You realise those are all problems for both a tiny, browser-only OS and a big OS that runs programs natively, right?
The fact is, for what PC's are usually used for these day, the network being down already makes them nearly useless for probably 70% or more of the population.
The most popular games don't work off the network, can't get internet without the network, all you are left with are local apps. Better get those specs out of email so you can work on whatever your project is! Oh wait..
Seriously, how often is the network out? And what are you going to be doing when the network is out anywy?
I know at work, if the network goes down, 90% of work stops. Everything is integrated anyway, so the negatives of a browser-only PC aren't that huge.
Plus, who says just because there is a browser on the BIOS that you can't boot into a regular OS if you want to? TBH, the browser OS will probably be the optional OS on a PC, not the primary (though it could be!). You know, hit it when you just want to brows the web sort of situations. I know I'm often there, I just want to look something up, or check my favorite news-aggregation website, etc.
Who cares where it is stored? As long as where it is stored is fast, that's all that really matters. And moving it closer to where the bios is stored, especially making it a part of the bios, means it will be as quick as possible.
The point is speed to the browser, and lack of overhead. That particular computer becomes an internet appliance. It could also make web-based terminal sessions, like Citrix, quicker to boot to than a regular native OS! (Citrix is always on, the "speed to the browser" + access time is the only time-sink)
A small OS who's only job is to handle a browser is going to be tiny. Tiny OS = fast OS. Also, without a big OS overhead, processing and memory are devoted solely to the browser and whatever disk storage you are using, which means web apps can get increasingly bigger, JS can be more potent, there could potentially be flash memory for add-ins and updates to things like flash and whatnot (or it could just use the hdd for those things, though onboard flash would be faster).
Accessing the internet from a computer in the off state should be a matter of 5-10 seconds at most if this is done right. This would be perfect for netbooks, who's major function is web-access. Add a minimal web based interface for local disk access, and you're all set.
That's very cool, and the average user will notice they don't have to wait for to load up before they can hit the web. Frankly, I don't care where the OS is stored, even though I would know. Small and in the hardware = fast, and I definitely care about fast.
I've wanted it for a long time for PC gaming, but it's certainly a lot of work. A bios-based browser framework would be much simpler, and frankly it would fulfil the needs of a great many PC users. I know I'd like it for those times when all I want to do is get on the web. Boot should only be a few seconds before you're browsing slashdot.;)
Think about it though, for gaming (if someone would ever do it). Basic OS + gaming specific API = leanest gaming OS possible. Consoles basically use this concept, and get a lot more out of less hardware than PC games can, because PC games have much greater overhead.
"Rare Earth" is a misnomer, and very very old terminology. Lanthanoids are actually very common. Cerium is even the 26th most abundant element in the earth's crust (higher than gold, and we use a LOT of gold). Europium is used as a red phosphor in old TV sets and flourescent lamps.
These elements are in fact fairly abundant in nature, although rare as compared to the "common" earths such as lime or magnesia.
You realize lime is so abundant we use it in concrete, right? "Rare earths" are only rare in relation to extremely common elements. You could say they are on the rare side of common, if you like.
In chemistry, we have these cool things called catalysts.
See, a catalyst is used in a reaction, but is not used up in a reaction - it just provides structure for the reacting molecules to bond more easily.
See, in this case, the carbon is providing structure - acting as a catalyst - for the Lithium to bond with Oxygen on the fly, instead of having to be pre-bonded and stored prior to use, which is how all other lithium batteries work.
Think of it as a normal lithium battery, but with half the chemicals pulled straight out of the air. This allows it to be significantly more compact, increasing capacity. Since the battery is able to draw in air, it also allows it to be passively charged as it is discharging, greatly increasing charge time over traditional lithium.
Remember, the carbon here is structure.
Also, just because you only know of one or two reaction doesn't in any way suggest there aren't hundreds or thousands more. Carbon bonds easily, and also releases easily. You could say it is very easy going (which is why it is so common for life). Oxygen is one of the most bond-happy atoms out there. I wouldn't be surprised if there were millions of different types of reactions involving carbon and oxygen.
It's the vast quantities of liquid that cause it (caffeen contributes but only to a small extent); as has already been noted, 4-9 liters of water per day will also cause hypokalomedia. With water though you will probably run into hyponatremia first.
The sodium content of soda is likely what prevents this in the cola cases, so you could say drinking vast quantities of soda is SAFER than water!
Though insulin spikes, liver failure, and kidney failure can't be good for you either.
Gee, you dumbshit. You're so fat you have to drive an electric scooter around with a basket to carry your 2 liter flagon of high fructose corn syrup, and you wonder why you have health problems?
Who said he was fat? I had muscle weakness, and had to drive a scooter, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was fat. Making that assumption just makes an ass out of you and umption.
Now, he probably WAS fat, 4 liters a day has got to be in the 2,000-3,000 calorie range, just from soda. His liver and kidneys have got to be shot, and he's certainly not getting any good exercise, but still, don't just assume. It's bad practice and hurts otherwise sensible arguments.
Check it out and notice how far down on the list Bananas are for potassium content.
One cup of tomato paste (granted, it's concentrated) has roughly 5 times the potassium content that a cup of banana does. A baked potato has just about double a banana, and a 1/2 filet of halibut has not quite double. More reasonable tomato sauces also double the potassium content of bananas. A nice meal of filet of halibut and baked potato is worth 4-6 bananas, depending on if you go for the full or just half filet.
So, if you're going to drink 9 liters of cola per day, just be sure you also get the super-sized french fries when you go through the drive-through, that has about as much potassium as about 4 bananas!! (assuming 2 cups, which seems about right to me, probably on the low side)
I don't want a large Farva! I want a liter-a-cola!
Anecdotal as well, but my buddy went through several 24 packs per week, and over the course of a few years his teeth rotted out.
Thanks to his Alaska Native heritage and therefore free medical care, he recently had what remained of his teeth pulled and was fitted for dentures. Now he can drink as much as he likes without rotting his teeth! Oy...
You're going to think twice about flying, and the airlines are already in trouble as it is.
How many people already don't fly because the seats barely fit skinny peaple, let alone average or large people?
Plus, there are plenty of skinny people who don't exactly have nice bodies. Skinny does not automatically mean attractive. Leanness is usually a necessary factor, but plenty of lean people have ugly boobs, small dicks, wierd abnormalities.
From what I've read these machines are so accurate, they have to distort the image before it is displayed or the screeners would be able to see everything as though they had forced the person to strip right in front of them.
You'd be on point if the hijackers had used big heavy 747s full of jet fuel.
In fact, they used 767s, which are much smaller. The 747 weighs about 3/4 of a million pounds fully loaded, while the 767-222 model topped out at just under 400,000 pounds, or about half the size of a 747.
Private/charter jets can be anything, but are typically small. Cargo jets tend to actually be larger, and could have been used as well. Perhaps it was too difficult to get past FedEx's security to make it worth it?
It's a logical fallacy to assume that because it happens at one, it happens at all.
However, it is not fallacy to think that since it could happen at one it may be happening at others. I think that is closer to what you were going for, but I seriously doubt it happens at "all" airports. Different organizations are run differently, even sections within a large organization like TSA. Don't think the local airport has a lot of influence regarding how people who work in their airport conduct themselves, either.
All that said doesn't mean it isn't worth getting pissed about. I know a guy who traveled to the same place for two weeks at a time on a semi-monthly basis. He accidentally carried a box cutter (aka the weapon the 9/11 hijackers all used) 5 or 6 times through airport security before -he- realized he had it in his carryon bag and removed it.
That certainly didn't boost my confidence in the system.
Yeah, except it's real. People are smart enough to know the difference between real and not-real unless they have been deliberatly duped (then they are only sometimes smart enough).
Right, because we have the capability of doing just that with nukes now, nevermind robots, and it has been such a problem for us over the last 50 years...
Only an idiot would think physical separation from the battlefield immediately reduces the gravity of killing a human being. You still know it's a human being you are killing, the separation doesn't change anything. You could make the case that it reduces the trauma of being mid-fight, but that only puts more emphasis on the fact that you are killing someone, you don't have the fear of your own death to force your hand.
By your logic, shooting someone at point-blank range would be significantly more difficult than shooting them from 200 yards away, which would be more difficult than shooting them with battlfield artilary from 1 mile away, which would be more difficult than launching a missile from tens of miles away, which would be more difficult than pressing the button to launch an ICBM.
The logic doesn't follow, because as you move farther away and impact more people, the decision becomes more and more difficult. The decision at point blank is simple: act or die. Traumatic? Yeah, some people are screwed up for life because of it. Do you have time to weigh to think about the fact that you are about to end another human being's life? No, you don't. Making the decision is easy, living with the consequences is difficult. It doesn't change much when you make that decision from half a world away through a monitor. If anything, without the stronger pressures of battle to force the decision it could be harder on a person's psyche to make the decision to kill, and more likely to question their own actions.
For some reason, you are assuming that physical separation suddenly turns people into sociopaths. It's the same reasoning that makes the asinine argument that video games desensitize kids and turn them all into violent killers. It's just not the case. You're basically saying soldiers in the drones can't tell that those are real people they are killing. That's just stupid.
An argument could be made that from a physical perspective only, recordable DVD media is not dramatically different from recordable CD media.
Were that the case, DVDs would not exist. The media DVDs are recorded on was fully half the innovation, and it was a huge leap forward in optical recording technology. DVD-R can't get away with the "burn spot, not a burn spot, burn spot, not a burn spot" of CD-Rs. It is significantly more complicated, and combined with DVD writers and players, represents an innovative leap.
I don't know if you know this, but innovative leaps are considered quite novel, and usually get a patent. The DVD patents have been around for a long time now, and I'm surprised Imation would be dumb enough to try to sell blank discs without a license to the patent.
"At least Win98 supports the damned printers at Walmart."
No, no it doesn't I think you're talking from some sort of anti-ideology ideology here. Stop making shit up.
I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a printer that didn't come with a driver CD with Win98, 2k, and XP drivers on it. Most of that should work in Vista, though some stuff is so old that it won't (98 was 11 years ago!). And naturally, anything still being sold will have either a Vista driver on the CD or a driver available for download.
I'm glad your Linux anecdotes work perfectly, mine have never worked 100% out of the box. Especially things like video and wireless, and recently for some reason sound with Ubuntu 9.04. Printers I haven't really tried honestly, but it annoys me that USB drives don't auto-unmount in linux like in windows. They can't just be plugged in and pulled out like you can in windows (if you don't use the caching option), and should you accidentally remove a usb from windows with caching on, you lose data but you aren't stuck with a broken mount point on your desktop.
Seriously, if you compare the computers in question, the Mac is like a giant Swiss watch and the PC is the concrete patio tile of laptops.
Why the hell are you comparing two completely unrelated things? Mac and PCs serve the same purpose, but go about it in somewhat different ways. They both run on essentially the same hardware, so all you are comparing really is aesthetics and price (assuming the particular OS doesn't matter - it often doesn't between these two).
If you want to make watch comparison, Mac is the classy, expensive, Swiss watch that keeps fantastic time and is very durable, but doesn't have the chrono/alarm/lap/split functions of the much less expensive Timex Analog/Digital watch that is Windows. Linux of course is the ultra geeky graphing-calculator watch that nobody wants to be caught dead with.;)
The price difference is real, Macs are prettier and more expensive than most PCs, but they are not more useful in any practical way.
Frankly, if you're going to buy a Dell buy the 3 year on-site service warranty, it's worth it.
You tend to get a deal with Dell on the hardware, but it comes at a price - they don't just have quirky issues, they -often- have quirky issues. Of their business Latitude line, the D600 and D610 models had battery recall issues, D620 had video/motherboard issues (this one was CONSTANT), and everything later than a D620 has battery life issues, except their very latest, I think they have switched battery technologies on some models at least. Of the GX270 models, they had issues with static blowing capacitors. I think we replaced the motherboards of almost every single box we used.
The moral? 3 years of "replace anything, on-site service" is worth it even if you buy the cheapest Dell.
From what I understand, generic kernals tend to be a lot slower than kernals optimized for the hardware. I've never optimized my kernal, so I wouldn't actually know. Also, does the linux kernal choose between different HALs on each boot? If so, that particular feature is sweet, since picking different HALs is the bane of Windows imaging, for those who don't know how to use sysprep to change it properly anyway.;)
This might be acceptable, given my own statement above, however for a large company like Dell, having every single driver available for all of their possible hardware on every linux machine they sell is going to significantly add to the initial install bloat. With Windows it's pretty trivial to have a "run once" script to delete drivers after Sysprep, making the final footprint on the drive much smaller.
Furthermore, would not having more drivers to search through at boot increase boot time? Part of the point of imaging is the ability to customize and optimize the OS prior to install, in addition to simplifying the deployment process. If what you say is correct (I don't doubt you, I just don't know personally), it sounds like you can simplify the deployment process just fine but you have to throw out optimizing beyond a certain point.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I misread the tone of your post, oh well. This would be better suited as a reply to the GP.
You realise those are all problems for both a tiny, browser-only OS and a big OS that runs programs natively, right?
The fact is, for what PC's are usually used for these day, the network being down already makes them nearly useless for probably 70% or more of the population.
The most popular games don't work off the network, can't get internet without the network, all you are left with are local apps. Better get those specs out of email so you can work on whatever your project is! Oh wait..
Seriously, how often is the network out? And what are you going to be doing when the network is out anywy?
I know at work, if the network goes down, 90% of work stops. Everything is integrated anyway, so the negatives of a browser-only PC aren't that huge.
Plus, who says just because there is a browser on the BIOS that you can't boot into a regular OS if you want to? TBH, the browser OS will probably be the optional OS on a PC, not the primary (though it could be!). You know, hit it when you just want to brows the web sort of situations. I know I'm often there, I just want to look something up, or check my favorite news-aggregation website, etc.
Who cares where it is stored? As long as where it is stored is fast, that's all that really matters. And moving it closer to where the bios is stored, especially making it a part of the bios, means it will be as quick as possible.
The point is speed to the browser, and lack of overhead. That particular computer becomes an internet appliance. It could also make web-based terminal sessions, like Citrix, quicker to boot to than a regular native OS! (Citrix is always on, the "speed to the browser" + access time is the only time-sink)
A small OS who's only job is to handle a browser is going to be tiny. Tiny OS = fast OS. Also, without a big OS overhead, processing and memory are devoted solely to the browser and whatever disk storage you are using, which means web apps can get increasingly bigger, JS can be more potent, there could potentially be flash memory for add-ins and updates to things like flash and whatnot (or it could just use the hdd for those things, though onboard flash would be faster).
Accessing the internet from a computer in the off state should be a matter of 5-10 seconds at most if this is done right. This would be perfect for netbooks, who's major function is web-access. Add a minimal web based interface for local disk access, and you're all set.
That's very cool, and the average user will notice they don't have to wait for to load up before they can hit the web. Frankly, I don't care where the OS is stored, even though I would know. Small and in the hardware = fast, and I definitely care about fast.
I've wanted it for a long time for PC gaming, but it's certainly a lot of work. A bios-based browser framework would be much simpler, and frankly it would fulfil the needs of a great many PC users. I know I'd like it for those times when all I want to do is get on the web. Boot should only be a few seconds before you're browsing slashdot. ;)
Think about it though, for gaming (if someone would ever do it). Basic OS + gaming specific API = leanest gaming OS possible. Consoles basically use this concept, and get a lot more out of less hardware than PC games can, because PC games have much greater overhead.
My thoughts, anyway.
"Rare Earth" is a misnomer, and very very old terminology. Lanthanoids are actually very common. Cerium is even the 26th most abundant element in the earth's crust (higher than gold, and we use a LOT of gold). Europium is used as a red phosphor in old TV sets and flourescent lamps.
These elements are in fact fairly abundant in nature, although rare as compared to the "common" earths such as lime or magnesia.
You realize lime is so abundant we use it in concrete, right? "Rare earths" are only rare in relation to extremely common elements. You could say they are on the rare side of common, if you like.
In chemistry, we have these cool things called catalysts.
See, a catalyst is used in a reaction, but is not used up in a reaction - it just provides structure for the reacting molecules to bond more easily.
See, in this case, the carbon is providing structure - acting as a catalyst - for the Lithium to bond with Oxygen on the fly, instead of having to be pre-bonded and stored prior to use, which is how all other lithium batteries work.
Think of it as a normal lithium battery, but with half the chemicals pulled straight out of the air. This allows it to be significantly more compact, increasing capacity. Since the battery is able to draw in air, it also allows it to be passively charged as it is discharging, greatly increasing charge time over traditional lithium.
Remember, the carbon here is structure.
Also, just because you only know of one or two reaction doesn't in any way suggest there aren't hundreds or thousands more. Carbon bonds easily, and also releases easily. You could say it is very easy going (which is why it is so common for life). Oxygen is one of the most bond-happy atoms out there. I wouldn't be surprised if there were millions of different types of reactions involving carbon and oxygen.
This, however, is a lithium-oxygen reaction.
Damn, I've really got to start previewing.
-I- did not have muscle weakness, the GGP said the doctor's patient had muscle weakness and had to drive a scooter around.
It's because you're getting old.
It's the vast quantities of liquid that cause it (caffeen contributes but only to a small extent); as has already been noted, 4-9 liters of water per day will also cause hypokalomedia. With water though you will probably run into hyponatremia first.
The sodium content of soda is likely what prevents this in the cola cases, so you could say drinking vast quantities of soda is SAFER than water!
Though insulin spikes, liver failure, and kidney failure can't be good for you either.
Gee, you dumbshit. You're so fat you have to drive an electric scooter around with a basket to carry your 2 liter flagon of high fructose corn syrup, and you wonder why you have health problems?
Who said he was fat? I had muscle weakness, and had to drive a scooter, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was fat. Making that assumption just makes an ass out of you and umption.
Now, he probably WAS fat, 4 liters a day has got to be in the 2,000-3,000 calorie range, just from soda. His liver and kidneys have got to be shot, and he's certainly not getting any good exercise, but still, don't just assume. It's bad practice and hurts otherwise sensible arguments.
Check it out and notice how far down on the list Bananas are for potassium content.
One cup of tomato paste (granted, it's concentrated) has roughly 5 times the potassium content that a cup of banana does. A baked potato has just about double a banana, and a 1/2 filet of halibut has not quite double. More reasonable tomato sauces also double the potassium content of bananas. A nice meal of filet of halibut and baked potato is worth 4-6 bananas, depending on if you go for the full or just half filet.
So, if you're going to drink 9 liters of cola per day, just be sure you also get the super-sized french fries when you go through the drive-through, that has about as much potassium as about 4 bananas!! (assuming 2 cups, which seems about right to me, probably on the low side)
I don't want a large Farva! I want a liter-a-cola!
Anecdotal as well, but my buddy went through several 24 packs per week, and over the course of a few years his teeth rotted out.
Thanks to his Alaska Native heritage and therefore free medical care, he recently had what remained of his teeth pulled and was fitted for dentures. Now he can drink as much as he likes without rotting his teeth! Oy...
No you're not.
You're going to think twice about flying, and the airlines are already in trouble as it is.
How many people already don't fly because the seats barely fit skinny peaple, let alone average or large people?
Plus, there are plenty of skinny people who don't exactly have nice bodies. Skinny does not automatically mean attractive. Leanness is usually a necessary factor, but plenty of lean people have ugly boobs, small dicks, wierd abnormalities.
From what I've read these machines are so accurate, they have to distort the image before it is displayed or the screeners would be able to see everything as though they had forced the person to strip right in front of them.
It's impressive really.
You'd be on point if the hijackers had used big heavy 747s full of jet fuel.
In fact, they used 767s, which are much smaller. The 747 weighs about 3/4 of a million pounds fully loaded, while the 767-222 model topped out at just under 400,000 pounds, or about half the size of a 747.
Private/charter jets can be anything, but are typically small. Cargo jets tend to actually be larger, and could have been used as well. Perhaps it was too difficult to get past FedEx's security to make it worth it?
Don't think the local airport doesn't have a lot of influence regarding how people who work in their airport conduct themselves, either.
Woe unto me for disregarding the "preview" button whilst making use of a double-negative.
It's a logical fallacy to assume that because it happens at one, it happens at all.
However, it is not fallacy to think that since it could happen at one it may be happening at others. I think that is closer to what you were going for, but I seriously doubt it happens at "all" airports. Different organizations are run differently, even sections within a large organization like TSA. Don't think the local airport has a lot of influence regarding how people who work in their airport conduct themselves, either.
All that said doesn't mean it isn't worth getting pissed about. I know a guy who traveled to the same place for two weeks at a time on a semi-monthly basis. He accidentally carried a box cutter (aka the weapon the 9/11 hijackers all used) 5 or 6 times through airport security before -he- realized he had it in his carryon bag and removed it.
That certainly didn't boost my confidence in the system.
Or the nude scenes she did before she "made it big" and became a superstar. :)
Yeah, except it's real. People are smart enough to know the difference between real and not-real unless they have been deliberatly duped (then they are only sometimes smart enough).
The difference between real and not-real is huge.
Right, because we have the capability of doing just that with nukes now, nevermind robots, and it has been such a problem for us over the last 50 years...
Only an idiot would think physical separation from the battlefield immediately reduces the gravity of killing a human being. You still know it's a human being you are killing, the separation doesn't change anything. You could make the case that it reduces the trauma of being mid-fight, but that only puts more emphasis on the fact that you are killing someone, you don't have the fear of your own death to force your hand.
By your logic, shooting someone at point-blank range would be significantly more difficult than shooting them from 200 yards away, which would be more difficult than shooting them with battlfield artilary from 1 mile away, which would be more difficult than launching a missile from tens of miles away, which would be more difficult than pressing the button to launch an ICBM.
The logic doesn't follow, because as you move farther away and impact more people, the decision becomes more and more difficult. The decision at point blank is simple: act or die. Traumatic? Yeah, some people are screwed up for life because of it. Do you have time to weigh to think about the fact that you are about to end another human being's life? No, you don't. Making the decision is easy, living with the consequences is difficult. It doesn't change much when you make that decision from half a world away through a monitor. If anything, without the stronger pressures of battle to force the decision it could be harder on a person's psyche to make the decision to kill, and more likely to question their own actions.
For some reason, you are assuming that physical separation suddenly turns people into sociopaths. It's the same reasoning that makes the asinine argument that video games desensitize kids and turn them all into violent killers. It's just not the case. You're basically saying soldiers in the drones can't tell that those are real people they are killing. That's just stupid.
An argument could be made that from a physical perspective only, recordable DVD media is not dramatically different from recordable CD media.
Were that the case, DVDs would not exist. The media DVDs are recorded on was fully half the innovation, and it was a huge leap forward in optical recording technology. DVD-R can't get away with the "burn spot, not a burn spot, burn spot, not a burn spot" of CD-Rs. It is significantly more complicated, and combined with DVD writers and players, represents an innovative leap.
I don't know if you know this, but innovative leaps are considered quite novel, and usually get a patent. The DVD patents have been around for a long time now, and I'm surprised Imation would be dumb enough to try to sell blank discs without a license to the patent.
It's not exactly new.
"At least Win98 supports the damned printers at Walmart."
No, no it doesn't I think you're talking from some sort of anti-ideology ideology here. Stop making shit up.
I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a printer that didn't come with a driver CD with Win98, 2k, and XP drivers on it. Most of that should work in Vista, though some stuff is so old that it won't (98 was 11 years ago!). And naturally, anything still being sold will have either a Vista driver on the CD or a driver available for download.
I'm glad your Linux anecdotes work perfectly, mine have never worked 100% out of the box. Especially things like video and wireless, and recently for some reason sound with Ubuntu 9.04. Printers I haven't really tried honestly, but it annoys me that USB drives don't auto-unmount in linux like in windows. They can't just be plugged in and pulled out like you can in windows (if you don't use the caching option), and should you accidentally remove a usb from windows with caching on, you lose data but you aren't stuck with a broken mount point on your desktop.
Dude, for the sound problem, re-install and re-configure your Alsa mixer.
I had the exact same problem upgrading to 9.04, took me days to figure out what the problem was.
I haven't found a fix for my favorite internet radio site only working after 4-5 or more tries though.
Frustrating.
Seriously, if you compare the computers in question, the Mac is like a giant Swiss watch and the PC is the concrete patio tile of laptops.
Why the hell are you comparing two completely unrelated things? Mac and PCs serve the same purpose, but go about it in somewhat different ways. They both run on essentially the same hardware, so all you are comparing really is aesthetics and price (assuming the particular OS doesn't matter - it often doesn't between these two).
If you want to make watch comparison, Mac is the classy, expensive, Swiss watch that keeps fantastic time and is very durable, but doesn't have the chrono/alarm/lap/split functions of the much less expensive Timex Analog/Digital watch that is Windows. Linux of course is the ultra geeky graphing-calculator watch that nobody wants to be caught dead with. ;)
The price difference is real, Macs are prettier and more expensive than most PCs, but they are not more useful in any practical way.
From what I've read it's more of a major overhaul, but yeah, it's the same OS under the hood. I'd be shocked if Vista drivers didn't work in Win7.
Frankly, if you're going to buy a Dell buy the 3 year on-site service warranty, it's worth it.
You tend to get a deal with Dell on the hardware, but it comes at a price - they don't just have quirky issues, they -often- have quirky issues. Of their business Latitude line, the D600 and D610 models had battery recall issues, D620 had video/motherboard issues (this one was CONSTANT), and everything later than a D620 has battery life issues, except their very latest, I think they have switched battery technologies on some models at least. Of the GX270 models, they had issues with static blowing capacitors. I think we replaced the motherboards of almost every single box we used.
The moral? 3 years of "replace anything, on-site service" is worth it even if you buy the cheapest Dell.
From what I understand, generic kernals tend to be a lot slower than kernals optimized for the hardware. I've never optimized my kernal, so I wouldn't actually know. Also, does the linux kernal choose between different HALs on each boot? If so, that particular feature is sweet, since picking different HALs is the bane of Windows imaging, for those who don't know how to use sysprep to change it properly anyway. ;)
This might be acceptable, given my own statement above, however for a large company like Dell, having every single driver available for all of their possible hardware on every linux machine they sell is going to significantly add to the initial install bloat. With Windows it's pretty trivial to have a "run once" script to delete drivers after Sysprep, making the final footprint on the drive much smaller.
Furthermore, would not having more drivers to search through at boot increase boot time? Part of the point of imaging is the ability to customize and optimize the OS prior to install, in addition to simplifying the deployment process. If what you say is correct (I don't doubt you, I just don't know personally), it sounds like you can simplify the deployment process just fine but you have to throw out optimizing beyond a certain point.