The contrast with the beauty of Aqua is particularly jarring, however.
Also, the windows don't really play well with Aqua windows. Effectively, xdarwin is a separate application, and when it's pulled to the front, all its windows are too. You can't pull just one xdarwin window in the front while the others stay content in the background.
It's annoying and makes the x environment look childish.
A SGI workstation is the best platform to run X applications on. There are a few good fonts; what horrendous effort must have been spent on making them that way! I wish SGI was doing better, even though their current status does mean I can get their systems dirt cheap (try eBay).
You'll enjoy the OS as long as you don't have too much of an investment in X-Windows software. There are ways to get X-Windows programs to run in the same window as Aqua, but they look so horrible you'll wish you hadn't bothered.
On the other hand, if you love Unix but find your eyes hurt by all those ghastly fonts, MacOS X is font utopia. The display is truly stunning; it looks more like a work of art or a printed page than text on a screen.
The only problem is you have to use Cocoa applications to use this. Font rendering in Carbon stuff (including, sadly, both Word for MacOS X and Final Draft screenwriting software) is bad. I don't know why this is.
Use OmniWeb to browse web sites and you'll never want to go back.
If you like dabbling in video editing (Final Cut Pro or iMovie), Apple's definitely the right place for you. It's loads of fun and, although you can blow silly money on it if you want the best, it's not that expensive to get started.
Personally, I have converted virtually all of my home computing to MacOS X, and I've been very pleased. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I buy one of these new systems fairly soon.
If that were entirely true, though, I would not see almost consistently steady use of both processors on my dual processor G4/450 system. Whatever they are doing to share load between processors seems to work extremely well, at least if their CPU meter application is an accurate judge.
Most likely it's just that I'm running lots of different applications at once, but still, the dual processor syste was definitely worth it in my view.
Ah, but you are not a creature of our Glorious Multimedia Age! There are plenty of people who are busy creating ingenious ways to use all your CPU capacity - and then some. Such as video editing, for instance.
I run Final Cut Pro 3.0 on my Macintosh G4/450 dual processor (which I'm thinking of replacing with one of the new machines).
When I tried FCP 3.0 in the store on a G4/867, the system came to a screeching halt when I rendered.
With my 450 dual processor, I was able to do other things while rendering, albiet at somewhat reduced speed. In my view, the dual processor is a big win for this type of thing.
Fortunately for Apple, a lot of people have bought Final Cut Pro, and those of us who do a lot of rendering (changing the speed of video clips, for instance), really need this new system. Why do you think they built in second monitor support? It was for video editors for sure.
D
(If you're not a video editing junkie, rendering is the process of saving copies of modified video information, such as transitions, superimpositions and conversions from one video format to another. If you consider that there are 29.97 frames for each second of video, and each has to be painstakingly redrawn, you can get a feel for how CPU intense this process is).
I'm using mySQL it in a major internal web application which has about 50 concurrent users and over a million records in our largest database.
Works like a charm. We did have to upgrade our server because I'd expanded the system to incorporate so many of our corporate functions that it was starting to lag. Our new server is a quad-processor IBM that cost less than $15k, and it runs great.
Access is the only lung-barfing product I've seen, and I'll bet I could do it with two users, let alone ten.
Mercedes and Chrysler merged, yes, but Mercedes would have been much better off without Chrysler.
BMW and Rover merged, yes, but BMW would have been much better off without Rover.
They both found this out much later, to their utter horror. The result is that BMW owns Mini but Ford bought Range Rover, and an independent company bought the balance of the Rover Group for $1 or thereabouts. In fact, BMW PAID the independent company to take Rover by contributing some $500 million-odd in working capital..
I was against both mergers, because I find that mergers generally dilute corporate cultures and reduce product and service quality. I am frankly baffled as to why they happen other than corporate ego.
I think I've made my point. Luxury car makers should stick to being luxury car makers. And I believe that both as a Mercedes owner and a Mac user.
I would also say that it's a great deal more fun to run or work for a company that concentrates on this kind of excellence instead of drab mediocrity.
Would you really want to be Gates or Ballmer? I'd rather be Jobs. He has the love and respect of his customers, after all, and they hang on his every word. Gates is just plain dull.
There was a wonderful parody of MacWorld on a Mac site I read, about "DellWorld" and how exciting looking at the next slightly faster box was going to be. And, of course, the betting that they would be daring and select a black colour scheme instead of beige.
This year's MacWorld once again shows us how fortunate we are to be Mac users, to be able to buy computers that are not only outside Bill's slimy grasp, but which are actually fun to use, too.
Being a dull company making dull products for Middle America only works if you're the cheapest dull company and have the least expensive dull products. But there are plenty of people who would rather have exciting products, who would rather have a digital SLR than a digital point and shoot, despite the former costing more than triple what the latter does.
That's not a great analogy because you need to buy gas a great deal more often than you buy software.
Intereoperability is not bad; CDs I burn on my Mac work just fine on PCs, and most of the important software applications, such as Flash and Photoshop, work fine on both platforms.
Most people don't do much beyond using Microsoft Office, and it works fine on both platforms. In fact, I'd say it's a bit nicer on the Mac.
Even "Windows Media Player" has a MacOS version.
True, there are some software applications and categories that don't work on the Mac, but for what I need to do, it's a lot better than the PC.
If you can have something better than the PC, and it doesn't cost much more than the PC, why not go for it? A low end BMW costs about triple what a low-end car does; a low-end Mac costs only about double what a low-end computer does. That's not so bad, eh?
This is definitely a major problem with switching - although of course it depends on how much you use the software you have. I find that there are only two or three vital programs that I absolutely must have.
Another thing to do - and this is what I did when I switched much of my PC-based stuff to the Mac - is to keep your last PC and convert to the Mac going forward, upgrading only crucial applications you use every day.
Many programs that cost money on Windows have free alternatives on MacOS X. For instance, I used to do a lot of programming in FoxPro and Visual Basic, which cost money. Now I use the free mySQL database, Perl/C and a web GUI to write my database software. Net cost of converting: $ 0.
If you like sophisticated video editing software, buy Final Cut Pro (admittedly pricey) and you'll NEVER go back to a PC.
I happen to know (because I did it) that Adobe will crossgrade your software - if you buy the latest Photoshop upgrade, and are registered under the PC version, they will let you upgrade to the Mac version. Just buy the upgrade and call them, explaining that you switched platforms. They will give you the appropriate registration codes over the phone.
I was going to start running some kind of Internet server back in 1994. The folks who developed Gopher wanted a $ 500 license fee which I wasn't sure whether I had to pay or not, but I sure knew I couldn't afford.
So I fired up the NCSA web server and never looked back. And once I started using the web and taking advantage of its power, I knew it would soon surpass Gopher.
This was well written, but also not a universal truth.
I, for one, would rather have something beautifully made and sleekly engineered than the latest thing that has nought but raw speed to offer.
After all, a year from now the raw speed product will be replaced by another one, but my Macintosh will still be capable of great things.
Another example: I just bought a digital camera. I had a choice: A Canon D30 3.1 megapixel single lens reflex, an outstandingly elegant design, for $3400 (including lens and compact flash card). Or I could have gotten a 5.1 megapixel Sony for $999. I bought the Canon, and look, feel, overall design intelligence and quality are the reasons.
Amazingly enough, there are customers for plenty of different products. Don't try to sell consumers short; you can find pretty much any buying pattern you'd ever want to see if you encounter enough of us.
Here is a quick competitive analysis of Mac versus roughly equivalent Sony VAIO desktops as featured in Fry's. I used Sony because they throw in almost decent video editing software(1) and similar additional goodies to make their products roughly comparable to the iMac in raw feature checklist terms.
If you can take a 1024x768 screen (I can't:-( ), and want a LCD monitor, the new iMac is comparable in price to an entry level Sony with a Celeron:
Sony: $ 799 + $ 500 Sony brand LCD = $ 1,299(2)
iMac: $ 1,299 with included LCD = $ 1,299
The iMac has the advantage of the super-cool form factor and desk arm to keep your desk clear for all the papers that inevitably collect on it. That's a convincing argument for the iMac right there.
(Of course you could get a cheap off-brand LCD with the Sony, but we're trying to compare (ahem) Apples to Apples, and the Sony monitor is what you need to get the same quality level as the Apple).
I would count the iMac 700mhz as very close in capability to the Pentium 4/1.5ghz, and if we do that comparison, Apple actually winds up looking cheap, even if we substitute the high-end iMac with the SuperDrive
Sony 1.5ghz $1,500 + Sony LCD = $ 2,000(*)
Apple 800mhz $ 1,800 = $ 1,800
and the Apple includes a DVD writer, which Sony users are bound to lust after. Even if you give the Sony an off-brand LCD that just drops them to the same price, and without the SuperDrive.
As you can see, Apple competitiveness is not half bad, if you compare it to a company with similar pretentions. In fact, some might consider it downright aggressive.
You can make similar comparisons with the iBook and Titanium PowerBook G4. I will admit, though, that at the moment the desktop line is long overdue for replacement. http://www.aapltalk.com/ did some very informative comparisons of all the lines.
Hope that was of interest.
D
(1) Microsoft's video editing software as bundled with XP is, well, quite honestly useless and therefore doesn't count as a competitor to iMovie. I know, because I tried it in the store. Horrible.
(2) Minus $ 50 rebate is $ 1,250, but I find myself losing rebate coupons or forgetting to use them at quite a remarkable rate. Which, of course, is what Sony is counting on.
I upgraded from Photoshop for the PC to Photoshop for the Mac for the upgrade price. No problem at all per Adobe. If you buy the upgrade for the Mac and have a PC, you call their toll-free number and they will transfer the license to Mac and give you a code.
I'd suggest you visit an Apple store if you live anywhere near one - they are very cool places, with excellent service and lots of cool toys to play with (including a sensational Internet connection).
I played around with Windows XP, and it's better than it used to be, but nothing's as cool as MacOS X.
Have you actually tried using Microsoft's video editing package in XP? I played around with it in Fry's, only to give up in disgust. It's awful. I think they just wanted to check that box on their feature list with as little thought or investment as possible.
Sony's MovieShaker is better, but nothing comes close to iMovie in usability and capability.
Apple is trying to get people who enjoy doing creative stuff on their computers, like me. At least with me, they've hit the bullseye with products like MacOS X and Final Cut Pro, a simply fabulous video editor.
Remember, a doubling of their market share is still less than 10% of the market. Would 10% of the population like a more creative computer? I think they would. And that's all Apple really needs.
I was always irritated by ugly fonts on Linux. Yes, I know, they were supposedly improved, but it's a ton of work to get them to work, and I can buy a Mac with MacOS X and get stunningly beautiful text on the spot without tinkering, while still running emacs and all my Unix CGI stuff.
I finally feel like I can use an alternative to Microsoft without apologising. ("No pre-emptive multitasking" or "Ugly fonts, no non-obscure software"). That's pretty darn cool, and it really does look stunning.
As does the new machine, although I'm holding off for a new PowerMac dual processor since I need the power.
Set up a Subchapter S corporation and you are taxed as an individual, with no corporate tax involved. The main restriction is that you can have no more than 16 shareholders, which of course should not be a problem.
Remember that you can write off your computer equipment used in your work, which can have the interesting result of sheltering a great deal of your income. I did that all the time when I was an independent contractor.
* You need a pretty cool computer to run all the free software
* You need some really powerful servers (penguincomputing.com, sun.com, ibm.com) and bandwidth (rackspace.com) to serve up all those MP3s.
* You need a portable MP3 player or in-dash player to take 'em on the road.
* People who love technology are suckers for stuff like Sony AIBO Robot Dogs.
* Finally, many of us influence purchasing decisions. For instance, I convinced my work to buy an IBM server to replace our ageing VA Linux (RIP) system, mainly due to IBM's reputation for supporting Linux. That was for relatively serious money, at least compared to the cost of ads on Slashdot.
To give you a little perspective, I was just talking to one of our mid-level accounting staff, a very nice lady. It was almost embarassing comparing my three computers in active use, my top-of-the line digital photography studio, my copy of Final Cut Pro for the Mac and so on with her motley collection of items:
* A DVD player
* A still camera
* A 386 computer
To make matters worse, about half my expensive gear will probably be replaced by new versions sometime next year. Who doesn't need a faster system for Final Cut Pro, after all? I'm a sitting duck for whatever Apple introduces next month.
What about her stuff? I'd be surprised if any of it gets replaced until it breaks.
I suppose this sounds like bragging about my gadgets, but I think it makes a really important point: People who read Slashdot are willing to spend major bucks on technology. Granted, there are some poor people reading Slashdot, but even they would be willing to spend if they had the money. For technical gadgets, Slashdot is marketing nirvana.
(And I'm betting most of us don't bother to avoid the ads, at least when we're on broadband connections).
D
Re: When will Slashdot fall? (Troll -1)
on
Adcritic Shuts Down
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Doubtful. The thing saving Slashdot is that it has a clear, identifiable audience that spends big bucks on stuff. The audience also includes many people who are heavily in demand, even in this economy. So you get lots of employment ads, and lots of gadget, hosting and Linux server ads, and that should be enough to let them pull through.
Bandwidth is probably their greatest expense, but it's almost pure text and thus not enormous. Granted, it's a lot of pure text, but one 30 second video is bigger than any Slashdot story will ever get to be.
Finally, you have something like five people running the site. I know Rob makes $90k a year, and everyone else probably makes correspondingly less. So it just doesn't take that much to keep it up and running, compared to (say) Salon, who has maybe 25-50 professional writers to feed.
Slashdot Mirror
$12k per their press release. Certainly a lot cheaper than the days of yore.
I hope SGI can pull this off; I still have a soft spot for Irix, even though most of my computing is MacOS X based nowadays.
D
You got me there.
The contrast with the beauty of Aqua is particularly jarring, however.
Also, the windows don't really play well with Aqua windows. Effectively, xdarwin is a separate application, and when it's pulled to the front, all its windows are too. You can't pull just one xdarwin window in the front while the others stay content in the background.
It's annoying and makes the x environment look childish.
A SGI workstation is the best platform to run X applications on. There are a few good fonts; what horrendous effort must have been spent on making them that way! I wish SGI was doing better, even though their current status does mean I can get their systems dirt cheap (try eBay).
D
I would probably just go ahead and reinstall the applications, assuming you can dig up your copies.
If you have a registered copy of the applications, I understand you can get replacement copies from most vendors for a nominal charge.
D
You'll enjoy the OS as long as you don't have too much of an investment in X-Windows software. There are ways to get X-Windows programs to run in the same window as Aqua, but they look so horrible you'll wish you hadn't bothered.
On the other hand, if you love Unix but find your eyes hurt by all those ghastly fonts, MacOS X is font utopia. The display is truly stunning; it looks more like a work of art or a printed page than text on a screen.
The only problem is you have to use Cocoa applications to use this. Font rendering in Carbon stuff (including, sadly, both Word for MacOS X and Final Draft screenwriting software) is bad. I don't know why this is.
Use OmniWeb to browse web sites and you'll never want to go back.
If you like dabbling in video editing (Final Cut Pro or iMovie), Apple's definitely the right place for you. It's loads of fun and, although you can blow silly money on it if you want the best, it's not that expensive to get started.
Personally, I have converted virtually all of my home computing to MacOS X, and I've been very pleased. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I buy one of these new systems fairly soon.
D
What's the difference between the regular GeForce and the MX?
D
G4/dual 1.0 GHZ $ 2999
:-( ).
Apple Cinema Display $ 2,000
Total (wow, I save a dollar!) $ 4,999
See?
(Note that the Cinema Display is on a rebate promotion until January 31; after that, it would be $5,500
D
D
Perhaps Classic is not installed? You might try running Classic manually and then see if those applications spring to life.
If they work in MacOS 9, there's no reason that I know of they wouldn't work in Classic.
D
If that were entirely true, though, I would not see almost consistently steady use of both processors on my dual processor G4/450 system. Whatever they are doing to share load between processors seems to work extremely well, at least if their CPU meter application is an accurate judge.
Most likely it's just that I'm running lots of different applications at once, but still, the dual processor syste was definitely worth it in my view.
D
Ah, but you are not a creature of our Glorious Multimedia Age! There are plenty of people who are busy creating ingenious ways to use all your CPU capacity - and then some. Such as video editing, for instance.
I run Final Cut Pro 3.0 on my Macintosh G4/450 dual processor (which I'm thinking of replacing with one of the new machines).
When I tried FCP 3.0 in the store on a G4/867, the system came to a screeching halt when I rendered.
With my 450 dual processor, I was able to do other things while rendering, albiet at somewhat reduced speed. In my view, the dual processor is a big win for this type of thing.
Fortunately for Apple, a lot of people have bought Final Cut Pro, and those of us who do a lot of rendering (changing the speed of video clips, for instance), really need this new system. Why do you think they built in second monitor support? It was for video editors for sure.
D
(If you're not a video editing junkie, rendering is the process of saving copies of modified video information, such as transitions, superimpositions and conversions from one video format to another. If you consider that there are 29.97 frames for each second of video, and each has to be painstakingly redrawn, you can get a feel for how CPU intense this process is).
I'm using mySQL it in a major internal web application which has about 50 concurrent users and over a million records in our largest database.
Works like a charm. We did have to upgrade our server because I'd expanded the system to incorporate so many of our corporate functions that it was starting to lag. Our new server is a quad-processor IBM that cost less than $15k, and it runs great.
Access is the only lung-barfing product I've seen, and I'll bet I could do it with two users, let alone ten.
D
Mercedes and Chrysler merged, yes, but Mercedes would have been much better off without Chrysler.
BMW and Rover merged, yes, but BMW would have been much better off without Rover.
They both found this out much later, to their utter horror. The result is that BMW owns Mini but Ford bought Range Rover, and an independent company bought the balance of the Rover Group for $1 or thereabouts. In fact, BMW PAID the independent company to take Rover by contributing some $500 million-odd in working capital..
I was against both mergers, because I find that mergers generally dilute corporate cultures and reduce product and service quality. I am frankly baffled as to why they happen other than corporate ego.
I think I've made my point. Luxury car makers should stick to being luxury car makers. And I believe that both as a Mercedes owner and a Mac user.
D
I would also say that it's a great deal more fun to run or work for a company that concentrates on this kind of excellence instead of drab mediocrity.
Would you really want to be Gates or Ballmer? I'd rather be Jobs. He has the love and respect of his customers, after all, and they hang on his every word. Gates is just plain dull.
There was a wonderful parody of MacWorld on a Mac site I read, about "DellWorld" and how exciting looking at the next slightly faster box was going to be. And, of course, the betting that they would be daring and select a black colour scheme instead of beige.
This year's MacWorld once again shows us how fortunate we are to be Mac users, to be able to buy computers that are not only outside Bill's slimy grasp, but which are actually fun to use, too.
Being a dull company making dull products for Middle America only works if you're the cheapest dull company and have the least expensive dull products. But there are plenty of people who would rather have exciting products, who would rather have a digital SLR than a digital point and shoot, despite the former costing more than triple what the latter does.
I'm one of those people.
I'm a Mac user, and proud of it.
D
That's not a great analogy because you need to buy gas a great deal more often than you buy software.
Intereoperability is not bad; CDs I burn on my Mac work just fine on PCs, and most of the important software applications, such as Flash and Photoshop, work fine on both platforms.
Most people don't do much beyond using Microsoft Office, and it works fine on both platforms. In fact, I'd say it's a bit nicer on the Mac.
Even "Windows Media Player" has a MacOS version.
True, there are some software applications and categories that don't work on the Mac, but for what I need to do, it's a lot better than the PC.
If you can have something better than the PC, and it doesn't cost much more than the PC, why not go for it? A low end BMW costs about triple what a low-end car does; a low-end Mac costs only about double what a low-end computer does. That's not so bad, eh?
D
This is definitely a major problem with switching - although of course it depends on how much you use the software you have. I find that there are only two or three vital programs that I absolutely must have.
Another thing to do - and this is what I did when I switched much of my PC-based stuff to the Mac - is to keep your last PC and convert to the Mac going forward, upgrading only crucial applications you use every day.
Many programs that cost money on Windows have free alternatives on MacOS X. For instance, I used to do a lot of programming in FoxPro and Visual Basic, which cost money. Now I use the free mySQL database, Perl/C and a web GUI to write my database software. Net cost of converting: $ 0.
If you like sophisticated video editing software, buy Final Cut Pro (admittedly pricey) and you'll NEVER go back to a PC.
I happen to know (because I did it) that Adobe will crossgrade your software - if you buy the latest Photoshop upgrade, and are registered under the PC version, they will let you upgrade to the Mac version. Just buy the upgrade and call them, explaining that you switched platforms. They will give you the appropriate registration codes over the phone.
What other pricey software do you own?
D
I was going to start running some kind of Internet server back in 1994. The folks who developed Gopher wanted a $ 500 license fee which I wasn't sure whether I had to pay or not, but I sure knew I couldn't afford.
So I fired up the NCSA web server and never looked back. And once I started using the web and taking advantage of its power, I knew it would soon surpass Gopher.
And, of course, I was right.
D
This was well written, but also not a universal truth.
I, for one, would rather have something beautifully made and sleekly engineered than the latest thing that has nought but raw speed to offer.
After all, a year from now the raw speed product will be replaced by another one, but my Macintosh will still be capable of great things.
Another example: I just bought a digital camera. I had a choice: A Canon D30 3.1 megapixel single lens reflex, an outstandingly elegant design, for $3400 (including lens and compact flash card). Or I could have gotten a 5.1 megapixel Sony for $999. I bought the Canon, and look, feel, overall design intelligence and quality are the reasons.
Amazingly enough, there are customers for plenty of different products. Don't try to sell consumers short; you can find pretty much any buying pattern you'd ever want to see if you encounter enough of us.
D
Here is a quick competitive analysis of Mac versus roughly equivalent Sony VAIO desktops as featured in Fry's. I used Sony because they throw in almost decent video editing software(1) and similar additional goodies to make their products roughly comparable to the iMac in raw feature checklist terms.
:-( ), and want a LCD monitor, the new iMac is comparable in price to an entry level Sony with a Celeron:
If you can take a 1024x768 screen (I can't
Sony: $ 799 + $ 500 Sony brand LCD = $ 1,299(2)
iMac: $ 1,299 with included LCD = $ 1,299
The iMac has the advantage of the super-cool form factor and desk arm to keep your desk clear for all the papers that inevitably collect on it. That's a convincing argument for the iMac right there.
(Of course you could get a cheap off-brand LCD with the Sony, but we're trying to compare (ahem) Apples to Apples, and the Sony monitor is what you need to get the same quality level as the Apple).
I would count the iMac 700mhz as very close in capability to the Pentium 4/1.5ghz, and if we do that comparison, Apple actually winds up looking cheap, even if we substitute the high-end iMac with the SuperDrive
Sony 1.5ghz $1,500 + Sony LCD = $ 2,000(*)
Apple 800mhz $ 1,800 = $ 1,800
and the Apple includes a DVD writer, which Sony users are bound to lust after. Even if you give the Sony an off-brand LCD that just drops them to the same price, and without the SuperDrive.
As you can see, Apple competitiveness is not half bad, if you compare it to a company with similar pretentions. In fact, some might consider it downright aggressive.
You can make similar comparisons with the iBook and Titanium PowerBook G4. I will admit, though, that at the moment the desktop line is long overdue for replacement. http://www.aapltalk.com/ did some very informative comparisons of all the lines.
Hope that was of interest.
D
(1) Microsoft's video editing software as bundled with XP is, well, quite honestly useless and therefore doesn't count as a competitor to iMovie. I know, because I tried it in the store. Horrible.
(2) Minus $ 50 rebate is $ 1,250, but I find myself losing rebate coupons or forgetting to use them at quite a remarkable rate. Which, of course, is what Sony is counting on.
Go to MacMinute.com, it's still more or less up and running.
D
I upgraded from Photoshop for the PC to Photoshop for the Mac for the upgrade price. No problem at all per Adobe. If you buy the upgrade for the Mac and have a PC, you call their toll-free number and they will transfer the license to Mac and give you a code.
I'd suggest you visit an Apple store if you live anywhere near one - they are very cool places, with excellent service and lots of cool toys to play with (including a sensational Internet connection).
I played around with Windows XP, and it's better than it used to be, but nothing's as cool as MacOS X.
D
Have you actually tried using Microsoft's video editing package in XP? I played around with it in Fry's, only to give up in disgust. It's awful. I think they just wanted to check that box on their feature list with as little thought or investment as possible.
Sony's MovieShaker is better, but nothing comes close to iMovie in usability and capability.
Apple is trying to get people who enjoy doing creative stuff on their computers, like me. At least with me, they've hit the bullseye with products like MacOS X and Final Cut Pro, a simply fabulous video editor.
Remember, a doubling of their market share is still less than 10% of the market. Would 10% of the population like a more creative computer? I think they would. And that's all Apple really needs.
D
I was always irritated by ugly fonts on Linux. Yes, I know, they were supposedly improved, but it's a ton of work to get them to work, and I can buy a Mac with MacOS X and get stunningly beautiful text on the spot without tinkering, while still running emacs and all my Unix CGI stuff.
I finally feel like I can use an alternative to Microsoft without apologising. ("No pre-emptive multitasking" or "Ugly fonts, no non-obscure software"). That's pretty darn cool, and it really does look stunning.
As does the new machine, although I'm holding off for a new PowerMac dual processor since I need the power.
D
Set up a Subchapter S corporation and you are taxed as an individual, with no corporate tax involved. The main restriction is that you can have no more than 16 shareholders, which of course should not be a problem.
Remember that you can write off your computer equipment used in your work, which can have the interesting result of sheltering a great deal of your income. I did that all the time when I was an independent contractor.
Hope that helps.
D
Yes, but ...
* You need a pretty cool computer to run all the free software
* You need some really powerful servers (penguincomputing.com, sun.com, ibm.com) and bandwidth (rackspace.com) to serve up all those MP3s.
* You need a portable MP3 player or in-dash player to take 'em on the road.
* People who love technology are suckers for stuff like Sony AIBO Robot Dogs.
* Finally, many of us influence purchasing decisions. For instance, I convinced my work to buy an IBM server to replace our ageing VA Linux (RIP) system, mainly due to IBM's reputation for supporting Linux. That was for relatively serious money, at least compared to the cost of ads on Slashdot.
To give you a little perspective, I was just talking to one of our mid-level accounting staff, a very nice lady. It was almost embarassing comparing my three computers in active use, my top-of-the line digital photography studio, my copy of Final Cut Pro for the Mac and so on with her motley collection of items:
* A DVD player
* A still camera
* A 386 computer
To make matters worse, about half my expensive gear will probably be replaced by new versions sometime next year. Who doesn't need a faster system for Final Cut Pro, after all? I'm a sitting duck for whatever Apple introduces next month.
What about her stuff? I'd be surprised if any of it gets replaced until it breaks.
I suppose this sounds like bragging about my gadgets, but I think it makes a really important point: People who read Slashdot are willing to spend major bucks on technology. Granted, there are some poor people reading Slashdot, but even they would be willing to spend if they had the money. For technical gadgets, Slashdot is marketing nirvana.
(And I'm betting most of us don't bother to avoid the ads, at least when we're on broadband connections).
D
Doubtful. The thing saving Slashdot is that it has a clear, identifiable audience that spends big bucks on stuff. The audience also includes many people who are heavily in demand, even in this economy. So you get lots of employment ads, and lots of gadget, hosting and Linux server ads, and that should be enough to let them pull through.
Bandwidth is probably their greatest expense, but it's almost pure text and thus not enormous. Granted, it's a lot of pure text, but one 30 second video is bigger than any Slashdot story will ever get to be.
Finally, you have something like five people running the site. I know Rob makes $90k a year, and everyone else probably makes correspondingly less. So it just doesn't take that much to keep it up and running, compared to (say) Salon, who has maybe 25-50 professional writers to feed.
D
Now the link from Slashdot does the same thing.
... well, they are using IIS through something called SecureIIS. I guess it wasn't.
I suppose they got slashdotted and didn't want other customers to see that?
Or
D