I'm using iTunes/iPod. I manually edit the iTunes information whenever I add an item to the library, and the latest iTunes provides much more useful support for classical, including the ability to select on the iPod by Composer. There's also metadata for Grouping, which appears to be specifically designed to bring together movements of a single work as a 'Grouping'.
By convention, I prefix the title of the album with the Composer's name. For the Artist, I use the primary identity of the grop, along with the most significant names in the groups, e.g. "Academy of Ancient Music, Hogwood (dir)". What I haven't decided yet is how much information to include in the 'song name'. I've ranged from the full "Symphony #9 in D Minor, Presto" to just "Presto". There must be a happy medium in here somewhere, that gives enough info to catch the parent work without flooding the 'Song' entry with all the 'Grouping' information.
Since iTunes' metadata comes from the CDDB database, you're at the mercy of whatever gets put into that database. The quality and uniformity of that data, particularly for classical, is not very good.
Lest anyone accuse me of proposing stuff that doesn't scale, my current iTunes database has 1147 albums in it, and it took me -a long time- to get this stuff consistent. So I'm sensitive/sympathetic to the concern, and wish there were a way to establish better standards for cataloging classical in iTunes/CDDB.
My current problem is that their Appliance modules seem to be troubled by electrical noise, eg: EMF spikes from turning fluroescent lights on/off. It seems to crash the microcontroller on them. Older models used to burn out their load sense circuit with those electrical spikes
Thanks. I've had several controllers die on me unexpectedly, this sounds like a likely explanation.
Well, since I don't have moderator points, all I can say is "Well stated". This is how I understand things. Dell doesn't get any points for their own R&D, but does get points for selecting and marketing -some- of the innovations they want credit for.
dave (who appreciated the other posts on Apple's innovations, including AirPort/802.11b)
It's the return value designated by POSIX.5 when a program exits from an unhandled exception. As the Rationale explains, "We needed a value that was a small positive number, relatively close to zero, but not so close as to cause collisions with existing conventional values used for error returns. The choice of the value '42' was arbitrary, but see [Adams, Douglas, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy."] "
"and perhaps a useful way to channel Steve Ballmer's aggression too."
I'm not quite sure this would have the stated effect. My guess is there are a whole bunch of otherwise honest people who might be tempted to pirate Windows if they knew it would get them a swing at the Ballmer...
In my personal case, most of the time what's going on is not sufficient to keep my attention. So I've found that I actually respond better if I'm able to do priority-based multitasking, i.e. listen when there's something interesting being said, but have something else to do otherwise.
I guess if I were an "old lady", I could knit. Failing that, if I have web connectivity I'll surf around the net.
Do others have a similar perspective? Or am I just weird?:-)
I can understand her concerns about eye contact, etc. But at least some of us are "lexically challenged" when it comes to handwriting. So if I were a student, I'd "force her" to have to read anything I submit as part of coursework in my truly appalling handwriting:-)
After all, it's only fair. If I have to read my handwritten notes, she should have to read my handwritten coursework.
I'd be willing to pay IT for things they do -that I can't do myself-. I've swapped beaucoup disk drives in my own machines. But in most places, cracking a case is a big No-No.
Now I'll admit it, I've used Macs primarily (but -not exclusively) for end user computing over the last 15 years. Where I was using a Mac, I did most of the work myself, and the primary dependency on corporate IT was to provide software updates. The few times that I actually needed help was usually diagnosing a system problem (sometimes software, sometimes hardware), and I'd gladly pay for the help, because -I really needed it-.
Where I've been using Windows, things have been very different. First, Windows is, at least in my estimation, much more difficult to sustain than MacOS. So there are fewer things that I could fix myself. Second, most Windows systems that I've used have been locked down, increasingly so, preventing me from doing the things that I was able to do. That's something that I don't feel like paying for. But I fundamentally object to the IT department selecting my system in the first place. So if they make me use Windows, and Windows requires substantially more care-and-feeding, that's their choice, they should pay for the consequences.
When I changed jobs, a Mac as my primary desktop was a condition of employment. Particularly when I was doing 75% or more travel, the last thing I wanted was a system that bit the dust where I couldn't get Corporate IT to support me (because I was across the country), regardless of who paid for it. I've been alternately amused and disgusted by co-workers (different companies, mostly) who had all kinds of Windows problems (hardware, software, cause-unknown), while my Mac kept on humming along. Several of them told me flat out "I'd rather have a Mac too, but corporate IT won't allow it." So my response has been, and will continue to be "Corporate IT should pay for -your- inconvenience."
As I see it, the big problem with most IT departments (including yours) is their lack of accountability as a support organization to the end user. CIOs have grown big and fat on staff increases based on shifting control to their organizations, but when they screw up, there's no penalty. That's particularly true for things done to increase the "efficiency" of the IT department's staff (which is NOT a profit center) at the loss of efficiency for the end user. One of the best examples is locking down a PC so tight that you can't even move files using a USB drive. That's particularly painful for a computer located in a conference room, when everyone brings files to present on these devices, or you want a copy of the other guy's slides.
So, whenever you're unable to get your job done, you should have a charge number against the IT department. Even if it's just a "paper wash", this'll give them some significant measurable motivation for making end-user computing -convenient for the end user-.
Most desktop macs (except iMacs/eMacs) can hold two drives, and anything that runs OS X will do RAID 0/RAID 1 in the OS. So if you're not too-too concerned about screaming performance, go find any old G4 desktop, plop 2 drives into it, grab a copy of Mac OS X.2 or better (but I strongly recommend X.4 if you're doing SMB). Format the drives using Disk Utility, then in Disk Utility, drag the two drives into the RAID tab as RAID Mirrored. Hit "apply" and wait a while as it builds the RAID set.
Then you can configure the RAID set for sharing (System Preferences, Sharing, don't forget to check 'Windows File Sharing'), and when you do, it'll tell you how to access the RAID set as an SMB URL.
Note you can also mount the same RAID set using NFS and AFP.
Frankly, this is not as cheap as the Linux-based alternatives, but I'm adding it here for people who are interested in RAID in a cross-platform environment. The next step, if you want to do cross-platform, is to look at Mac OS X Server, which has really great cross-platform capabilities wrapped up in a -relatively- easy-to-use package. (I bought a copy of OS X Server to support networked home directories. It'll do networked directories for both Macs and PCs off the same file system, which is kinda cool. After I get the Mac side all worked out, I'll give that a try on our token PC.) I'm running a 10-license copy of Tiger Server that I got off eBay for $300, running on a Mac Mini, but with the home files mounted from a RAID array in my G5/2DP. The Mini will host Open Directory for both Windows and Macs. Another neat feature of Tiger Server is 'roaming users', where the system mirrors the directory information and the home directory when the machine is plugged into the home network, but the machine runs just fine standalone when on-the-road.
Yup, I'm sitting fat, dumb and happy about the absence of ANY recorded infections of Mac OS X systems.
But what's significant here is to understand the vulnerabilities of Mac OS X. What's pretty clear is that the vulnernabilities that permeate Microsoft products aren't in Mac OS X.
Part of the reason I'm not rushing out to buy Mac antivirus software is that I'm not convinced it's worth the money. I'd assert it's guarding against sources of infections that so far haven't proven out. When there is an actual Mac OS X virus/worm/malware/etc, we'll be able to understand that real, no-sh*t vulnerability and I'll be happy to buy a product that is proven effective against it.
So to those who want me to buy Mac OS anti-virus products, I'd argue two things, which are the classic requriements that the FDA places on medicines:
1. Safe - Many of the Mac OS X products have proven to be much more harmful to overall system reliability, and I don't need some anti-virus software protecting me against malware/virus behavior, by causing the same symptoms of system instability.
2. Effective - Against some clearly validated threat, not hypothetical risks based on vulnerabilities of other platforms.
In some respects, it's like taking medicine against TB, -after- youv'e been vaccinated against TB. Your chances of catching TB are nil without the medicine, and that medicine won't protect you against some other kind of disease, so why bother with the medicine?
Good point... The really interesting question is whether there is room in the WinTel world for a company that runs like Apple, emphasizing style, design and quality over bottom-line price. Dell seems to have lost a bit of its original focus, which was to create state-of-the-practice machines at highly competitive prices. The Dell machine I had was rock-solid, and its only drawback was in its memory architecture. Lately, my friends with Dell laptops seem to have much more quality problems then they did, say, 5 years go.
dave
How to turn this (mis) feature off!!!
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
(I'm not happy about this being the default, it's not the normal "do the right/safe thing by default" that has been Apple's basic rule for features...)
Your source for this statement, please? I don't know of any commercial avionics code that approaches this size, and I'd be surprised to hear how F-22 reached this level of productivity.
The Master Money server done by Praxis was done Fixed Price, and with a warranty that says Praxis would fix any bug discovered over the net 10 years -for free-.
How many of you would be willing to place that kind of warranty on YOUR CODE?
dave (who's tried SPARK and liked it a lot, although proofs are much harder than they should be...)
The only thing I miss from G3 PowerBooks is the dual drive bays so I could have 2 batteries for long trips. I had some annoying problems with G3 PBs (Pismos and Lombards), including cracked cases and missing/broken keycaps.
Its replacement, a Ti 667/GigE was -seriously- abused. We logged about 300,000 miles of travel. The latch failed twice (but that didn't affect the usability of the PB itself), I replaced 2 bricks (probably due to picking them up by the power cord) and near the end of the 3 year period (and just before AppleCare ran out), it blew a motherboard. I was on travel to Huntington Beach. I drove down to the Newport Beach Apple Store, committed it to Apple about 7:00 PM Thursday, and it was back at my home Tysons Corner VA store by the following Tuesday afternoon. (Try that with a Dell or HP or IBM!). The latch replacements were while-I-wait at a local Apple dealer (he ordered the part and called me when it was in), and the power supplies were direct replacement at Apple Stores (one each in Newport Beach and Tysons Corner.)
Given how hard that machine was used, and comparing it to the varous PC laptops of my co-workers, the Mac was definitely a better choice from a hardware reliability perspective. PCs in particular tended to cluster, some brands/models had real problems. And its Mean Time to Repair was outstanding. My total down-time over 3 years was 2x 3 hours for the latch repair and 3 days for the motherboard. With some people's laptops, it was many trips back to tech support before the machine was fixed or, much more often, replaced.
Your mileage may vary; I'm tying this on an Al PB that replaced the Ti PB. After -27 years- of personal computer ownership, I rate my Ti PB as the all-around best machine I've ever owned, for convenience, utility, weight, fun-to-use, etc. I've had other Macs with less repairs (Mac ci were absolute rocks!), but the Ti PB hit my sweet spot for all around goodness.
I was expecting the leap second to show up in the big Dick Clark Times Square dropping ball (5..4...3...2...1...1...Happy New Years) but I must have blinked and missed it...
Starting with WinNT, it's pretty clear (at least to me:-) that the primary push in Microsoft was to take capabilities away from the end user and give them to corporate IT. In one respect, this was a response to the increasing complexity of administring PCs. But I think that was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Corporate IT departments grew because Windows was so labor-intensive to administer, Windows added more features for centralized administration, thereby adding to the administrative workload. But how do corporate IT directors and CIOs get measured? Not by their impact on productivity, but rather by the size of their staff! (Imagine how different Corporate IT would look if your CIO got charged for every hour any computer user in the company was not productive because of computer problems...)
That's why accurate TCO measures are so important and also why they're so difficult. It's hard to measure the impact of loss-of-productivity on staff, and so few corporations have any alternative to their very labor-intensive Windows environments. (If they do have Macs, for example, they often don't believe the comparative numbers they get for those Macs. And what's worse, is their own billing charges often work against a good comparison. How many Windows problems get fixed in 15 minutes? It was very rare that I ever had a Mac question that went more than 15 minutes, but I'm sure corporate IT charged an hour for the call....) Similarly, when Corporate IT looks at support for alternative platforms, they use their (very high) Windows numbers and extrapolate. Where I used to work, part of the problem was that so few corporate IT people understood Macs in the first place, that they were used only as the last resort. Mostly we solved our own problems, either as individuals, or as a Community of Interest (mac-users mailing list):-)
Strongly disagree. C++ last. Why? The language is poorly designed and poorly defined. You're much better off learning a language where you can argue about correctness of programs, i.e. "If this is legal code in the langage, then I -know- what it will do", than worrying about "Oh, what will this compiler or that compiler do with this code sniglet." And C++ is very unforgiving of mistakes. It doesn't catch much at compile-time, so you spend much more time in runtime debugging (which is always a bad thing).
Much better to learn good techniques early with tool support, and then if you want to juggle chainsaws, you'll at least have a solid grounding in the concepts.
Slashdot Mirror
You must have an 'interesting' definition of classical music.
dave
I'm using iTunes/iPod. I manually edit the iTunes information whenever I add an item to the library, and the latest iTunes provides much more useful support for classical, including the ability to select on the iPod by Composer. There's also metadata for Grouping, which appears to be specifically designed to bring together movements of a single work as a 'Grouping'.
By convention, I prefix the title of the album with the Composer's name. For the Artist, I use the primary identity of the grop, along with the most significant names in the groups, e.g. "Academy of Ancient Music, Hogwood (dir)". What I haven't decided yet is how much information to include in the 'song name'. I've ranged from the full "Symphony #9 in D Minor, Presto" to just "Presto". There must be a happy medium in here somewhere, that gives enough info to catch the parent work without flooding the 'Song' entry with all the 'Grouping' information.
Since iTunes' metadata comes from the CDDB database, you're at the mercy of whatever gets put into that database. The quality and uniformity of that data, particularly for classical, is not very good.
Lest anyone accuse me of proposing stuff that doesn't scale, my current iTunes database has 1147 albums in it, and it took me -a long time- to get this stuff consistent. So I'm sensitive/sympathetic to the concern, and wish there were a way to establish better standards for cataloging classical in iTunes/CDDB.
dave
Magnatune has some really excellent classical and folk/ethnic recordings (I've bought maybe 8-9 of them...)
Anyone know of other good sources for classical?
I also really like Magnatune's ability to sample the full album before I buy and the ability to occasionally send more than the minimum payment.
dave
One of (he | me) are very confused here...
dave
Buy a MacTel box. Run OS X now. Run Vista later... (much later...)
Thanks. I've had several controllers die on me unexpectedly, this sounds like a likely explanation.
dave
Well, since I don't have moderator points, all I can say is "Well stated". This is how I understand things. Dell doesn't get any points for their own R&D, but does get points for selecting and marketing -some- of the innovations they want credit for.
dave (who appreciated the other posts on Apple's innovations, including AirPort/802.11b)
It's the return value designated by POSIX.5 when a program exits from an unhandled exception. As the Rationale explains, "We needed a value that was a small positive number, relatively close to zero, but not so close as to cause collisions with existing conventional values used for error returns. The choice of the value '42' was arbitrary, but see [Adams, Douglas, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy."] "
dave
I'm not quite sure this would have the stated effect. My guess is there are a whole bunch of otherwise honest people who might be tempted to pirate Windows if they knew it would get them a swing at the Ballmer...
dave
In my personal case, most of the time what's going on is not sufficient to keep my attention. So I've found that I actually respond better if I'm able to do priority-based multitasking, i.e. listen when there's something interesting being said, but have something else to do otherwise.
:-)
I guess if I were an "old lady", I could knit. Failing that, if I have web connectivity I'll surf around the net.
Do others have a similar perspective? Or am I just weird?
dave
I can understand her concerns about eye contact, etc. But at least some of us are "lexically challenged" when it comes to handwriting. So if I were a student, I'd "force her" to have to read anything I submit as part of coursework in my truly appalling handwriting :-)
After all, it's only fair. If I have to read my handwritten notes, she should have to read my handwritten coursework.
dave
I'd be willing to pay IT for things they do -that I can't do myself-. I've swapped beaucoup disk drives in my own machines. But in most places, cracking a case is a big No-No.
Now I'll admit it, I've used Macs primarily (but -not exclusively) for end user computing over the last 15 years. Where I was using a Mac, I did most of the work myself, and the primary dependency on corporate IT was to provide software updates. The few times that I actually needed help was usually diagnosing a system problem (sometimes software, sometimes hardware), and I'd gladly pay for the help, because -I really needed it-.
Where I've been using Windows, things have been very different. First, Windows is, at least in my estimation, much more difficult to sustain than MacOS. So there are fewer things that I could fix myself. Second, most Windows systems that I've used have been locked down, increasingly so, preventing me from doing the things that I was able to do. That's something that I don't feel like paying for. But I fundamentally object to the IT department selecting my system in the first place. So if they make me use Windows, and Windows requires substantially more care-and-feeding, that's their choice, they should pay for the consequences.
When I changed jobs, a Mac as my primary desktop was a condition of employment. Particularly when I was doing 75% or more travel, the last thing I wanted was a system that bit the dust where I couldn't get Corporate IT to support me (because I was across the country), regardless of who paid for it. I've been alternately amused and disgusted by co-workers (different companies, mostly) who had all kinds of Windows problems (hardware, software, cause-unknown), while my Mac kept on humming along. Several of them told me flat out "I'd rather have a Mac too, but corporate IT won't allow it." So my response has been, and will continue to be "Corporate IT should pay for -your- inconvenience."
dave
As I see it, the big problem with most IT departments (including yours) is their lack of accountability as a support organization to the end user. CIOs have grown big and fat on staff increases based on shifting control to their organizations, but when they screw up, there's no penalty. That's particularly true for things done to increase the "efficiency" of the IT department's staff (which is NOT a profit center) at the loss of efficiency for the end user. One of the best examples is locking down a PC so tight that you can't even move files using a USB drive. That's particularly painful for a computer located in a conference room, when everyone brings files to present on these devices, or you want a copy of the other guy's slides.
So, whenever you're unable to get your job done, you should have a charge number against the IT department. Even if it's just a "paper wash", this'll give them some significant measurable motivation for making end-user computing -convenient for the end user-.
That's my $.02.
dave
Most desktop macs (except iMacs/eMacs) can hold two drives, and anything that runs OS X will do RAID 0/RAID 1 in the OS. So if you're not too-too concerned about screaming performance, go find any old G4 desktop, plop 2 drives into it, grab a copy of Mac OS X.2 or better (but I strongly recommend X.4 if you're doing SMB). Format the drives using Disk Utility, then in Disk Utility, drag the two drives into the RAID tab as RAID Mirrored. Hit "apply" and wait a while as it builds the RAID set.
Then you can configure the RAID set for sharing (System Preferences, Sharing, don't forget to check 'Windows File Sharing'), and when you do, it'll tell you how to access the RAID set as an SMB URL.
Note you can also mount the same RAID set using NFS and AFP.
Frankly, this is not as cheap as the Linux-based alternatives, but I'm adding it here for people who are interested in RAID in a cross-platform environment. The next step, if you want to do cross-platform, is to look at Mac OS X Server, which has really great cross-platform capabilities wrapped up in a -relatively- easy-to-use package. (I bought a copy of OS X Server to support networked home directories. It'll do networked directories for both Macs and PCs off the same file system, which is kinda cool. After I get the Mac side all worked out, I'll give that a try on our token PC.) I'm running a 10-license copy of Tiger Server that I got off eBay for $300, running on a Mac Mini, but with the home files mounted from a RAID array in my G5/2DP. The Mini will host Open Directory for both Windows and Macs. Another neat feature of Tiger Server is 'roaming users', where the system mirrors the directory information and the home directory when the machine is plugged into the home network, but the machine runs just fine standalone when on-the-road.
dave
Yup, I'm sitting fat, dumb and happy about the absence of ANY recorded infections of Mac OS X systems.
But what's significant here is to understand the vulnerabilities of Mac OS X. What's pretty clear is that the vulnernabilities that permeate Microsoft products aren't in Mac OS X.
Part of the reason I'm not rushing out to buy Mac antivirus software is that I'm not convinced it's worth the money. I'd assert it's guarding against sources of infections that so far haven't proven out. When there is an actual Mac OS X virus/worm/malware/etc, we'll be able to understand that real, no-sh*t vulnerability and I'll be happy to buy a product that is proven effective against it.
So to those who want me to buy Mac OS anti-virus products, I'd argue two things, which are the classic requriements that the FDA places on medicines:
1. Safe - Many of the Mac OS X products have proven to be much more harmful to overall system reliability, and I don't need some anti-virus software protecting me against malware/virus behavior, by causing the same symptoms of system instability.
2. Effective - Against some clearly validated threat, not hypothetical risks based on vulnerabilities of other platforms.
In some respects, it's like taking medicine against TB, -after- youv'e been vaccinated against TB. Your chances of catching TB are nil without the medicine, and that medicine won't protect you against some other kind of disease, so why bother with the medicine?
dave
What percentage of the UN funding is provided by the European Community? What percentage is provided by the US?
dave
p.s. I bet the Iranians are really scared of the European Community's threat to tell the UN on them...
Good point... The really interesting question is whether there is room in the WinTel world for a company that runs like Apple, emphasizing style, design and quality over bottom-line price. Dell seems to have lost a bit of its original focus, which was to create state-of-the-practice machines at highly competitive prices. The Dell machine I had was rock-solid, and its only drawback was in its memory architecture. Lately, my friends with Dell laptops seem to have much more quality problems then they did, say, 5 years go.
dave
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2006/01/mi nistore/index.php?lsrc=mwrss
(I'm not happy about this being the default, it's not the normal "do the right/safe thing by default" that has been Apple's basic rule for features...)
dave
Your source for this statement, please? I don't know of any commercial avionics code that approaches this size, and I'd be surprised to hear how F-22 reached this level of productivity.
dave
The Master Money server done by Praxis was done Fixed Price, and with a warranty that says Praxis would fix any bug discovered over the net 10 years -for free-.
How many of you would be willing to place that kind of warranty on YOUR CODE?
dave (who's tried SPARK and liked it a lot, although proofs are much harder than they should be...)
The only thing I miss from G3 PowerBooks is the dual drive bays so I could have 2 batteries for long trips. I had some annoying problems with G3 PBs (Pismos and Lombards), including cracked cases and missing/broken keycaps.
Its replacement, a Ti 667/GigE was -seriously- abused. We logged about 300,000 miles of travel. The latch failed twice (but that didn't affect the usability of the PB itself), I replaced 2 bricks (probably due to picking them up by the power cord) and near the end of the 3 year period (and just before AppleCare ran out), it blew a motherboard. I was on travel to Huntington Beach. I drove down to the Newport Beach Apple Store, committed it to Apple about 7:00 PM Thursday, and it was back at my home Tysons Corner VA store by the following Tuesday afternoon. (Try that with a Dell or HP or IBM!). The latch replacements were while-I-wait at a local Apple dealer (he ordered the part and called me when it was in), and the power supplies were direct replacement at Apple Stores (one each in Newport Beach and Tysons Corner.)
Given how hard that machine was used, and comparing it to the varous PC laptops of my co-workers, the Mac was definitely a better choice from a hardware reliability perspective. PCs in particular tended to cluster, some brands/models had real problems. And its Mean Time to Repair was outstanding. My total down-time over 3 years was 2x 3 hours for the latch repair and 3 days for the motherboard. With some people's laptops, it was many trips back to tech support before the machine was fixed or, much more often, replaced.
Your mileage may vary; I'm tying this on an Al PB that replaced the Ti PB. After -27 years- of personal computer ownership, I rate my Ti PB as the all-around best machine I've ever owned, for convenience, utility, weight, fun-to-use, etc. I've had other Macs with less repairs (Mac ci were absolute rocks!), but the Ti PB hit my sweet spot for all around goodness.
dave
Well, I guess that makes sense... Still I was hoping to see the ball stutter :-)
dave
I was expecting the leap second to show up in the big Dick Clark Times Square dropping ball (5..4...3...2...1...1...Happy New Years) but I must have blinked and missed it...
dave
Starting with WinNT, it's pretty clear (at least to me :-) that the primary push in Microsoft was to take capabilities away from the end user and give them to corporate IT. In one respect, this was a response to the increasing complexity of administring PCs. But I think that was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Corporate IT departments grew because Windows was so labor-intensive to administer, Windows added more features for centralized administration, thereby adding to the administrative workload. But how do corporate IT directors and CIOs get measured? Not by their impact on productivity, but rather by the size of their staff! (Imagine how different Corporate IT would look if your CIO got charged for every hour any computer user in the company was not productive because of computer problems...)
:-)
That's why accurate TCO measures are so important and also why they're so difficult. It's hard to measure the impact of loss-of-productivity on staff, and so few corporations have any alternative to their very labor-intensive Windows environments. (If they do have Macs, for example, they often don't believe the comparative numbers they get for those Macs. And what's worse, is their own billing charges often work against a good comparison. How many Windows problems get fixed in 15 minutes? It was very rare that I ever had a Mac question that went more than 15 minutes, but I'm sure corporate IT charged an hour for the call....) Similarly, when Corporate IT looks at support for alternative platforms, they use their (very high) Windows numbers and extrapolate. Where I used to work, part of the problem was that so few corporate IT people understood Macs in the first place, that they were used only as the last resort. Mostly we solved our own problems, either as individuals, or as a Community of Interest (mac-users mailing list)
dave
Strongly disagree. C++ last. Why? The language is poorly designed and poorly defined. You're much better off learning a language where you can argue about correctness of programs, i.e. "If this is legal code in the langage, then I -know- what it will do", than worrying about "Oh, what will this compiler or that compiler do with this code sniglet." And C++ is very unforgiving of mistakes. It doesn't catch much at compile-time, so you spend much more time in runtime debugging (which is always a bad thing).
Much better to learn good techniques early with tool support, and then if you want to juggle chainsaws, you'll at least have a solid grounding in the concepts.
dave