> does he honestly think steve would let intel put a couple of xeons in an xserve?
Why not? It could be integrated quite cheaply and blows away the G5 for typical Integer server tasks.
I don't know why you guys are so fixed on Yonah/Mermon/Conroe. Apple switched to Intel because they are getting out of the computer engineering business for financial reasons, not for one particular chip.
Jobs could well use MacWorld to hype products that won't be on the market until March or April, in which case they would only come in a couple months early.
The Intel OS builds leaking out aren't pointing to a January release. Or so people say.
Your prices are so out of whack it'ss not even funny. Basically double everything you've written down. The only $799 iBook you're going to see is a Celeron M.
Yup. Apple just introduced a very minimal iMac-specific media app, FrontRow, right before XMas. They're certainly not going to introduce a fullscale media center / PVR solution 2 months later.
Better wait until next XMas for your MCE Killer, Apple fans.
From my personal experience, I use more than 5% of MS Office's functionality, so I'm not in any posiiton to tell the "little people" what features they are going have to miss out on? Revision Marks? Pivot Tables? Grammar Checker? No Go, as far I am concerned (personally).
> Actually, most users could run Winword 2 with no loss of functionality (and a large increase in speed).
Winword 2 did a ton of stuff. Where are the Linux wordprocessors like WinWord 2? Or even like Office 2000? (in terms of hardware requriements).
> Even better, spend a day tutoring them in Word 5 for DOS or WordPerfect 5.1 and they'd be twice as productive.
Training costs are too high for DOS apps. That's why we got rid of them to begin with.
> Sony will continue to use MPEG2 on their Blu-Ray discs because they own a larger stake in MPEG2 than h.264.
That might be part of it, but (1) MPEG2 and the tools are better understood, (2) They need to make a MPEG2 for HDTV anyway, so they can save costs, and (3) for films, they've got the space on the disk, so who cares.
I'm sure if Sony wanted to ship an entire season of TV shows, they would use one of the advanced codecs despite the costs.
The simple fact is that Linux is touted as providing life to old hardware mostly for people who have legacy hardware in the closet or have given it away.
Bleh. Microsoft has better things to do than create case-studies targeted against hobbiests with old PCs in their closet, a pile of obscure Linux distros, and too much spare time. This is targetted at budget-thin IT organzations who may believe that Linux gives them more with less. Only it doesn't -- it works, it's updated, but it's inferior desktop compared to your legacy Windows install.
I think if we were to accurately represent Microsoft's position, it is "Screw old hardware, buy a new computer Designed For Windows XP(tm)"
The old line about Office is that people only 5% of the features, but it's a different 5% for everyone.
Anyway, where are all those wonderful Linux office programs designed to run on P-100?
I'm not trying to be overly pessimistic here... if you can turn old junk into dumb terminals or something, go for it. But pretending that Linux is going to give you a more desirable desktop than Windows 98/2000 and an old version of MS Office is dubious no matter where in the world you are.
Another guy who misses the point. It's not Linux's responsibility to do anything. It's the system admin's responsibility to deploy something usable and functional. If you're talking about a desktop system, some no GUI terminal is not going to cut it, and fwvm with pre-KDE/Gnome GUI software is going be to even worse in a lot of ways.
Keep in mind that this whole thing is aimed at organizations, rather than the mom's basement crowd.
IT Manager: Can I extend the life of this old Win98 hardware with Linux?
Answer: Absolutely! You just need to run some weird distro with no commercial support, use some wacky window manager, and live without anything like MS Office!
IT Manager: Aaaaah. OK. (Slowly backs away and starts perusing $300 Dell Celerons).
They're just playing the same game as the Linux community, who claims that Linux extends the life of old hardware, all while touting applications like OpenOffice and Firefox.
At least with Windows, there is a quite usable stack of desktop applications from 5-8 years ago, where that's not true with *nix.
> e.g. plenty of firewalled LANs got CodeRed, Sasser, etc.
Sasser (the MS-SQL worm) also targetted a lot of desktop configurations, due to the fact that certain versions of MS-Office come MSDE, a cut-down MSSQL. I don't know how many people run "deskop Oracle", but I suspect it's pretty tiny compared to MSDE.
Also, unlike MS-SQL, Oracle is pretty much non-existant in the small business space where networks and patching are haphazard. Your typical Enterprise Oracle install is firewalled up the wazoo.
Windows 2000 has always been around 20% at most. Likewise NT4 was around the same place (15-20%).
While it's true that large corps are still standardized on Win2000, the majority of the corporate market has always been following the 95/98/XP upgrade pattern rather than NT4/2000/XP.
Anyway, for a consumer product, Win2000 is basically a non-issue. No corporation is going to deploy this.
Not really, because AVG and Norton have totally different marketing strategies. AVG is trying to create techie word-of-mouth to increase IT sales, while Norton makes honest money off the home/consumer market. It's really doubtful that most users of "Google Pack" are going to go buy an enterprise AV licence, while the people who seek out and find AVG Free might.
Also, arguably, AVG is actually pretty shitty at removing malware infections, which are the main consumer desktop problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple made an investment in ARM (that they later sold for big profits at a needy time!), but to call it an "Apple product" is stretching things.
Here's list of the software that Apple "acquired", rather than creating in-house:
+ Mac OS X
+ iTunes
+ FairPlay DRM
+ Final Cut Pro / iMovie
+ iDVD
+ Logic
+ Shake
+ GarageBand
+ AppleWorks
+ FileMaker
Hey, just like Microsoft!
> does he honestly think steve would let intel put a couple of xeons in an xserve?
Why not? It could be integrated quite cheaply and blows away the G5 for typical Integer server tasks.
I don't know why you guys are so fixed on Yonah/Mermon/Conroe. Apple switched to Intel because they are getting out of the computer engineering business for financial reasons, not for one particular chip.
Windows support is a compelling factor for "Macheads"?
Jobs could well use MacWorld to hype products that won't be on the market until March or April, in which case they would only come in a couple months early.
The Intel OS builds leaking out aren't pointing to a January release. Or so people say.
Your prices are so out of whack it'ss not even funny. Basically double everything you've written down. The only $799 iBook you're going to see is a Celeron M.
Yup. Apple just introduced a very minimal iMac-specific media app, FrontRow, right before XMas. They're certainly not going to introduce a fullscale media center / PVR solution 2 months later.
Better wait until next XMas for your MCE Killer, Apple fans.
W2K is commercially supported and will be until 2011. Unless that WMF patch is a figment of my imagination.
Not true.
2 0708_174.html#55 .2/1273.html
http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt200
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/040
There are also some ABI implications, which is why most distros avoid 386 support. Can't be bothered to do any more googling.
From my personal experience, I use more than 5% of MS Office's functionality, so I'm not in any posiiton to tell the "little people" what features they are going have to miss out on? Revision Marks? Pivot Tables? Grammar Checker? No Go, as far I am concerned (personally).
> Actually, most users could run Winword 2 with no loss of functionality (and a large increase in speed).
Winword 2 did a ton of stuff. Where are the Linux wordprocessors like WinWord 2? Or even like Office 2000? (in terms of hardware requriements).
> Even better, spend a day tutoring them in Word 5 for DOS or WordPerfect 5.1 and they'd be twice as productive.
Training costs are too high for DOS apps. That's why we got rid of them to begin with.
> Sony will continue to use MPEG2 on their Blu-Ray discs because they own a larger stake in MPEG2 than h.264.
That might be part of it, but (1) MPEG2 and the tools are better understood, (2) They need to make a MPEG2 for HDTV anyway, so they can save costs, and (3) for films, they've got the space on the disk, so who cares.
I'm sure if Sony wanted to ship an entire season of TV shows, they would use one of the advanced codecs despite the costs.
The simple fact is that Linux is touted as providing life to old hardware mostly for people who have legacy hardware in the closet or have given it away.
Bleh. Microsoft has better things to do than create case-studies targeted against hobbiests with old PCs in their closet, a pile of obscure Linux distros, and too much spare time. This is targetted at budget-thin IT organzations who may believe that Linux gives them more with less. Only it doesn't -- it works, it's updated, but it's inferior desktop compared to your legacy Windows install.
I think if we were to accurately represent Microsoft's position, it is "Screw old hardware, buy a new computer Designed For Windows XP(tm)"
The old line about Office is that people only 5% of the features, but it's a different 5% for everyone.
... if you can turn old junk into dumb terminals or something, go for it. But pretending that Linux is going to give you a more desirable desktop than Windows 98/2000 and an old version of MS Office is dubious no matter where in the world you are.
Anyway, where are all those wonderful Linux office programs designed to run on P-100?
I'm not trying to be overly pessimistic here
No, I mean that the majority of the corporate market ran Win98 rather than NT4/2000. It's sad but 100% true.
Another guy who misses the point. It's not Linux's responsibility to do anything. It's the system admin's responsibility to deploy something usable and functional. If you're talking about a desktop system, some no GUI terminal is not going to cut it, and fwvm with pre-KDE/Gnome GUI software is going be to even worse in a lot of ways.
Keep in mind that this whole thing is aimed at organizations, rather than the mom's basement crowd.
IT Manager: Can I extend the life of this old Win98 hardware with Linux?
Answer: Absolutely! You just need to run some weird distro with no commercial support, use some wacky window manager, and live without anything like MS Office!
IT Manager: Aaaaah. OK. (Slowly backs away and starts perusing $300 Dell Celerons).
Linux was less bloated in 1995! Netscape 2.0 Forever! Go Linux 95!
They're just playing the same game as the Linux community, who claims that Linux extends the life of old hardware, all while touting applications like OpenOffice and Firefox.
At least with Windows, there is a quite usable stack of desktop applications from 5-8 years ago, where that's not true with *nix.
> MS SQL servers have SA passwords of "SA"
:)
Heh, that's two more characters than a lot of MSSQL passwords I've seen.
> e.g. plenty of firewalled LANs got CodeRed, Sasser, etc.
Sasser (the MS-SQL worm) also targetted a lot of desktop configurations, due to the fact that certain versions of MS-Office come MSDE, a cut-down MSSQL. I don't know how many people run "deskop Oracle", but I suspect it's pretty tiny compared to MSDE.
Also, unlike MS-SQL, Oracle is pretty much non-existant in the small business space where networks and patching are haphazard. Your typical Enterprise Oracle install is firewalled up the wazoo.
Nothing says "doing actual work" more than running some ancient, basterdized version of Lotus SmartSuite.
Windows 2000 has always been around 20% at most. Likewise NT4 was around the same place (15-20%).
While it's true that large corps are still standardized on Win2000, the majority of the corporate market has always been following the 95/98/XP upgrade pattern rather than NT4/2000/XP.
Anyway, for a consumer product, Win2000 is basically a non-issue. No corporation is going to deploy this.
> AVG would have made more sense.
Not really, because AVG and Norton have totally different marketing strategies. AVG is trying to create techie word-of-mouth to increase IT sales, while Norton makes honest money off the home/consumer market. It's really doubtful that most users of "Google Pack" are going to go buy an enterprise AV licence, while the people who seek out and find AVG Free might.
Also, arguably, AVG is actually pretty shitty at removing malware infections, which are the main consumer desktop problem.
Neat ... thanks for posting that.
> I have several (old) Intel computers in my basement.
Were they mass-marketed systems? I'm just curious because I've never heard of such a thing, except for special demo/benchmark platforms.
(Well, Intel does sell complete rackmount systems, but I think they're intended to be stickered by whatever vendor.)