They "benchmark" a 3.6GHz and a 3.2GHz CPU with a ton of RAM.
What about slower CPU's? I have a P4 2.4B (533 FSB). It runs current games "alright," but I want to know how it stacks up against DOOM3.
Part of me wants to upgrade now. But part of me wants to wait until I can get a Socket 939 Motherboard with PCI Express. This way, if I need to upgrade my video card again in the future, I wouldn't be stuck buying a slower AGP.
While I agree with your feelings, I do not agree with actually persuing such a thing.
I want laptops that run COOL and have MASSIVE battery life. In a laptop, performance comes third or later (in my opinion).
That said, I also need it to do work on when on a business trip. The VIA chips are lacking some serious components, so they run REALLY slow compared to Intel and AMD running at similar clock speeds. I think they're missing float-point arithmetic, or something else that makes anything somewhat complex take FOREVER to perform.
I don't just use my laptop for browsing the 'net or checking my email, I use it to do all of my work when I'm at home or on a trip. It's easier for me to make my laptop replicate the business environment as much as possible (and throw in some development tools: eclipse, JBuilder, VS, etc). Then, use my desktop for my gaming, browsing, emailing, etc. This way, I have a delopment machine for work, and an "everything else" machine for play (or personal development).
I think the Centrino is a step in the right direction. But I think companies need to just start making a model that runs slow, but long and cool.
After all, not everyone is alike. Some people want pure battery life and a cool unit, while others want more of a balance between SOME performance and good batery life.
For normal applications (not multi-threaded or written to take advantage of multiple CPU's), you would get no extra performance on singular apps. A quick application thrown together to perform some complex calculation will not run in less time.
However, while that unoptimized process / application is running at 100% of CPU1, CPU2 is avaiable to do other things. If you try to run another application (like a game) while a complex is running on CPU1, the OS would usually throw the new application on CPU2 so you would not get too much slowdown from the first app.
BUT... applications can be written to take advantage of the extra CPU's. Using multiple threads is one way. For example, if you start distributing complex things across smaller threads, then each thread would be thrown onto the most available CPU. Then, the program would have the 2 CPU's running parts of the applications, and you'd get more down quicker.
There are other ways, but I don't want to write an article.
Some programs are written to take advantage of multiple CPU's, others aren't. I know QUAKE 3 was written to take advantage, but I don't know if the other games based on the engine also see the beneft. Photoshop is also written to take advantage of multiple CPU's.
But in the end, as someone else stated, even if the program is written to take advantage of multiple CPU's, the relationship isn't exactly 2x (with a dual proc system). But it does help.
24/7 means all day, every day of the week. BUT... does it mean holidays? Thanksgiving, Martin Luther King Day, Christmas / Hanukah / Quanza / etc? Tech support might be offered 23/7, but the employees might take off for the holidays.
23/7/365 is usually redundant. But, I'd hope if a person says this that they really do mean that it's up / operational / available all-year-round, even if I call on a government-sanctioned holiday.
UT2004 for Mac OS X was released within a few days of the Windows release. It might have even been the same day that they were actually on brick-and-mortar store shelves, but Ithink there was like a 2 day gap.
Most people have already stated the obvious: a demo isn't really needed when a game has as much hype and fans as DOOM 3. They know they have those people locked into a sale.
But demos can hurt a game in many ways. For examples:
Deus Ex II: Invisible War - the demo showed everyone how sucky the game was. Poor performance, dummied-down concepts (hacking anyone), small maps, and weak relation to the original. It probably hurt sales, as some of those that were foaming at the mouth probably changed their minds or waited to get it as a gift for the holidays.
Ground Control II - they shot themselves in the foot with the demo. The demo is great! The game is great! One problem - the demo had so much content in it that nobody bought the friggin game. Hordes of people are still on the demo servers, as the only thing they are missing out on is a few maps. Only a small number of people are on the retail servers.
Between the time and funds that ned to go into fixing up a demo, it's more cost effective to get the interested early-birds to buy the games. You demo will do little to make them want it more.
The ones that will buy it later, let them hear about the polished game and then try the demo later.
"How will I schedule my job around my Doom 3 time?"
Personally, I'm anticipating this release, but I'm not gung-ho about it. To me, it will just be another FPS. At most, it will remind me of the fun and fear I felt when playing the original version at night on my 486 DX 33.
Firstly, I think graphics are over-rated. I still play System-Shock 1 and 2 for the gameplay. Sure, by today's standards they look like crap, but they're fun as hell to play.
Secondly, I think more games should have a cartoon feel, via cell shading or whatever. Too realistic, a la photorealistic, would just plain suck; unless we're up to VR or holodecks, but they're probably a LONG way away (if we ever see them at all).
While I didn't like the child-like nature of Zelda: Wind Wakers, I thought the cell shading looked great. "Gish" for the PC is also great.
Non-realistic, if done well, can still look superb, and might require fewer resources. It would also get those stupid people complaining about games causing Columbine-type situations, as they'd have a harder time justifying it if a game was cel shaded, than uber-realistic.
Why are laptops going widescreen? Shouldnt PCs be streaching the other way.
I bought a widescreen Wintel laptop last year for one reason only: coding
In coding, I want as much horizontal room as possible. Vertical, I don't care as much about.
Depending on your IDE and / or options, you usually have atleast 1 pane (left of right) with an explorer / visualizer / etc. Some even have left AND right.
Don't get me wrong, when I code, I try not to go too far to the side. But every little bit helps.
The widescreen is also handy when you have a lot of stuff open. Maybe a person wants to see their AOL buddy list while they're typing (or browsing). Maybe they want to place these 2 windows side-by-side.
Granted, the "widescreen" only adds 1-2 inches of width on a 15" widescreen. But it's usually enought to make a difference.
Uh...levers are what make the claw part of claw hammers work. They're what make wheelbarrows easy to push, and enable you to bring in a fish you've caught with a rod. They're what make it easy to row a boat. They're why crowbars, shears and pliers work.
OOHHHH!
I was just thinking of like "the emergency break lever on a train" or something like that.
Yes, next to wheel, I think it's been the most influencial, versatile, and useful tool ever realized.
All of those tools are way better than the PC. Hell, without most / all of them we'd be in a really bad place; living in the dark ages, riding horses, not knowing what time it is, and possibly extinct.
Without the computer, we'd just have to read more and rely on newspapers, and our science would be less advanced. No big deal (compared to the earlier inventions). We can live without them, and might be better off intillectually as we rely on them too much (I know a few Math majors that can't do anything without a PC).
I'm only saying that the computer can be considered more versatile, not more innovative, not superior.
Versatile: Capable of doing many things competently.
By more versatile, I mean a computer can do a gazillion things.
A watch can only do a few (tell time, count seconds, etc). The internal combustion engine can only be used for locomotion or generating power.
I don't totally agree either, but it's not that far-fethced.
First, he said "tool." Medicine is not a tool.
Second, he said "versatile." In this case, versatile means "flexible" or "has many different uses."
Computers can generall used for: Games Internet etc
But we use them for controlling sytems (nukes, trains, planes, etc), running simulations, protein and DNA analysis, keeping people alive, telling us what time it is, communication, data storage, mathematics, encryption, and many more that we haven't even explored.
That seems prett friggin versatile to me!
The wheel, yeh, I admit, its more versatile. It's used in travel, gears, a million-and-one uses. On top of which, it's the basic principal of other things: propellers, screws, centrifuge, etc. And I definately classify it as a tool.
Arches are awesome, but they're mostly just used in architecture or other things requring strength (shoes, cars, etc). While cool, hey're use is not THAT versatile.
Levers are good for making something stop and go (or controlling speed). While they can make trains stop / go, machines stop / go, they're just doing the same hting only to a different device.
Steel, ehhh, I don't know if it fits the definition. While it is useful in many things, I just don't know if I can call it a tool. Material, definately, but tool, ???
They say the bombs had to be placed in the EXACTLY correct spot, within feet (or inches).
Yet, they were in a VERY fluid substance, far more fluid than they had theorized.
So, pop-quiz hot-shot... how to you ensure several items floating in a very fluid substance don't move more than a few inches or feet within a fair amount of time.
Unless each unit had some sort of propulsion, guidance, and corrective program, they're attempt would have failed (based on what they were saying).
On a side note, there was a low-bidget version of "The Core." It had a different title, and they didn't have to go all the way down. But it was SO similar it was funny.
It starred Wil Wheaton (Star Trek: TNG). Even the scenes were similar: large diamonds they couldn't drill through, while repairing the vehicle someone was bathed in lava. They had to place several nuclear devices to "jumpstart" something. It was funny to watch after the Core. Both were just soooo bad, but at least the Core had some fx.
People don't realise how it's all relative in any case, it's very strange to look at 2D world maps from Europe or far east Asia when you're familiar with USA produced maps. All the different maps are centered over their respective areas. It makes sense of course, but it looks alien at first glance.
All world maps I've seen have the Americas on the left (west), and Australia on the right (east).
It has to do with longitude.
I'm an American, and I've NEVER seen a world map with America showcased in the center. The closes I've seen has been an "Americas" map, showing North and South America, but then Europe, Asia, etc weren't on the map at all.
But you bring up a good point. Would all maps be redrawn "upside down?" Or would we just simply take note that North is now South?
As for non-digital compasses, I think they'll stay around. They're very useful when camping or what-not, as they work even when wet. You can even fix a broken "analog" compass. Try fixing a digital compass when you have an accident on a camping trip, you won't.
I think we'll simply call North -> South and South -> North. The analog compasses would just have to be repainted, and digital ones will have to be redone slightly. In either case, it would be easier to get a new one.
Though Deus Ex 2: Invisible War sucked ass, there was one funny moment in it.
You had to get into a penthouse in a classy hotel. The obvious way was to sneak in and "pick" the locks.
The second was was to "pick up" some male ambassador and agree to become his "chamber boy" or something like that; I think there was another layer, like you had to meet his old boyfriend of something. But in the end, you got the key to the apartment.
While it was a chuckle, it was so worthless since breaking into the penthouse was very easy and required little skill / tools.
Unfortunately,
Opera can EASILY change it's ID to make it appear to be another browser (it's an option in the main menu).
I currently have it set to "Opera," but I THINK by default it might even be "IE". Besides, many people just leave it at that because some sites won't work right without it (particularly sites some sites with shitty login authentication).
But while I think Opera is personally the best out there, I understand it has a very low usage count compared to IE and mozilla, and just about every psuedo-modern Mac uses Safari. So, I'm not that surprised it doesn't rank on the list.
Actually, I believe "shit" is now allowed on broadcase (FOX, NBC, etc), so long as it's on after a certain time.
They made a big deal about it last year (or was it 2 years ago). It sort of coincided with "South Park's" "Night of a Miliion Shits" episode, where they would say it a couple of times per scene (and there was a little counter at the bottom of the screen).
I can sort of agree with bleeping it out. Little kids (like 3rd graders) wouldn't really know the significance of it, and would just start using it endlessly. They'd be calling their teachers "FuckHeads" or tell their mom to pass the "Fucking Mashed Potatoes."
But it's not the downfall of society that they're making it out to look like. Parents can install V-Chips, educate their children, or (god forbid) DISCIPLINE them if they use the words.
Well, his head has been in a mine under San Francisco (or something) since the 1800's. He went back in time and met Samuel Clemens, then got blown up by time traveling, lifeforce sucking aliens.
Maybe, they activate his head, he helps out, but eventualy asks for his head ot be put back so Enterprise will find him.
Let's see here. The yearly upgrade cycle of Mac OS versus the every-other-year upgrade cycle of Windows. Granted, the next windows (desktop) version won't be out for a while now, but Tiger is in 2005, when Panther was 2003.
Windows retail is pretty dang expense (for the full NON-oem version). Likewise, the hardware requirements seem to go up quite nicely with each Windows release. Panther runs pretty well on hardware thats a few years old already (so long as its a G4 or later G3).
Don't get me wrong, if you want to constantly upgrade with either system, it's going to cost you a pretty penny. But why upgrde so often? Jaguar is still supported now, and Panther will still be supported when Tiger comes out.
But I agree that Mac OS needs to slow down a little. While they throw a LOT of stuff in each revision, it gets pretty pricey.
If you're a Unix admin or Oracle admin, and your job is to keep those things running 24 / 7 / 365, you better be reachable or you won't be working.
Sure, if your a Systems Analyst or Software developer, it's not big deal. I doubt it would be an issue.
But many companies stipulate you MUST keep the servers running all day, period. So, if a server goes down or something goes wrong, it's either get out of bed or get into the unemployment line.
I knew a DBA that would get calls at 3 or 4 AM. She hated it, REALLY hated it, but she knew she had to do it.
Sure, some companies won't care so much if Oracle crashes at 9PM or an intranet site is up. But some need / want them running all day, everyday.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just the video card, but the processor.
They "benchmark" a 3.6GHz and a 3.2GHz CPU with a ton of RAM.
What about slower CPU's? I have a P4 2.4B (533 FSB). It runs current games "alright," but I want to know how it stacks up against DOOM3.
Part of me wants to upgrade now. But part of me wants to wait until I can get a Socket 939 Motherboard with PCI Express. This way, if I need to upgrade my video card again in the future, I wouldn't be stuck buying a slower AGP.
While I agree with your feelings, I do not agree with actually persuing such a thing.
I want laptops that run COOL and have MASSIVE battery life. In a laptop, performance comes third or later (in my opinion).
That said, I also need it to do work on when on a business trip. The VIA chips are lacking some serious components, so they run REALLY slow compared to Intel and AMD running at similar clock speeds. I think they're missing float-point arithmetic, or something else that makes anything somewhat complex take FOREVER to perform.
I don't just use my laptop for browsing the 'net or checking my email, I use it to do all of my work when I'm at home or on a trip. It's easier for me to make my laptop replicate the business environment as much as possible (and throw in some development tools: eclipse, JBuilder, VS, etc). Then, use my desktop for my gaming, browsing, emailing, etc. This way, I have a delopment machine for work, and an "everything else" machine for play (or personal development).
I think the Centrino is a step in the right direction. But I think companies need to just start making a model that runs slow, but long and cool.
After all, not everyone is alike. Some people want pure battery life and a cool unit, while others want more of a balance between SOME performance and good batery life.
For normal applications (not multi-threaded or written to take advantage of multiple CPU's), you would get no extra performance on singular apps. A quick application thrown together to perform some complex calculation will not run in less time.
However, while that unoptimized process / application is running at 100% of CPU1, CPU2 is avaiable to do other things. If you try to run another application (like a game) while a complex is running on CPU1, the OS would usually throw the new application on CPU2 so you would not get too much slowdown from the first app.
BUT... applications can be written to take advantage of the extra CPU's. Using multiple threads is one way. For example, if you start distributing complex things across smaller threads, then each thread would be thrown onto the most available CPU. Then, the program would have the 2 CPU's running parts of the applications, and you'd get more down quicker.
There are other ways, but I don't want to write an article.
Some programs are written to take advantage of multiple CPU's, others aren't. I know QUAKE 3 was written to take advantage, but I don't know if the other games based on the engine also see the beneft. Photoshop is also written to take advantage of multiple CPU's.
But in the end, as someone else stated, even if the program is written to take advantage of multiple CPU's, the relationship isn't exactly 2x (with a dual proc system). But it does help.
It depends....
24/7 means all day, every day of the week. BUT... does it mean holidays? Thanksgiving, Martin Luther King Day, Christmas / Hanukah / Quanza / etc? Tech support might be offered 23/7, but the employees might take off for the holidays.
23/7/365 is usually redundant. But, I'd hope if a person says this that they really do mean that it's up / operational / available all-year-round, even if I call on a government-sanctioned holiday.
Just made me realize something scary...
It took us 12 years to find that nutcase. Granted, we probably weren't looking as hard as we could, but he's still just one man with few resources.
This doesn't make our hunt for Osama look any more positive, as he has funds and followers.
UT2004 for Mac OS X was released within a few days of the Windows release. It might have even been the same day that they were actually on brick-and-mortar store shelves, but Ithink there was like a 2 day gap.
It depends on a lot of things.
Most people have already stated the obvious: a demo isn't really needed when a game has as much hype and fans as DOOM 3. They know they have those people locked into a sale.
But demos can hurt a game in many ways. For examples:
Deus Ex II: Invisible War - the demo showed everyone how sucky the game was. Poor performance, dummied-down concepts (hacking anyone), small maps, and weak relation to the original. It probably hurt sales, as some of those that were foaming at the mouth probably changed their minds or waited to get it as a gift for the holidays.
Ground Control II - they shot themselves in the foot with the demo. The demo is great! The game is great! One problem - the demo had so much content in it that nobody bought the friggin game. Hordes of people are still on the demo servers, as the only thing they are missing out on is a few maps. Only a small number of people are on the retail servers.
Between the time and funds that ned to go into fixing up a demo, it's more cost effective to get the interested early-birds to buy the games. You demo will do little to make them want it more.
The ones that will buy it later, let them hear about the polished game and then try the demo later.
Most gamers are asking themselves:
"How will I schedule my job around my Doom 3 time?"
Personally, I'm anticipating this release, but I'm not gung-ho about it. To me, it will just be another FPS. At most, it will remind me of the fun and fear I felt when playing the original version at night on my 486 DX 33.
Firstly, I think graphics are over-rated. I still play System-Shock 1 and 2 for the gameplay. Sure, by today's standards they look like crap, but they're fun as hell to play.
Secondly, I think more games should have a cartoon feel, via cell shading or whatever. Too realistic, a la photorealistic, would just plain suck; unless we're up to VR or holodecks, but they're probably a LONG way away (if we ever see them at all).
While I didn't like the child-like nature of Zelda: Wind Wakers, I thought the cell shading looked great. "Gish" for the PC is also great.
Non-realistic, if done well, can still look superb, and might require fewer resources. It would also get those stupid people complaining about games causing Columbine-type situations, as they'd have a harder time justifying it if a game was cel shaded, than uber-realistic.
Caboose: That would make you.... a gay robot.
Obligatory RvB reference.
It was announced in 1998.
It was dubbed to be the next "Quake Killer" or something like that.
I liked the original. While not as technologically advanced as Quake, it was more fun to play. Hell, the sprites looked pretty good considering.
As for DOom3, I'm going to wait for reviews and hardware requirements before I preorder.
I just read an article about a famouse porn star actress (Asia) that now writes html, maintains her webpage herself, and plays Unreal 2004.
Almost along the same lines.
Why are laptops going widescreen? Shouldnt PCs be streaching the other way.
I bought a widescreen Wintel laptop last year for one reason only: coding
In coding, I want as much horizontal room as possible. Vertical, I don't care as much about.
Depending on your IDE and / or options, you usually have atleast 1 pane (left of right) with an explorer / visualizer / etc. Some even have left AND right.
Don't get me wrong, when I code, I try not to go too far to the side. But every little bit helps.
The widescreen is also handy when you have a lot of stuff open. Maybe a person wants to see their AOL buddy list while they're typing (or browsing). Maybe they want to place these 2 windows side-by-side.
Granted, the "widescreen" only adds 1-2 inches of width on a 15" widescreen. But it's usually enought to make a difference.
Uh...levers are what make the claw part of claw hammers work. They're what make wheelbarrows easy to push, and enable you to bring in a fish you've caught with a rod. They're what make it easy to row a boat. They're why crowbars, shears and pliers work.
OOHHHH!
I was just thinking of like "the emergency break lever on a train" or something like that.
Yes, next to wheel, I think it's been the most influencial, versatile, and useful tool ever realized.
Boy, do I feel stupid now.
All of those tools are way better than the PC. Hell, without most / all of them we'd be in a really bad place; living in the dark ages, riding horses, not knowing what time it is, and possibly extinct.
Without the computer, we'd just have to read more and rely on newspapers, and our science would be less advanced. No big deal (compared to the earlier inventions). We can live without them, and might be better off intillectually as we rely on them too much (I know a few Math majors that can't do anything without a PC).
I'm only saying that the computer can be considered more versatile, not more innovative, not superior.
Versatile:
Capable of doing many things competently.
By more versatile, I mean a computer can do a gazillion things.
A watch can only do a few (tell time, count seconds, etc). The internal combustion engine can only be used for locomotion or generating power.
I don't totally agree either, but it's not that far-fethced.
First, he said "tool." Medicine is not a tool.
Second, he said "versatile." In this case, versatile means "flexible" or "has many different uses."
Computers can generall used for:
Games
Internet
etc
But we use them for controlling sytems (nukes, trains, planes, etc), running simulations, protein and DNA analysis, keeping people alive, telling us what time it is, communication, data storage, mathematics, encryption, and many more that we haven't even explored.
That seems prett friggin versatile to me!
The wheel, yeh, I admit, its more versatile. It's used in travel, gears, a million-and-one uses. On top of which, it's the basic principal of other things: propellers, screws, centrifuge, etc. And I definately classify it as a tool.
Arches are awesome, but they're mostly just used in architecture or other things requring strength (shoes, cars, etc). While cool, hey're use is not THAT versatile.
Levers are good for making something stop and go (or controlling speed). While they can make trains stop / go, machines stop / go, they're just doing the same hting only to a different device.
Steel, ehhh, I don't know if it fits the definition. While it is useful in many things, I just don't know if I can call it a tool. Material, definately, but tool, ???
What I couldn't understand from the movie:
They say the bombs had to be placed in the EXACTLY correct spot, within feet (or inches).
Yet, they were in a VERY fluid substance, far more fluid than they had theorized.
So, pop-quiz hot-shot... how to you ensure several items floating in a very fluid substance don't move more than a few inches or feet within a fair amount of time.
Unless each unit had some sort of propulsion, guidance, and corrective program, they're attempt would have failed (based on what they were saying).
On a side note, there was a low-bidget version of "The Core." It had a different title, and they didn't have to go all the way down. But it was SO similar it was funny.
It starred Wil Wheaton (Star Trek: TNG). Even the scenes were similar: large diamonds they couldn't drill through, while repairing the vehicle someone was bathed in lava. They had to place several nuclear devices to "jumpstart" something. It was funny to watch after the Core. Both were just soooo bad, but at least the Core had some fx.
People don't realise how it's all relative in any case, it's very strange to look at 2D world maps from Europe or far east Asia when you're familiar with USA produced maps. All the different maps are centered over their respective areas. It makes sense of course, but it looks alien at first glance.
All world maps I've seen have the Americas on the left (west), and Australia on the right (east).
It has to do with longitude.
I'm an American, and I've NEVER seen a world map with America showcased in the center. The closes I've seen has been an "Americas" map, showing North and South America, but then Europe, Asia, etc weren't on the map at all.
But you bring up a good point. Would all maps be redrawn "upside down?" Or would we just simply take note that North is now South?
As for non-digital compasses, I think they'll stay around. They're very useful when camping or what-not, as they work even when wet. You can even fix a broken "analog" compass. Try fixing a digital compass when you have an accident on a camping trip, you won't.
I think we'll simply call North -> South and South -> North. The analog compasses would just have to be repainted, and digital ones will have to be redone slightly. In either case, it would be easier to get a new one.
I know, Comedy Central is Cable.
But, it's still allowed on broadcast.
Though Deus Ex 2: Invisible War sucked ass, there was one funny moment in it.
You had to get into a penthouse in a classy hotel. The obvious way was to sneak in and "pick" the locks.
The second was was to "pick up" some male ambassador and agree to become his "chamber boy" or something like that; I think there was another layer, like you had to meet his old boyfriend of something. But in the end, you got the key to the apartment.
While it was a chuckle, it was so worthless since breaking into the penthouse was very easy and required little skill / tools.
Unfortunately, Opera can EASILY change it's ID to make it appear to be another browser (it's an option in the main menu). I currently have it set to "Opera," but I THINK by default it might even be "IE". Besides, many people just leave it at that because some sites won't work right without it (particularly sites some sites with shitty login authentication). But while I think Opera is personally the best out there, I understand it has a very low usage count compared to IE and mozilla, and just about every psuedo-modern Mac uses Safari. So, I'm not that surprised it doesn't rank on the list.
Actually, I believe "shit" is now allowed on broadcase (FOX, NBC, etc), so long as it's on after a certain time.
They made a big deal about it last year (or was it 2 years ago). It sort of coincided with "South Park's" "Night of a Miliion Shits" episode, where they would say it a couple of times per scene (and there was a little counter at the bottom of the screen).
I can sort of agree with bleeping it out. Little kids (like 3rd graders) wouldn't really know the significance of it, and would just start using it endlessly. They'd be calling their teachers "FuckHeads" or tell their mom to pass the "Fucking Mashed Potatoes."
But it's not the downfall of society that they're making it out to look like. Parents can install V-Chips, educate their children, or (god forbid) DISCIPLINE them if they use the words.
Well, his head has been in a mine under San Francisco (or something) since the 1800's. He went back in time and met Samuel Clemens, then got blown up by time traveling, lifeforce sucking aliens.
Maybe, they activate his head, he helps out, but eventualy asks for his head ot be put back so Enterprise will find him.
OR NOT!
Let's see here. The yearly upgrade cycle of Mac OS versus the every-other-year upgrade cycle of Windows. Granted, the next windows (desktop) version won't be out for a while now, but Tiger is in 2005, when Panther was 2003.
Windows retail is pretty dang expense (for the full NON-oem version). Likewise, the hardware requirements seem to go up quite nicely with each Windows release. Panther runs pretty well on hardware thats a few years old already (so long as its a G4 or later G3).
Don't get me wrong, if you want to constantly upgrade with either system, it's going to cost you a pretty penny. But why upgrde so often? Jaguar is still supported now, and Panther will still be supported when Tiger comes out.
But I agree that Mac OS needs to slow down a little. While they throw a LOT of stuff in each revision, it gets pretty pricey.
It depends...
If you're a Unix admin or Oracle admin, and your job is to keep those things running 24 / 7 / 365, you better be reachable or you won't be working.
Sure, if your a Systems Analyst or Software developer, it's not big deal. I doubt it would be an issue.
But many companies stipulate you MUST keep the servers running all day, period. So, if a server goes down or something goes wrong, it's either get out of bed or get into the unemployment line.
I knew a DBA that would get calls at 3 or 4 AM. She hated it, REALLY hated it, but she knew she had to do it.
Sure, some companies won't care so much if Oracle crashes at 9PM or an intranet site is up. But some need / want them running all day, everyday.