Like the other poster has mentioned, in Windows you can key just about everything.
I've never had a hard time navigating a Windows system with a busted mouse. With my Notebook, I often just use the mouse for everything. The only time you run into some problems is with some 3rd party softare - but most of it works just fine.
"It's a daft justification for a very good point though - you really should be able to do everything with menus,"
I've never once seen a single application in Windows that you cannot access all the functions of "right-click" that you can via menus.
The problem is, since the majority of Mac users won't upgrade a perfectly working mouse, many 3rd party softwares won't take advantage of it.
You might get mouse wheel functionality, maybe it will be consistent maybe it won't. If all Mac users had a multi-button mouse, there would be more uniformity in the way they work. Sure, Windows apps don't all do the same thing, but for 99% of the time when you right-click something it brings up a menu of operations you can do on the current mouse target.
I like a simple mouse. Two buttons, and the mouse scroll wheel in the middle, which doubles as the middle mouse button. I don't like the web browsing crap or anything. But one button is just frustrating.
As far as the notebook thing, I don't personally have any trouble working a multi-button mouse on one. And I like the scroll zones on the touchpads, and I prefer tapping over using a button. I rarely right-click on notebook as it's not comfortable to do so, and you never HAVE to not even in Windows.
I don't know what Shaw is like, but Comcast seems to be similar.
I really like Comcast. They don't block any ports and none of the pushing from the big companies has forced them to do so. You pay for Internet service and you get it, full service with no restrictions.
When Nimda was around, they'd run automatic probes to check if someone was vulnerable. If their script came back as yes, they'd shut off your connection, and you could make a quick phone call and have it turned back on after speaking with someone. They did the same thing with open relays, although this doesn't seem to stop malware from sending out spam (since you don't need to be a relay to send out a set of spam.)
Even though there's a lot of really terrible technicians at Comcast, at least the don't inhibit your full use of what you pay for.
My provider, Cox, has taken another route. They block Outbound 25, and they block inbound: 53udp/tcp, 21, 23, 110, 143, 25, 80, 443, and several others. While this does stop spam from being sent, it also allows them to charge 10x more for an "unrestricted" service at the same speed and service level (ie no guarentees.)
I'd rather deal with a little more spam filtering then have my access restricted because of people that don't protect their systems.
"How do you change this? Consumers have the power to choose and they should use Open Source, buy "B rated" DVD's, and buy directly from unknown artists."
If they're unknown, how do I know about them to buy their music or films? Do I want to only buy B rated movies?
There's a difference between movies/music and computer software. While I can get by just excellent without buying a DVD or some music CD, I *can't* avoid Microsoft at work, at home, and just about everywhere else.
See the difference? It's not as simple as "just don't buy it" like so a lot of people seem to think. While, yes, if there were a complete boycott on Microsoft software, they'd be forced to change. But I'd like to see how one would organize such a thing? You need to find a way in, a good reason for switching, and an easier path to do so. And it's a very slow process.
With Microsoft's history of forcing upgrades, closed file formats, etc, it's no wonder that a government would want to seek alternatives.
They want to be able to open an archive of documents in 20+ years. What if Microsoft stopped making office? What if the only versions of Office you could get for Windows 2030 won't open an Office 97 document correctly?
With open standards to the file formats, it's fairly trivial to write parsing software to bring the documents into new software correctly, not to mention index them and make them all searchable without being locked into Microsoft products. While not all XML is open and readable, as proven by WordML, I don't think this is the goal. They want real, easy to understand, open file formats and I don't think just because Microsoft says "This is XML!" it's good enough to fool people.
While I don't think the author is a dickhead, he makes crazy assumptions and fills his editorial with personal opinions rendering this "article" nothing more then a weblog.
Everyone else around here is either bitching about the post being a dupe (without realizing the fact that their own posts are dupes of all the other losers that are pointing out the dupe) or reading this thing like it's fact.
While I'm sure these new CPU's will be novel, and they might be fast at some operations, I'm guessing they'll need to make some major compromises to get the thing to market. If it were really as brilliant and amazing and easy and fun as this guy makes it out to be, it would be bigger news.
To be even more fair, running Windows as non-administrator also stops almost all spyware in it's tracks, and if it does install, it's trivial to remove a user-level spyware.
While spyware/malware/adware doesn't NEED exploits to spread, it's the #1 way it does. Anyone using IE for long enough *will* have spyware installed on their machines eventually.
People use every trick in the book to find new flaws in IE and exploit them for spyware whenever they can. Sit in front of anyone's computer that isn't computer savvy and they WILL have spyware all over it. Even if they don't have Kazaa installed.
It would happen to me, too. I've been using computers since I was in the 2nd grade, I have a career in computer technology, and I still got infested with spyware on a regular basis. As soon as I switched to Mozilla, it stopped. Period.
Microsoft has added so much crap to IE that's out of web standards so their own software can work better. Outlook web access 2003 uses all sorts of IE only extensions, as well as a bunch of other software of theirs. They've made everything work so that everything can happen automatically but all it's done is open it to hundreds of vulnerabilities.
I believe MacOSX *is* better software. And I believe Firefox and Mozilla are better browsers. I think they are inherently more secure because of the development model and the adherence to standards.
I work for a large industrial insurance company. While the network infrastructure is Windows; workstations, AD for authentication and IIS for web applications, almost all the core business software is home brew. And it's awesome.
We have applications for all our insurance systems. Risk management, site surveys, customer accessable information, everything. It's all built in house. We have over 6,000 employees total; several hundred being IT staff and development teams.
I couldn't imagine us using an off-the-shelf product for those duties. While I suspect that the quality of the code in our applications might not be as high as a software-only company, we do it right and have plenty of people on the job to support the apps. Our edge comes from the fact that we have the most usuable system for both the company and our customers.
On the other hand, if you can't support a full in-house development crew for an application you need, you'll need to get an off-the-shelf application. You can buy commercial applications, or, if your needs can be met with an open source application you could use that.
The great thing about OSS is that you can use the application and you can staff a very small crew of developers to customize it to your needs. It's not re-inventing the wheel, and you still get what you want. I see this as a trend going forward.
Of course, most of this applies to a larger company. If you have a small company chances are you'll need to buy a commercial app and be at the mercy of the company that produces the application.
Custom software will always exist because every company is different. While you can change your business model to match the software, it can only take you so far.
And I'd like to know what the difinitive answer to the question of "What is groupware?"
Notes and Domino are really great applications. You can design a whole business with custom applications, messaging, databases, you name it. All nicely replicated and portable.
But it's a disaster. The Notes UI is, as you mentioned, terrible. It's so bad that there's a whole section about it in the Worst UI hall of fame web site. It's got an incredibly unconventional design that makes using Notes a chore. No matter what's on the back-end, the notes client is what everyone uses and it sucks.
Exchange on the other hand offers very simplistic features in comparison but very serious advantages as well. Outlook is a great e-mail client. I don't care what people say about Microsoft; Outlook 2003 is great. While I believe that the only reason Microsoft has finally really upgraded Office with Office 2003 is because of growing competition, it doesn't take away from the fact that it's really good, very usuable, software.
Exchange on the backend is stable and very hands off. If you run it on decent server hardware, it basically runs itself. We had uptimes of 99.99% last year with Exchange; the only downtimes being an upgrade to the anti-virus software and a few post-sp3 roll-ups. It's fast and it Just Works.
People get shared calendaring, schedules, tasks, and public folders. Most people don't want more then that anyways - and if you want a custom application, most shops elect to use a web server, ASP, and a SQL database - tied into AD.
Let's not forget one important thing about the Outlook/Exchange combo. When I send a co-worker an e-mail, he gets it instantly. No waiting 2 minutes for the client to POP or IMAP in and check mail, no delay in a web client refreshing. While this might not be important to everyone, it's a big deal for a lot of people.
Exchange is a big application that holds people to Microsoft. Replace that and you're a good deal closer to Freedom of Microsoft.
ME: Of course, we're assuming the rest of the internals of the projector hold up as well; they usually have little LCD screens in them, fans, electronics.. YOU: We're also making that assumption in reference to whatever option were looking at, be it plasma, LCD, or rear prj.
True, but the expected lifetime of the Plasmas and LCD's ain't 10 years. A rear projection will probably last a lot longer then one of those but now a days the rear projection TV's use LCD technology and may have some of the dame drawbacks. The old ones would last forever; my friend has a 15 year old rear projector TV that looks as good as it did when it was new. Of course, it's not HDTV or anything.
ME: It's still cheaper in some cases, but a lot of folks don't realize the life of the bulbs. YOU: More than true. Then again, as far as I'm concerned anyone who goes and spends a grand without doing some serious research either has money to burn, or deservers whatever they get.
I agree to a point but people talking about it on Slashdot could be considered part of someone's research =)
Rear projection TV's don't need NEARLY as much consideration for room lighting as a projector does! Pretty much, if a tube TV works there, so does a projection TV. Of course, your mileage may vary based on the actual TV in question; some of them are a little dim looking in the light. Usually the older ones.
I would like to see one of the Black projector screens in action some day. They're supposed to promise an excellent picture even in light rooms.
I agree - You can get a lot of bang for a projector; big screens, fairly inexpensive for the initial machine cost.
Unfortunately, unless you don't care if the picture isn't as good as it should be, screens are somewhat expensive as well. For an ok 60" projector screen you're looking at $400 easy. If you want one of those new black-screen ones, it's a lot more.
So, we have a decent projector ($800 - $1000) a decent screen ($400) and we're up to $1300 +/- $100. Sure, your mileage may vary if you get a great deal on the stuff. While an LCD screen that's almost as big would cost $8000, and a plasma screen maybe half that, it's a lot cheaper, and you can buy bulbs for a long time before meeting those prices, definately. Of course, we're assuming the rest of the internals of the projector hold up as well; they usually have little LCD screens in them, fans, electronics..
My whole point is that a projector set-up isn't as cheap as it seems to be for the size of the screen. It's still cheaper in some cases, but a lot of folks don't realize the life of the bulbs.
Plasma and LCD aren't the only alternatives either; rear projection TV's are usually resonably priced these days, they offer a brilliant picture, they aren't as bulky as they used to be, and they last a lot longer then both plasma and LCD.
I never said projectors weren't good I was just pointing out that they aren't as cheap as they seem, especially with the reoccuring cost of the bulbs. I'm probably going to get one if I can find a good deal on one, but if not I'm going to go with a rear projection.
Respectfully? Why that comment on the end? Can't you argue a point without making personal insults? Instead of sinking to your level, I'll be the one that is respectful since you can't handle it.
You may have gotten a used projector on eBay for $600 but that's a $6000 projector.
And even your numbers aren't that unrealistic. Think about it.
Get up in the morning, turn on the TV, watch the news (and listen to the news) while getting ready for work. Hour of use, maybe two.
Get home from work, throw on the TV, watch some TV while eating dinner. Watch my favorite shows. Leave TV on while using computer. Five or Six hours easy.
So we're up to 8 hours. That's pretty close to your 11 hour estimation there; maybe it'll burn out in 7 months instead of 6. So we're still talking about $400 (the cost of the replacement on your unit) every 7 months. $800 every 14 months is more then I want to pay to maintain my TV. Shit, it already costs enough just to buy the thing, and get all those nifty cable and HDTV shows.
And keep in mind that you won't get 2000 hours out of the thing if you actually turn it off and on sometimes; bulbs get more wear by powering up and down then they do on continual use.
I'm not unique here. A lot of people have the TV on all the time. If you watch more then the occational movie, expect to replace your bulb at LEAST once a year.
Maybe that's OK with you, but it's something people should keep in mind, and it's something that a lot of people don't think about when considering a projector.
There are black screens available now (and very expensive) that work with all projectors. They don't require any special bulb or anything; they simply reflect light extremely well.
And because the screen is black instead of white, you don't have to dim the room to make the white screen look black.
I can't remember what they are called either but I'm sure google will help us out if we need to find out.
If we can't stop it and can't predict when it will happen, I say don't worry about it.
You could get killed by stepping on a candy-bar wrapper and falling down the stairs tomorrow, or die of old age at 95 years, or you could get killed by this giant tsunami. No sense worrying about it.
While I agree that there's no use for outrigth flaming people, and that some people enjoy doing it - I don't necessarily follow that to "Don't even reply."
The same people that ask the same "n00b" questions all the time usually end up just getting worse if you don't answer them. You'll get replies to their own posts or messages. You'll get them complaining that nobody is answering them, while the next guy got an answer in 5 minutes. It goes on. You have to reply to keep your sanity sometimes.
But alas, as I stated in my post, there's multiple companies making the CPU. If Intel called it quits (which is unlikly with it's significantly more then 10% market share) we'd still have AMD, or Transmeta, or others.
The only reliable history Apple has with the Macintosh is the fact that they've continued to make them.
Not all Macintoshes are high end, either. But they are almost always more expensive then an equivelant x86 machine.
Maybe you just want something different, or something trendy, or something Not Microsoft. Well, more power to you, really. Go nuts. I'm sure you'll enjoy using your Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the other poster has mentioned, in Windows you can key just about everything.
I've never had a hard time navigating a Windows system with a busted mouse. With my Notebook, I often just use the mouse for everything. The only time you run into some problems is with some 3rd party softare - but most of it works just fine.
"It's a daft justification for a very good point though - you really should be able to do everything with menus,"
I've never once seen a single application in Windows that you cannot access all the functions of "right-click" that you can via menus.
If you have to go out and buy a multi-button mouse because no Mac's come with them, it is an add-on. Supported, sure. But not standard equipment.
The problem is, since the majority of Mac users won't upgrade a perfectly working mouse, many 3rd party softwares won't take advantage of it.
You might get mouse wheel functionality, maybe it will be consistent maybe it won't. If all Mac users had a multi-button mouse, there would be more uniformity in the way they work. Sure, Windows apps don't all do the same thing, but for 99% of the time when you right-click something it brings up a menu of operations you can do on the current mouse target.
I like a simple mouse. Two buttons, and the mouse scroll wheel in the middle, which doubles as the middle mouse button. I don't like the web browsing crap or anything. But one button is just frustrating.
As far as the notebook thing, I don't personally have any trouble working a multi-button mouse on one. And I like the scroll zones on the touchpads, and I prefer tapping over using a button. I rarely right-click on notebook as it's not comfortable to do so, and you never HAVE to not even in Windows.
Yes. You can do everything in Windows without using the scroll wheel or the right mouse button.
But it slows you way down - to MacOSX speeds, because you have to roll the mouse so much more.
I don't know what Shaw is like, but Comcast seems to be similar.
I really like Comcast. They don't block any ports and none of the pushing from the big companies has forced them to do so. You pay for Internet service and you get it, full service with no restrictions.
When Nimda was around, they'd run automatic probes to check if someone was vulnerable. If their script came back as yes, they'd shut off your connection, and you could make a quick phone call and have it turned back on after speaking with someone. They did the same thing with open relays, although this doesn't seem to stop malware from sending out spam (since you don't need to be a relay to send out a set of spam.)
Even though there's a lot of really terrible technicians at Comcast, at least the don't inhibit your full use of what you pay for.
My provider, Cox, has taken another route. They block Outbound 25, and they block inbound: 53udp/tcp, 21, 23, 110, 143, 25, 80, 443, and several others. While this does stop spam from being sent, it also allows them to charge 10x more for an "unrestricted" service at the same speed and service level (ie no guarentees.)
I'd rather deal with a little more spam filtering then have my access restricted because of people that don't protect their systems.
I don't know any Mac users that wouldn't like Scroll wheels and second buttons.
I think people, as a whole, are generally smart enough to handle a two button + wheel mouse and all the "complexities" that come with it.
The second button can be so useful! And the wheel indespensible for scrolling any type of documents.
I sorta-kinda like MacOSX's UI. I think I'd like it a lot more if full mouse functionality wasn't an add-on that most people probably don't have.
"How do you change this? Consumers have the power to choose and they should use Open Source, buy "B rated" DVD's, and buy directly from unknown artists."
If they're unknown, how do I know about them to buy their music or films? Do I want to only buy B rated movies?
There's a difference between movies/music and computer software. While I can get by just excellent without buying a DVD or some music CD, I *can't* avoid Microsoft at work, at home, and just about everywhere else.
See the difference? It's not as simple as "just don't buy it" like so a lot of people seem to think. While, yes, if there were a complete boycott on Microsoft software, they'd be forced to change. But I'd like to see how one would organize such a thing? You need to find a way in, a good reason for switching, and an easier path to do so. And it's a very slow process.
With Microsoft's history of forcing upgrades, closed file formats, etc, it's no wonder that a government would want to seek alternatives.
They want to be able to open an archive of documents in 20+ years. What if Microsoft stopped making office? What if the only versions of Office you could get for Windows 2030 won't open an Office 97 document correctly?
With open standards to the file formats, it's fairly trivial to write parsing software to bring the documents into new software correctly, not to mention index them and make them all searchable without being locked into Microsoft products. While not all XML is open and readable, as proven by WordML, I don't think this is the goal. They want real, easy to understand, open file formats and I don't think just because Microsoft says "This is XML!" it's good enough to fool people.
I'd mod you up if I had points.
While I don't think the author is a dickhead, he makes crazy assumptions and fills his editorial with personal opinions rendering this "article" nothing more then a weblog.
Everyone else around here is either bitching about the post being a dupe (without realizing the fact that their own posts are dupes of all the other losers that are pointing out the dupe) or reading this thing like it's fact.
While I'm sure these new CPU's will be novel, and they might be fast at some operations, I'm guessing they'll need to make some major compromises to get the thing to market. If it were really as brilliant and amazing and easy and fun as this guy makes it out to be, it would be bigger news.
To be even more fair, running Windows as non-administrator also stops almost all spyware in it's tracks, and if it does install, it's trivial to remove a user-level spyware.
While spyware/malware/adware doesn't NEED exploits to spread, it's the #1 way it does. Anyone using IE for long enough *will* have spyware installed on their machines eventually.
People use every trick in the book to find new flaws in IE and exploit them for spyware whenever they can. Sit in front of anyone's computer that isn't computer savvy and they WILL have spyware all over it. Even if they don't have Kazaa installed.
It would happen to me, too. I've been using computers since I was in the 2nd grade, I have a career in computer technology, and I still got infested with spyware on a regular basis. As soon as I switched to Mozilla, it stopped. Period.
Microsoft has added so much crap to IE that's out of web standards so their own software can work better. Outlook web access 2003 uses all sorts of IE only extensions, as well as a bunch of other software of theirs. They've made everything work so that everything can happen automatically but all it's done is open it to hundreds of vulnerabilities.
I believe MacOSX *is* better software. And I believe Firefox and Mozilla are better browsers. I think they are inherently more secure because of the development model and the adherence to standards.
Frankly I think you're not funny.
I work for a large industrial insurance company. While the network infrastructure is Windows; workstations, AD for authentication and IIS for web applications, almost all the core business software is home brew. And it's awesome.
We have applications for all our insurance systems. Risk management, site surveys, customer accessable information, everything. It's all built in house. We have over 6,000 employees total; several hundred being IT staff and development teams.
I couldn't imagine us using an off-the-shelf product for those duties. While I suspect that the quality of the code in our applications might not be as high as a software-only company, we do it right and have plenty of people on the job to support the apps. Our edge comes from the fact that we have the most usuable system for both the company and our customers.
On the other hand, if you can't support a full in-house development crew for an application you need, you'll need to get an off-the-shelf application. You can buy commercial applications, or, if your needs can be met with an open source application you could use that.
The great thing about OSS is that you can use the application and you can staff a very small crew of developers to customize it to your needs. It's not re-inventing the wheel, and you still get what you want. I see this as a trend going forward.
Of course, most of this applies to a larger company. If you have a small company chances are you'll need to buy a commercial app and be at the mercy of the company that produces the application.
Custom software will always exist because every company is different. While you can change your business model to match the software, it can only take you so far.
That's my thoughts on the subject.
Everyone else is doing it.
And I'd like to know what the difinitive answer to the question of "What is groupware?"
Notes and Domino are really great applications. You can design a whole business with custom applications, messaging, databases, you name it. All nicely replicated and portable.
But it's a disaster. The Notes UI is, as you mentioned, terrible. It's so bad that there's a whole section about it in the Worst UI hall of fame web site. It's got an incredibly unconventional design that makes using Notes a chore. No matter what's on the back-end, the notes client is what everyone uses and it sucks.
Exchange on the other hand offers very simplistic features in comparison but very serious advantages as well. Outlook is a great e-mail client. I don't care what people say about Microsoft; Outlook 2003 is great. While I believe that the only reason Microsoft has finally really upgraded Office with Office 2003 is because of growing competition, it doesn't take away from the fact that it's really good, very usuable, software.
Exchange on the backend is stable and very hands off. If you run it on decent server hardware, it basically runs itself. We had uptimes of 99.99% last year with Exchange; the only downtimes being an upgrade to the anti-virus software and a few post-sp3 roll-ups. It's fast and it Just Works.
People get shared calendaring, schedules, tasks, and public folders. Most people don't want more then that anyways - and if you want a custom application, most shops elect to use a web server, ASP, and a SQL database - tied into AD.
Let's not forget one important thing about the Outlook/Exchange combo. When I send a co-worker an e-mail, he gets it instantly. No waiting 2 minutes for the client to POP or IMAP in and check mail, no delay in a web client refreshing. While this might not be important to everyone, it's a big deal for a lot of people.
Exchange is a big application that holds people to Microsoft. Replace that and you're a good deal closer to Freedom of Microsoft.
Incidently, Microsoft owns a portion of Apple. And, they make MacOffice and other popular applications for MacOS.
Confession? Get off it. You probably use every opportunity you find to come up with a story on "This is why I switched to Macintosh."
That same idiot is also in part in charge of what happens to your Macintosh PC's too, just FYI.
ME: Of course, we're assuming the rest of the internals of the projector hold up as well; they usually have little LCD screens in them, fans, electronics..
YOU: We're also making that assumption in reference to whatever option were looking at, be it plasma, LCD, or rear prj.
True, but the expected lifetime of the Plasmas and LCD's ain't 10 years. A rear projection will probably last a lot longer then one of those but now a days the rear projection TV's use LCD technology and may have some of the dame drawbacks. The old ones would last forever; my friend has a 15 year old rear projector TV that looks as good as it did when it was new. Of course, it's not HDTV or anything.
ME: It's still cheaper in some cases, but a lot of folks don't realize the life of the bulbs.
YOU: More than true. Then again, as far as I'm concerned anyone who goes and spends a grand without doing some serious research either has money to burn, or deservers whatever they get.
I agree to a point but people talking about it on Slashdot could be considered part of someone's research =)
Rear projection TV's don't need NEARLY as much consideration for room lighting as a projector does! Pretty much, if a tube TV works there, so does a projection TV. Of course, your mileage may vary based on the actual TV in question; some of them are a little dim looking in the light. Usually the older ones.
I would like to see one of the Black projector screens in action some day. They're supposed to promise an excellent picture even in light rooms.
I agree - You can get a lot of bang for a projector; big screens, fairly inexpensive for the initial machine cost.
Unfortunately, unless you don't care if the picture isn't as good as it should be, screens are somewhat expensive as well. For an ok 60" projector screen you're looking at $400 easy. If you want one of those new black-screen ones, it's a lot more.
So, we have a decent projector ($800 - $1000) a decent screen ($400) and we're up to $1300 +/- $100. Sure, your mileage may vary if you get a great deal on the stuff. While an LCD screen that's almost as big would cost $8000, and a plasma screen maybe half that, it's a lot cheaper, and you can buy bulbs for a long time before meeting those prices, definately. Of course, we're assuming the rest of the internals of the projector hold up as well; they usually have little LCD screens in them, fans, electronics..
My whole point is that a projector set-up isn't as cheap as it seems to be for the size of the screen. It's still cheaper in some cases, but a lot of folks don't realize the life of the bulbs.
Plasma and LCD aren't the only alternatives either; rear projection TV's are usually resonably priced these days, they offer a brilliant picture, they aren't as bulky as they used to be, and they last a lot longer then both plasma and LCD.
I never said projectors weren't good I was just pointing out that they aren't as cheap as they seem, especially with the reoccuring cost of the bulbs. I'm probably going to get one if I can find a good deal on one, but if not I'm going to go with a rear projection.
Respectfully? Why that comment on the end? Can't you argue a point without making personal insults? Instead of sinking to your level, I'll be the one that is respectful since you can't handle it.
You may have gotten a used projector on eBay for $600 but that's a $6000 projector.
And even your numbers aren't that unrealistic. Think about it.
Get up in the morning, turn on the TV, watch the news (and listen to the news) while getting ready for work. Hour of use, maybe two.
Get home from work, throw on the TV, watch some TV while eating dinner. Watch my favorite shows. Leave TV on while using computer. Five or Six hours easy.
So we're up to 8 hours. That's pretty close to your 11 hour estimation there; maybe it'll burn out in 7 months instead of 6. So we're still talking about $400 (the cost of the replacement on your unit) every 7 months. $800 every 14 months is more then I want to pay to maintain my TV. Shit, it already costs enough just to buy the thing, and get all those nifty cable and HDTV shows.
And keep in mind that you won't get 2000 hours out of the thing if you actually turn it off and on sometimes; bulbs get more wear by powering up and down then they do on continual use.
I'm not unique here. A lot of people have the TV on all the time. If you watch more then the occational movie, expect to replace your bulb at LEAST once a year.
Maybe that's OK with you, but it's something people should keep in mind, and it's something that a lot of people don't think about when considering a projector.
There are black screens available now (and very expensive) that work with all projectors. They don't require any special bulb or anything; they simply reflect light extremely well.
And because the screen is black instead of white, you don't have to dim the room to make the white screen look black.
I can't remember what they are called either but I'm sure google will help us out if we need to find out.
You have to be very careful with projectors.
While they have come down in price significantly and they offer a great picture, the bulbs still don't last long enough, and they are very expensive.
It would be one thing if the bulbs were resonably priced but paying $500 every six months for new bulbs when the machine only cost $800 is silly.
Projectors are good if you don't use them too much. But if you use them a lot, as your normal TV, bulb life is a problem.
If we can't stop it and can't predict when it will happen, I say don't worry about it.
You could get killed by stepping on a candy-bar wrapper and falling down the stairs tomorrow, or die of old age at 95 years, or you could get killed by this giant tsunami. No sense worrying about it.
While I agree that there's no use for outrigth flaming people, and that some people enjoy doing it - I don't necessarily follow that to "Don't even reply."
The same people that ask the same "n00b" questions all the time usually end up just getting worse if you don't answer them. You'll get replies to their own posts or messages. You'll get them complaining that nobody is answering them, while the next guy got an answer in 5 minutes. It goes on. You have to reply to keep your sanity sometimes.
It's the nature of a public forum.
But alas, as I stated in my post, there's multiple companies making the CPU. If Intel called it quits (which is unlikly with it's significantly more then 10% market share) we'd still have AMD, or Transmeta, or others.
The only reliable history Apple has with the Macintosh is the fact that they've continued to make them.
Not all Macintoshes are high end, either. But they are almost always more expensive then an equivelant x86 machine.
Maybe you just want something different, or something trendy, or something Not Microsoft. Well, more power to you, really. Go nuts. I'm sure you'll enjoy using your Mac.