Both are now in Microsoft Windows with nothing more than a credit line to the original developers buried somewhere.
You say this like it's a bad thing, why ? It is _precisely_ what the developers intended when they released their code under the BSDL.
Incidentally, the last release of Windows to have a BSD-derived TCP/IP stack was NT4, way back in 1996 - and the only reason it had a BSD-derived stack was because the company Microsoft bought it from had based it on the BSD reference code (just like pretty much everyone else did).
Neither. I think the 533Mhz and 667Mhz parts are they same "quality", the 533Mhz ones are just cheaper to buy because they're cheaper to make (lower speed = less rejects).
The 2950 uses server-grade, high-capacity FB-DIMMs, which are a whole different kettle of fish from what they're putting in the E520! When you see a lower speed rating on a server DIMM that costs $3000, you assume conservativeness, not cost-cutting.
Hmm. Same conditions, different conclusion...
533Mhz and 667Mhz "regular" DIMMS cost about the same.
533Mhz and 667Mhz "server" DIMMS cost about the same.
But, apparently, using one is evidence of cost-cutting and the other is not...
I have a hard time believing the 533 MHz DIMMs in the E520 are otherwise high-quality parts that are just conservatively rated. More likely they are low-quality parts sold at a discount to get rid of the inventory of 533 MHz chips.
More likely they are parts that were of the same quality that are cheaper to make and, hence, acquire.
Your criteria for establishing "quality" seems to be based solely on price. This is somewhat reasonable when "all else is equal", but it's pretty worthless when you're talking about two items with different capabilities. A 2Ghz Core 2 CPU is cheaper than a 2.33Ghz Core 2 CPU. Does that mean the 2Ghz chip is inherently "lower quality" ? Because that's basically what you're trying to argue here.
Sure, Mac's use a lot of the same parts as PCs. However, Apple still has control over parts selection, and still custom-designs their motherboards, power supplies, cases, and cooling systems. In my experience with building PCs, these are the reliability bottlenecks.
Once again, design != manufacture.
In any case, even with the quality argument aside, the iMac is a very competitively priced machine for its class. You might not be convinced by the performance advantages of an 667MHz RAM or a CPU with 4MB of cache, but computer companies still charge more money for computers with newer specs (certainly Dell does!), and it's entirely consistent for Apple to do so as well. In real life, the difference between the 2.93 GHz Core 2 and the 2.66 GHz Core 2 is almost unnoticeable, but would it make any sense to spec out a 2.66 GHz machine, compare it to a 2.93 GHz machine, and call the latter "over priced" on that merit? When you account for all the differences between the E520 (not just the older memory, and less cache, but the lack of wifi, the lack of speakers, and the boatload of other accessories that the iMac has), it's really hard to call the iMac overpriced.
I didn't. I said an E520 having similar specs is noticably cheaper, with the caveats that it lacks some features the iMac has. HOWEVER, it also has features the iMac lacks (in particular, expandability).
This whole discussion came about because of your poor assumption that slower RAM in a cheaper machine was somehow conclusive evidence that the rest of the machine was composed of "lower quality" parts.
Macs today are reasonably well priced. They _are_ on the more expensive side (which is a distinct improvement on "ridiculously overpriced"), but generally have the components and build quality to match it. The biggest problems with Macs vis-a-vis pricing is that the "minimum buy-in points" tend to be relatively high, the gaping holes in the product lineup and the lack of configuration flexibility "forcing" consumers to pay for features they don't want.
and your supposition that they don't is neither proof nor evidence that they don't. it's a documented fact that MS hires the best people that money can buy... it's not a huge leap to think that, for better or worse, their staff can make make windows suit all of their needs, seeing has how it's windows that pays all of their salaries. it's not a much bigger leap to think that -if there is enough at stake- their leadership can make all of their needs suit windows. i don't have any more or less proof than you have.
You are the one claiming Microsoft - a publicly traded company - are spending disproportionate amounts of money to "make" Windows work in environments you allege it cannot. You are similarly implying Microsoft is the only company using Windows as an "Enterprise" platform.
These are extraordinary claims and, as such, the burden of proof is yours, I feel.
that is true but it doesn't change the fact that windows doesn't get invited to perform the equivalent task as often as IBM and sun do.
Again, inertia at play. Migrating platforms is a big job, but going from one OS to another similar OS (UNIX A to UNIX B) is an easier job than going from one platform to a very different platform.
There's also the factor of all those ignorant technical people who hear "Windows" and still think "GUI on top of DOS". These people tend to be entrenched in larger companies.
on the flipside, all of the linux vendors combined don't get invited to the desktop party as much as MS does, and sun pretty much gets drunk on java and mutters about thin clients. as much as i love linux (or thin clients), it's tough to argue with that.
Linux has the problem that an extremely large proportion of its "proponents" are people who consider more than a few servers in the same room an "enterprise". A large chunk of those left, are people like Linus who - as engineers through and through - don't reall grok the business side of the equation (nor have any reason to).
Windows NT and Linux have been in the market about the same amount of time and are at about the same level of maturity. NT, however, has the advantage of being wholely backed by a large corporate entity that has to face actual consequences (in the market) if it delivers a bum product. Most of the Linux "organisation" (sans entities like Red Hat and SuSe) do not have those same consequences to face. On the flipside, Linux has the advantage - for those coming from existing UNIX platforms - of being mostly UNIXy, making for much easier software and skills transfer.
My feeling is that Windows will be more attractive to enterprises making "big" platform changes and Linux to those making "small" platform changes (ie: coming off some other UNIX). With that said, if you wanted a UNIX, why would you use Linux when you could use Solaris ?
The issue with DDR2-533 is that it's kind of a bastard-stepchild speed grade. It had a run of only about a year, after being introduced with the earliest Intel DDR2 platforms and supplanted by DDR2-667 very shortly afterward. DDR2-667 has been common now for almost two years, and as you said the price difference is minimal. Since all Core 2 chipsets support DDR2-667, the only reason to ship the older memory in a machine would be to save a few extra cents. It's that sort of scrimping that worries me. After all, if they don't want to pony up a couple of extra bucks for RAM, who knows how much they're skimping on the PSU or motherboard.
Or maybe they're taking the money saved on the "slower" RAM (that isn't any slower in actual use) and spending it on better motherboards or PSUs ?
Seriously, it's a non-issue. Dell still have options for 533Mhz DDR2 on machines like their PowerEdge 2950s, which aren't quite solid and reliable servers.
This is actually very much incorrect. Yes, the same Taiwanese manufacturers (like Asus) actually build the machines, but Apple is the one that does the design (no Apple laptop is a re-badged anything). Moreover, it's well known in the industry that Apple's tolerances are a lot tighter than everyone else's.
I think it's "well known" in some circles, but I wouldn't call them "the industry".
This whole "Apple has better build quality" used to be somewhat true back in the 68k and early PPC days, when the machines were still coming with things like SCSI drives. However, they had pricetags to match (and if you spent the same amount on a PC you got similar build quality). It's not true any more. Apple do the case design and maybe a bit of internal layout to help get things into the case they want, but now they've switched to Intel pretty much everything is off-the-shelf and built in the same factories pumping out regular old PC components - because they *are* regular old PC components.
Added to that, even if they did do the whole design top to bottom, that still wouldn't impact build quality. You can have the best architect in the world, but if the builders and incompetent and the cement bad, the building is still going to fall down.
Take their laptops for example. The MacBooks has a case design that is really hard to build. When closed, you can run your finger along the seam between the lid and the body, and it should be tight and flush. Even a slight misalignment results in a noticeable defect. As a result, they have to specify stricter tolerances on the build, which costs money. Almost every other laptop design includes some sort of rounded lip, which can hide substantial misalignment without the user noticing, and can thus be manufactured more cheaply. Also, take a look inside a PowerMac or Mac Pro sometime. Apple doesn't skimp on things like the PSU, motherboard, or even case fans. A lot of manufacturers do, because a great PSU is not something they can advertise in the spec sheet. Apple's PowerMac PSUs run from 700W to 1000W (real, not like the $30 "500W" PSUs you see on NewEgg), and they're heavy and solid like a PSU should be. The PowerMac (and probably Mac Pro)'s fans are a custom variant of a Delta model that runs $10-$12 on the internet. You're not going to find a $10+ case fan in that E520.
Yes, but we weren't talking about Mac Pros, PowerMacs and MacBook Pros, we were talking about _iMacs_.
iMacs (and Mac Minis and MacBooks) are built to a budget. Mac Pros (and the other "pro" machines aren't (well, are less so), and carry a suitable price premium to compensate (and they _are_ very nice inside - well, the MBPs are a bit of a mess...). You can get the same thing from Dell, as well, if you want to spring for a Precision workstation or higher-end Latitude (vs Inspiron) notebook (or go IBM/Lenovo).
Intel comes up with some hair-brained scheme that "More is better!". (like Viagra) They design something new and decide to make it faster (or in this case just glue more of them together). Back in the day it was the "GHz" now it's all about how many "Cores" you got. This tactic seems to suit Intel quite well and dethrones AMD for about a year and a half... During this time AMD massively redesigns there chips to integrate new, emerging technologies. The gamers and server operators of the world sit by their AMD chips knowing that they might not have the fastest chips for the time being but they are more technologically advanced.
It's so cute when kids who have only been watching x86 CPU development for the last few years try to sound authoritative !
Re:Clippy did its job... Unfortunatly.
on
The Death of Clippy
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think the general annoyance of clippy [...]
Funnt thing is, most non-expert users I've interacted with actually _like_ clippy (well, they often change it to another avatar, like the silly little dog, but the point is they like the idea of a "helper").
The help system that sits behind "Clippy" is excellent. It does what its designed to do very well - the problem expert users have is that they're not interested in what it does.
Most computers now are going to struggle to run the bloated POS that is Vista, even the so called 'Vista Ready' models currently being touted.. What the hell sort of Spec will be required for the next MS OS?
Vista runs reasonably on machines ~5 years old and usably on machines ~7 years old, maybe requiring minor, cheap upgrades.
This has been a pattern repeated throughout Windows releases for, well, pretty much forever (with the possible exceptions of Windows 95). It's a safe bet the next release will be the same.
It would shock MS to the core, as they cannot pull the only product that matters due to anti-monopoly agreements already (Office).
There are no "anti-monopoly" agreements between Microsoft and Apple - at least none that carry any legal weight. There cannot be, as Apple do not (and never have) compete in the same market Microsoft was ruled a monopoly in.
From my reading of history, Microsoft, and Bill Gates in particular, distinguished themselves by focusing on proprietary code, rather than the culture of free code that was present at the time.
Right. Because all those other developers that started in the late 70s and early 80s, subsequently going on to shape the computing world we're in today, were writing open source code. Norton, Wordperfect, Lotus, Adobe, SCO, Apple...
Exactly. I've found Microsoft's products to suck ever since using Windows 3.0 (MS-DOS versions were not bad, although nothing particularly great either). Every Windows version after that sucked, though it got slightly better with Win2k.
Please list some things Windows 3.0 does better than subsequent versions.
It's not so much that the slightest imperfection on a woman is a disgusting thing. That's absurd. But, when you're watching porn on a large display (eg, my 43" TV), when they zoom in on parts, and they end up being rendered at 2 feet or so high, you're seeing it *way* bigger than you would in real life.
I think you need to sit a bit further back from your TV...
In my experience, machines that use bargain-basement RAM (Dell probably gets a great deal on it as its last-gen tech) also tend to use bargain-basement motherboards, power-supplies, etc.
Firstly, 533Mhz DDR2 isn't "last-gen tech". DDR1 is "last gen tech". There are numerous machines out there still only using 533Mhz RAM - and most of the ones using 667Mhz RAM derive no benefit except in a handful of synthetic benchmarks. Indeed, they might actually be suffering in real-life performance due to the greater latencies of higher-Mhz RAM.
In other words, your assumption - and hence conclusion - is incorrect.
It's indicative of a machine built to save every last penny (which adds up to a lot when you sell a million of them). The iMac uses a lot of substantially more expensive parts (mobile Core 2, mobile GPU) in order to save space and power dissipation, yet still comes in at a competitive price.
The iMac is assembled to a budget - to save "every last penny" - and with the cheapest parts available to fill its requirements (which happen to include a particularly small form factor, requiring some low-power parts). Don't kid yourself otherwise. Like I said, iMacs roll off the same assembly lines PCs like the E520 do. Heck, MacBook Pros are just rebadged Asus laptops (or certainly used to be).
Nor do they need to be when they can pay a shop (or next-door's kid) to do it for them.
I don't think it's a small minority - a minority, certainly, but there are smaller ones out there that Apple cater to (like people buying Mac Pros).
And how many actually do this?
I think you'd be surprised. Again, anyone with more than a passing interest in gaming has probably had their video card upgraded at least once (even though most of them probably didn't do it themselves - at least the first time).
Why would I say that?
Because one of the most commonly championed advantages of the new intel Macs is their ability to run Windows, and hence replace peoples' Windows PCs, even for things like gaming.
If your goal is to run games, all you can get away with a really shitty machine with a great graphics card, and you won't notice the difference. Why then spend the extra money on a Mac?
You seem to have that arse-about-face. Gaming - on of the few things the average person will do that actually stretches a modern computer - is something where you most certainly can *not* get away with "a really shitty machine with a great graphics card".
It's barely any cheaper, the speed doesn't matter in a home environment, and the lack of convenience sucks.
It's substantially cheaper. 5 and 8 port 100BaseT switches are so cheap they're practically free (AU$25). ADSL modems with builtin switches are about 30% cheaper than their counterparts with wifi APs (AU$75ish vs AU$120ish). Even low-end 5-port gigabit switches are cheap (AU$70ish).
Despite wireless cards being "standard" on Macs for a few years now, on most the world's PCs they are not - meaning an upgrade of some sort is required.
The speed isn't noticable if the only thing you do is browse the web with a couple of machines. As soon as you want to move data between machines or anything involving latency (like gaming), the speed difference is _massive_. A 54Mb wifi network will deliver 30Mbs of performance to a single client sitting right next to the AP, on a good day, if the wind is right. A 100Mb network will deliver 100Mb/s and gigabit with conteporary home PCs will deliver up to about 300Mb/s. Not to mention the reliability problems in apartments or buildings with solid walls using wifi.
If you've got any sort of "home server" - and that includes a desktop PC that just happens to have all the video files on it - the difference in performance between wireless and even 100BaseT is massive.
I have wifi in my home to service the laptops. However, I'd never use it in leiu of gig ethernet with my desktops (even though two of them are actually capable) because of the related performance and reliability issues.
But hey, maybe those consultants are not "Serious business laptop users"?
Your environment is atypical, in my experience.
Unless you're talking about users who are only in the office for, say, a few hours a week. That would make it a bit more beleivable. Or has no-one ever shown them how much more convenient life is with a docking station ?
Pray tell: what expansion-cards should we be installing on our dekstop-machines? Obviously expandability and flexibility are a must-have features in business-environment according to you. Do tell me: what for?
The most common upgrades are video cards (usually to get multiple displays, moreso than performance), additional hard disks (often for RAID), more RAM (the iMac's RAM upgradeability is relatively limited) and DVD writers.
Those machines are used for PowerPoint, Word, Excel, email etc., what expansion-cards would we need? Seriously? Hi-end 3D-accelerators? additional soundcards? What?
Apparently you've only worked in offices full of secretaries. There _are_ offices full of more demanding users out there, especially in technology-driven industries. Apart from the admin staff, even our lowest-end users are on machines with 2GB RAM, RAID1 and dual 17" - 21" LCDs.
1) First, most people never open their machines. To my family, when I visit, they ask for help with their PC to upgrade RAM or hard disk or something, and when I open the case, it's the equivalent to them of taking apart their dishwasher. A job for a professional!
Which is exactly what I would expect people to do, and something they _can't_ do with an iMac - ie: my point.
Expandability is _not_ just an advantage for those capable of upgrading their own hardware, a fact that seems to escape a lot of people.
The E520 isn't a fair comparison, though. As evidenced by the 533 MHz RAM, it's using substantially cheaper parts than either the iMac or the XPS.
The price difference between 533Mhz and 667Mhz RAM is as insignificant as the performance difference. It's _certainly_ not an indicator of "substantially cheaper parts" (you do realise that Macs use the same parts as PCs, right ? That those Dell E520s are probably assembled right next to iMacs in the same Chinese sweatshop ?).
And I'd argue that more people are going to find Wifi or a webcam useful than will be upgrading anything other than the hard drive or the RAM on their system (which you can do on their iMac).
Which, as I said, is fine if that's what you want. But if you _do_ want expandability, Apple has nothing for you at a reasonable price.
It's the people who incrementally upgrade their machines that are the niche. Your average user is not capable of replacing their graphics card!
Nor do they need to be when they can pay a shop (or next-door's kid) to do it for them.
Apple has no gaming machines because nobody in their right mind would game on a Mac. Gaming is all about breadth of software support, and there is no way Apple is going to compete with Microsoft on that front.
The irony here is that you'll probably turn around in a few posts and say people should buy Macs because they can run Windows and, hence, do everything a Windows PC can do...
A decent mid-range machine would be a boon for all those people "switching", who want a machine they can boot to Windows to play games. It would be damn near the perfect machine.
Who still uses wired ethernet in their house?
For a home network of _desktops_ ? Who *wouldn't* use cheaper, faster (_much_ faster), more reliable wired ethernet ?
Both of those are quite small niches. Most users never upgrade their machines, so those free PCI-slots are next to useless for them. Those people are served just fine by a Mac Mini. And docking-stations? Some people might want to have those, but it's not like we have huge number of people demanding for laptops with docking-stations.
If you don't think Docking Station are an important feature, you can't have spent much time with serious business laptop users.
It spounds to me that you have taken your personal wants and demands, and extrapolated those in to "huge number of people want these!".
No, I've taken my experience in several corporate environments, extrapolated the needs that drove purchasing decisions there, and made comments based on that.
My solution which is unworkable, inhuman, incompatible with a free society, and unlikely to make things great although I'm convinced it would make things better is:
How about a slightly less... extreme alternative:
Make participation in politics like jury duty or the draft - random selection of citizens.
Anybody else been around long enough to remember that?
Yes, I have. You, however, have not.
The "correct"[0] phrase is "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run" and it's referring to Lotus 1-2-3 and DOS ca. version 3.x.
Ultimately, it's a ridiculous statement, given that a) Microsoft would have no reason to sabotage 1-2-3 at the time (quite the opposite, in fact) and b) anyone actually involved with Microsoft will tell you the ridiculous lengths they did - and still - go to with backwards compatibility. The idea they'd deliberately _break_ an application like 1-2-3 that most of their customers would have relied on to do business, doesn't even pass the laugh test. Practically speaking, in those days, a version of DOS that couldn't run 1-2-3 would be considered to have had a showstopper bug.
[0]I use the term loosely, since it's never actually been accurately attributed to anyone except anti-Microsoft trolls.
What they have is a hierarchical lineup. When you get down to it, there are quite a few different computers to choose from: 2 Minis, 4 iMacs, 3 MacBooks, 3 MacBook Pros, and then the built-to-order Mac Pros. That's a lot of options, but from an ease of naming standpoint, there are only 5 discreate lines. Getting rid of the criptic numbered-names was the best thing that happened to Apple.
And they could *easily* fit a mid-range tower - even two - into that scheme. A "Mini Mac Pro" (small tower, PCIe x16 video, second PCIe x16 slot (maybe only with x8 signalling), room for two 3.5" hard disks) and a "Mac Mini Plus" (small tower, PCIe x16 video).
(Out of the two, I'd consider the "Mini Mac Pro" more "likely", as it's basically half a Mac Pro.)
There are a couple things they could do to gain a few % more market share, although it might lose them money: take the minis down a notch to $400, $500, and $600, and create a headless line in the $1000-$1500 range (this would directly compete with the iMac line, but it might entice a few people onboard who are looking for lower-priced, expandable systems).
The real problem with a mid-range desktop (and why I suspect it has never appeared) is not that it will compete with the iMacs, but that it will compete with the high-margin Mac Pros.
I'm of the opinion that most people who buy a Mac Pro (or PowerMac), do so because they want the expandability (PCI slots, hard disks, RAM) rather than the extra CPU power. A mid-range desktop offering even a minimal level of similar expandability would, IMHO, slaughter Mac Pro sales.
To be honest, I don't see a problem in the Minis pricing (obviously, since I bought one - even though it runs Windows) or even the pricing of their other machines. You get quite a reasonable machine for your money in terms of raw hardware and it's quite a nice form factor.
Slashdot Mirror
Who the hell even THINKS about enabling telnet on any box these days?
Sun, apparently, since it's enabled by default.
The difference between the GPL and BSD is that the GPL ensures that any improvements to the code will be given back to the community.
Basically, the BSDL is about what you want to happen with *your* code. The GPL is what you want to happen with *other people's* code.
Both are now in Microsoft Windows with nothing more than a credit line to the original developers buried somewhere.
You say this like it's a bad thing, why ? It is _precisely_ what the developers intended when they released their code under the BSDL.
Incidentally, the last release of Windows to have a BSD-derived TCP/IP stack was NT4, way back in 1996 - and the only reason it had a BSD-derived stack was because the company Microsoft bought it from had based it on the BSD reference code (just like pretty much everyone else did).
Which one do you really thing is more likely?
Neither. I think the 533Mhz and 667Mhz parts are they same "quality", the 533Mhz ones are just cheaper to buy because they're cheaper to make (lower speed = less rejects).
The 2950 uses server-grade, high-capacity FB-DIMMs, which are a whole different kettle of fish from what they're putting in the E520! When you see a lower speed rating on a server DIMM that costs $3000, you assume conservativeness, not cost-cutting.
Hmm. Same conditions, different conclusion...
533Mhz and 667Mhz "regular" DIMMS cost about the same.
533Mhz and 667Mhz "server" DIMMS cost about the same.
But, apparently, using one is evidence of cost-cutting and the other is not...
I have a hard time believing the 533 MHz DIMMs in the E520 are otherwise high-quality parts that are just conservatively rated. More likely they are low-quality parts sold at a discount to get rid of the inventory of 533 MHz chips.
More likely they are parts that were of the same quality that are cheaper to make and, hence, acquire.
Your criteria for establishing "quality" seems to be based solely on price. This is somewhat reasonable when "all else is equal", but it's pretty worthless when you're talking about two items with different capabilities. A 2Ghz Core 2 CPU is cheaper than a 2.33Ghz Core 2 CPU. Does that mean the 2Ghz chip is inherently "lower quality" ? Because that's basically what you're trying to argue here.
Sure, Mac's use a lot of the same parts as PCs. However, Apple still has control over parts selection, and still custom-designs their motherboards, power supplies, cases, and cooling systems. In my experience with building PCs, these are the reliability bottlenecks.
Once again, design != manufacture.
In any case, even with the quality argument aside, the iMac is a very competitively priced machine for its class. You might not be convinced by the performance advantages of an 667MHz RAM or a CPU with 4MB of cache, but computer companies still charge more money for computers with newer specs (certainly Dell does!), and it's entirely consistent for Apple to do so as well. In real life, the difference between the 2.93 GHz Core 2 and the 2.66 GHz Core 2 is almost unnoticeable, but would it make any sense to spec out a 2.66 GHz machine, compare it to a 2.93 GHz machine, and call the latter "over priced" on that merit? When you account for all the differences between the E520 (not just the older memory, and less cache, but the lack of wifi, the lack of speakers, and the boatload of other accessories that the iMac has), it's really hard to call the iMac overpriced.
I didn't. I said an E520 having similar specs is noticably cheaper, with the caveats that it lacks some features the iMac has. HOWEVER, it also has features the iMac lacks (in particular, expandability).
This whole discussion came about because of your poor assumption that slower RAM in a cheaper machine was somehow conclusive evidence that the rest of the machine was composed of "lower quality" parts.
Macs today are reasonably well priced. They _are_ on the more expensive side (which is a distinct improvement on "ridiculously overpriced"), but generally have the components and build quality to match it. The biggest problems with Macs vis-a-vis pricing is that the "minimum buy-in points" tend to be relatively high, the gaping holes in the product lineup and the lack of configuration flexibility "forcing" consumers to pay for features they don't want.
and your supposition that they don't is neither proof nor evidence that they don't. it's a documented fact that MS hires the best people that money can buy... it's not a huge leap to think that, for better or worse, their staff can make make windows suit all of their needs, seeing has how it's windows that pays all of their salaries. it's not a much bigger leap to think that -if there is enough at stake- their leadership can make all of their needs suit windows. i don't have any more or less proof than you have.
You are the one claiming Microsoft - a publicly traded company - are spending disproportionate amounts of money to "make" Windows work in environments you allege it cannot. You are similarly implying Microsoft is the only company using Windows as an "Enterprise" platform.
These are extraordinary claims and, as such, the burden of proof is yours, I feel.
that is true but it doesn't change the fact that windows doesn't get invited to perform the equivalent task as often as IBM and sun do.
Again, inertia at play. Migrating platforms is a big job, but going from one OS to another similar OS (UNIX A to UNIX B) is an easier job than going from one platform to a very different platform.
There's also the factor of all those ignorant technical people who hear "Windows" and still think "GUI on top of DOS". These people tend to be entrenched in larger companies.
on the flipside, all of the linux vendors combined don't get invited to the desktop party as much as MS does, and sun pretty much gets drunk on java and mutters about thin clients. as much as i love linux (or thin clients), it's tough to argue with that.
Linux has the problem that an extremely large proportion of its "proponents" are people who consider more than a few servers in the same room an "enterprise". A large chunk of those left, are people like Linus who - as engineers through and through - don't reall grok the business side of the equation (nor have any reason to).
Windows NT and Linux have been in the market about the same amount of time and are at about the same level of maturity. NT, however, has the advantage of being wholely backed by a large corporate entity that has to face actual consequences (in the market) if it delivers a bum product. Most of the Linux "organisation" (sans entities like Red Hat and SuSe) do not have those same consequences to face. On the flipside, Linux has the advantage - for those coming from existing UNIX platforms - of being mostly UNIXy, making for much easier software and skills transfer.
My feeling is that Windows will be more attractive to enterprises making "big" platform changes and Linux to those making "small" platform changes (ie: coming off some other UNIX). With that said, if you wanted a UNIX, why would you use Linux when you could use Solaris ?
The issue with DDR2-533 is that it's kind of a bastard-stepchild speed grade. It had a run of only about a year, after being introduced with the earliest Intel DDR2 platforms and supplanted by DDR2-667 very shortly afterward. DDR2-667 has been common now for almost two years, and as you said the price difference is minimal. Since all Core 2 chipsets support DDR2-667, the only reason to ship the older memory in a machine would be to save a few extra cents. It's that sort of scrimping that worries me. After all, if they don't want to pony up a couple of extra bucks for RAM, who knows how much they're skimping on the PSU or motherboard.
Or maybe they're taking the money saved on the "slower" RAM (that isn't any slower in actual use) and spending it on better motherboards or PSUs ?
Seriously, it's a non-issue. Dell still have options for 533Mhz DDR2 on machines like their PowerEdge 2950s, which aren't quite solid and reliable servers.
This is actually very much incorrect. Yes, the same Taiwanese manufacturers (like Asus) actually build the machines, but Apple is the one that does the design (no Apple laptop is a re-badged anything). Moreover, it's well known in the industry that Apple's tolerances are a lot tighter than everyone else's.
I think it's "well known" in some circles, but I wouldn't call them "the industry".
This whole "Apple has better build quality" used to be somewhat true back in the 68k and early PPC days, when the machines were still coming with things like SCSI drives. However, they had pricetags to match (and if you spent the same amount on a PC you got similar build quality). It's not true any more. Apple do the case design and maybe a bit of internal layout to help get things into the case they want, but now they've switched to Intel pretty much everything is off-the-shelf and built in the same factories pumping out regular old PC components - because they *are* regular old PC components.
Added to that, even if they did do the whole design top to bottom, that still wouldn't impact build quality. You can have the best architect in the world, but if the builders and incompetent and the cement bad, the building is still going to fall down.
Take their laptops for example. The MacBooks has a case design that is really hard to build. When closed, you can run your finger along the seam between the lid and the body, and it should be tight and flush. Even a slight misalignment results in a noticeable defect. As a result, they have to specify stricter tolerances on the build, which costs money. Almost every other laptop design includes some sort of rounded lip, which can hide substantial misalignment without the user noticing, and can thus be manufactured more cheaply. Also, take a look inside a PowerMac or Mac Pro sometime. Apple doesn't skimp on things like the PSU, motherboard, or even case fans. A lot of manufacturers do, because a great PSU is not something they can advertise in the spec sheet. Apple's PowerMac PSUs run from 700W to 1000W (real, not like the $30 "500W" PSUs you see on NewEgg), and they're heavy and solid like a PSU should be. The PowerMac (and probably Mac Pro)'s fans are a custom variant of a Delta model that runs $10-$12 on the internet. You're not going to find a $10+ case fan in that E520.
Yes, but we weren't talking about Mac Pros, PowerMacs and MacBook Pros, we were talking about _iMacs_.
iMacs (and Mac Minis and MacBooks) are built to a budget. Mac Pros (and the other "pro" machines aren't (well, are less so), and carry a suitable price premium to compensate (and they _are_ very nice inside - well, the MBPs are a bit of a mess...). You can get the same thing from Dell, as well, if you want to spring for a Precision workstation or higher-end Latitude (vs Inspiron) notebook (or go IBM/Lenovo).
Does FFS means "for fuck's sake"?
Yes.
Welcome to the Intarwebz, enjoy your stay. Bathroom is the third door down on the left.
Intel comes up with some hair-brained scheme that "More is better!". (like Viagra) They design something new and decide to make it faster (or in this case just glue more of them together). Back in the day it was the "GHz" now it's all about how many "Cores" you got. This tactic seems to suit Intel quite well and dethrones AMD for about a year and a half... During this time AMD massively redesigns there chips to integrate new, emerging technologies. The gamers and server operators of the world sit by their AMD chips knowing that they might not have the fastest chips for the time being but they are more technologically advanced.
It's so cute when kids who have only been watching x86 CPU development for the last few years try to sound authoritative !
I think the general annoyance of clippy [...]
Funnt thing is, most non-expert users I've interacted with actually _like_ clippy (well, they often change it to another avatar, like the silly little dog, but the point is they like the idea of a "helper").
The help system that sits behind "Clippy" is excellent. It does what its designed to do very well - the problem expert users have is that they're not interested in what it does.
Most computers now are going to struggle to run the bloated POS that is Vista, even the so called 'Vista Ready' models currently being touted.. What the hell sort of Spec will be required for the next MS OS?
Vista runs reasonably on machines ~5 years old and usably on machines ~7 years old, maybe requiring minor, cheap upgrades.
This has been a pattern repeated throughout Windows releases for, well, pretty much forever (with the possible exceptions of Windows 95). It's a safe bet the next release will be the same.
I thought Linux was playing catch-up to OS X (which considering how much longer Linux was in development, is kind of sad).
OS X is NeXTSTEP 5, and has been in development since the mid-late-80s.
That said, a slightly more useful filesystem (is WinFS still due with Vista SP1 later this year?) would be lovely.
FFS. How many times has this been said ?
WinFS is not a filesystem, it's a database.
It would shock MS to the core, as they cannot pull the only product that matters due to anti-monopoly agreements already (Office).
There are no "anti-monopoly" agreements between Microsoft and Apple - at least none that carry any legal weight. There cannot be, as Apple do not (and never have) compete in the same market Microsoft was ruled a monopoly in.
From my reading of history, Microsoft, and Bill Gates in particular, distinguished themselves by focusing on proprietary code, rather than the culture of free code that was present at the time.
Right. Because all those other developers that started in the late 70s and early 80s, subsequently going on to shape the computing world we're in today, were writing open source code. Norton, Wordperfect, Lotus, Adobe, SCO, Apple...
Oh, wait...
Exactly. I've found Microsoft's products to suck ever since using Windows 3.0 (MS-DOS versions were not bad, although nothing particularly great either). Every Windows version after that sucked, though it got slightly better with Win2k.
Please list some things Windows 3.0 does better than subsequent versions.
It's not so much that the slightest imperfection on a woman is a disgusting thing. That's absurd. But, when you're watching porn on a large display (eg, my 43" TV), when they zoom in on parts, and they end up being rendered at 2 feet or so high, you're seeing it *way* bigger than you would in real life.
I think you need to sit a bit further back from your TV...
In my experience, machines that use bargain-basement RAM (Dell probably gets a great deal on it as its last-gen tech) also tend to use bargain-basement motherboards, power-supplies, etc.
Firstly, 533Mhz DDR2 isn't "last-gen tech". DDR1 is "last gen tech". There are numerous machines out there still only using 533Mhz RAM - and most of the ones using 667Mhz RAM derive no benefit except in a handful of synthetic benchmarks. Indeed, they might actually be suffering in real-life performance due to the greater latencies of higher-Mhz RAM.
In other words, your assumption - and hence conclusion - is incorrect.
It's indicative of a machine built to save every last penny (which adds up to a lot when you sell a million of them). The iMac uses a lot of substantially more expensive parts (mobile Core 2, mobile GPU) in order to save space and power dissipation, yet still comes in at a competitive price.
The iMac is assembled to a budget - to save "every last penny" - and with the cheapest parts available to fill its requirements (which happen to include a particularly small form factor, requiring some low-power parts). Don't kid yourself otherwise. Like I said, iMacs roll off the same assembly lines PCs like the E520 do. Heck, MacBook Pros are just rebadged Asus laptops (or certainly used to be).
Nor do they need to be when they can pay a shop (or next-door's kid) to do it for them.
I don't think it's a small minority - a minority, certainly, but there are smaller ones out there that Apple cater to (like people buying Mac Pros).
And how many actually do this?
I think you'd be surprised. Again, anyone with more than a passing interest in gaming has probably had their video card upgraded at least once (even though most of them probably didn't do it themselves - at least the first time).
Why would I say that?
Because one of the most commonly championed advantages of the new intel Macs is their ability to run Windows, and hence replace peoples' Windows PCs, even for things like gaming.
If your goal is to run games, all you can get away with a really shitty machine with a great graphics card, and you won't notice the difference. Why then spend the extra money on a Mac?
You seem to have that arse-about-face. Gaming - on of the few things the average person will do that actually stretches a modern computer - is something where you most certainly can *not* get away with "a really shitty machine with a great graphics card".
It's barely any cheaper, the speed doesn't matter in a home environment, and the lack of convenience sucks.
It's substantially cheaper. 5 and 8 port 100BaseT switches are so cheap they're practically free (AU$25). ADSL modems with builtin switches are about 30% cheaper than their counterparts with wifi APs (AU$75ish vs AU$120ish). Even low-end 5-port gigabit switches are cheap (AU$70ish).
Despite wireless cards being "standard" on Macs for a few years now, on most the world's PCs they are not - meaning an upgrade of some sort is required.
The speed isn't noticable if the only thing you do is browse the web with a couple of machines. As soon as you want to move data between machines or anything involving latency (like gaming), the speed difference is _massive_. A 54Mb wifi network will deliver 30Mbs of performance to a single client sitting right next to the AP, on a good day, if the wind is right. A 100Mb network will deliver 100Mb/s and gigabit with conteporary home PCs will deliver up to about 300Mb/s. Not to mention the reliability problems in apartments or buildings with solid walls using wifi.
If you've got any sort of "home server" - and that includes a desktop PC that just happens to have all the video files on it - the difference in performance between wireless and even 100BaseT is massive.
I have wifi in my home to service the laptops. However, I'd never use it in leiu of gig ethernet with my desktops (even though two of them are actually capable) because of the related performance and reliability issues.
But hey, maybe those consultants are not "Serious business laptop users"?
Your environment is atypical, in my experience.
Unless you're talking about users who are only in the office for, say, a few hours a week. That would make it a bit more beleivable. Or has no-one ever shown them how much more convenient life is with a docking station ?
Pray tell: what expansion-cards should we be installing on our dekstop-machines? Obviously expandability and flexibility are a must-have features in business-environment according to you. Do tell me: what for?
The most common upgrades are video cards (usually to get multiple displays, moreso than performance), additional hard disks (often for RAID), more RAM (the iMac's RAM upgradeability is relatively limited) and DVD writers.
Those machines are used for PowerPoint, Word, Excel, email etc., what expansion-cards would we need? Seriously? Hi-end 3D-accelerators? additional soundcards? What?
Apparently you've only worked in offices full of secretaries. There _are_ offices full of more demanding users out there, especially in technology-driven industries. Apart from the admin staff, even our lowest-end users are on machines with 2GB RAM, RAID1 and dual 17" - 21" LCDs.
1) First, most people never open their machines. To my family, when I visit, they ask for help with their PC to upgrade RAM or hard disk or something, and when I open the case, it's the equivalent to them of taking apart their dishwasher. A job for a professional!
Which is exactly what I would expect people to do, and something they _can't_ do with an iMac - ie: my point.
Expandability is _not_ just an advantage for those capable of upgrading their own hardware, a fact that seems to escape a lot of people.
The E520 isn't a fair comparison, though. As evidenced by the 533 MHz RAM, it's using substantially cheaper parts than either the iMac or the XPS.
The price difference between 533Mhz and 667Mhz RAM is as insignificant as the performance difference. It's _certainly_ not an indicator of "substantially cheaper parts" (you do realise that Macs use the same parts as PCs, right ? That those Dell E520s are probably assembled right next to iMacs in the same Chinese sweatshop ?).
And I'd argue that more people are going to find Wifi or a webcam useful than will be upgrading anything other than the hard drive or the RAM on their system (which you can do on their iMac).
Which, as I said, is fine if that's what you want. But if you _do_ want expandability, Apple has nothing for you at a reasonable price.
It's the people who incrementally upgrade their machines that are the niche. Your average user is not capable of replacing their graphics card!
Nor do they need to be when they can pay a shop (or next-door's kid) to do it for them.
Apple has no gaming machines because nobody in their right mind would game on a Mac. Gaming is all about breadth of software support, and there is no way Apple is going to compete with Microsoft on that front.
The irony here is that you'll probably turn around in a few posts and say people should buy Macs because they can run Windows and, hence, do everything a Windows PC can do...
A decent mid-range machine would be a boon for all those people "switching", who want a machine they can boot to Windows to play games. It would be damn near the perfect machine.
Who still uses wired ethernet in their house?
For a home network of _desktops_ ? Who *wouldn't* use cheaper, faster (_much_ faster), more reliable wired ethernet ?
Both of those are quite small niches. Most users never upgrade their machines, so those free PCI-slots are next to useless for them. Those people are served just fine by a Mac Mini. And docking-stations? Some people might want to have those, but it's not like we have huge number of people demanding for laptops with docking-stations.
If you don't think Docking Station are an important feature, you can't have spent much time with serious business laptop users.
It spounds to me that you have taken your personal wants and demands, and extrapolated those in to "huge number of people want these!".
No, I've taken my experience in several corporate environments, extrapolated the needs that drove purchasing decisions there, and made comments based on that.
Not defending Apple's DRM, but give it a break. Apple/Linux have decent internet marketshare compared to Windows on the internet [...]
_Conservatively_, Windows would have 8x - 9x the "internet marketshare" of OS X or Linux.
My solution which is unworkable, inhuman, incompatible with a free society, and unlikely to make things great although I'm convinced it would make things better is:
How about a slightly less... extreme alternative:
Make participation in politics like jury duty or the draft - random selection of citizens.
Anybody else been around long enough to remember that?
Yes, I have. You, however, have not.
The "correct"[0] phrase is "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run" and it's referring to Lotus 1-2-3 and DOS ca. version 3.x.
Ultimately, it's a ridiculous statement, given that a) Microsoft would have no reason to sabotage 1-2-3 at the time (quite the opposite, in fact) and b) anyone actually involved with Microsoft will tell you the ridiculous lengths they did - and still - go to with backwards compatibility. The idea they'd deliberately _break_ an application like 1-2-3 that most of their customers would have relied on to do business, doesn't even pass the laugh test. Practically speaking, in those days, a version of DOS that couldn't run 1-2-3 would be considered to have had a showstopper bug.
[0]I use the term loosely, since it's never actually been accurately attributed to anyone except anti-Microsoft trolls.
What they have is a hierarchical lineup. When you get down to it, there are quite a few different computers to choose from: 2 Minis, 4 iMacs, 3 MacBooks, 3 MacBook Pros, and then the built-to-order Mac Pros. That's a lot of options, but from an ease of naming standpoint, there are only 5 discreate lines. Getting rid of the criptic numbered-names was the best thing that happened to Apple.
And they could *easily* fit a mid-range tower - even two - into that scheme. A "Mini Mac Pro" (small tower, PCIe x16 video, second PCIe x16 slot (maybe only with x8 signalling), room for two 3.5" hard disks) and a "Mac Mini Plus" (small tower, PCIe x16 video).
(Out of the two, I'd consider the "Mini Mac Pro" more "likely", as it's basically half a Mac Pro.)
There are a couple things they could do to gain a few % more market share, although it might lose them money: take the minis down a notch to $400, $500, and $600, and create a headless line in the $1000-$1500 range (this would directly compete with the iMac line, but it might entice a few people onboard who are looking for lower-priced, expandable systems).
The real problem with a mid-range desktop (and why I suspect it has never appeared) is not that it will compete with the iMacs, but that it will compete with the high-margin Mac Pros.
I'm of the opinion that most people who buy a Mac Pro (or PowerMac), do so because they want the expandability (PCI slots, hard disks, RAM) rather than the extra CPU power. A mid-range desktop offering even a minimal level of similar expandability would, IMHO, slaughter Mac Pro sales.
To be honest, I don't see a problem in the Minis pricing (obviously, since I bought one - even though it runs Windows) or even the pricing of their other machines. You get quite a reasonable machine for your money in terms of raw hardware and it's quite a nice form factor.