Other things like, I dunno being able to buy software off the shelf in Best Buy, taking it home and simply running some autorun or one-click installation process, regardless of which distribution of Linux you are using needs to happen...
Easier configuration, better transparency for applications and functions, a common clip-board and many more things...
Even corporate desktops need a more cohesive system to be able to install, then later update individual packages without needing to install a dozen other packages, requiring a dozen other packages to be installed, which require still more packages to be installed.
I have personally run into issues like that when wanting to update things like the version of Mr Project that came with Red Hat 7.3 to the latest release of Mr Project in order to take advantage of some new features. Since there was not a single Red Hat 7.3 Binary package made available, I downloaded the 'generic' RPM and found that I needed to install a dozen things to be able to install it. So... I downloaded the tarbal source and found the SAME problem.
I love Linux, but it just sucks that I am unable to take a piece of recent software and install on an OS that is NEWER then Windows 98SE without having to update dozens of other pieces of software, when I can still take that old Windows 98SE and run MOST every piece of software that has recently become available. That is one of the largest usability issues keeping Linux from taking desktops over very easily.
Not everyone wants to update their ENTIRE OS all of the time. Why should people take a handful of hours to most of a day every 6 months or so in order to migrate to the latest release of their chosen Operating System? They shouldn't have to do that. They should be able to install it and update the pieces they need to and then when and IF, they have the time, then they can upgrade to the latest release. There should also be no major issues with doing so...
...have taken into account that the prices were going to drop, after the release of the newer Windows Server 2003, when I performed my initial analysis almost two years ago...
Darn, by today's numbers it looks like I only saved nearly $6,000. Wait a minute... you are telling me that as I add more users, I will have to spend more money, even though the OS and hardware can handle the extra load already?
So to add 20 more users, I would be spending an extra $670 dollars? So... If I were to add 200 users, I would be spening an additional $6,700, just on the CALs for the one server? (You know that you need to have CALs for EACH potential user that can access EACH server at any given time?)
So... To handle 200 users, I would, or should have ONE PDC, at least TWO BDCs and likely one or two fileservers, each of which would need at least 200 CALs. (Unless MS cahnged the licensing recently, which I doubt.)
Let's add this up, shall we? (To make it more 'fair' we will go with 1 file server from the above mix...)
4 Windows 2000 Server w/ 25 CALs $6400
9 - 20 CAL packs per server (4) $24,120
WOW! We are already over $30,000
Let's see what else would be needed...
Ahh... email... How much is Exchange Server these days? Oh wait, I would need to add another TWO servers to the mix to have the redundancy and also keep Exchange up and running with no issues... (Slowdowns or otherwise)
Now, we are looking at maintaining at least 6 Microsoft Windows 2000 Servers to have a redundant and high-availability network. Of course, now we should have two admins, just for monitoring/maintaining the servers as well as to provide tech support assistance. Our electricity costs have increased, our hardware costs have risen.
There is a local company that supports Linux systems exclusively. In fact, we have used them in the past to handle a few of our minor areas that I hadn't the time to learn/configure myself.
If soemthing happens to me, they are available to take over administration of the network at a rather inexpensive cost.
As for documentation, it is my life's blood. If I didn't document anything, how would I be able to fix, restore things after a catastrophic event?
For our small corporate network, I have determined that it would cost us nearly $40,000 USD (Just for the Software!) to maintain a Primary and Back-up Domain Controller using Microsoft Windows 2000. This includes both the Main Server License costs and the multiple packs of CALs required to allow each user access to the servers.
Instead of that, we went with a Linux/Samba solution using the same hardware and saved... $40,000 in licensing costs. Sure, it took me a little longer to setup in the first place, of course my pay rate isn't even high enough to consider an issue in regards to choosing between Linux/Samba or Windows 2000 for our domain.
From my reading, I can double and even triple the number of users with the current Samba system and see no additional license costs for CALs (or the time to calculate how many CALs we would need) or the need for upgrading the hardware.
...to crank out an ill-conceived plot involving neo technoglogy terrorists to "Hack" into the Microwave control system and demand a... a... Million dollars or the destruction of a Major US landmark!
...they would also have to find a cure for other smoking related health risks... Such as heart disease, lung disease...
Basically, they should be for cloning for stem cell research since this could help create the ability to grow replacement hearts and lungs for people, which would eliminate the need for actual 'cures' for those diseases of the heart and lung.
Consistent if you are only developing for Internet Explorer or Netscape/Mozilla exclusively. Once you want your page to look good on both browsers you need to have a browser 'discovery' query that then points to a particular set of CSS files...
I haven't had the time to finish one up, but I have been on again and mostly off again developing a web-site and while it works and looks nice in Explorer, the text is cut-off in Netscape/Mozilla, I have no idea what it would look like under opera and I know that it won't work nicely in Lynx or Links, since it uses DHTML for some limited 'pop' with some menus...
It's incredibly relevent. The way many people make it out to be is that the US decided to attack some peace-loving nation of people that 'Love' their leadership.
Kind of like if the US were to invade Norway or Finland.
The truth is that the US invaded a nation we were already at war with, a nation that had leadership that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of its own nation's people.
If you want to ignore facts, then let's start ignoring the US Consitution. Reporters should be arrested and put to death, unless they toe the government's line. Everyone should be forced to house soldiers and government agents within their home, perhaps in the form of gigantic television systems that can also be used to watch you as you watch it... People should only be allowed to gather at government approved gathering points to rally for the government's views, no more of that freedom to gather crap.
Oh... I see, we should only ignore history and truth that is convenient for you. So, we should ignore things like citizen gun owneship putting the idea that the next house a burglar/murderer breaks into could be his/her last. We should ignore how the facts that countries that have invoked gun ban laws experiencing a marked increase in the violent crime, burglaries and other such villanious acts.
The 'last war' with Iraq had been going on since 1991. If you understand basic international diplomacy and what a cease fire really means, you will understand that the war was never declared over, just an end to overt hostilities was declared between the US (and coalition forces) and Iraq.
It was similiar to what continues on today between North and South Korea, those two countries are at war and have been at war for over 50 years. Yes, 50 years. There was never a declaration of peace between North and South Korea, just a cease fire armistice.
I can't blame you for not knowing. I have the impression that most people aren't really taught such truths in school anymore. These days, for one to actually learn the truth, they have to hunt for it themselves.
...nonetheless. Have Notebook users operate off of a seperate LAN connection that is firewalled before hitting the rest of the 'unprotected' network. This would provide an extra layer of protection to the rest of the network since the firewall would be setup to block ALL ports (and data) that isn't needed for the Notebooks to utilize the network in question.
While it would be a network management challenge in order to implement, it would provide that extra piece of protection that would eliminate a great deal of network 'intrusions' from outside sources. Also, if those firewalls are configured to log and email that log to a Sysadmin, troublesome laptops could be tracked down within an hour or so of entering the network and be 'fixed' of their Trojan/Viral ailment.
The new controls features a new piece of equipment that is to be connected to the side of the PC. What is does is permanently blind you after you read a 'protected' email message. Of course, it also cuts off your hands and your tongue, so there is no way you could possibly ever duplicate or transmit the email to another.
Let's deconstruct the differences between what is 'commonly' referred to as a 'Desktop' and a 'Workstation'.
Desktop - Used in the home or by students to perform basic computing tasks, such as email, basic home office tasks, perhaps some gaming as well as amatuer hobby level tasks; like photo-editing, simple video editing and music editing/swapping.
Workstation - Typically used in the office or workplace of professionals, normally able to run all the same software as a 'Desktop' version of the platform, but typically geared towards more professional pursuits, such as Computer Aided Design and Computer Aided Machining, Scientific Calculations, Professional Quality Video, Photo and Music Editing.
Now, let's look at what the Apple 'Desktop' Computer is marketed for...
Well, first... They call it the "World's Fastest Personal Computer" both 'Desktop' and 'Workstation' fall under that umbrella... I could stop there, but I won't...
Under the heading of Architecture...
"The Power Mac G5's new system architecture delivers phenomenal throughput for the most intensive image-editing, rendering and scientific computing tasks - " This statement refers to what is commonly considered 'Workstation' work...
You know what Fanboy? I am going to stop right there.
Apple's Marketing department fed the world a lie about being the first 64-bit Personal Computer. They weren't. They could have been more truthful and said, "The first consumer priced 64-bit PC from Apple" while slightly misleading, it would be very truthful...
Then why would you have suggested an artificial benchmark earlier? Are you only concerned with Raw Power, which is useless if used incorrectly, or actual real world as in how you would use the machine kind of benchmarks?
You blasted the Real World Benchmarks because of the different OSs, but that is how those two platforms are ran in the Real World. You suggest Artificial Benchmarks using "identical" OS and testing suites across both platforms and then blast them for being only about Raw Speed...
Which is it man?!
You can't really have it both ways. You are either looking for the 'fastest' hardware or the best hardware for the work you will be doing...
Why would anyone benchmark a system using and OS and software that wouldn't be used in the 'real world'?
How accurate could those benchmarks be? They simply wouldn't equate to anything that anyone could relate to.
I can imagine it now.. "Wow, this new Apple GXX Based computer is Super Fast on the Amalgamated Systems Wiffle-Waffle Test Suite! It totally beats the pants off the latest AMD Akronis 64-X2 based system!"
Three weeks later...
"Why is my Apple GXX Machine so much slower when rendering scenes then that AMD Akronis 64-X2 Based system? It was so much faster on the artificial test suite..."
Note, you can just as easily switch the imagined Apple and AMD based systems for the other...
There is simply no way to trust any kind of artificial test, like you are suggesting. The only thing to trust would be more real world tests.
PC World means "Personal Computer" World Magazine...
The Apple 'PC' is a Personal Computer. Sure, there happens to be more information about PCs that run Microsft Windows, whose fault is that?
Apple once had a strong community of 'beige box' builders. If they had kept that up, perhaps PC World would be covering more Apple related PCs instead of Windows related PCs.
By the by, there isn't really much of a difference between the arbitrarily assigned terms of desktop, workstation and even laptop. Most of that difference is the price tag, with the exception of the latop being more portable then the other 'two'.
There have been people using 'Workstations' as 'Desktops' for years and years. I have seen companies with nothing by Sun 'Worksations' across their entire office departments running nothing more then office applications.
SGI had 64-bit WORKSTATIONS for YEARS before Apple started marketing their solution as the "First" 64-bit Workstation.
IBM had 64-bit Workstations for Years before Apple started marketing their solution as the "First" 64-bit Workstation.
Sun has 64-bit Workstations for Years before Apple started marketing their solution as the "First" 64-bit Workstation.
Again, what is your point? Apple's marketing department is just as full of crud as everyone else.
BTW, The Intel Xeon was "never" meant as anything aside from being a Server chip, but that didn't stop people from making workstations out of them. UNIX, in general, was never meant as a Desktop Operating System, it was always geared up as being a Multi-User Server based system... But, that didn't stop anyone from making UNIX workstations, even Apple.
I say, if it works in areas that a product wasn't initially intended for, then by all means use it... The main reason behind the Opteron being 'geared' more for Server use is some architectural design differences that equate in higher fabrication and thus higher retail prices... Most 'desktop' users aren't willing to spend that much for a 'dekstop' system.
Again... I am still failing to see your point... (Did you even have one?)
My latest Linux desktop has the ability to mimic almost exactly the "Luna" Interface of Windows XP.
Although, I personally prefer to use XFCE4, which has had the appearance that Apple took for MacOSX for several years running...
Look up XCFE and take a look at the screenshots dated from WAY before MacOSX. Sure, XFCE4 may not have all the eye-candy (thus CPU Chewing) features of the Aqua interface, but it sure is userfriendly and very capable.
It loads blazingly fast and operates exceptionally well.
Then you to can attack the writer of said article. He said that the MSBlaster worm wouldn't have been stopped by having different systems in place, because it was "...spread by common email..."
If you recall, the MSBlaster worm was a Microsoft RPC vulnerability and was spread by just having an unpatched Microsoft Windows 2000/XP based machine connected to the Internet. It had nothing to do with email.
Even if he was referring to an email virus... If you are running software other then Outlook, then you are likely going to be completely safe from MOST Microsoft email virus attacks. Again, which the MSBlaster Worm was not...
The guy doesn't seem to really have his information for writing such articles... He needs to get on the clue train and then start writing his articles...
It is an online yellow pages. Each listed company has a small 'web-page' that provides a link to the actual external web-page, if available, as well as a mapquest map, address and main contact phone number.
I use that site ALL the time looking up potential service vendors for the company I work for.
Ahhh... But you are forced to run faster running and much higher temperature raising CPUs in order to have adequette performance with a Windows based anything these days.
You could get away with what amounts to much less powerful then modern Texas Instruments Ti-Series calculators to run an ATM machine. There is no need for color screens, advertising flashy Java or ActiveX based BS. It is all BS BTW.
Anything that detracts from the simple, single purpose of the ATM machine and other basic systems similar to it have no purpose being added to such systems. I go to an ATM to get out money, not to see flashy graphics, not to see advertising, not to see Windows error messages, just to get money.
The quicker I can get into and then out of an ATM the better. Therefor the simpler the ATM and interface, the better. The more cruft that is plugged into an ATM, the longer it takes to perform your transactions.
Again, WHY does any ATM need to have so much cruft added to it? What does that really add to the experience of sticking a card in and getting your money out?
I actually saw a BSOD displayed on the ATM and it was frustratingly annoying...
Why can't the banks simply use the not-broken current embedded, probably written in assembly system that they use for ATMs now?
Why MUST it be changed? Are they going to add every service in the world to an ATM?
Great! Just what we need, long lines at the ATM, just like at the bank, where one person chews up the teller's time performing six months of banking at one time...
I bet you read through texts written by the founding fathers and take pieces of what they wrote and slap those together to make it seem like they founded this country to worship space aliens or something akin to that...
The statement about Florida was a statement about Florida. It wasn't a statement supporting Federal Government powers over State Governments.
The idea of taxing what Florida was talking about taxing was and still is quite silly.
How would you tax an email from the UK? How would you tax an email from Washington state, if Washington state already has a tax on email? Whose tax takes precedence? Does that email then get taxed per state it routes through?
Could that mean to send an email to Grandma in Florida you could end up spending something like 5 dollars in overall taxes just for it to get to Grandma? (This is assuming that each state between where you are and Florida has an email tax law written loosely enough to attach a tax on all email that routes through the state.)
Now that you bring it up.. If it got to such a point, I believe the Federal Government would have jurisdiction in settling that kind of dispute and their answer would be, it is now a Federal Tax or No Tax. What do you think their answer would be?
Now you can take your State's Rights banner down... I am on your side about State Rights. However, there are important times when the Federal Government trumps the State for good reason. In this case, it is a good reason.
It is about taxing per bit transfered over your network, whether connected to the Internet or not. It is about taxing each and every email you send out. It is NOT about sales tax.
Read the article next time.
Also check back a few weeks, perhaps a month or so ago about Florida looking to institute a tax on every piece of IT Infrastructure in use in their state. Yes, they want to tax per email, they want to tax per bit transfered over public AND private networks.
If that law is passed you would see a few things...
One, a number of jobs for mailboy/mailgirl would open up at major corporations as they shut off and remove quite a bit of their network infrastructure.
Two, High-Tech businesses and businesses that rely on Network Technologies will just get up and get out of the state of Florida, or at least move all of their operations that require network technologies out of Florida.
In either case it would be highly destructive to the Florida economy and any other state that persues such a course of action without getting the rest of the states to add the same exact tax across the board.
Slashdot Mirror
Other things like, I dunno being able to buy software off the shelf in Best Buy, taking it home and simply running some autorun or one-click installation process, regardless of which distribution of Linux you are using needs to happen...
Easier configuration, better transparency for applications and functions, a common clip-board and many more things...
Even corporate desktops need a more cohesive system to be able to install, then later update individual packages without needing to install a dozen other packages, requiring a dozen other packages to be installed, which require still more packages to be installed.
I have personally run into issues like that when wanting to update things like the version of Mr Project that came with Red Hat 7.3 to the latest release of Mr Project in order to take advantage of some new features. Since there was not a single Red Hat 7.3 Binary package made available, I downloaded the 'generic' RPM and found that I needed to install a dozen things to be able to install it. So... I downloaded the tarbal source and found the SAME problem.
I love Linux, but it just sucks that I am unable to take a piece of recent software and install on an OS that is NEWER then Windows 98SE without having to update dozens of other pieces of software, when I can still take that old Windows 98SE and run MOST every piece of software that has recently become available. That is one of the largest usability issues keeping Linux from taking desktops over very easily.
Not everyone wants to update their ENTIRE OS all of the time. Why should people take a handful of hours to most of a day every 6 months or so in order to migrate to the latest release of their chosen Operating System? They shouldn't have to do that. They should be able to install it and update the pieces they need to and then when and IF, they have the time, then they can upgrade to the latest release. There should also be no major issues with doing so...
Darn, by today's numbers it looks like I only saved nearly $6,000. Wait a minute... you are telling me that as I add more users, I will have to spend more money, even though the OS and hardware can handle the extra load already?
So to add 20 more users, I would be spending an extra $670 dollars? So... If I were to add 200 users, I would be spening an additional $6,700, just on the CALs for the one server? (You know that you need to have CALs for EACH potential user that can access EACH server at any given time?)
So... To handle 200 users, I would, or should have ONE PDC, at least TWO BDCs and likely one or two fileservers, each of which would need at least 200 CALs. (Unless MS cahnged the licensing recently, which I doubt.)
Let's add this up, shall we? (To make it more 'fair' we will go with 1 file server from the above mix...)
4 Windows 2000 Server w/ 25 CALs $6400
9 - 20 CAL packs per server (4) $24,120
WOW! We are already over $30,000
Let's see what else would be needed...
Ahh... email... How much is Exchange Server these days? Oh wait, I would need to add another TWO servers to the mix to have the redundancy and also keep Exchange up and running with no issues... (Slowdowns or otherwise)
Now, we are looking at maintaining at least 6 Microsoft Windows 2000 Servers to have a redundant and high-availability network. Of course, now we should have two admins, just for monitoring/maintaining the servers as well as to provide tech support assistance. Our electricity costs have increased, our hardware costs have risen.
I see no cost benefit in going the Microsoft Way.
There is a local company that supports Linux systems exclusively. In fact, we have used them in the past to handle a few of our minor areas that I hadn't the time to learn/configure myself.
If soemthing happens to me, they are available to take over administration of the network at a rather inexpensive cost.
As for documentation, it is my life's blood. If I didn't document anything, how would I be able to fix, restore things after a catastrophic event?
Do you have anything else to add?
CALs.
Extra words follow...
For our small corporate network, I have determined that it would cost us nearly $40,000 USD (Just for the Software!) to maintain a Primary and Back-up Domain Controller using Microsoft Windows 2000. This includes both the Main Server License costs and the multiple packs of CALs required to allow each user access to the servers.
Instead of that, we went with a Linux/Samba solution using the same hardware and saved... $40,000 in licensing costs. Sure, it took me a little longer to setup in the first place, of course my pay rate isn't even high enough to consider an issue in regards to choosing between Linux/Samba or Windows 2000 for our domain.
From my reading, I can double and even triple the number of users with the current Samba system and see no additional license costs for CALs (or the time to calculate how many CALs we would need) or the need for upgrading the hardware.
That will end this silly Microwave Power plan...
Basically, they should be for cloning for stem cell research since this could help create the ability to grow replacement hearts and lungs for people, which would eliminate the need for actual 'cures' for those diseases of the heart and lung.
Consistent if you are only developing for Internet Explorer or Netscape/Mozilla exclusively. Once you want your page to look good on both browsers you need to have a browser 'discovery' query that then points to a particular set of CSS files...
I haven't had the time to finish one up, but I have been on again and mostly off again developing a web-site and while it works and looks nice in Explorer, the text is cut-off in Netscape/Mozilla, I have no idea what it would look like under opera and I know that it won't work nicely in Lynx or Links, since it uses DHTML for some limited 'pop' with some menus...
It's incredibly relevent. The way many people make it out to be is that the US decided to attack some peace-loving nation of people that 'Love' their leadership.
Kind of like if the US were to invade Norway or Finland.
The truth is that the US invaded a nation we were already at war with, a nation that had leadership that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of its own nation's people.
If you want to ignore facts, then let's start ignoring the US Consitution. Reporters should be arrested and put to death, unless they toe the government's line. Everyone should be forced to house soldiers and government agents within their home, perhaps in the form of gigantic television systems that can also be used to watch you as you watch it... People should only be allowed to gather at government approved gathering points to rally for the government's views, no more of that freedom to gather crap.
Oh... I see, we should only ignore history and truth that is convenient for you. So, we should ignore things like citizen gun owneship putting the idea that the next house a burglar/murderer breaks into could be his/her last. We should ignore how the facts that countries that have invoked gun ban laws experiencing a marked increase in the violent crime, burglaries and other such villanious acts.
Tell me, what else should we ignore?
The 'last war' with Iraq had been going on since 1991. If you understand basic international diplomacy and what a cease fire really means, you will understand that the war was never declared over, just an end to overt hostilities was declared between the US (and coalition forces) and Iraq.
It was similiar to what continues on today between North and South Korea, those two countries are at war and have been at war for over 50 years. Yes, 50 years. There was never a declaration of peace between North and South Korea, just a cease fire armistice.
I can't blame you for not knowing. I have the impression that most people aren't really taught such truths in school anymore. These days, for one to actually learn the truth, they have to hunt for it themselves.
This isn't the first time and most certainly won't be the last time this is posted to Slashdot...
I saw this 'story' last year and the same kind of comments were again repeated... Then again, perhaps the Matrix has been reset...
Since stealing won't do anything for them...
Read the Article... The core they are wanting to use is FAR from weapons grade Uranium.
Do you also think that we shouldn't leave tanks of Hyrdogen around because someone might make a Nukular Hydrogen Bomb out of it?
Learn a little more about Nukular Fisix.
While it would be a network management challenge in order to implement, it would provide that extra piece of protection that would eliminate a great deal of network 'intrusions' from outside sources. Also, if those firewalls are configured to log and email that log to a Sysadmin, troublesome laptops could be tracked down within an hour or so of entering the network and be 'fixed' of their Trojan/Viral ailment.
The new controls features a new piece of equipment that is to be connected to the side of the PC. What is does is permanently blind you after you read a 'protected' email message. Of course, it also cuts off your hands and your tongue, so there is no way you could possibly ever duplicate or transmit the email to another.
Let's deconstruct the differences between what is 'commonly' referred to as a 'Desktop' and a 'Workstation'.
Desktop - Used in the home or by students to perform basic computing tasks, such as email, basic home office tasks, perhaps some gaming as well as amatuer hobby level tasks; like photo-editing, simple video editing and music editing/swapping.
Workstation - Typically used in the office or workplace of professionals, normally able to run all the same software as a 'Desktop' version of the platform, but typically geared towards more professional pursuits, such as Computer Aided Design and Computer Aided Machining, Scientific Calculations, Professional Quality Video, Photo and Music Editing.
Now, let's look at what the Apple 'Desktop' Computer is marketed for...
Well, first... They call it the "World's Fastest Personal Computer" both 'Desktop' and 'Workstation' fall under that umbrella... I could stop there, but I won't...
Under the heading of Architecture...
"The Power Mac G5's new system architecture delivers phenomenal throughput for the most intensive image-editing, rendering and scientific computing tasks - " This statement refers to what is commonly considered 'Workstation' work...
You know what Fanboy? I am going to stop right there.
Apple's Marketing department fed the world a lie about being the first 64-bit Personal Computer. They weren't. They could have been more truthful and said, "The first consumer priced 64-bit PC from Apple" while slightly misleading, it would be very truthful...
Go ahead and read Apple's web-site. I did.
Then why would you have suggested an artificial benchmark earlier? Are you only concerned with Raw Power, which is useless if used incorrectly, or actual real world as in how you would use the machine kind of benchmarks?
You blasted the Real World Benchmarks because of the different OSs, but that is how those two platforms are ran in the Real World. You suggest Artificial Benchmarks using "identical" OS and testing suites across both platforms and then blast them for being only about Raw Speed...
Which is it man?!
You can't really have it both ways. You are either looking for the 'fastest' hardware or the best hardware for the work you will be doing...
Why would anyone benchmark a system using and OS and software that wouldn't be used in the 'real world'?
How accurate could those benchmarks be? They simply wouldn't equate to anything that anyone could relate to.
I can imagine it now.. "Wow, this new Apple GXX Based computer is Super Fast on the Amalgamated Systems Wiffle-Waffle Test Suite! It totally beats the pants off the latest AMD Akronis 64-X2 based system!"
Three weeks later...
"Why is my Apple GXX Machine so much slower when rendering scenes then that AMD Akronis 64-X2 Based system? It was so much faster on the artificial test suite..."
Note, you can just as easily switch the imagined Apple and AMD based systems for the other...
There is simply no way to trust any kind of artificial test, like you are suggesting. The only thing to trust would be more real world tests.
PC World means "Personal Computer" World Magazine...
The Apple 'PC' is a Personal Computer. Sure, there happens to be more information about PCs that run Microsft Windows, whose fault is that?
Apple once had a strong community of 'beige box' builders. If they had kept that up, perhaps PC World would be covering more Apple related PCs instead of Windows related PCs.
By the by, there isn't really much of a difference between the arbitrarily assigned terms of desktop, workstation and even laptop. Most of that difference is the price tag, with the exception of the latop being more portable then the other 'two'.
There have been people using 'Workstations' as 'Desktops' for years and years. I have seen companies with nothing by Sun 'Worksations' across their entire office departments running nothing more then office applications.
SGI had 64-bit WORKSTATIONS for YEARS before Apple started marketing their solution as the "First" 64-bit Workstation.
IBM had 64-bit Workstations for Years before Apple started marketing their solution as the "First" 64-bit Workstation.
Sun has 64-bit Workstations for Years before Apple started marketing their solution as the "First" 64-bit Workstation.
Again, what is your point? Apple's marketing department is just as full of crud as everyone else.
BTW, The Intel Xeon was "never" meant as anything aside from being a Server chip, but that didn't stop people from making workstations out of them. UNIX, in general, was never meant as a Desktop Operating System, it was always geared up as being a Multi-User Server based system... But, that didn't stop anyone from making UNIX workstations, even Apple.
I say, if it works in areas that a product wasn't initially intended for, then by all means use it... The main reason behind the Opteron being 'geared' more for Server use is some architectural design differences that equate in higher fabrication and thus higher retail prices... Most 'desktop' users aren't willing to spend that much for a 'dekstop' system.
Again... I am still failing to see your point... (Did you even have one?)
My latest Linux desktop has the ability to mimic almost exactly the "Luna" Interface of Windows XP.
Although, I personally prefer to use XFCE4, which has had the appearance that Apple took for MacOSX for several years running...
Look up XCFE and take a look at the screenshots dated from WAY before MacOSX. Sure, XFCE4 may not have all the eye-candy (thus CPU Chewing) features of the Aqua interface, but it sure is userfriendly and very capable.
It loads blazingly fast and operates exceptionally well.
Then you to can attack the writer of said article. He said that the MSBlaster worm wouldn't have been stopped by having different systems in place, because it was "...spread by common email..."
If you recall, the MSBlaster worm was a Microsoft RPC vulnerability and was spread by just having an unpatched Microsoft Windows 2000/XP based machine connected to the Internet. It had nothing to do with email.
Even if he was referring to an email virus... If you are running software other then Outlook, then you are likely going to be completely safe from MOST Microsoft email virus attacks. Again, which the MSBlaster Worm was not...
The guy doesn't seem to really have his information for writing such articles... He needs to get on the clue train and then start writing his articles...
Check out www.smartpages.com
It is an online yellow pages. Each listed company has a small 'web-page' that provides a link to the actual external web-page, if available, as well as a mapquest map, address and main contact phone number.
I use that site ALL the time looking up potential service vendors for the company I work for.
Ahhh... But you are forced to run faster running and much higher temperature raising CPUs in order to have adequette performance with a Windows based anything these days.
You could get away with what amounts to much less powerful then modern Texas Instruments Ti-Series calculators to run an ATM machine. There is no need for color screens, advertising flashy Java or ActiveX based BS. It is all BS BTW.
Anything that detracts from the simple, single purpose of the ATM machine and other basic systems similar to it have no purpose being added to such systems. I go to an ATM to get out money, not to see flashy graphics, not to see advertising, not to see Windows error messages, just to get money.
The quicker I can get into and then out of an ATM the better. Therefor the simpler the ATM and interface, the better. The more cruft that is plugged into an ATM, the longer it takes to perform your transactions.
Again, WHY does any ATM need to have so much cruft added to it? What does that really add to the experience of sticking a card in and getting your money out?
...like this before...
I actually saw a BSOD displayed on the ATM and it was frustratingly annoying...
Why can't the banks simply use the not-broken current embedded, probably written in assembly system that they use for ATMs now?
Why MUST it be changed? Are they going to add every service in the world to an ATM?
Great! Just what we need, long lines at the ATM, just like at the bank, where one person chews up the teller's time performing six months of banking at one time...
I bet you read through texts written by the founding fathers and take pieces of what they wrote and slap those together to make it seem like they founded this country to worship space aliens or something akin to that...
The statement about Florida was a statement about Florida. It wasn't a statement supporting Federal Government powers over State Governments.
The idea of taxing what Florida was talking about taxing was and still is quite silly.
How would you tax an email from the UK? How would you tax an email from Washington state, if Washington state already has a tax on email? Whose tax takes precedence? Does that email then get taxed per state it routes through?
Could that mean to send an email to Grandma in Florida you could end up spending something like 5 dollars in overall taxes just for it to get to Grandma? (This is assuming that each state between where you are and Florida has an email tax law written loosely enough to attach a tax on all email that routes through the state.)
Now that you bring it up.. If it got to such a point, I believe the Federal Government would have jurisdiction in settling that kind of dispute and their answer would be, it is now a Federal Tax or No Tax. What do you think their answer would be?
Now you can take your State's Rights banner down... I am on your side about State Rights. However, there are important times when the Federal Government trumps the State for good reason. In this case, it is a good reason.
It is about taxing per bit transfered over your network, whether connected to the Internet or not. It is about taxing each and every email you send out. It is NOT about sales tax.
Read the article next time.
Also check back a few weeks, perhaps a month or so ago about Florida looking to institute a tax on every piece of IT Infrastructure in use in their state. Yes, they want to tax per email, they want to tax per bit transfered over public AND private networks.
If that law is passed you would see a few things...
One, a number of jobs for mailboy/mailgirl would open up at major corporations as they shut off and remove quite a bit of their network infrastructure.
Two, High-Tech businesses and businesses that rely on Network Technologies will just get up and get out of the state of Florida, or at least move all of their operations that require network technologies out of Florida.
In either case it would be highly destructive to the Florida economy and any other state that persues such a course of action without getting the rest of the states to add the same exact tax across the board.