source application and you have the best of both worlds of commercial and open source applications.
Four years ago I would have agreed that there was a lack of native Mac OSX applications. Now, if you look around there are many many ports to Mac OS X as it is once again a growing and successful platform. I switched from using a dual PIII Wiindows 2000 SGI 320 and SGI Irix O2 desktop to a Powerbook G4. I've been quite happy since then.
PC: Mac ...
Microsoft Office 2003: Microsoft Office 2004
Outlook Express: Mail.app
Quicken 2005: Quicken 2005
TubroTax Premier: TubroTax Premier
Microsoft Visio: Omnigraffle
Lotus Notes: Lotus Notes
Internet Exlporer: Internet Exloprer 5.2 or better Safari
SPSS:SPSS
Adobe CS suite: Adobe CS Suite
Macromedia MX suite: Macromedia MX suite
Remote Desktop Connection: Remote Desktop Connection
Visual Studio: Xcode
WinFTP: Fetch or better RBrowser
FileZilla: Fugu
AIM client: iChat or AIM client
MSN Messenger: MSN Messenger
Skype: Skype
Bittorrent: Bitorrent
Cisco VPNClient: Cisco VPN Client
Windows Media Player: Windows Media Player 9
Realplayer: Realplayer
VLC: VLC
Visual Fortran: IBM XL Fortran or Absoft Pro Fortran
FormZ: FormZ
Ashlar CAD: Ashlar CAD
Unigrahics Parasolid: Unigraphics Parasolid
Matlab: Matlab
Modo3D: Modo3D
Lightwave: Lightwave
iTunes: iTunes
Quicktime Pro: Quicktime Pro
This is only a partial list
Plus there the entire iLife suite and many other unique Mac applications that aren't found anywhere else.
If you'd like to qualify your statement with some facts and information I'm all ears.
If someone like H&R Block, or the IRS, took a major tank when this is done?
You'd have sons of bitches in the stockades for not paying their taxes, and you'd have other poor bastards that suddenly owed $3,000,000 dollars in backtax.
I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO glad I filed way back in the first half of February and already have my return.
Thats all fine and dandy, but unfortunately some companies can't upgrade their software due to financial constraints or simply because they are forced by some other party into using that software. We run into this problem at my office. We use the Rational Tool Set, for bad or worse, we are forced by the client to use the version we are currently at, which breaks under SP2. Luckily we have a SUS server at work, and the machines are protected otherwise so not installing SP2 isn't that much of a security risk for us.
There is a tendency for folk on Slashdot to consider security in terms of the present only, as if Linux was the computer version of the New York Yankees and Windows is the Boston Red Sox.
Maybe you'd have a point if this were anytime before 2001. Instead you sound very dated.
Slightly off topic, but all this fuss about "SP2" made me seriously ask the question "what ever happened to version numbers?" Seems to me that people would not be making such a big deal about incompatabilies if Microsoft made a clear distinction between software upgrades (new version), and patches to existing versions. More specifically, when a "service pack" changes things such that other software might become in compatable, it should be a new version of the OS, i.e. Windows XP version 1.2. That way companies could standardize on a certain version of, say, WIndows XP, and only install security updates for that version. This 7 year (or whatever it is) product lifecycle without a major official version change is just stupid. They tried to some kind of versioning with Windows 98 by releasing "second edition" but that caused nothing but confusion. Was it really a new version or just the old version with all the updates applied?
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
What you say is true enough for home usage and general business usage. It's even true for certain business niches (graphic design, video editing, sound design etc.) where the Mac has a strong foothold.
What I would like to know, is are there comparable Enterprise applications available for the Mac? A lot of industries are serviced by very specific software applications, many of which run on Windows. Enterprise wide CRM software on the Mac? How do you handle groupware and collaboration? Accounting, human resources?
I'm not trolling, I'm asking. Does anyone in the Mac market cater to medium and large business applications?
One of the problems I run into, is that most of these applications (even those with a web front end) are not Mac compatible. So typically we have to write custom code to expose these systems to the our Production department (which is on Mac).
Sometimes my arms bend back.
From my experience the Windows Firewall puts itself at the front of the line with the default of everything blocked (except some popular programs including Microsoft programs)
The only unsecured programs, then, will be ones Microsoft wrote?
Whew... I was worried there for a moment.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Only because OSX actually numbers their patches. If WinXP changed a version number every time they patched something, we'd have a lot more than 30.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
All computers in the same company, that's a very unreliable sample of what's out there,
since a lot of the software is the same.
What if everyone in a company uses corel wordperfect?
How many home computers have a firewall or antivirus from the list of problem software?
People bitch every time Microsoft releases a significant security-related update for Windows that stops existing software from working. They never stop and think that the fault lies not with Microsoft for fixing a security hole but with the application makers for writing their software in such a way that it relies on a security hole. Like it or not, closing security holes is going to inevitably require existing software to be rewritten to not utilize those holes.
Of course, if Microsoft doesn't release a security update, then everyone bitches about the lack of security updates. So I guess there's just no pleasing some people.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
WSUS (nee WUS) isn't out of beta yet and MS will not support it in production, as they state in bold letters on their web site.
SUS is still the supported the "current" product.
The sooner those machines have SP2, the sooner the zombie percentage will decrease. I know, Windows sucks, but... those zombies are affecting us ALL. SPAM, hacks, cracks, phishing attacks, DNS attacks, etc.
Let's hope that 24% increases soon.
I guess it keeps the context of the thread. The guy who spent $120 on his PC obviously didn't pay full retail for Windows + Office.
nitpicking: From the context it seems unlikely that he actually stole his friend's copy of Windows. I think borrowed is the right word.
It's also about support. The company I work for does cross platform software. On the Windows side we support win98-Server2003. That's a wide range. In the Mac we support 10.2 and up. What happened to 10.0 and 10.1? They came out about the same time XP did. Where did the support go?
I'm being a bit facetious but you get my point. Corporations like to stay with companies that stand behind their software. MS only recently stopped supporting NT4 and in fact still will if you are will to pay.
Windows looks like the best choice because everything you want is right there, and it looks like less of a hassel.
I guess it depends on what you want. For many people, all they want (email client, web browser, iLife apps etc.) come right in the box.
I've already turned your firewall off, thanks.
"Microsoft has published a list of known software that will not work with Service Pack 2"
Microsoft also announced their new motto--
What Do You Want to Break Today? (tm)
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
he means system as in the custom software, OS, server, all the clients, the network including hardware and wiring, etc. Of course you can by the componants yourself, from the approved list cheaper, but the instalation fees soak up the difference anyways so why bother?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You may be right, but I've always thought it interesting that the smaller doctor/dentist offices seem to have Macs. Its the bigger ones that have the PC/Windows solutions.
Maybe that's because there are billing solutions for small businesses available for Macs. I have to wonder what would happen if the equivalent software for larger solutions was also available for the Mac.
Very good idea the mention this EULA thing.
As far as I know, the EULA you must accept to install SP2 includes your agreement to let MS infest your machine with DRM mechanisms.
This alone, if verified, should rule out SP2 for any sane individual.
I like your sig!
Microsoft servers (or workstations for that matter) stable? Thats an oxymoron like an honest politician. I have dozens of clients with UNIX and Novell servers that are basically set it and forget it. Literally, One Novell server was up and running untouched for 4 years, let me repeat that 4 YEARS !!! If you can get any M$ box to run for more than a couple of months without have to reboot it it's a miracle (Or wait you can't considering everytime you patch you need to reboot and patches are out every couple of weeks) Let's not forget about that wonderful GUI copy command and it's inability to handle errors, they have only had 15 years to fix it. SP2 has and will continue to wreak havoc, wether it be through user ignorance or software compatibility issues (lost count of how many users got BSOD or software quit working after installing it) Many vertically specific apps STILL dont support SP2. As a consultant with over 500 active clients all I can say "Bring it on baby, JOB SECURITY! I don't go looking for clients, they come looking for me:-)"
It's not that I don't like playing games on the computer. I just find it annoying that after upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows XP that half of my games no longer worked. Than after upgrading to SP2 that the other half don't work as well.
Not to mention that other older programs like a geneology program my dad liked to use which now it doesn't work in XP.
Not all of us have the latest hardware to play the latest games on. I still have a 600 Celeron with 256 MB of ram. I don't have the money to be spending on a gig of ram just so I can run my games and my operating system at the same time.
I don't know about you but I get tired of upgrading half my software when ever Microsoft comes out with a new SP. Not to mention having to buy newer games. I still like my older games.
I got tired of it and started playing on my brother's Xbox.
Can't find a KB article, but then MS's KB search is fairly annoying. So how about user reports instead?
t ml?p=231678
5 50.html
http://extremetechsupport.org/forum/showthread.ph
http://www.codecomments.com/archive299-2005-2-409
As for "can't be proven/disproven", you're the one who's full of crap. It's easily "proven". Come over to my place, I'll turn the security center back on, disable those alerts, reboot, and you can bloody well watch it continue to alert me.
If you mean that you can't "prove" it by sitting on your ass and spouting off shit you know absolutely nothing about, then yeah, you have a point.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Well, what a surprise, Another /. post that could have been interesting buggered by the non MS crowd and the ill informed.
SP2 IS of immense use to all users of Windows XP (sorry I don't care about what OSX or your flavour of Linux does, why the hell should you be posting on a subject that's MS specific anyway?)
Remember that XP is supplied with most home PC's. And that the majority of the users of those home PC's don't have a clue about the internet, its dangers or what they can do to protect themselves. And these people don't read /. Nor do they change the O/S they use. They don't know how!
Anything that helps the average user from becoming a zombie or stops them from running that nasty email script has to be a good thing. If it comes at the price of a small amount of software working, then I for one am happy to pay that price.
Wining about stuff like in-house software not working or obscure app not working is daft. Most of the time, if the software does not work any more it's because it has flaws that would make it susceptible to exploitation. Upgrade or change it. And if you're in-house developers are too lazy to get off their collective arses and find out why their software wont work, then perhaps they are in the wrong profession.
As for MS forcing SP2 on users. So what? The majority of people they are trying to help don't even know they need help.
Dentists offices are often a cash only business, as are some smaller doctors offices. In those cases, you need only a basic accounting package to handle the work. Throw in a paper scheduling book, and it's easy.
Virtually 100% of specialist offices with more than one doctor have some type of scheduling and billing package because it's much to complicated to handle without one. Thirty years ago there would have been a secretary for each doctor to handle his schedule.
Now, with all the various regulations on medical billing, it's very expensive to get your package up and ready for market. I just looked over one states software list of approved vendors who can submit electronic claims to state medicaid, and there isn't a single one that runs on Mac or Linux. There is one *nixish one that runs on a proprietary flavor (AIX) and another that runs on a unixish closed OS called MAGIC, but otherwise, it is a completely Windows world.
How conspicuous.
It has been a few years since I price matched, but every time I did, it seemed like the pattern of macs being twice as much held true. I'll do a couple price matches, new and used.
Since you mentioned Dell, I will start with their PC's. Just clicking on desktops, I see a sale, Celron 2.4 Ghz machine with 256 megs, 40 gig hard drive, and 17" monitor is $299. http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/category. aspx/desktops?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd. Looking at laptops, they have a 14" Celron M 1.3ghz laptop with 256megs and a 30 gig hard drive with what appears to be a free printer, for $549. Those are their deals, sales.
Looking at new macs, I find the following are their lowest priced options. The cheapest mac mini is $599 (G4 1.4ghz, 256megs, 80 gig hard drive, cd-rw), the cheapest emac is $799 (G4 1.25 with Velocity Engine, 40 gig hard drive, what appears to be an integrated 17" monitor). http://microcenter.com/search_results_e.phtml?coor dinate_group=F1AX&page=1&search_id=5f3a71072149b6e 75a39f1f05873a7d7&per_page=&sort_price_direction=A SC&sort_by=product.retail The cheapest "traditional" destop is a Power Mac G5 1.8 ghz with 256 megs, 80 gig drive and dvd-rw for $1499.00. http://microcenter.com/search_results_e.phtml?coor dinate_group=F1BX&page=1&search_id=d10aa8d0b3c7536 e2100bbe953281f70&per_page=&sort_price_direction=A SC&sort_by=product.retail
I don't want to be unfair. You mentioned quality, so I figured I would pricematch a brand many consider to be high end. Looking at the Sony Vaio Desktop P4 2.8ghz with HyperThreading (guessing that is like the velocity engine, although I don't know what either term means, probably slick marketing). The Sony comes with 512 megs, 160 gig hard drive, dvd+-rw, for $756 on sale from $999. http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Sony-VAIO-Desktop-P C-PCV-RS610-/sem/rpsm/oid/94849/rpem/ccd/productDe tail.do
Looking at used computers, I went to ebay and I see G4 desktops selling used for around $350. These are G4 400 mhz machines with 128 megs and a standard dvd player. I did not even look for PC's because I know a 500+ mhz PIII can be had for under $100. So, what am I getting for the extra money?
I want to try a Mac, I really would. I saw on ebay G3's around 300 mhz for $150, but I don't know how good a 300 mhz machine would be. Even for just testing. Is a G3 still usable? Or does all the new software require G4's?
So to compare, cheapest new Dell $299, cheapest mac mini $599. Mid-range Sony Vaio $749, midrange Mac G5 $1499. Dell laptop 1.3ghz $549, Mac laptop 1.0 ghz G4 $899. And in every instance, the PC had a faster processor.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Hi i run Windows Version 11874...
Depends on the business. In my experience, most business users use Windows just because that is what they know. It is a comfortable choice. In an a typical office, people just need word processing, maybe a spreadsheet, email, and a web browser. There may be be a few people in the company who use special apps that only run on Windows, but most have very basic needs. But again, it really depends on the company. Some companies do revolve around a specific application. You're painting with a very wide brush.
They shop for an entire system - server, workstations, printers
They do? Do you deal exclusivly with startups with large amounts of venture capital and/or grants? In my 7 years as an IT consultant, I have seen very few companies lay out the cash for a complete, new, integrated setup. Most companies piece their network together. Couple new computers here, a couple there. A new server when the old one craps out. That kind of thing. Our sales guys would be in hog heaven if what you say were true. Then again, we are not Microsoft whores (although we do our share of Windows work) like your wife's company sounds like it is, so maybe they just aren't coming to us for these "integrated" setups.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
"Now, software. I have spent $0 there, as well. A friend of mine had a copy of Office he let me borrow"
Copyright infringement cheats hardworking, creative individuals out of the compensation they deserve and upon which their families depend for food, clothing and shelter. You apologists for criminal behavior can invent whatever glib terms you like to evade responsibility for piracy's ill effects on society, but the fact remains that intellectual property theft is STEALING.
The Internet is full. Go away.
There are alternatives, for example Filemaker is ancient yet still up-to-date and supports systemwide group support. Novell supports OS X.
However, everything up until pretty much OS9 painted Apple in a pretty poor light, perhaps rightfully so. The apps that support wide-range system access like you mention take a while to develop, and it wouldn't surprise me if we start seeing some more high-profile applications (or at least cross-compatibility) in the near future. Since I don't work in those types of fields, I can't comment on current alternatives, outside of Filemaker and our own network at work (which uses some of Office's tracking features as well as Entourage).
But I almost don't consider the "complete systems" a set of software (although it obviously is), as those systems are purchased as essentially complete systems to be used for an integrated purpose. Almost like Point-Of-Sales. For POS systems, you need to buy stuff that fits into the current system, and for many companies that's Windows -- not necessarily because there were no alternatives, but because when they were set up, Apple was in OS9 land and really wasn't a workable alternative.
Or I'd be crapping my pants right now.
I know I'd get pulled into the helpdesk fracas that would ensue if we were all in WinXP.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d Capitalization really works: i helped my uncle jack off a horse
Why is Microsoft so hot to get SP2 installed on everyone's machine?
...What can we break today?
-- my sig got
Do they get their updates under this, because that would be funny.
If your enterprise is taking auto-updates then you should be prepared to accept automatically what's on the auto update site. If you don't want autoupdates then you've got plenty of other options for patch deployment that will allow you to pick and choose what gets pushed to whom.
I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
Oh there are alternatives... no one ever said there weren't. In fact, if there weren't,
the entire antitrust case levied by the EU would hold water. The point is, there are
alternatives, it's the level to which they tie together and the symmetry of their
operations that makes them more valuable than the other servers available for Unix and
Linux operating systems.
Who the hell wants a database, firewall, commerce development system, etc... that don't
link together seamlessly and are all manageable using the same interface from anywhere!
I don't! I don't want a firewall that doesn't link to my database server with zero
effort. I don't want an XML data management system that has no seamless capability to
pull and push data to that database server while maintaining security through said
firewall... No thank you... I prefer the tied together system.
It is that 'tying' that does NOT exist anywhere outside the Windows world.
Me thinks there's gonna be a whole lotta Splodin' goin' on that day. Should be at least as fun as that why-too-kay thang.
Some settling may occur during posting.
MSN Messenger is now written in .NET and compiled with the "safe" flag turned on. So you know it's ok!
Let I be the first(?) to say that XP SP2 has caused no problems in my organization. Just now our mutlihomed bridges are being upgr.J,I*W [Carrier Lost]
If people are so scared of a "bandwith hit", why dont they just install a transparent proxy? This way, the service pack only gets downloaded ONCE, and is later distributed over your LAN, without disturbing "real" internet traffic. I've been using this method for ages now, and all users are really happy about being able to update their OS faster. Furthermore, this will also reduce WAN traffic by big heaps.
the fact remains that copyright infringement is acting against a government granted monopoly.
yes its an illegal act. yes it could prevent the holder of the government granted monopoly from making as much money.
does that make it stealing? and if so does that make any other illegal act that stops someone else making as much money or costs someone else money stealing.
terms like "piracy", "software theft" and "intelecual property" were invented to put a dangerous idea into peoples heads. The idea that ideas and expressions of ideas can be owned.
I'm sat here with nothing to do on my Linux and UNIX servers... Can someone fo a UNIX FOSS port of SP2 please? I want to see what all the fuss is about?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
install a pirate copy of windows. SP2 won't install there (or so I've been told... I don't use pirate windows of course - I use linux :)
Go hug some trees.
The day I install SP2 is the can I cannot play Metal Marines.
If battling in Edmonton isn't worthy enough, then what is?
"But I almost don't consider the "complete systems" a set of software (although it obviously is), as those systems are purchased as essentially complete systems to be used for an integrated purpose."
.Net have made it easy to expose the data whereever it needs to tie togther. The Production ticket system for example is web based and built with asp. It is directly tied into the Sales and ad trafficking databases. .Net.
This isn't exactly true. One of the companies I work with is a publishing house that had to integrate several different applications to create a custom workflow.
There is a CRM application which Sales uses, tied into a custom built ad trafficking system, tied into a production job ticketing and time keeping system which integrates into Accounting. An off the shelf human resources system is slated to be integrated in the future.
While integration can be a pain in the ass at times, technologies such as ODBC and
You can do this on other platforms, certainly on the UNIX side (although I've found most UNIX off the shelf apps are priced to higher end of the medium business market). You can also substitute php and Java instead of asp and
The benefit is in having the high end apps, which are easy to connect together to create your custom workflow.
And while you CAN build it yourself, if you are a small or medium size business there is no way you are going to (for example) build a full fledged CRM or accounting system quickly and for less cost than purchasing one.
I will agree that Filemaker is a great little application for small business, in my experience it just can get to be messy at handling anything big.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
... because it's good enough.
Jonathanjk.com
1. Macs are made with higher quality, so their users tend to hold on to them longer than the equivalent PC and they have a higher resale value. Which is why you tend to see Macs (Toyota Avalons) be more expensive than their PC (Ford Focus) equivalent.
2. I can see you are using the archaic clockspeed (GHz or MHz) metric for measuring CPU speed and performance. I would say that a PowerMac G4 w/ 256 RAM and a 500MHz PowerPC processor running Mac OSX 10.3 Panther is faster than an IBM Aptiva w/256 RAM and 500MHz Pentium III running Windows XP SP2, in that same token BeOS would run circles around both Windows and Mac OSes on the same hardware but I digress. My statement is based on the fact we have both in our department and the older Macs with Panther feel faster against older PC of the same clock speed running Windows XP SP2. Now you might think this is a smoke screen and an apologists version of CPU speeds. So let me point to you to the company that made plenty of money on marketing the clockspeed metric years ago. About Intel Processor Numbers
Intel plans to dispel the megahertz myth which served so wellA muscle car Pontiac GrandAM may have plenty of horsepower under the hood but it doesn't translate to speed on the road. Compare that to a BMW 3 series which costs more can have the same horsepower but has better performance. You're not comparing two equal products. Take a top of the line Toshiba laptop or IBM Thinkpad and then compare that to a Apple Powerbook. Your comparisons are not comparing the same types of products in my opinion.
HyperThreading (guessing that is like the velocity engine, although I don't know what either term means, probably slick marketing)
Actually they are quite different technologies. SIMD is Motorola's Velocity Engine/AltiVec/VMX is equivalent to Intel's SSE2. Intel's HyperThreading is equivalent to IBM's simultaneous multithreading (SMT) on their Power 5 processors. CPUs like Intel's which have very deep pipelines sometimes benefit from HyperThreading and other times not. The IBM PowerPC (not Power) line of processors don't have as deep pipelines which is why they use a more superscalar architecture like the PowerPC 970 which has four ALUs, two FPUs and two SIMD units. I hope that helps and sheds some light on the confusing technical lexicon.
Here what I would recommend if you can save up for it. An older PowerMac G4 running at 500MHz with 256MB of RAM and 32MB graphics card OR a newer MacMini with 512MB of RAM. Don't bother with any G3 based Mac on eBay, as the SIMD (velocity engine) makes a difference in the performance of the machine and so does any video memory below 32MB. There are other conveniences of the Apple Mac OSX platform which become more apparent with the imminent release of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. Good luck which ever direction you go. May your firewall protect you from worms, your web browser from spyware and your operating system not burdened by viruses.
and it would be emacs.
nothing more, nothing less.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
The problem is that the company your wife works for provides a solution based on keeping their Microsoft Reseller status. They would no more sell a non-Microsoft solution than the local Ford dealer would sell me a Toyota.
You state that "The product they sell is not a piece of software, it is an integrated package to solve a real world problem." I would guess that the company also makes a lot of money customizing said package to meat the customer's needs, since very few customers would need the exact same solution.
If so, then what the company is selling is not the solution at all. It is the software customization, a service, that is solving the real world problem. And the all Microsoft solution only provides the lockin to the real bread and butter of the company - the customized software.
As such, since what is really being sold is a service, Mac, Linux, mainframes, etc., all have the same equivalent available. Just different structures on what to build it on.
BTW Greetings Wokshop - a MS product, will produce a "I am having trouble with a database" error after applying SP2.
It's old but I liked it's simplicity. I since moved it over to an old 98 PC I use for TV.
Wow are you living inside of a box. There are hundreds of billing systems that are unix based. In my 30 years in this industry I have seen unix based billing systems used in just about every industry from the medical profession to used car sales. I shudder to think of it now but until about 5 years ago SCO had a significantly higher market share than MS in the medical billing field, I would see about 5 SCO shops to every windows shop. Dont use one example as an example of an entire industry, if someone came up with a linux solution that was cheaper to implement, 90% of these people would abandon windows without ever looking back. All they want is a single input screen and a few function keys to do their jobs.
Look, I don't LOVE Microsoft, but SP2 has been out for, what, 3/4 of a year now? And betas were out even earlier. If you currently sell a product that doesn't work in SP2, then SHAME ON YOU!!!
Good Lord, what Micky Mouse development projects are you working on these days? 9 months a long time? Give us a break, considering 80% of software development effort goes into developing very large bespoke solutions your argument holds very little water.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
nt
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
My company has switched to rack-mount Macs running OS X for all the real-time stuff tied into the manufacturing line. It's saved time and money, and they don't just randomly lock up every so often. We use linux apps recompiled (if need be) for OS X, and have been very pleased with the results. Of course, office staff need Office, but the mission-critical stuff got ported a couple years ago. Not all corporate computers are desktops.
I've been dealing with a LOT of consultants/VAR programmers for the past year, and just want to throw this out there... you're average consultant CANNOT code an acceptable solution to a given problem, because they don't know enough about how the company works internally. Language barriers have also been a problem for me/them. Management wants to buy a "complete solution", if the problem is complex enough that won't happen. You'll spend more time fixing someone elses code while they are contract in France. And it's usually not worth fixing anyway, since they didn't understand the problem in the first place. THAT is the reason so much code is written in house. If you have a heavily customized enterprize system, a mix of *nix, Windows, and Mac servers, and need to tie all of that data together, only a manager could think that a vendor can send a guy in who doesn't speak english and code a custom app for us. Aarrgh! Of course, the vendor pleads ignorance and claims that when the app returns "hello honey" instead of an XML file that "it worked when I left". And we still support a few old fortran apps... god knows what would happen if the French contracters got there hands on those. I, for one, am not looking forward to the rollout of SP2.
heh...dont know why you call it a service, but most people would call that a solution. A solution fixes problems. Company cannot organize all their records. They buy a piece of software and a server to go with it, I would call that a solution because now they can organize their records. That fixed a problem. Look at it from the customers perspective.
Business Profiles while on Apple's site and obviously a marketing spun message does show that many things I would consider 'verticle' like a Doctor's Office, Legal Office, Dentist Office, Architect, and many others are shown on what they use/how they use it and how it takes little to no IT staff to do it.
Granted this is targeted at a small or medium business so I don't think a Fortune 500 is going to tank Windows in a day but it does show that a lot of geek 'truisms' about Mac in the office are a bit outdated.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I believe there *are* some packaged systems like this based on Apple hardware. I'm pretty sure I've seen some retail cash register suites using imacs at some small shops around.
It certainly wouldn't hurt Apple's penetration into the business market to have more of those though.
you've got SIXTEEN HUNDRED dollars to spend?
I just spent $3600. - on a $23,000 cat-ketch two masted 26' foot sailboat.
For my PC, I built a P4 for $400. and it is GREAT. I apply Le Linux.
Now, we live in a country where most people I know can not afford health insurance. $1600. for a box is a HUGE amount of money. AND - you are BullSh---ting about the $500. mini being usable as is.
Keep It real, Bubba. Keep it real.
MACS - great machines for people with too much money.
Reinstallation of windows XP tells me that
you don't know wtf you are talking about.
Sorry, not interested in your *nix mimic
OS cherry popping stories.
He's OSX fnord Apple on to us... we'll have to fnord fall back to a more secure channel OSX.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Microsoft these days is primarily a sustaining engineering organization, which is causing untold grief internally. Some internal numbers peg the amount of engineering resources devoted to sustaining engineering and backwards-compatability support at 70% of their total engineering resources. This is the reason innovation has crawled to a halt at the mighty software factory. In forcing users to lurch ahead and get off of older platforms, the theory is that they can reduce the burden of support on the organization and devote more to new technology. Fat chance, I say. There was a situation a year or so ago that required about 60 lines of code to be modified. The test effort was estimated at 200 man-years. And you wonder why they are forcing everyone to a single platform???
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
i reported about this back in december
Anyone with the ability to apply the original policy blocking SP2 has the ability to simply turn off Automatic Updates in their enterprise. And AU isn't doing them much good anyway, because most patches coming down the pipe depend on SP2 anyway.
So why all the complaining? This is just FUD.
iptables -I OUTPUT -p tcp -s 0/0 -d 207.46.0.0/16 -j REJECT
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
The app in question integrates with Office, Small Business Server, Exchange, and SQL Server.
Hrm... Entourage does have Exchange support. It's a bitch to setup (basically you have to have Exchange setup for Outlook Web Access and the interface Entourage into that)
As far as Excel, Word, PowerPoint... Microsoft has it covered. (I will not recommend Outlook for the Mac. It is a horrid application.)
You don't have Access 2003 which I will admit is a major pain, but then again you could always run that off a Terminal Server if you had too when you need a program to run in a true windows environment.
IMO all major corps should have thin clients with locked down apps either with Terminal Server or Citrix unless your job is specifically requires desktop publishing or something that needs heavy CPU usage.
What better way than have a MiniMac tied into MS Terminal Servers?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
"Those who actually paid attention to the WHOLE list know that PhotoShop CS only fails to start under XP SP2 on 64-bit processors" I have a athlon64 and photoshop cs, and it runs fine! Actually, it runs super fast. Is it not about time yous die hard linux geeks give microsof a break. After all, linux is the most unfriendly os out there. Even kde sucks. I'm not saying there perfect, but at the end of the day, they have an operating system that is actually useable for the average user. and....SP2 is bloody good!
seems to be a lot of anti-virus and firewall products on the 'incompatable software' list.
> s/borrow/steal/
Not necessarily. If the software was borrowed like a book is borrowed---i.e., the friend is no longer using it so it's still single-user---then "borrow" is precisely the right term.
I don't think you've looked at Apple Remote Desktop which is quite powerful and can deploy apps.
1. Software Distribution
2. Asset Management
3. Remote Administration
4. Remote Assistance
On the unix\linux side there have been tools like Radmind (also for Mac OSX), synctree, roboinst. You seem quite fond of the Microsoft offerings. In reality our university has many systems. We have different camps and on the Windows camp I've seen major issues regarding security and problems deploying Windows applications using SMS and Active Directory. Last summer it took eleven weeks for one person to repackage 80 MCAD and ECAD applications for the Windows loadset, the same 80 CAD applications took only two weeks to repackage and deploy with a Linux loadset. As for reliability Windows servers and workstations are poor and their down time high compared to the Sun, HP-UX and Linux workstations on campus. The great thing about Windows is that it needs to employ more people than necessary and the inefficiency guarantees job security.
Large enterprise with heterogeneous environment can use LANDesk Management Suite to manage their Windows, Mac, Linux, Palm, Blackberry systems.
Interesting considering most people agree that gaming is about the most intensive thing you can make your computer do.
It's not about performance, it's about release schedules. PCs are better at games because they get more titles sooner. Performance-wise Macs are comparable to high-end PC gaming systems.
They do? Do you deal exclusivly with startups with large amounts of venture capital and/or grants? In my 7 years as an IT consultant, I have seen very few companies lay out the cash for a complete, new, integrated setup. Most companies piece their network together.
:D
:) Which was where I learned probablky 80% of everything I know! Invaluable experience, and lots of fun 36 hour days.
Ya know... I think I'm one of the few women in the industry who has gotten to do this. I've had the distinct pleasure of an entire HP (ok, in 1991, they were the shiznit) network, from workstation clients to Netware servers, to HP routers.... on ARCNET!
I've been around, and in those 15 years, I've gotten to work on a complete integrated setup only times. 78% of the rest of my career was reintegrating all the old stuff.
Damn I miss the OLD days!!
Jho
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
This is a myth propogated by Mac users, soaked up by Mac suckers, all trying to make themselves feel important for spending lots of money.
Macs are certainly well constructed machines, but no better made than high end, brand name PCs, or well assembled whiteboxes. They're using the same video cards, memory, hard disks, etc that you find in any random PC.
I can see you are using the archaic clockspeed (GHz or MHz) metric for measuring CPU speed and performance. I would say that a PowerMac G4 w/ 256 RAM and a 500MHz PowerPC processor running Mac OSX 10.3 Panther is faster than an IBM Aptiva w/256 RAM and 500MHz Pentium III running Windows XP SP2 [...]
And you would be wrong. Firstly, a P3 is only marginally slower clock-for-clock than a G4. Secondly, Windows is *far* nicer to use on lower end hardware than OS X is, which even relatively recent and high-end Macs struggle to run acceptably.
My statement is based on the fact we have both in our department and the older Macs with Panther feel faster against older PC of the same clock speed running Windows XP SP2.
Then your PCs are broken, very poorly configured or crippled in some fashion (eg: much less memory than the Macs). I've used just about every Mac made in the last ~5 years, a large variety of Macs over about the last 15 years and a shitload of different PCs over about the last 20. I've yet to sit down in front of *any* OS X machine that felt even *remotely* close to as responsive as properly configured conteporary PCs.
It's laughable people even try to make claims like this when the lengths Microsoft go to preserving legacy compatibility are not only well known, but also one of the main reasons they have so many "problems" with their software in the first place.
So let me get this right. You bought everything you needed in the first place, you've only had your system for a little over a year, and you think the fact that you've spent nothing on hardware since then has something to do with it being a Mac?
I had the opposite experience to you with Apple in the early 80s and have never thought of going back to one of their machines. I was very frustrated, the machine was inferior, it was VERY much overpriced, and to top it all off I couldn't buy the software I needed without mail ordering or having someone drive me to a shop about an hour away.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I'm surprised I haven't seen a modded post about this mistake. In the list, the Photoshop CS website is listed as http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html but it goes somewhere Completely different.
What concoction do you have to drink in order to mix those two up? There's not even anything from bitdefender on the list...
This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
My main point here is, as a power user, I think it totally sucks that the admin of my network could remotely change/control my machine without me ever giving them permission. Which of course I know they can just take the machine back and they read/scan all my email anyways, so its not like they can't get what they want from my system... but it just seems wrong that they can turn off features to a system that I have administrative rights on... and that they could do it remotely. It is annoying, because I know that could not happen if I was running linux or mac os x. Of course, I could reinstall windows XP (oh joy!), to unfudge this... but I am too busy to get involved in a BU and restore... so my wintel system is effectively botched. I hope that once April 12th, passes I will be able to regain access to windows update, and I can get things worked out. But I am still left with the realization for the first time just how hosed windows is... it is insecure because of SUS. Sure it is great for admins... but if I want that kind of control, and it's my company, then I give my people dumb terminals or a full scale client/server system. Something that can be done far more easily/cheaply with linux/mac osx/unix. As it is now, even though they can control my system I can still hork it on my own (as I have)... either because they made a mistake or I found a weakness by accident.
When you are not feeling well and go to the doctor and he/she gives you a prescription. Are you paying for the doctor's office for a service or a solution?
When your business has problems and you call in a consultant, are you paying for a service or a solution?
If said consultant happens to be a computer consultant, you are still paying for a service.
Specifically, in the case you state about organizing records. Either the vendor is giving a canned package to the customer and training them on how to change the way they do business to accomodate the canned package or they are writing a custom package (or customizing one) so the software works with the way the customer does business.
Training is a service. Software programming is a service. They may provide the solution to the customer's problem (just like the doctor visit for the patient) but they are still a service.
Does anybody knows what happend to the user who still did not want or did not able to download it, because of some reason: - They who have slow dialup connections. - They who use pirated version, which did not allow to install SP2. - They did not want to download SP2 and install. - They who did not online Do this windows XP will still be able to operate or Not ? If NOT, is that at 12 April is the Disaster day ? In my opinion Microsoft must stop the pirated version in this time. Just my 2c.
Our company works with a lot of Graphics companies and of course Mac is their workstation of choice. They love the Linux servers a whole lot better that then Windows servers they replaced.
Personally I think it is a good idea the Mac stays focused on building a great workstation.
Yes yes I do know you can run them as a server. Still in the business world there are workstations and then there are servers they all play their role. Why build all that in a platform meant to be a workstation? For one thing Mac users would be paying for things they may never use.
Really give Novell OES a try it sees Macs as just another Linux workstation. If you looking for a replacement for ISA then take a good look at SmoothWall's products. We dumped ISA two years and I am Sooooo! grateful! Matter of fact Novell's equivelent of Operation Manager (ZenWorks) will manage Windows, Macs and Linux machines. Operation Manager will only manage Windows machines.
Need help or more information got a question? Contact us. We'd be glad to give you more information on how its done.
I know your statement certainly not true when comparing to the AVERAGE PC to the AVERAGE Mac. Which is what I was talking about in my original post. Or are you selecting not to read portions of my post or are you practicing partial illiteracy?
Macs are certainly well constructed machines, but no better made than high end
Well I'm glad you can agree on the the fact that they are well made machines. The one vendor of PCs I can think of that uses quality hardware is Alienware desktop, although they aren't mainstream PC hardware and for laptops the high end IBM Thinkpad or Toshiba Satellite( but they aren't cheap either, which is what I was talking about paying for QUALITY!!!), I recommend IBM and Toshiba models to my department folks who have to use Windows. As for the Dells and HPs they use poorly constructed chassis, low tolerance panels and over all industrial design is just plain cheap. The PowerMac G5 is on par with the solid engineering I've seen on the SGI Octane and the Powerbook G4 is still better than any Windows laptops I've seen. We have many different types of computers and devices in our department running nine distinctly different operating systems. The difference is that Apple is able to tightly integrate the hardware/software tightly. I'd like to see a Windows laptop resume/sleep as fast as a Powerbook can. I'd like to see SSH connection be reestablished after waking up from sleep mode. You know as a fact an OEM like Dell can't do that. Dell just slaps together a wide range of peripherals without through testing, resulting in blue screens and major issues for their customers, who shrug their shoulders and put up with these inconveniences, because naively they believe that is the way it has always been. Why isn't their target mode boot or netboot on older PCs, its because the PC OEMS are stuck with the antiquated BIOS. Why is it that the Preexecution Environment (PXE) still behind compared to Netboot and Target mode boot? I could go on the advantages of Apple hardware which IS WHY YOU PAY MORE. Kapish? Myth my ass.
Then your PCs are broken, very poorly configured or crippled in some fashion (eg: much less memory than the Macs).
You know what is funny, I see the same argument the other way round on forums. If the computer is not performing well then it MUST be the users fault. Tough luck on that attempt dude, I'm a systems administrator for my entire department with 200 computers. With over 70% of them being Windows computers right now. The systems are clean install from the Windows XP SP2 CD loadset with all the necessary patches and drivers. My statement still will hold true, take any PC over four years old and any Mac over four years old and Windows XP SP2 feels slower than a Mac OSX on hardware with the same clock speed. Windows Explorer and the rest of the system is more likely to stall, as in 'Not Responding' far more than the Mac Finder being 'Hung'. I still find my SGI Irix with 4Dwm and my home BeOS Tracker to be more responsive under heavy loads and able to mutlitask better in most situations than both Windows XP and Mac OSX. But when comparing the two in terms of multitasking Mac OSX is better. In terms of new PC hardware running Windows XP SP2, then I would say that Windows XP is more responsive. XP Requirements with all that eye candy on older hardware bogs it down. Quartz Extreme seems to be the factor that makes the difference on older hardware. I hope that clarifies my stance. I'm not married to any particular platform and will migrate every few years to what I feel is the best solution. Right now, overall its Mac OSX on Apple hardware. Formerly I used an SGI O2 with an R5000 and an SGI 320 with dual Pentium III with Windows 2000 as my primary desktop machines.
So Microsoft started getting bad press because of low adoption numbers, and as a consequence they force everyone to download it. Next we'll see a news story about how SP2 has a 80% applied rate with the other 20% still blocking it, and more pissed off now.
"Macs are made with higher quality, so their users tend to hold on to them longer than the equivalent PC [...]"
As for the Dells and HPs they use poorly constructed chassis, low tolerance panels and over all industrial design is just plain cheap.
I've come to the conclusion that either Dell manufacture and ship *completely* different hardware to the US than they do here to Australia, or when people like you are talking about "Dell hardware" they are restricting themselves to the cheap, low-end, consumer crap. Because, certainly, all the Precision workstations and Latitude laptops I've ever seen have had excellent industrial design and been quite reliable. The Optiplex desktops tend not to be as good, but they're still not into the territory I'd call "bad" (and they're a lot cheaper). We don't have Alienware here so I can't compare.
The PowerMac G5 is on par with the solid engineering I've seen on the SGI Octane and the Powerbook G4 is still better than any Windows laptops I've seen.
I currently own a 12" iBook and in the past I've owned a TiBook and a Dell Latitude D600. Personally I didn't of them to be significantly better than another in terms of reliability or use. If anything, my TiBook (peeling paint) and iBook (modem was broken out of the box and recently it won't sleep because the lid sensor has broken) have given me the most problems.
Dell just slaps together a wide range of peripherals without through testing, resulting in blue screens and major issues for their customers, who shrug their shoulders and put up with these inconveniences, because naively they believe that is the way it has always been.
I can't say I've ever been inconvenienced by poor QA processes from Dell - beyond the minority of failures here and there you'd typically expect dealing with hundreds and thousands of machines at a time. I've never had any reason to believe Dell's QA is anything less than excellent. Which is why I'm always somewhat mystified as to why they get such a bashing here...
Why isn't their target mode boot or netboot on older PCs, its because the PC OEMS are stuck with the antiquated BIOS. Why is it that the Preexecution Environment (PXE) still behind compared to Netboot and Target mode boot?
I'm not sure how old you're talking here, but certainly every business-oriented PC I've laid hands on for the last ~5 years or so has been fully PXE-bootable out of the box and I ave several examples of machines dating from ca. 1996 (and older) that can do it with an appropriate network card.
I could go on the advantages of Apple hardware which IS WHY YOU PAY MORE. Kapish? Myth my ass.
You were talking about *hardware quality*, not out of the box configuration details.
If the computer is not performing well then it MUST be the users fault.
More often the admin's or the system manufacturer's fault.
I'm a systems administrator for my entire department with 200 computers. With over 70% of them being Windows computers right now. The systems are clean install from the Windows XP SP2 CD loadset with all the necessary patches and drivers. My statement still will hold true, take any PC over four years old and any Mac over four years old and Windows XP SP2 feels slower than a Mac OSX on hardware with the same clock speed.
Then your PCs are broken or you've got the fastest four-year-old Macs in the world. I've got a fairly new 1Ghz 12" iBook and OS X on it isn't as responsive as Windows on ca. 800Mhz PCs that are ~5 years old (and certainly nowhere near as consistent). Similarly, back when I had a 667Mhz TiBook I was very disappointed with its responsiveness - so much so that I ended up selling the machine, after waiting to see
I can't really see places like supermarkets or new branch offices scrounging individual computers, printers, and monitors to integrate with their scanners, teller machines, or process control computers.
Interesting question. Lets find some more analogies.
When you go to a fast food place and they give you fries, have you paid for a product or the service of delivering it to you?
I can see calling something a solution when the deliverables are a combination of provided services and products that the customer has not directly paid for or specified.
Does the list include Windows XP itself? Service Pack 2 installation hangs my computer in the middle of installation (I've waited for days to see if it continues, but no luck), so I guess it's time to ditch the shit.
Fine, roll out a patch that improves security.
Fine, roll out a patch that breaks some programs and so forces them to use more secure methods.
But a patch that causes some programs to blue screen? To kill the kernel?! Never - it shouldn't even be possible.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
lol 'besides games' lmfao people like games incase you didnt know, i dont even know how many billions that industry makes.
http://DiabloHeat.com | http://Kyle.TheOCSucks.com | http://TheOCSucks.com
lmfao nice way to put it, with all your big words i dont know how the hell you can borrow software that has a single cd key, just dont get it.
http://DiabloHeat.com | http://Kyle.TheOCSucks.com | http://TheOCSucks.com
No one needs inventory, asset management, or POS? Perhaps an accounting/receipting system? A lot of places have custom software that covers those functions.
Yay me!
Most doctors offices I've been in here in Perth Australia run OS-X.
But if you do have an usable internet connection, it's Windows what makes getting new software an incredible hassle.
Money aside, you need to get your bureaucracy at work to get an order done (unless you need it for yourself), actually buy the piece of software and install it. Even in the case of most "freeware", you need to jump through a lot of hops to find it on the vendor's webpage (try getting the gratis ZoneAlarm -- it takes like >5 minutes of browsing 548947389398439 pages of the paid "pro" version).
In the other corner, you have typing "apt-get install foo" (2 seconds), pressing "y" to approve the list of dependencies (1 second or adding -y to the initial command), a while to actually download the thing, and perhaps a brief moment to answer the debconf questions.
Surprisingly, one of the most extreme examples of this are... drivers! Yeah, drivers.
With the exception of some proprietary crap like nVidia or some winmodems, you know where the drivers are. With modern distro-provided kernels, they are automatically inserted basing on the PCI ids and what not, making the issue null. And if you roll your own tightly-cut-down kernels, lspci/discover/hotplug/etc can tell you what you need. Generally, if a free driver exists, the kernel has it -- and hardware vendors learned that it pays to release the specs (with relatively few black sheep).
In the Windows world, unless your piece of hardware is supported with the version of Windows you bought (that is, it's older than 2001 (XP) or 1998 (98)), you're out of luck. Windows doesn't let you figure out what device it is. No lspci, nothing. You can open the box and try to read labels on the chip, but they often are cryptic, or -- for on-board integrated devices -- totally missing. With this information, you can start your quest. After an hour or so of browsing the vendor's website or pages like driversguide.com (a valuable resource!), you may find the driver you need. Or you may not.
There is no such thing as "Macs" in Poland (no good retail chain -> no users), so I cannot comment on the MacOS side, but my regard for Apple is too high to believe they can allow a mess like it's the case for Windows.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Apple in the early 80's is nothing like Apple now. Current Macs are a little pricey, but not too far out of line, and the hardware is as good or better than PC hardware. And OSX is MUCH better than any version of Windows.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
So let me get this right. You bought everything you needed in the first place, you've only had your system for a little over a year, and you think the fact that you've spent nothing on hardware since then has something to do with it being a Mac?
What else would it have to do with? I've had no hardware problems at all, and I've used it just as extensively as my previous systems. (More, actually, because it hosts much of my DVD collection.)
I had the opposite experience to you with Apple in the early 80s and have never thought of going back to one of their machines. I was very frustrated, the machine was inferior, it was VERY much overpriced, and to top it all off I couldn't buy the software I needed without mail ordering or having someone drive me to a shop about an hour away.
*shrug* That was a long time ago. My experience has been different, and I have never needed a piece of software that isn't available. In fact, I've had the opposite experience: most software on the Mac is better than the Windows equivalent. Things like QuickSilver, the Unison newsreader, and Pages do not, to my knowledge, have couterparts on Windows. The only thing I have not found for the Mac is the FTP client Filezilla. Everything other piece of Mac software I have used has either been comparable to or better than the PC equivalent.
That's the way the mainframe OS that my employer uses is patched -- one subsystem at a time.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Uh, I am pretty sure I said "it depends on the business."
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
For every new branch office getting a fresh set of workstations and servers, there are thousands using bubble gun to hold their old network together, scrounging individual computers, printers, and monitors.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
I would say the same just in the other way. Although mine is based on volume purchases of Macs and PCs for my department not my own personal purchases
I really wish OS X was faster, because I like it [arstechnica.com], but it's simply too chunky on non-monstrous hardware to be a viable option. It's not so much that I can't afford a dual G5, I just refuse to shell out that much money so I can get an enjoyable, basic computing experience as a matter of _principle_
I believe its safe to say that our experiences gives us a bias towards opposite direction. Its a shame I can't sit you down in front of my computers to show you the difference, although I suspect you probably feel the same way. Windows XP just stalls more often is 'Not Responding', more than Mac OSX Finder is 'Hung' and I'm frankly astonished you are unable to see that. The multitask abilities on Mac OSX are stronger, although launching an application or rendering a new window within an application is faster in Windows XP. I'm just more frustrated with the poor multitask capabilities than screen rendering of a new window or application launch. The difference between generating a new window is not noticeable for me between the two platforms. The noticeable perceptual difference is that WIndows XP launches applications faster, but I leave applications running all day or sometimes weeks on my Mac OSX, therefore multitasking and application switching is paramount and much more noticeable to me. I also want to make sure you're on the same page as me when I talk about Macs OS X its version 10.3+ not the ones below and when I'm talking about Windows XP, I'm talking about XP SP1 and SP
I've come to the conclusion that either Dell manufacture and ship *completely* different hardware to the US than they do here to Australia, or when people like you are talking about "Dell hardware" they are restricting themselves to the cheap, low-end, consumer crap. Because, certainly, all the Precision workstations and Latitude laptops I've ever seen have had excellent industrial design and been quite reliable. The Optiplex desktops tend not to be as good, but they're still not into the territory I'd call "bad" (and they're a lot cheaper). We don't have Alienware here so I can't compare.
Perhaps its the way Dells feels Earth's 'Coriolis' acceleration perpendicular to its velocity depending on which hemisphere it is sold :) I'm teasing and being completely facetious. I say that
in good humor and jest. To be frank I find it doubtful that Dell would sell hardware that is better in Australia than the US. I believe the Dell criticisms on Slashdot are well founded
I currently own a 12" iBook and in the past I've owned a TiBook and a Dell Latitude D600. Personally I didn't of them to be significantly better than another in terms of reliability or use. If anything, my TiBook (peeling paint) and iBook (modem was broken out of the box and recently it won't sleep because the lid sensor has broken) have given me the most problems.
You see I barely buy any of my own computers. My relatively small department purchases dozens of machines every year many of them being Dell and we are their enterprise customer being a very large university buying thousands of machines each year. My evaluation of Dell goes like this:
Competitive prices
Poor quality components and engineering and testing
Good service and turn around time
My students who purchase Dells for their own personal use, claim that they don't receive that quality service that is given to enterprise customers. Apple's service is better than Dells enterprise service and SGI beats all of them hands down, although with SGI you pay through the nose for their excellent service. We have internal teams to take care of Sun and HP hardware issues.
Precision workstations and Latitude laptops I've ever seen have had
you have the wrong guy mister. That and I'm not a homophobe. My *nix system is fine, I don't need a prettier looking one. Yes I know I'm just feeding a troll.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
My experience with OSX is not good. It gave me a good look at what that whole scene is about. I was given the task of getting a certain usb wireless device to work with Mac. I did my web searching and found a website that described how to take the drivers from a different device, hack a few text files, and make it work.
Well, it didn't work. And guess what. No source.
In the linux world I am used to having devices that don't work right away. I wait a while though and they do because the source to all the drivers and internal OS structure is readily available for people to hack. Sometimes I hack the source myself. Can't do that here.
Mac OS gets the worst of two worlds, it has the lack of vender support of a niche system and it has the lock in and inaccessability of proprietery systems. I think I'll stick to Linux.
Wow are you living inside of a box. There are hundreds of billing systems that are unix based. In my 30 years in this industry I have seen unix based billing systems used in just about every industry from the medical profession to used car sales. I shudder to think of it now but until about 5 years ago SCO had a significantly higher market share than MS in the medical billing field, I would see about 5 SCO shops to every windows shop. Dont use one example as an example of an entire industry, if someone came up with a linux solution that was cheaper to implement, 90% of these people would abandon windows without ever looking back. All they want is a single input screen and a few function keys to do their jobs.
Wow. I think you may be out of touch. Sorry to say, but you are just wrong. Depending on your state, you probably dont have an alternative if you are a doctors office. Your state probably as a certification process, and you can get a list of what packages are allowed to be used with the state billing system.
My Longhorn Beta still has a config.sys file, with the line BUGS=OFF. You know... Just in case.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Things like QuickSilver, the Unison newsreader, and Pages do not, to my knowledge, have couterparts on Windows.
k silvermail.net/pub/quicksilver
What's this then?
http://www.quicksilvermail.net/
ftp://ftp.quic
I won't bother looking up the rest for you.
If you don't even try looking for it of course you won't know about it.
Everything other piece of Mac software I have used has either been comparable to or better than the PC equivalent.
That's a huge call, especially since you can't seem to find the equivalent!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
What's this then?
http://www.quicksilvermail.net/
The Quicksilver you linked to is a completely different app that serves a totally different purpose. I'm not sure why your tone is so derogatory, but the Quicksilver I am talking about allows you to hit a global hotkey and have immediate access to contacts, files, IM buddies, bookmarks, IRC chat rooms, your iTunes library, etc. Emailing an attachment to someone becomes a matter of ~9 keystrokes, no matter what you are doing.
Again, all I'm saying is that in my experience the software for Mac tends to be better than the software for Windows that does the same thing (again, with the exception of Filezilla.) And FYI: I use both OSes extensively; I still use Windows at work.
I'm using a combination of personal and work-related experience here. I use my iBook and PCs every day, but I've used a lot of Macs and PCs through work (previous job at one of Australia's biggest universities) as well.
Its a shame I can't sit you down in front of my computers to show you the difference, although I suspect you probably feel the same way. Windows XP just stalls more often is 'Not Responding', more than Mac OSX Finder is 'Hung' and I'm frankly astonished you are unable to see that. The multitask abilities on Mac OSX are stronger, although launching an application or rendering a new window within an application is faster in Windows XP. I'm just more frustrated with the poor multitask capabilities than screen rendering of a new window or application launch.
Interestingly enough, the two things I find most frustrating about OS X are its multitasking and the *constant* "stalls" (typically accompanied by brief appearances of the beachball) doing such ridiculously trivial stuff as moving between tabs in web browsers, switching between applications or just pulling down menus.
I'd have to say screen/window redrawing is one area where OS X is unquestionably superior to Windows, primarily due to Quartz.
But I don't really care about how well the windows redraw or whether or not some window get repainted/updated quickly - as long as when I want to switch between apps or tabs, or paste some text, or pull down a menu, *in the application I'm using* I get an instaneous response from the UI. I get that on Windows, I don't on OS X (short of *seriously* powerful hardware). I care even less about application launching and system boot times - and why should, when I only start up applications maybe once every few days and reboot once a month, if that ?
I multitask heavily. My primary criteria for evaluating a system's usefulness to me is how well it handles running lots of stuff at once (although looking from a UI/responsiveness perspective, rather than a raw performance perspective). That's why I find OS X so frustrating to use - because it does that so poorly. Which, as I've said, really sucks because there's *loads* of other UI coolness that very nearly make up for the sluggishness like Labels, Folder actions, Expose, Spotlight (soon, anyway), etc.
I also want to make sure you're on the same page as me when I talk about Macs OS X its version 10.3+ not the ones below and when I'm talking about Windows XP, I'm talking about XP SP1 and SP
I'm only referring to the latest versions of OS X, since early versions were, IMHO, practically unusable.
OTOH, I'm quite willing to compare to Windows NT4, 2000 or XP - they're all _vastly_ superior in terms of UI responsiveness and multitasking capabilities to OS X, in my experience. I find Windows runs more tasks, more smoothly, on lesser hardware than any version of OS X on any Mac I've ever used.
I just don't get people who say OS X multitasks well, because the one impression I always walk away from an OS X box with is how poorly it handles lots of running applications at once, but how good it is at just about everything else (except file manage, *ugh*, I hate Finder).
I have computer labs filled with Dell Precision 330 and in my Virtual Reality Lab a Dual Xeon Precision 530 all equipped with NVidia Quadro cards. The Precision 530 kept crashing with blue screen issues and Dell then advised to uninstall the sound card driver they installed at the factory, so I guess according to your theory it must be Dell who doesn't know how to install or administer their own machines, I attribute this to poor hardware tesing.
I'm not going to comment on your specific example because I don't have all of the facts. I'll just say that I've never been anything less than very happy in my experiences with labs full of hundreds of Optiplex and
Doom 3 runs fine on Linux when using Cedega. Maybe you want to do your research before mouthing off. I finished Doom 3 in 3-4 days on my Fedora Core 2 Linux box.
I can't afford a sig!
notice the parent fanboyism got him a +5, and the it's parent anti-fanboyism got him a troll mod. this just proves that slashdot is just full of motherfucking apple cunts.
I would say Jaguar was the first version I could start for my own use, I could put up with a few performance issues and had limited installations in my department. Then with Panther I can comfortably endorse this version (although they could use a few fixes here and there). So I would agree with you on your pre-Panther opinion.
OTOH, I'm quite willing to compare to Windows NT4, 2000 or XP - they're all _vastly_ superior in terms of UI responsiveness and multitasking capabilities to OS X, in my experience. I find Windows runs more tasks, more smoothly, on lesser hardware than any version of OS X on any Mac I've ever used.
My comparisons have been and are of Windows XP (SP2) which was the original topic of the post and with Mac OSX 10.3+. Windows XP is slower UI reponse than Win2000 and in turn Win2000 has slower responsiveness to Windows NT, seems like we can all agree on that. Mac OSX got progressively better with each release as Apple learnt to optimize their system for their hardware and I don't think any one would argue that point either.
I just don't get people who say OS X multitasks well, because the one impression I always walk away from an OS X box with is how poorly it handles lots of running applications at once, but how good it is at just about everything else (except file manage, *ugh*, I hate Finder).
When it comes to multitasking with heavy loads I find Windows XP the worst, followed by Mac OSX Panther, next Linux KDE, then Irix with 4Dwm tied with Solairs \ HP-UX both with CDE and on the top of the list BeOS with Tracker. Thats my experience so far for modern OSes
I'd have to say screen/window redrawing is one area where OS X is unquestionably superior to Windows, primarily due to Quartz.
That is incorrect. Mac OSX Quartz gives it higher fidelity rendering and more special effects, but Windows has faster screen and windows redrawing. Open GL based features like Expose given the impression of speed
I'm not going to comment on your specific example because I don't have all of the facts.
Correction its examples I gave you and I won't accept that it is one anecdotal incident and your language indicates you are still doubtful of the issues we have with Dells even though I stated several examples. I usually call that denial or selectively dismissive.
From what you're describing Dell's QA procedures must be seriously worse in the US, or machines bound for Australia are sourced from different factories, because I've never had problems with machines showing up with the wrong hardware, etc.
To use that brilliant line of thinking, I would say that Apple hardware and the operating system must have some quality assurance issues in OZ. Doesn't sound so logically now does it, but if you are going to come up with reasons like that you really should think about it more before posting them.
Saha: As for industrial design its does not win any awards here. If you can send me a link where a Dell desktop or laptop won an Industrial Design award I'm all ears and I shall wait with bated breath
Since when is winning an industrial design award - there can only be one winner, after all - the only measure of good industrial design ? If I can get into a case quickly and easily to make modifications, if the internals are well laid out, easily accessible and removable and if it isn't ugly, then I call that good industrial design. The Dell machines I've used meet that criteria.
As I thought so, you couldn't give me a single example where Dell desktop or laptops where noted for their " excellent industrial design" as you put it. Dells haven't even been runners up, now if you have said Sony or IBM then you would have a case. It's laughable that you would say that Dell has " excellent industrial design" and your criteria has been co