>How much crack did you smoke before posting this?
Obviously not as much as you were...
>32MB Radeon upgrade (not sure why) $30
It is a Radeon 7500 with 32 MB of RAM: we're talking between $60 and $90.
Not as much as the original poster, but 2-3 times your price.
>And let's see, I don't think a cheap eMac has a 17-inch >LCD display. More like a 17-inch CRT.
The original poster doesn't claim that it does--he claims a flat-screen CRT. There *is* a difference, you know?
Looking at warehouse.com's prices, flat-screen 17" monitors start at around $130 and go up to $700 (and up, and up). One that supports 1280 by 960 pixels at 75Hz is also a little more pricy (about $30-50). I don't know what you were smoking wrt an $80 version.
You also *still* aren't up to parity (FireWire, et al).
"Not to mention that the eMacs probably won't last very long -- when the monitor dies, the computer dies."
You can stop trolling and post statistics any time now. I've seen a lot of people posting that the emac purchase will last longer because the monitor will outlast the machine. Which is it?
How long do emacs last in the wild? Versus emachines (which are known to burn out thanks to their power supplies)?
>And I bet the eMachines have a faster processor than the >eMac's anemic 800MHz.
As I said, you can stop trolling any time now...
>The iApps are the first thing that would get deleted from >the eMac.
Wrong. I can see a good deal of use in a school environment for an mp3 player (think about it) or something that generates slide shows and sets them to music (class project? leadership perhaps?)
iChat, while it has limited utility as an educational app, *would* have good potential as a way to get kids using the computers.
> And the video editing stuff is completely worthless since >most schools don't own DV camcorders.
I know many schools that have a class which could make use of one though and it is fairly common for them to have a video camera on hand, regardless of whether it is DV. Give it time and they'll be happy to have iMove and iDVD.
>BTW, XP home works very well as a client. Schools usually >have dedicated servers running the network. No need for >xp professional.
Unless you have an international userbase, which in a school environment is entirely possible (albeit unlikely in HS).
As I mentioned elsewhere: many people are also going to want to use Windows 2003 Server or MacOS X Server. There the winner in price should be clear.
"For the vast majority of systems, it is, though. On those systems that the extra video card is needed, throw it in. To get to the emac's level of video display wouldn't be more than $50-$60. "
Not if I'm pricing video cards correctly...
"Or, it'll be just like windows XP, where you can turn off the new GUI eye candy and use the traditional UI with no problem. "
We aren't talking eye candy or even user experience, we are talking about whether it will even be able to support longhorn at a reasonable speed.
"Depends on the needs. Most labs could do just fine with a good 15" monitor"
This is where I roll my eyes.
You are undercutting to an almost desperate degree--anything to get a cheaper deal and saying "they can just upgrade for those handful of systems that need it".
This isn't normally how systems are purchased and, what's more, undercutting and saying "they don't need that" is not a good policy overall. I remember one high school in the area doing that in 1996--they ended up with computers that were incapable of running Windows 95. There is a limit to how far you can do that and cuts like "they don't need 17" monitors" may or may not be valid depending on the circumstances.
"Ever hear of cygwin or mingw? They're free too, ya know. And they run under XP Home. "
Yes, I know quite a few people who use them. They do not compare--even slightly--to tools like ProjectBuilder, OpenGL Shader Builder, MallocDebug, and MONster; having a unix shell with the full tools in the right locations; etc.
In the end, that MacOS X is a Unix operating system wins this.
"Or you run a Linux server, and admin it through a tool such as webmin and save yourself some money on a server. Unlimited clients there, too. "
Again, you are undercutting. If you wanted to spend your admin's time setting up a linux server, by all means. You could spend that same time on a MacOS X box.
Also, have you ever used MacOS X server? You are paying for the admin tools--things that let you configure ldap servers, or having a top-of-the-line workgroup manager.
"Depends on the IT department. I'd be willing to wager that a good IT policy, and proactive maintenance steps could bring PC and mac support costs to near equity."
Point to one study which has shown that to be the case. I've seen numerous ones which indicate the opposite. You go ahead and wager--your suppositions are irrelevant unless you can back them up.
Also, we are talking about schools, a "good IT policy" and "high school" are generally an oxymoron.
I strongly suspect you are a troll, but here goes.
First: Touch typing is a critical skill in most of today's society.
Second: Last I heard Dijkstra's _grad_ students took a minimum of 6-7 years to graduate with their Ph.Ds.
Second (a): If you are gong to learn Computer Science, a little time working without a language or a computer can be very useful. If you are going to be an Chemist or an Engineer, but need a little programming, it is probably best if you learn it on a computer a little more rapidly (albeit it should be a language like Python, not C++, but that's another matter).
Third: Office Apps, such as the ability to use word or excel, or put together a presentation in powerpoint, are exceedingly important when you get to college.
Fourth: There is a broader skill set requirement in many fields, and programs that are required to use them. It is becomming increasingly common to cover things like Photoshop in school--I consider this a good trend.
Fifth: Comp Sci AP. You generally get one semester/year to teach this, better make sure you do it well.
Sixth: There are now programs to help teachers teach their classes more effectively. One program lets students self-pace in mathematics, making them much more effective, and it allows one teacher to teach more students and to teach them all more effectively than he/she could before (seriously, I've seen the results out of these programs and the student's comments as well).
Seventh: "Hasn't been shown to improve learning" is incorrect--I've spoken to many teachers who have found it a useful aid in teaching basic english (one teacher used a dictionary with a built in vocalizer to help students with definitions and pronunciations of different words--that way she needed less involvement).
Eighth: Most people are basically comptuer illititerate. With the number of jobs/COLLEGES that prefer basic computer literacy, it is a *good thing* to cover this in HS (or before).
Ninth: LD students. I am twice-exceptional and have dysgraphia. Through being an accomplished touch typist, I can overcome this and take lecture notes faster and more completely than most people can write them out.
Tenth: Handwritten assignments vs. Typewritten assignments. I have never seen a college professor accept a handwritten paper. Most college applications I looked at even specified typewritten assignments, and this was some years ago.
I can go on, and on, and on if you would prefer....
> For a lab of word processing/basic app machines, like >99% of the k-12 computers are
Stop.
You are assuming word processing/basic app machines, this is not necessarily a valid assumption--I've known schools that do digital video work or teach programs like Photoshop or even use programs such as Lightwave or Maya. These are *not* all that uncommon uses.
Also, on another note, macs now have Quartz Extreme and in 2005 Windows will offer "tiered" user experiences and offload the user interface to the graphics card, an integrated chipset is (likely) not going to fare as well with Longhorn.
>The monitor's a non-issue because a flat picture tube is >only (marginally) beneficial to people who are using it day >in and day out.
1) It is better. Whether it is worth paying for is in question, but it is better.
2) If you find another CRT, make sure the quality is good, I've seen monitors in some HS's which were so low-quality they hurt they eyes to even glance at.
>You don't need the networking features of XP pro because >once again, you're in an environment where you just need >to crank out texts.
XP Pro is also useful to programmers et al. Programming tools are free with the mac, they are not with the PC, so if you teach AP (or even basic) computer science you are going to need to fork over more for the PC.
You are also looking at Windows 2003 Server, which costs a hell of a lot more. MacOS X's unlimited client license is your friend.
> The iApps are similarly worthless for a great deal of the >market we're talking about, and aren't a great added >value.
They still present an added value that (especially with iMovie/iDVD) I can certainly see schools being willing to pick up on.
iPhoto+iTunes, which can be used to create image slide shows and set them to music, also have a good bit of classroom utility.
>So, you're still left with spending several hundred dollars >more for a comparable emac.
Non-comparable emac, you mean. The school may not see the additional utility as being worth it, or they may, but that is their concern.
>Add to the fact that the PC's non-integrated monitor >leads to cost savings down the road as one doesn't have >to replace the monitor at the same time as the rest of the >system, and the PC is clearly a better deal.
If you are going to factor this in you might as well factor in as well that the Mac is going to cost less to support.
Others have addressed that you have to be ignorant to think that computers will be the same in 10 years as they are today.
Some other points.
>Working with office-apps? Chances are that you're not >using a Mac.
No, but chances are good that skills you pick up with "Office Apps" on a mac are going to transfer very cleanly if you should ever have to use them under windows--MS Office on OS X isn't all that removed from MS Office under XP.
If you are training with OpenOffice (which I know that no-one does, but hey...) then it runs *exactly the same* between platforms.
>Accessing a database? I'll guess ten to one that the >clientend is a windowsapp.
Funny, are you thinking access? You do realize that there is more to life than SQLServer?
On the server end, of course, there is also a great deal of additional variance. Oracle, mySQL, postgreSQL...
> weither or not they are better / cheaper to maintain / has >more fancy colours than a wintel machine.
Excuse me? They should use the/Best tool for the job/.
One of the first things you are told in computer science is that if you are not adaptable, you will die in the market. I know a variety of different programming languages, I still need to learn new ones depending on what I get hired to do.
Last summer, I was taken into a modeling project. I needed to:
*Learn Java *Learn the Ascape library *Refresh my memory on graphics in LaTeX (it had been awhile). *Learn new presentation software.
The market is ever changing, you need to give them the ability to adapt, not make them specialists with one piece of software run only on one platform.
The refutation I've also heard to this is along a slightly different line, but equally valid: XP is nothing like Windows 95 is nothing like Windows 3.1. OS X is nothing like OS 9, which is fundamentally different than OS 7.
That's been in the last 10 years. A kid is trained on Windows XP in high school (or even grade school or middle school!) and the operating system is going to be fundamentally different--even if they are still using "Windows" or "MacOS"--by the time they are out of college.
The question comes down to what it includes. For instance, if you care to go all-mac (or even if you don't) it is *very* easy to justice MacOS X Server, with its unlimited client license.
As to the individual computers, that $699 computer comes with things like firewire ports, a 17" flat-screen CRT, and an 802.11g antenna--and MacOS X--a lot there to justify it, particularly if you determine that it will require less support over its lifetime than a comparably priced Windows box.
The OS upgrade for windows, if you are a home user and buying the upgrade and not the full version, is $20 less than for the MacOS upgrade, but I am willing to pay *at least* that much for a full installation CD and *at least* that much to not be treated like a criminal by the operating system when I try to install it.
Not to mention that the XP install is an ugly mess that wipes your user directory... I can only hope that cow upgrade comming in 2005 is somewhat nicer about it.
"Inkwell - this can actually be done a third party app, but lets call it an OS-core feature (what the hell, MS calls an instant messenger an OS-core feature, so why should Apple be any less moronic?)"
That's the point.
It is an integration library for things like graphic tablets.
"Rendezvous - Shipping stacks for PC/CE hardware, especially in today's fluid market, is hardly OS-core."
What is impressive about Rendezvous is how easy it is to integrate into apps and how many apps now support it since Apple put it into Cocoa.
"Darwin core - and why (putting my user hat on) do I care?"
Why do you, as a user, care about journaling? Your system is less prone to a certain class of problem that you don't know what it is anyways and boots up faster, that's about it.
"Built-in faxing - LOL. Windows 3.1 had this. OS-core? Well, yeah, if OS X's printer subsystem was borked 'til now."
From any app that can print, I can hit go from the print dialogue to fax the document.
Let me emphasize, *any* app.
The same way I can now save to pdf from any app. I have a fax program on my computer now--it came with the system--but I have had nothing which compares to this in terms of integration.
That's a fairly major feature addition, whether it existed in independent apps beforehand is irrelevant.
"Both were, if they were priced at ~$50. "
Basic economics would dictate that they priced it well consider the adoption rate.
"Paying $120 every year or so for this level of functionality is not worth worth it (IMO)."
Then don't, no-one is forcing you to.
Apple believes that these upgrades are worth the "price of admission," I agree, therefore I pay them for the OS upgrade.
I am not in the minority. If I did not believe that the upgrades were worth it, I wouldn't pay, and I would be none the worse off for wear. I know people still running 10.1.5--that is their decision, it works for them.
"Windows actually works out cheaper, amazingly enough, and they only assault you with upgrades every 2-3 years or so (if you're on the NT side of things)."
I'm not so sure that this is the case--it certainly wouldn't be for me, since I am a developer. If you support 5 systems (I support 4 on an in-house LAN) $199 for all for a 5 system license.
An upgrade to Windows XP Professional costs $189.95... the full price, if I haven't updated in awhile, is $289.95.
For home users its $98.95 for the upgrade and $189.95 for the full version...
Not exactly a steller deal.
"At least those are features which users CAN benefit from, if they use it or even turn it on. Recompiling with gcc 3.1 is behind-the-curtains for users, and means nothing to them"
I've got news for you: So is journaling.
"apart from the fact that the company which gouges them at each transaction is too cheap to design a compiler for their architecture that can actually deliver good code before the third public release."
Or, possibly, gcc3.1 wasn't mature enough for adoption when 10.0 was being put together and interfacing libraries between 2.9 and 3.1 was a royal pain, thus requiring it to be done all at once at a future date, when they worked the quirks out of a stable copy.
You can argue that it should have been free or done that way from the beginning, but don't argue that it was a "minor thing."
"Actually, it isn't. Unless you're among the small fraction that uses X apps, in which case a Unix workstation, such as x86 Linux box, would have worked as well for you."
Tsk tsk, four problems with this.
1) I am. I develop mathematical models that use an X11 frontend, make active use of R, use the X11 variant of cgoban (which I use to edit sgf files, I use Goban by Sen:te to actually play), have and use scilab, and a host of other niceties. Matlab's current Macintosh port makes use of X11.
2) "Typical" users don't find this kind of thing big. Engineers, scientists,
For most users (the vast majority of them) a one-button mouse is not only sufficient, but less confusing. For the rest of us, we can purchase the one that fits our habits and preferences (2 buttons, 3 buttons, 8 buttons...)
"a) either bundled apps that should either come from ISVs or be separately downloadable (perhaps for a fee), or b) eye candy improvements (You don't see MS charging for every DirectX upgrade, do you?) c) Developer toolset improvement -- despite what you think, the vast majority of Mac users don't give a shit about this, or which compiler the OS was compiled with. If Apple recompiles its shipping kernel with a new compiler it should probably send a kernel update. d) Speed/Perf improvements: see comments in earlier post."
1) These are not a "worthy paid upgrade" in your mind for what reason?
Name *one* of the two paid upgrades, 10.2 or 10.3, that you don't think was "worth it".
2)
Inkwell Rendezvous Expose The Darwin core (and kernel) have both been udpated. Built-in faxing in every application Quartz Extreme
Those are all *pure* OS improvements that seem to not fit under any of your categories. The last is a speed improvement, yes, but it is achieved by offloading things on to the video card which weren't previously--a big step which MS is following.
X11 is also highly significant as part of the OS.
Now, addressing each of your points in turn:
"a) either bundled apps that should either come from ISVs or be separately downloadable (perhaps for a fee)"
1) They are all free (iDVD exempted) and are a standard part of the distribution. 2) WebCore/Safari is a significant webbrowser upgrade, a tremendous part of most users experience with a system.
"b) eye candy improvements (You don't see MS charging for every DirectX upgrade, do you?)"
I wasn't aware things like "Spring-loaded folders" or "reorganized finder windows" qualified as "eye candy" instead of "functional improvements"
We aren't exactly talking about changing the skin or updating how things are drawn, we aren't even updating the widget set, we are talking about fundamental changes which affect the user experience directly.
"c) Developer toolset improvement -- despite what you think, the vast majority of Mac users don't give a shit about this, or which compiler the OS was compiled with. If Apple recompiles its shipping kernel with a new compiler it should probably send a kernel update."
Research would be a good thing.
Two things.
1) Most users may or may not care, I do, therefore it matters to me.
2) Whether most users care is also irrelevant to that it was included. Most users don't use Inkwell or a Journaled FS (yet), they still are important additions.
3) They recompiled the entire system with gcc3.1, if I recall correctly.
"d) Speed/Perf improvements: see comments in earlier post."
When they are as significant as what we've seen, they are a major feature.
>The upgrade price from ME to XP Home was $99 MSRP, >available for $75-$85 at most places....and the cost of the full version? A 5-license package?
Bear in mind as well that *every* copy of MacOS X is closer to the professional versions of windows than anything else.
>By contrast, OSX has delivered nothing quite as dramatic >between 10.0 and 10.3.
Bullshit.
*Journaled FS *Encrypted Home Directories *Expose *Quartz Extreme *Recompiled in gcc3.1 (from 2.9--this is *very* major). *Rendezvous *Faster User Switching *WebCore *X11 Included *Updated Web-browser (From IE 5 to Safari 1.0) *The Darwin core (and kernel) have both been udpated. *Inkwell *Built-in faxing in every application *A new finder interface and interface tweaks (with both 10.2 and 10.3--a new find function, spring-loaded folders, a whole new brushed metal interface for Panther...) */Enormous/ Speed Improvements *iDisk Syncing *Pixlet support *Updated bundled applications (Mail, iTunes, iMove, and iPhoto, and iChat AV all come to mind) *Serious improvements to the developers suite (Xcode, Shark, gcc3.3) *Font Book..and on...
"Another serious concern for IT has been how quickly Apple has outdated machines. Didn't we just see today that a number of machines aren't going to have proper functionality? "
You misread./Never got/ proper functionality under OS X would be more appropriate, and these are not new machines for 10.3 or 10.2, but old G3s (r0 and r1) which the graphics cards that shipped with them were unsupported by MacOS X IIRC.
These machine were released between 1997 and (early! later revisions have graphics cards that can handle it!) 1998--they aren't "fairly new machinary" by any stretch of the imagination.
1) Based on the free software song, I think we can all stand not to see RMS and the GNU crowd's acting ability.
2) Most of us don't have renderfarms so that we could incorperate these 1337 things into our own movies. This will also blend into problems with seeing "stock" images over, and over, and over again.
"From the GNU.org page: "It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code." "
Consider why they need a clause like this.
If they own the code modification, they can use it elsewhere under a different license. This is good business sense (remember that Apple is trying to turn a profit).
They also put a great deal of resources into fixing problems and contributing changes back into both APSL projects and other projects that they have used.
How is this different from, if I were to start an open source project, keeping the copyright to the main source code myself? This only goes one step beyond that.
>No, if you release under the BSD license, it does not have >to be free over its ntire lifetime. Yes, it is.
There is nothing you can do to a tool I release under the BSD license to make it non-free.
You can include it in your proprietary software product, but that isn't making it non-free--people can still download the original source and use it as they see fit, they just can't download your changes for the same.
Thus, the BSD license says that "this source code must remain free, forever" the GPL says that "this source code and any source code that uses it must remain free, forever".
>With BSD, anybody can take the software and sell it as >proprietary software, with the subsequent loss to the >user, who is the one the FSF wants to protect.
Protect from what? The evil corporate software people who come in the middle of the night to eat your children? Those who choose not to release their source code?
>GNU thinks its better than the first, they still dont like it >(they are quite picky).
My experience from reading GNU's work is that they aren't terribly fond of anything that isn't GNU.
From that webpage:
------------- The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with three major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:
*It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
*It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.
*It is incompatible with the GPL. -------------
Let's go over these point by point.
>*It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with >other files which may be entirely proprietary.
So does BSD. This does not, in my book, qualify as a "major practical problem."
>It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to >your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.
Yes, it requires this. I'm not sure why this makes it "unfair" though: this seems like more of a "legal cover our asses" clause on Apple's part so that they can use the changes elsewhere.
>It is incompatible with the GPL.
Would someone look up the definition of "circular reasoning"?
It seems, from everything I've seen come out of GNU, that they fit every definition of "Zealots". They almost seem to be *reaching* for something bad to say about the license simply because a proprietary software company is behind it.
Let's see... the senior VP and CTO of/Intel/ announced that they made the wrong processor choice for the Mac 20 years ago......and in other news, Microsoft has announced that no-one in their right mind uses Linux and that Windows is far superior at everything.
Seriously, I would love to see his/technical/ reasons for his statement. Comparing the two, head to head:
68000: 32-bit instruction set (minimum 16-bit instructions). 32-bit registers. 16-bit ALU. 8 MHz in 1984. 8 general purpose registers, 8 address registers.
80286: 16-bit ALU. 4 16-bit general purpose registers, could be used as 8 8-bit registers. 6-8 MHz in 1984.
I'm not seeing the appeal.
When the 601 came out it also had more than an edge on the Pentium and I sincerely doubt that the Pentium could have emmulated (with its speed, instruction set, and number of registers) the 68k instruction set anywhere close to the speed of the first PowerPCs...
Where exactly is the/Intel Representative/ getting this idea?
"KDE and GNOME keep playing catchup to windows instead of leading the way"
They could try to catch up to MacOS instead of trying to catch up to Windows, then even if they lag behind they'll still be on par with Windows Strikes Back or whatever the most recent version is;-)
Slashdot Mirror
>How much crack did you smoke before posting this?
Obviously not as much as you were...
>32MB Radeon upgrade (not sure why) $30
It is a Radeon 7500 with 32 MB of RAM: we're talking between $60 and $90.
Not as much as the original poster, but 2-3 times your price.
>And let's see, I don't think a cheap eMac has a 17-inch
>LCD display. More like a 17-inch CRT.
The original poster doesn't claim that it does--he claims a flat-screen CRT. There *is* a difference, you know?
Looking at warehouse.com's prices, flat-screen 17" monitors start at around $130 and go up to $700 (and up, and up). One that supports 1280 by 960 pixels at 75Hz is also a little more pricy (about $30-50). I don't know what you were smoking wrt an $80 version.
You also *still* aren't up to parity (FireWire, et al).
"Not to mention that the eMacs probably won't last very long -- when the monitor dies, the computer dies."
You can stop trolling and post statistics any time now. I've seen a lot of people posting that the emac purchase will last longer because the monitor will outlast the machine. Which is it?
How long do emacs last in the wild? Versus emachines (which are known to burn out thanks to their power supplies)?
>And I bet the eMachines have a faster processor than the
>eMac's anemic 800MHz.
As I said, you can stop trolling any time now...
>The iApps are the first thing that would get deleted from
>the eMac.
Wrong. I can see a good deal of use in a school environment for an mp3 player (think about it) or something that generates slide shows and sets them to music (class project? leadership perhaps?)
iChat, while it has limited utility as an educational app, *would* have good potential as a way to get kids using the computers.
> And the video editing stuff is completely worthless since
>most schools don't own DV camcorders.
I know many schools that have a class which could make use of one though and it is fairly common for them to have a video camera on hand, regardless of whether it is DV. Give it time and they'll be happy to have iMove and iDVD.
>BTW, XP home works very well as a client. Schools usually
>have dedicated servers running the network. No need for
>xp professional.
Unless you have an international userbase, which in a school environment is entirely possible (albeit unlikely in HS).
As I mentioned elsewhere: many people are also going to want to use Windows 2003 Server or MacOS X Server. There the winner in price should be clear.
"For the vast majority of systems, it is, though. On those systems that the extra video card is needed, throw it in. To get to the emac's level of video display wouldn't be more than $50-$60. "
Not if I'm pricing video cards correctly...
"Or, it'll be just like windows XP, where you can turn off the new GUI eye candy and use the traditional UI with no problem. "
We aren't talking eye candy or even user experience, we are talking about whether it will even be able to support longhorn at a reasonable speed.
"Depends on the needs. Most labs could do just fine with a good 15" monitor"
This is where I roll my eyes.
You are undercutting to an almost desperate degree--anything to get a cheaper deal and saying "they can just upgrade for those handful of systems that need it".
This isn't normally how systems are purchased and, what's more, undercutting and saying "they don't need that" is not a good policy overall. I remember one high school in the area doing that in 1996--they ended up with computers that were incapable of running Windows 95. There is a limit to how far you can do that and cuts like "they don't need 17" monitors" may or may not be valid depending on the circumstances.
"Ever hear of cygwin or mingw? They're free too, ya know. And they run under XP Home. "
Yes, I know quite a few people who use them. They do not compare--even slightly--to tools like ProjectBuilder, OpenGL Shader Builder, MallocDebug, and MONster; having a unix shell with the full tools in the right locations; etc.
In the end, that MacOS X is a Unix operating system wins this.
"Or you run a Linux server, and admin it through a tool such as webmin and save yourself some money on a server. Unlimited clients there, too. "
Again, you are undercutting. If you wanted to spend your admin's time setting up a linux server, by all means. You could spend that same time on a MacOS X box.
Also, have you ever used MacOS X server? You are paying for the admin tools--things that let you configure ldap servers, or having a top-of-the-line workgroup manager.
"Depends on the IT department. I'd be willing to wager that a good IT policy, and proactive maintenance steps could bring PC and mac support costs to near equity."
Point to one study which has shown that to be the case. I've seen numerous ones which indicate the opposite. You go ahead and wager--your suppositions are irrelevant unless you can back them up.
Also, we are talking about schools, a "good IT policy" and "high school" are generally an oxymoron.
I strongly suspect you are a troll, but here goes.
First: Touch typing is a critical skill in most of today's society.
Second: Last I heard Dijkstra's _grad_ students took a minimum of 6-7 years to graduate with their Ph.Ds.
Second (a): If you are gong to learn Computer Science, a little time working without a language or a computer can be very useful. If you are going to be an Chemist or an Engineer, but need a little programming, it is probably best if you learn it on a computer a little more rapidly (albeit it should be a language like Python, not C++, but that's another matter).
Third: Office Apps, such as the ability to use word or excel, or put together a presentation in powerpoint, are exceedingly important when you get to college.
Fourth: There is a broader skill set requirement in many fields, and programs that are required to use them. It is becomming increasingly common to cover things like Photoshop in school--I consider this a good trend.
Fifth: Comp Sci AP. You generally get one semester/year to teach this, better make sure you do it well.
Sixth: There are now programs to help teachers teach their classes more effectively. One program lets students self-pace in mathematics, making them much more effective, and it allows one teacher to teach more students and to teach them all more effectively than he/she could before (seriously, I've seen the results out of these programs and the student's comments as well).
Seventh: "Hasn't been shown to improve learning" is incorrect--I've spoken to many teachers who have found it a useful aid in teaching basic english (one teacher used a dictionary with a built in vocalizer to help students with definitions and pronunciations of different words--that way she needed less involvement).
Eighth: Most people are basically comptuer illititerate. With the number of jobs/COLLEGES that prefer basic computer literacy, it is a *good thing* to cover this in HS (or before).
Ninth: LD students. I am twice-exceptional and have dysgraphia. Through being an accomplished touch typist, I can overcome this and take lecture notes faster and more completely than most people can write them out.
Tenth: Handwritten assignments vs. Typewritten assignments. I have never seen a college professor accept a handwritten paper. Most college applications I looked at even specified typewritten assignments, and this was some years ago.
I can go on, and on, and on if you would prefer....
> For a lab of word processing/basic app machines, like
>99% of the k-12 computers are
Stop.
You are assuming word processing/basic app machines, this is not necessarily a valid assumption--I've known schools that do digital video work or teach programs like Photoshop or even use programs such as Lightwave or Maya. These are *not* all that uncommon uses.
Also, on another note, macs now have Quartz Extreme and in 2005 Windows will offer "tiered" user experiences and offload the user interface to the graphics card, an integrated chipset is (likely) not going to fare as well with Longhorn.
>The monitor's a non-issue because a flat picture tube is
>only (marginally) beneficial to people who are using it day
>in and day out.
1) It is better. Whether it is worth paying for is in question, but it is better.
2) If you find another CRT, make sure the quality is good, I've seen monitors in some HS's which were so low-quality they hurt they eyes to even glance at.
>You don't need the networking features of XP pro because
>once again, you're in an environment where you just need
>to crank out texts.
XP Pro is also useful to programmers et al. Programming tools are free with the mac, they are not with the PC, so if you teach AP (or even basic) computer science you are going to need to fork over more for the PC.
You are also looking at Windows 2003 Server, which costs a hell of a lot more. MacOS X's unlimited client license is your friend.
> The iApps are similarly worthless for a great deal of the
>market we're talking about, and aren't a great added
>value.
They still present an added value that (especially with iMovie/iDVD) I can certainly see schools being willing to pick up on.
iPhoto+iTunes, which can be used to create image slide shows and set them to music, also have a good bit of classroom utility.
>So, you're still left with spending several hundred dollars
>more for a comparable emac.
Non-comparable emac, you mean. The school may not see the additional utility as being worth it, or they may, but that is their concern.
>Add to the fact that the PC's non-integrated monitor
>leads to cost savings down the road as one doesn't have
>to replace the monitor at the same time as the rest of the
>system, and the PC is clearly a better deal.
If you are going to factor this in you might as well factor in as well that the Mac is going to cost less to support.
Others have addressed that you have to be ignorant to think that computers will be the same in 10 years as they are today.
/Best tool for the job/.
Some other points.
>Working with office-apps? Chances are that you're not
>using a Mac.
No, but chances are good that skills you pick up with "Office Apps" on a mac are going to transfer very cleanly if you should ever have to use them under windows--MS Office on OS X isn't all that removed from MS Office under XP.
If you are training with OpenOffice (which I know that no-one does, but hey...) then it runs *exactly the same* between platforms.
>Accessing a database? I'll guess ten to one that the
>clientend is a windowsapp.
Funny, are you thinking access? You do realize that there is more to life than SQLServer?
On the server end, of course, there is also a great deal of additional variance. Oracle, mySQL, postgreSQL...
> weither or not they are better / cheaper to maintain / has
>more fancy colours than a wintel machine.
Excuse me? They should use the
One of the first things you are told in computer science is that if you are not adaptable, you will die in the market. I know a variety of different programming languages, I still need to learn new ones depending on what I get hired to do.
Last summer, I was taken into a modeling project. I needed to:
*Learn Java
*Learn the Ascape library
*Refresh my memory on graphics in LaTeX (it had been awhile).
*Learn new presentation software.
The market is ever changing, you need to give them the ability to adapt, not make them specialists with one piece of software run only on one platform.
The refutation I've also heard to this is along a slightly different line, but equally valid: XP is nothing like Windows 95 is nothing like Windows 3.1. OS X is nothing like OS 9, which is fundamentally different than OS 7.
That's been in the last 10 years. A kid is trained on Windows XP in high school (or even grade school or middle school!) and the operating system is going to be fundamentally different--even if they are still using "Windows" or "MacOS"--by the time they are out of college.
The question comes down to what it includes. For instance, if you care to go all-mac (or even if you don't) it is *very* easy to justice MacOS X Server, with its unlimited client license.
As to the individual computers, that $699 computer comes with things like firewire ports, a 17" flat-screen CRT, and an 802.11g antenna--and MacOS X--a lot there to justify it, particularly if you determine that it will require less support over its lifetime than a comparably priced Windows box.
This reminds me...
The OS upgrade for windows, if you are a home user and buying the upgrade and not the full version, is $20 less than for the MacOS upgrade, but I am willing to pay *at least* that much for a full installation CD and *at least* that much to not be treated like a criminal by the operating system when I try to install it.
Not to mention that the XP install is an ugly mess that wipes your user directory... I can only hope that cow upgrade comming in 2005 is somewhat nicer about it.
"Inkwell - this can actually be done a third party app, but lets call it an OS-core feature (what the hell, MS calls an instant messenger an OS-core feature, so why should Apple be any less moronic?)"
That's the point.
It is an integration library for things like graphic tablets.
"Rendezvous - Shipping stacks for PC/CE hardware, especially in today's fluid market, is hardly OS-core."
What is impressive about Rendezvous is how easy it is to integrate into apps and how many apps now support it since Apple put it into Cocoa.
"Darwin core - and why (putting my user hat on) do I care?"
Why do you, as a user, care about journaling? Your system is less prone to a certain class of problem that you don't know what it is anyways and boots up faster, that's about it.
"Built-in faxing - LOL. Windows 3.1 had this. OS-core? Well, yeah, if OS X's printer subsystem was borked 'til now."
From any app that can print, I can hit go from the print dialogue to fax the document.
Let me emphasize, *any* app.
The same way I can now save to pdf from any app. I have a fax program on my computer now--it came with the system--but I have had nothing which compares to this in terms of integration.
That's a fairly major feature addition, whether it existed in independent apps beforehand is irrelevant.
"Both were, if they were priced at ~$50. "
Basic economics would dictate that they priced it well consider the adoption rate.
"Paying $120 every year or so for this level of functionality is not worth worth it (IMO)."
Then don't, no-one is forcing you to.
Apple believes that these upgrades are worth the "price of admission," I agree, therefore I pay them for the OS upgrade.
I am not in the minority. If I did not believe that the upgrades were worth it, I wouldn't pay, and I would be none the worse off for wear. I know people still running 10.1.5--that is their decision, it works for them.
"Windows actually works out cheaper, amazingly enough, and they only assault you with upgrades every 2-3 years or so (if you're on the NT side of things)."
I'm not so sure that this is the case--it certainly wouldn't be for me, since I am a developer. If you support 5 systems (I support 4 on an in-house LAN) $199 for all for a 5 system license.
An upgrade to Windows XP Professional costs $189.95... the full price, if I haven't updated in awhile, is $289.95.
For home users its $98.95 for the upgrade and $189.95 for the full version...
Not exactly a steller deal.
"At least those are features which users CAN benefit from, if they use it or even turn it on. Recompiling with gcc 3.1 is behind-the-curtains for users, and means nothing to them"
I've got news for you: So is journaling.
"apart from the fact that the company which gouges them at each transaction is too cheap to design a compiler for their architecture that can actually deliver good code before the third public release."
Or, possibly, gcc3.1 wasn't mature enough for adoption when 10.0 was being put together and interfacing libraries between 2.9 and 3.1 was a royal pain, thus requiring it to be done all at once at a future date, when they worked the quirks out of a stable copy.
You can argue that it should have been free or done that way from the beginning, but don't argue that it was a "minor thing."
"Actually, it isn't. Unless you're among the small fraction that uses X apps, in which case a Unix workstation, such as x86 Linux box, would have worked as well for you."
Tsk tsk, four problems with this.
1) I am. I develop mathematical models that use an X11 frontend, make active use of R, use the X11 variant of cgoban (which I use to edit sgf files, I use Goban by Sen:te to actually play), have and use scilab, and a host of other niceties. Matlab's current Macintosh port makes use of X11.
2) "Typical" users don't find this kind of thing big. Engineers, scientists,
I have an optical trackball, it cost me $30.
For most users (the vast majority of them) a one-button mouse is not only sufficient, but less confusing. For the rest of us, we can purchase the one that fits our habits and preferences (2 buttons, 3 buttons, 8 buttons...)
"I have spend $2-$3k just to get my foot in the door. "
Let me make this easy for you.
You can get a brand new iBook or eMac for $999.
Last I checked, $999 < $2k
Or, if you don't care about an older machine, you can get a G4/400 for around $500 if that suits your fancy. It will run OSX just fine.
"a) either bundled apps that should either come from ISVs or be separately downloadable (perhaps for a fee), or
b) eye candy improvements (You don't see MS charging for every DirectX upgrade, do you?)
c) Developer toolset improvement -- despite what you think, the vast majority of Mac users don't give a shit about this, or which compiler the OS was compiled with. If Apple recompiles its shipping kernel with a new compiler it should probably send a kernel update.
d) Speed/Perf improvements: see comments in earlier post."
1) These are not a "worthy paid upgrade" in your mind for what reason?
Name *one* of the two paid upgrades, 10.2 or 10.3, that you don't think was "worth it".
2)
Inkwell
Rendezvous
Expose
The Darwin core (and kernel) have both been udpated.
Built-in faxing in every application
Quartz Extreme
Those are all *pure* OS improvements that seem to not fit under any of your categories. The last is a speed improvement, yes, but it is achieved by offloading things on to the video card which weren't previously--a big step which MS is following.
X11 is also highly significant as part of the OS.
Now, addressing each of your points in turn:
"a) either bundled apps that should either come from ISVs or be separately downloadable (perhaps for a fee)"
1) They are all free (iDVD exempted) and are a standard part of the distribution.
2) WebCore/Safari is a significant webbrowser upgrade, a tremendous part of most users experience with a system.
"b) eye candy improvements (You don't see MS charging for every DirectX upgrade, do you?)"
I wasn't aware things like "Spring-loaded folders" or "reorganized finder windows" qualified as "eye candy" instead of "functional improvements"
We aren't exactly talking about changing the skin or updating how things are drawn, we aren't even updating the widget set, we are talking about fundamental changes which affect the user experience directly.
"c) Developer toolset improvement -- despite what you think, the vast majority of Mac users don't give a shit about this, or which compiler the OS was compiled with. If Apple recompiles its shipping kernel with a new compiler it should probably send a kernel update."
Research would be a good thing.
Two things.
1) Most users may or may not care, I do, therefore it matters to me.
2) Whether most users care is also irrelevant to that it was included. Most users don't use Inkwell or a Journaled FS (yet), they still are important additions.
3) They recompiled the entire system with gcc3.1, if I recall correctly.
"d) Speed/Perf improvements: see comments in earlier post."
When they are as significant as what we've seen, they are a major feature.
>The upgrade price from ME to XP Home was $99 MSRP, ...and the cost of the full version? A 5-license package?
..and on...
>available for $75-$85 at most places.
Bear in mind as well that *every* copy of MacOS X is closer to the professional versions of windows than anything else.
>By contrast, OSX has delivered nothing quite as dramatic
>between 10.0 and 10.3.
Bullshit.
*Journaled FS
*Encrypted Home Directories
*Expose
*Quartz Extreme
*Recompiled in gcc3.1 (from 2.9--this is *very* major).
*Rendezvous
*Faster User Switching
*WebCore
*X11 Included
*Updated Web-browser (From IE 5 to Safari 1.0)
*The Darwin core (and kernel) have both been udpated.
*Inkwell
*Built-in faxing in every application
*A new finder interface and interface tweaks (with both 10.2 and 10.3--a new find function, spring-loaded folders, a whole new brushed metal interface for Panther...)
*/Enormous/ Speed Improvements
*iDisk Syncing
*Pixlet support
*Updated bundled applications (Mail, iTunes, iMove, and iPhoto, and iChat AV all come to mind)
*Serious improvements to the developers suite (Xcode, Shark, gcc3.3)
*Font Book
"Another serious concern for IT has been how quickly Apple has outdated machines. Didn't we just see today that a number of machines aren't going to have proper functionality? "
/Never got/ proper functionality under OS X would be more appropriate, and these are not new machines for 10.3 or 10.2, but old G3s (r0 and r1) which the graphics cards that shipped with them were unsupported by MacOS X IIRC.
You misread.
These machine were released between 1997 and (early! later revisions have graphics cards that can handle it!) 1998--they aren't "fairly new machinary" by any stretch of the imagination.
Three problems.
1) Based on the free software song, I think we can all stand not to see RMS and the GNU crowd's acting ability.
2) Most of us don't have renderfarms so that we could incorperate these 1337 things into our own movies. This will also blend into problems with seeing "stock" images over, and over, and over again.
3) There is no third thing, is that clear!?!?
Well, MS *has* recently decided to do some testing on Linux... http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=12803689
"From the GNU.org page: "It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code." "
Consider why they need a clause like this.
If they own the code modification, they can use it elsewhere under a different license. This is good business sense (remember that Apple is trying to turn a profit).
They also put a great deal of resources into fixing problems and contributing changes back into both APSL projects and other projects that they have used.
How is this different from, if I were to start an open source project, keeping the copyright to the main source code myself? This only goes one step beyond that.
I think we've all had to stop reading /. while eating or drinking anything in case there is SCO news on the front page.
"SCO, a puddle of a company, takes on IBM, a gorilla in a business suit"
"SCO decides to tackle the US Government"
I keep expecting to sign on and see:
"SCO sent out a press release titled: W3 0wnz0r 411 yuo pu|\|k @$$ b17ch3s"
>No, if you release under the BSD license, it does not have
>to be free over its ntire lifetime.
Yes, it is.
There is nothing you can do to a tool I release under the BSD license to make it non-free.
You can include it in your proprietary software product, but that isn't making it non-free--people can still download the original source and use it as they see fit, they just can't download your changes for the same.
Thus, the BSD license says that "this source code must remain free, forever" the GPL says that "this source code and any source code that uses it must remain free, forever".
>With BSD, anybody can take the software and sell it as
>proprietary software, with the subsequent loss to the
>user, who is the one the FSF wants to protect.
Protect from what? The evil corporate software people who come in the middle of the night to eat your children? Those who choose not to release their source code?
>1. Eat children
>2. ? (something about processors)
>3. Profit!
You know you have been staring at code too long when you read the first line as "Eat chicken".
Sigh.
>What about the DRM (even though it's silly) on iTunes?
Is there something instrinsically bad about Apple's FairPlay DRM?
Seriously, is there anything *fundamentally* wrong with it, specifically?
> How about the patents?
This may come as a surprise, but Apple is a "company" in a "neoliberal economy" trying to turn something called a "profit."
I know that *is* shocking, isn't it?
>GNU thinks its better than the first, they still dont like it
>(they are quite picky).
My experience from reading GNU's work is that they aren't terribly fond of anything that isn't GNU.
From that webpage:
-------------
The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with three major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:
*It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
*It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.
*It is incompatible with the GPL.
-------------
Let's go over these point by point.
>*It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with
>other files which may be entirely proprietary.
So does BSD. This does not, in my book, qualify as a "major practical problem."
>It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to
>your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.
Yes, it requires this. I'm not sure why this makes it "unfair" though: this seems like more of a "legal cover our asses" clause on Apple's part so that they can use the changes elsewhere.
>It is incompatible with the GPL.
Would someone look up the definition of "circular reasoning"?
It seems, from everything I've seen come out of GNU, that they fit every definition of "Zealots". They almost seem to be *reaching* for something bad to say about the license simply because a proprietary software company is behind it.
Let's see... the senior VP and CTO of /Intel/ announced that they made the wrong processor choice for the Mac 20 years ago... ...and in other news, Microsoft has announced that no-one in their right mind uses Linux and that Windows is far superior at everything.
/technical/ reasons for his statement. Comparing the two, head to head:
/Intel Representative/ getting this idea?
Seriously, I would love to see his
68000:
32-bit instruction set (minimum 16-bit instructions).
32-bit registers.
16-bit ALU.
8 MHz in 1984.
8 general purpose registers, 8 address registers.
80286:
16-bit ALU.
4 16-bit general purpose registers, could be used as 8 8-bit registers.
6-8 MHz in 1984.
I'm not seeing the appeal.
When the 601 came out it also had more than an edge on the Pentium and I sincerely doubt that the Pentium could have emmulated (with its speed, instruction set, and number of registers) the 68k instruction set anywhere close to the speed of the first PowerPCs...
Where exactly is the
"I dont know if anything can beat a mac.
Too bad there so expensive."
Wow, wonderful troll.
What, do you make your own 1337 b0xx3n or something else where you can't afford a slight premium for buying from a company?
"KDE and GNOME keep playing catchup to windows instead of leading the way"
;-)
They could try to catch up to MacOS instead of trying to catch up to Windows, then even if they lag behind they'll still be on par with Windows Strikes Back or whatever the most recent version is
(*ducks* ack! okay okay! don't shoot!)