The best CMS is the one that works for the problem you're trying to solve. So, in essence, it really depends on the project. Just going with what's the most popular isn't the right approach. In my opinion, the most popular CMS platforms are starting to show signs of their age (ie. WordPress, Drupal, etc.). There are more modern platforms that solve problems more effectively by allowing for a more modular approach while give designers and developers far more control over the design.
That said, I have two CMS platforms that I currently use as my go-to's:
SilverStripe - A PHP-based framework that allows for scaffolding out a full data model (very similar to how Ruby on Rails works). Allows for complete freedom over the design thanks to a simplified templating model.
Statamic - A flat-file CMS (no database!) that is incredibly fast and easy to work with. Designers like it cause they don't have to know any code to build complex sites.
I tend to use SilverStripe for projects that have a lot of relational data requirements, that is where there is a lot of relationships between various bits of information. Basically, anytime where the content requirements are rather complex. SilverStripe makes it much easier to create sites with complex requirements while still making it easy for content editors to manage the content.
Statamic to me is a WordPress killer. I use it primarily for sites that would otherwise end up as WordPress sites. That said, you can do a whole lot more out of the box with Statamic than you can with WordPress. It's also much, much easier to design with thanks to a very easy to use templating system.
I'm also looking at adopting October at some point. It's built off of Laravel, which is a very modern PHP framework. My understanding is that October is highly modular and allows for a ton of flexibility under the hood. Might be good for a project or two.:)
I really think that Vista is going to be a reality check for alot of longtime Windows users. Now, to put this in perspective, I've been a longtime Windows user myself since Windows 95 first hit the market. I've used every version of Windows since then on my own desktop and have gone on to break into IT management when Windows 2000 first came out. I also broke into web development by learning ASP six years ago. So you could say that I've supported Microsoft for a very long time and have stood by them ever since....at least up until about two or three years ago! I used to swear by Microsoft. I never understood Linux; I always thought it was overly complex. I didn't get the overzealous, almost cult-like attitude of the Mac community of users. Let's face it...Windows simply dominates the desktop and it's easy to see how Microsoft can continue to hold onto their userbase.
However, with the release of Vista, I really feel that it will be very similar to what happened with Windows Millenium Edition. Starting with beta 1, I've installed and tried out each subsequent build of Vista all the way up to the latest RC1 release. All I can say is...WHAT THE?? It's a dog...a big ole' stinkin' dog! I couldn't believe the amount of resources you really need to run it. The default install is over 6 gigs, you need at least a gig of RAM just to get by, and the new interface is pointless unless you have a fairly decent video card that is DirectX 9 compatible. All in all, lots of fluff with little substance. Plus, the new User Account Control features really feel like something of an add-on...as if Microsoft just layered it on top of their existing security model leftover from Windows 2000 and XP. UAC is useless...especially when you consider that a user with administrator rights can simply disable the damn thing!
The problem is this: In order for Vista or any other future version of Windows to continue to succeed, Microsoft needs to learn that Windows needs to be rebuilt and reworked with a new security model that rivals even Unix-based operating systems. Nobody can say that Unix, Linux, and even Mac OS X are bad operating systems when it comes to security. They are very secure by their very nature on how they were built. Microsoft needs to learn from this and build on top of it. This is why Apple made such a smart move when they developed OS X. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, they simply took a proven secure OS and built on top of it. The beauty behind this is that the OS is modular and can be easily updated and upgraded. Windows is anything but modular.
I've since moved on from ASP and am now using PHP as my web development platform of choice. Naturally, I use Linux as a server platform and plan to use a Mac as a desktop. I'm simply tired of Microsoft and all their shenanigans. At least with Apple, when they say their going to do something they do it! They don't tease their customers with features and then pull them out later and say, "Sorry! We screwed up!" So, make mine Apple! I'm really looking forward to Leopard!:)
That's funny! I never thought of that! 10-to-1 says that exactly what's happening! It's either that people who smoke are causing damage to their computers or alot of people just can't seem to remember to wash their hands after they go to the bathroom!
I'm still trying to figure this guy out! Is Jack Thompson just stupid? Or is he just plain nuts? Either way, I really don't think this guy deserves to be a lawyer. You know, it really helps to know what it is that you're talking about...else your argument is moot at best! What a moron!
The thing that most people tend to forget is that with Apple switching to Intel chips, this greatly narrows the gap between OS X and Linux/Unix platforms. When you consider that the majority of Linux/Unix boxes run on i586 and x64 chips, it makes a whole lot of sense for Apple to switch to these processors. After all, OS X is more or less based on BSD and with it available for Intel processors this means that applications designed for Linux/Unix can more easily be ported to OS X without the need of recompiling it for a different chip.
True...very true. But take a look at what's going on with Linux these days. To say that Linux can't be stable with such a wide variety of hardware is moot at best. Granted, driver and kernel support are part of it. But this isn't about Linux really...it's about OSX and it's ability to run on a wide variety of hardware. The reason why Windows has failed in the area of "quality" drivers has alot to do with the architecture of the OS itself.
My take on this topic is simple...give the customer the choice. I would install OS X on my PC at home in a heart beat if Apple would allow me to do so. In fact, I would have already bought a Mac if the price was right...but that's the problem: Mac's don't come cheap! And I highly doubt the Intel versions will be that much cheaper. Apple should allow for others to install the Intel version of OS X on any PC...but at a price. If you choose to do so then you won't receive the same support that you would if you buy Apple hardware. It would be that simple. And it would alleviate alot of headaches from Apple. All Apple needs to do is be sure and allow developers access to key components of the source code to ensure that the driver support is there. Both the Linux and BSD communities have already proven that it's possible to have an OS running on a wide variety of hardware...why not OS X?
I don't know about you...but being an ex-ASP developer, I always found IIS to be rather bloated and testy. Even when I started using.NET and IIS 6 on a 2003 server...it still felt like bloatware! Give me an Apache server any day!:)
Hate to say it...but depending upon what industry you're in you may have little or no choice on what operating system you can use. Case point...I'm an IT worker for a small architectural firm. Guess what! There is not one mainstream architechural program that is widely used that isn't on Windows! So in order to run Bentley Microstation or Autodesk AutoCAD, two of the top architectural programs out there, you have to have Windows. Sorry...no Microstation or AutoCAD for Mac or Linux! Might be an alternative out there...but is it as powerful and compatible as the top two that are widely used? Probably not. So...the problem isn't a question of just the operating system...it's a problem of whether the software companies are designing their software to run on operating systems other than Windows! Till Bentley get's their head our of their ass and starts distributing a version of Microstation for OSX or Linux...my company is stuck using Windows! Nuff said!
Being an ex-Best Buy employee myself, this little article does not surprise me. First things first, Best Buy cares very little about the customer. How do I know that? Well, that statement is based on hands-on experience and how the company itself is structured. District managers and corporate officers spend most of their time thinking about the numbers and how to better push those numbers higher with more services and better sales tactics. Store managers themselves are brainwashed by corporate to think about those numbers on a constant basis (else they lose their jobs!) and are encouraged to push their employees to get those number higher with 'quality customer service'. Let me tell you somthing...'quality customer service' is an illusion at Best Buy. They care more about the bottom line than they do about actually servicing their customers and making them happy. I know this because many of the managers and supervisors I worked with would do everything they could to get the most money from a customer. Now, granted, that's just the corporate machine at work...and I know that...nothing wrong with it. However, when you cheat your customers; when you get to the point of borderline stealing from then, that's where I draw the line! And that's why I left that company! Any company that encourages its employees to steal from customers is a bad company in my opinion! I was asked to charge $60 for a software installation that normally goes for $20...that's stealing from the customer! And not one person got fired for doing this! Unbelievable! And it was not just this store either....I have personally witnessed similar instances at other stores! Trust me...this story is as it appears...complete BS in a nutshell!
Update According to the SCO conference call, this isn't accurate.. their Linux extortion income will be listed in the Q3 financials.
Extortion is right! In fact, if all claims to this patent are wrong, then I think SCO should be charged with extortion! This case is just getting more and more ridiculous!!
He looks more like a retard to me. He could be the poster child for Retard Enterprises Magazine. Pretty soon we'll be hearing him say, "Uhh...like duh...I thought it was mine." What an idiot! I mean...just look at him! Doesn't appear to be an intelligent light at all in those eyes! Total complete moron! Nuff said!
I'm following suit just like SCO and Rambus....
From now on, everyone has to pay me a quarter everytime they use the word 'ASS'. That's right! 32 years ago, I defined the word 'ASS' and it's connotation, thus everyone who has every used the word 'ASS' must now pay me a quarter else I'll sue your 'ASS' for everything you've got!!
Hmm...you'd think Rambus would take a hint and drop the freakin' patents. They're almost as bad as SCO and the FCC! Jezz!! What the hell is going on with all this 'control freak' madness going on lately!
Sigh....and I just bought the parts needed for a new computer! Now Microsoft is telling me that I'll likely need to ditch it for a new one two years from now! Ugg!
Then again...think about what Microsoft will require , say, twenty years from now! We'll likely need a nuclear powered Intel processor, dubbed the Pentium Pu (Plutonium powered), and liquid nitrogen cooling!
I will say one thing though....if Microsoft screws the pooch with this release, it's a guarantee that everyone will jump ship and run to Linux!:D
Honestly, I think the new PowerPC chip is just too little too late for Apple. If Apple is going to even remotely compete they'll have to move into the i386 market. Intel's latest chipset, the 875P, is living proof that a new chip isn't going to save Apple's desktops. With support for a 800 mhz FSB with dual-channel DDR400 configurations and P4's starting at 3Ghz, it's bound to mean trouble for Apple if they don't start using Intel chipsets. Besides that, moving to a 64-bit platform is a heavy proposal at best. How would you like to explain to Mac users that they'll be forced to buy all new software on their next Mac desktop upgrade? Sure, the benefits are huge...but I doubt even a new 64-bit PowerPC chip will bring that much more for the money. Again...I'll stick with Intel...more bang for the buck if you ask me!
First off, just forget the friggin' pipe dream of ever running OS X on your home-built x86 shitbox. Apple's hardware and software businesses have a symbiotic relationship. Apple's software is what sells their hardware, the proceeds of which go towards the software development. remove one side of that equation and the whole thing collapses. Furthermore, even if Apple did move to x86, they would prevent OS X from running on commodity, non-Apple hardware, so you'd still be whining about it. They'd do it for two reasons: First, because the sanctioned Mac clones almost killed Apple back in the late 90's. Second, because what makes Macs work so well is that their software has ultra-tight integration with a limited spread of hardware.
You're right....it is a pipedream so long as Steve Jobs is in control of Apple! So while we're on the topic of comparing 'apples' with 'oranges', consider this....
Apple's 'symbiotic' relationship with the hardware and software may seem all fine and dandy but when serious delays in R&D occur then that spells 'trouble' with a capital 'T'. What good is the OS if the hardware itself is lacking and is behind in terms of performance over the competition. I'm not whining about anything...I take a very non-biased approach to computers and look at everything from all angles. So I don't really care what Apple does. If they produce a good product that is both affordable, reliable, and offers top-of-the-line performance then I would buy it, proprietary or not! Problem is this though...sure it's reliable, but it's not affordable and it's not necessarily top-of-the-line in performance anymore....regardless of 'so-called' flaws in testing.
Last I checked, consumers weren't the target market of rack-mountable servers [apple.com] or rack-mountable RAID units. [apple.com] And Apple destroys Microsoft on server software pricing. Apple charges $1000 for an unlimited client license for mail and filesharing. [apple.com] The last client of mine who got a unlimited CAL for Windows 2000 Server paid five figures, and I'm pretty sure that didn't cover Exchange Server.
Err...Apple is not what I would call a real contender in the server market. You're right about pricing...but Apple can't compete anyways in the server market. Last I heard, Unix, Linux, and Sun based servers are on top of the market....most of which is cheaper and, again, runs circles around Apple and offers greater scalability and compatility with Windows clients. You do know that Windows rules the corporate desktop, right?? What good is an Apple server on a network of nothing but Windows clients? Hmm...beats me!
You mean those performance tests that were proven to be flawed because Adobe is too lazy to write their After Effects software to take full advantage of the Mac's dual processors? [digitalpos...uction.com]
Correction...the tests were not flawed. Many tests have been performed against the fastest G4 and the fastest P4 available....and the testers didn't just use After Effects either! MaximumPC Magazine, PC Magazine, and other industry experts have done similar testing. They used Adobe products (Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere; mostly uses dual processors on a G4), 3D Studio Max, CAD, and other industry standard tests that benchmark things like processor, memory, and motherboard performance. The results were almost unanimous with the exception of but one or two tests....an Intel Pentium 4 platform outperforms the fastest G4 available! And this was testing against a dual-proc G4 against a single processor P4 (533mhz FSB)!! I would hate to think of what the results would be on Intel's new chipset with the 800mhz FSB and dual-channel DDR400 RAM!! Face the facts....the Intel platform is the better performer...regardless of OS!
And get this...512 megs of DDR333 memory cost $250 on Apple's website! That's insane!
Yes, it is. Luckily, Mac users with a clue buy thei
Regardless of what kind of innovation comes out of the Apple camp, Microsoft will still be considered the top dog. The reason is simple: Apple is not catering to the masses! Steve Jobs, with his elitist attitude toward computer products, is not shaping his company for the future. If Apple is to compete at all, they really need to venture more into the business market. They have the tools and the platform to do it...but they are not budging due to the cost and proprietary nature of their systems. Simply put, Apple needs to drop the IBM PowerPC chipset like a bad habit and port OSX to the I386 platform! Intel is running circles around everyone, especially with the release of their new chipset on a 800mhz FSB and processors starting at 3Ghz. Even when IBM releases the new PowerPC chips that run on a 900mhz FSB, it will be too little too late! As it stands, many software companies have made WinXP their preferred platform for one reason and one reason only...raw performance! Adobe has made it very clear that they prefer Intel over Apple for raw performance...and performance tests have proven it! Industry professionals that have long used Mac computers are starting to convert to using Windows systems due to the fact that better performance can be achieved on a much cheaper margin. It works like this: better performance means getting the job done in less time. Time equals money. And if you can get better performance for less money then you'll buy products that will give you that (meaning less overhead!) If Apple were to port OSX to the PC and make it widely available to anyone with a PC then I'd jump on it in a New York minute! But stupid Steve Jobs will never do that so fat chance we'll ever see Apple unlock the proprietary nature of their systems!
I took a look at the pricing of Apple's latest G4 computers and I was insulted at what I saw! $3,799 for a top of the line G4! And get this...512 megs of DDR333 memory cost $250 on Apple's website! That's insane! And they don't even have any of the latest video cards available for their computers! By comparison, I configured a top of the line Alienware workstation just for the hell of it. You can get a kick-ass Alienware computer with 2 gigs of DDR PC-3200 RAM, P4 3Ghz 800FSB, 120 gig Serial ATA HD, DVD-ROM, Plextor DVD+RW, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, XP Pro, and for how much? A little over $3000!! Almost $800 less and it'll run cirles around a Mac any day of the week! Now, granted, this is more of a gaming computer, but it would still work great as a workstation. Alienware does have some systems that run on dual 2.0 ghz Xeon's with workstation quality videocards...but I think those are more reserved for 3D animation work. The point is that if you're gonna buy an Apple for graphics design, video editing, etc....don't waste your money! Buy an upper-end PC and you'll save a buttload of money and you'll end up with something that save you both time and money in the long run! Screw Apple! Nuff said!
Server wise...Linux is a good idea..that is, provided you're running the right software (ie. mail server, web server, database, etc.). Granted, there's plenty that Linux offers...and India (or any other country for that matter) can greatly benefit from this and save a nice chunk of change when compared to the licensing on Windows servers.
However, when it comes to the desktop, Windows is still king. Even when it comes to business applications, Windows is still the preferred OS. Reason is simple...Windows has a wider range of software choices, it offers greater integration, and it allows for more compatibility and greater range of document creation and management choices. Ever try to open a Word document in Corel Office or any other Linux-based office suite? It's a pain...a REAL pain. The majority of business users out there use Microsoft Office. It will be a while before Linux can offer the compatibility with Office documents that is required by business users.
Plain and simple...if you're not on Windows or Mac, you can kiss your business infrastructure goodbye. The ability to create cross-compatible documents like speadsheets, word processor docs, PDF's (Adobe Acrobat), and a well integrated mail server platform just isn't quite up to par with Linux. Plus, administration of a Linux based network (although claimed to be easy to use) is an enormous venture in time and configuration.
A good alternative would be Mac...but until Mr. Jobs realizes that a version of the MacOS is needed for the 486 platform (and one that does NOT require the use of Apple branded hardware!) then business users will always be stuck with Windows till Linux gets up to par. I for one would love to use the MacOS platform...but it's even more expensive that Windows...both software and hardware wise. I do too much to move to Linux...business, web development, graphic design, audio editing, MIDI mixing, gaming, etc. Most of the software I use just isn't available on Linux...but it IS available on the MacOS.
Why not petition Apple to release a stand-alone version of the MacOS that is compatible on any 486 PC? It's definitely a thought. And, what's more, the latest verion, OS X, is Linux based!:D
Slashdot Mirror
The best CMS is the one that works for the problem you're trying to solve. So, in essence, it really depends on the project. Just going with what's the most popular isn't the right approach. In my opinion, the most popular CMS platforms are starting to show signs of their age (ie. WordPress, Drupal, etc.). There are more modern platforms that solve problems more effectively by allowing for a more modular approach while give designers and developers far more control over the design.
That said, I have two CMS platforms that I currently use as my go-to's:
SilverStripe - A PHP-based framework that allows for scaffolding out a full data model (very similar to how Ruby on Rails works). Allows for complete freedom over the design thanks to a simplified templating model.
Statamic - A flat-file CMS (no database!) that is incredibly fast and easy to work with. Designers like it cause they don't have to know any code to build complex sites.
I tend to use SilverStripe for projects that have a lot of relational data requirements, that is where there is a lot of relationships between various bits of information. Basically, anytime where the content requirements are rather complex. SilverStripe makes it much easier to create sites with complex requirements while still making it easy for content editors to manage the content.
Statamic to me is a WordPress killer. I use it primarily for sites that would otherwise end up as WordPress sites. That said, you can do a whole lot more out of the box with Statamic than you can with WordPress. It's also much, much easier to design with thanks to a very easy to use templating system.
I'm also looking at adopting October at some point. It's built off of Laravel, which is a very modern PHP framework. My understanding is that October is highly modular and allows for a ton of flexibility under the hood. Might be good for a project or two. :)
I really think that Vista is going to be a reality check for alot of longtime Windows users. Now, to put this in perspective, I've been a longtime Windows user myself since Windows 95 first hit the market. I've used every version of Windows since then on my own desktop and have gone on to break into IT management when Windows 2000 first came out. I also broke into web development by learning ASP six years ago. So you could say that I've supported Microsoft for a very long time and have stood by them ever since....at least up until about two or three years ago! I used to swear by Microsoft. I never understood Linux; I always thought it was overly complex. I didn't get the overzealous, almost cult-like attitude of the Mac community of users. Let's face it...Windows simply dominates the desktop and it's easy to see how Microsoft can continue to hold onto their userbase.
However, with the release of Vista, I really feel that it will be very similar to what happened with Windows Millenium Edition. Starting with beta 1, I've installed and tried out each subsequent build of Vista all the way up to the latest RC1 release. All I can say is...WHAT THE?? It's a dog...a big ole' stinkin' dog! I couldn't believe the amount of resources you really need to run it. The default install is over 6 gigs, you need at least a gig of RAM just to get by, and the new interface is pointless unless you have a fairly decent video card that is DirectX 9 compatible. All in all, lots of fluff with little substance. Plus, the new User Account Control features really feel like something of an add-on...as if Microsoft just layered it on top of their existing security model leftover from Windows 2000 and XP. UAC is useless...especially when you consider that a user with administrator rights can simply disable the damn thing!
The problem is this: In order for Vista or any other future version of Windows to continue to succeed, Microsoft needs to learn that Windows needs to be rebuilt and reworked with a new security model that rivals even Unix-based operating systems. Nobody can say that Unix, Linux, and even Mac OS X are bad operating systems when it comes to security. They are very secure by their very nature on how they were built. Microsoft needs to learn from this and build on top of it. This is why Apple made such a smart move when they developed OS X. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, they simply took a proven secure OS and built on top of it. The beauty behind this is that the OS is modular and can be easily updated and upgraded. Windows is anything but modular.
I've since moved on from ASP and am now using PHP as my web development platform of choice. Naturally, I use Linux as a server platform and plan to use a Mac as a desktop. I'm simply tired of Microsoft and all their shenanigans. At least with Apple, when they say their going to do something they do it! They don't tease their customers with features and then pull them out later and say, "Sorry! We screwed up!" So, make mine Apple! I'm really looking forward to Leopard! :)
That's funny! I never thought of that! 10-to-1 says that exactly what's happening! It's either that people who smoke are causing damage to their computers or alot of people just can't seem to remember to wash their hands after they go to the bathroom!
I'm still trying to figure this guy out! Is Jack Thompson just stupid? Or is he just plain nuts? Either way, I really don't think this guy deserves to be a lawyer. You know, it really helps to know what it is that you're talking about...else your argument is moot at best! What a moron!
The thing that most people tend to forget is that with Apple switching to Intel chips, this greatly narrows the gap between OS X and Linux/Unix platforms. When you consider that the majority of Linux/Unix boxes run on i586 and x64 chips, it makes a whole lot of sense for Apple to switch to these processors. After all, OS X is more or less based on BSD and with it available for Intel processors this means that applications designed for Linux/Unix can more easily be ported to OS X without the need of recompiling it for a different chip.
True...very true. But take a look at what's going on with Linux these days. To say that Linux can't be stable with such a wide variety of hardware is moot at best. Granted, driver and kernel support are part of it. But this isn't about Linux really...it's about OSX and it's ability to run on a wide variety of hardware. The reason why Windows has failed in the area of "quality" drivers has alot to do with the architecture of the OS itself.
My take on this topic is simple...give the customer the choice. I would install OS X on my PC at home in a heart beat if Apple would allow me to do so. In fact, I would have already bought a Mac if the price was right...but that's the problem: Mac's don't come cheap! And I highly doubt the Intel versions will be that much cheaper. Apple should allow for others to install the Intel version of OS X on any PC...but at a price. If you choose to do so then you won't receive the same support that you would if you buy Apple hardware. It would be that simple. And it would alleviate alot of headaches from Apple. All Apple needs to do is be sure and allow developers access to key components of the source code to ensure that the driver support is there. Both the Linux and BSD communities have already proven that it's possible to have an OS running on a wide variety of hardware...why not OS X?
I don't know about you...but being an ex-ASP developer, I always found IIS to be rather bloated and testy. Even when I started using .NET and IIS 6 on a 2003 server...it still felt like bloatware! Give me an Apache server any day! :)
Hate to say it...but depending upon what industry you're in you may have little or no choice on what operating system you can use. Case point...I'm an IT worker for a small architectural firm. Guess what! There is not one mainstream architechural program that is widely used that isn't on Windows! So in order to run Bentley Microstation or Autodesk AutoCAD, two of the top architectural programs out there, you have to have Windows. Sorry...no Microstation or AutoCAD for Mac or Linux! Might be an alternative out there...but is it as powerful and compatible as the top two that are widely used? Probably not. So...the problem isn't a question of just the operating system...it's a problem of whether the software companies are designing their software to run on operating systems other than Windows! Till Bentley get's their head our of their ass and starts distributing a version of Microstation for OSX or Linux...my company is stuck using Windows! Nuff said!
Being an ex-Best Buy employee myself, this little article does not surprise me. First things first, Best Buy cares very little about the customer. How do I know that? Well, that statement is based on hands-on experience and how the company itself is structured. District managers and corporate officers spend most of their time thinking about the numbers and how to better push those numbers higher with more services and better sales tactics. Store managers themselves are brainwashed by corporate to think about those numbers on a constant basis (else they lose their jobs!) and are encouraged to push their employees to get those number higher with 'quality customer service'. Let me tell you somthing...'quality customer service' is an illusion at Best Buy. They care more about the bottom line than they do about actually servicing their customers and making them happy. I know this because many of the managers and supervisors I worked with would do everything they could to get the most money from a customer. Now, granted, that's just the corporate machine at work...and I know that...nothing wrong with it. However, when you cheat your customers; when you get to the point of borderline stealing from then, that's where I draw the line! And that's why I left that company! Any company that encourages its employees to steal from customers is a bad company in my opinion! I was asked to charge $60 for a software installation that normally goes for $20...that's stealing from the customer! And not one person got fired for doing this! Unbelievable! And it was not just this store either....I have personally witnessed similar instances at other stores! Trust me...this story is as it appears...complete BS in a nutshell!
Extortion is right! In fact, if all claims to this patent are wrong, then I think SCO should be charged with extortion! This case is just getting more and more ridiculous!!
He looks more like a retard to me. He could be the poster child for Retard Enterprises Magazine. Pretty soon we'll be hearing him say, "Uhh...like duh...I thought it was mine." What an idiot! I mean...just look at him! Doesn't appear to be an intelligent light at all in those eyes! Total complete moron! Nuff said!
I'm following suit just like SCO and Rambus.... From now on, everyone has to pay me a quarter everytime they use the word 'ASS'. That's right! 32 years ago, I defined the word 'ASS' and it's connotation, thus everyone who has every used the word 'ASS' must now pay me a quarter else I'll sue your 'ASS' for everything you've got!! Hmm...you'd think Rambus would take a hint and drop the freakin' patents. They're almost as bad as SCO and the FCC! Jezz!! What the hell is going on with all this 'control freak' madness going on lately!
Sigh....and I just bought the parts needed for a new computer! Now Microsoft is telling me that I'll likely need to ditch it for a new one two years from now! Ugg! Then again...think about what Microsoft will require , say, twenty years from now! We'll likely need a nuclear powered Intel processor, dubbed the Pentium Pu (Plutonium powered), and liquid nitrogen cooling! I will say one thing though....if Microsoft screws the pooch with this release, it's a guarantee that everyone will jump ship and run to Linux! :D
Honestly, I think the new PowerPC chip is just too little too late for Apple. If Apple is going to even remotely compete they'll have to move into the i386 market. Intel's latest chipset, the 875P, is living proof that a new chip isn't going to save Apple's desktops. With support for a 800 mhz FSB with dual-channel DDR400 configurations and P4's starting at 3Ghz, it's bound to mean trouble for Apple if they don't start using Intel chipsets. Besides that, moving to a 64-bit platform is a heavy proposal at best. How would you like to explain to Mac users that they'll be forced to buy all new software on their next Mac desktop upgrade? Sure, the benefits are huge...but I doubt even a new 64-bit PowerPC chip will bring that much more for the money. Again...I'll stick with Intel...more bang for the buck if you ask me!
You're right....it is a pipedream so long as Steve Jobs is in control of Apple! So while we're on the topic of comparing 'apples' with 'oranges', consider this.... Apple's 'symbiotic' relationship with the hardware and software may seem all fine and dandy but when serious delays in R&D occur then that spells 'trouble' with a capital 'T'. What good is the OS if the hardware itself is lacking and is behind in terms of performance over the competition. I'm not whining about anything...I take a very non-biased approach to computers and look at everything from all angles. So I don't really care what Apple does. If they produce a good product that is both affordable, reliable, and offers top-of-the-line performance then I would buy it, proprietary or not! Problem is this though...sure it's reliable, but it's not affordable and it's not necessarily top-of-the-line in performance anymore....regardless of 'so-called' flaws in testing.
Err...Apple is not what I would call a real contender in the server market. You're right about pricing...but Apple can't compete anyways in the server market. Last I heard, Unix, Linux, and Sun based servers are on top of the market....most of which is cheaper and, again, runs circles around Apple and offers greater scalability and compatility with Windows clients. You do know that Windows rules the corporate desktop, right?? What good is an Apple server on a network of nothing but Windows clients? Hmm...beats me!
Correction...the tests were not flawed. Many tests have been performed against the fastest G4 and the fastest P4 available....and the testers didn't just use After Effects either! MaximumPC Magazine, PC Magazine, and other industry experts have done similar testing. They used Adobe products (Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere; mostly uses dual processors on a G4), 3D Studio Max, CAD, and other industry standard tests that benchmark things like processor, memory, and motherboard performance. The results were almost unanimous with the exception of but one or two tests....an Intel Pentium 4 platform outperforms the fastest G4 available! And this was testing against a dual-proc G4 against a single processor P4 (533mhz FSB)!! I would hate to think of what the results would be on Intel's new chipset with the 800mhz FSB and dual-channel DDR400 RAM!! Face the facts....the Intel platform is the better performer...regardless of OS!
Regardless of what kind of innovation comes out of the Apple camp, Microsoft will still be considered the top dog. The reason is simple: Apple is not catering to the masses! Steve Jobs, with his elitist attitude toward computer products, is not shaping his company for the future. If Apple is to compete at all, they really need to venture more into the business market. They have the tools and the platform to do it...but they are not budging due to the cost and proprietary nature of their systems. Simply put, Apple needs to drop the IBM PowerPC chipset like a bad habit and port OSX to the I386 platform! Intel is running circles around everyone, especially with the release of their new chipset on a 800mhz FSB and processors starting at 3Ghz. Even when IBM releases the new PowerPC chips that run on a 900mhz FSB, it will be too little too late! As it stands, many software companies have made WinXP their preferred platform for one reason and one reason only...raw performance! Adobe has made it very clear that they prefer Intel over Apple for raw performance...and performance tests have proven it! Industry professionals that have long used Mac computers are starting to convert to using Windows systems due to the fact that better performance can be achieved on a much cheaper margin. It works like this: better performance means getting the job done in less time. Time equals money. And if you can get better performance for less money then you'll buy products that will give you that (meaning less overhead!) If Apple were to port OSX to the PC and make it widely available to anyone with a PC then I'd jump on it in a New York minute! But stupid Steve Jobs will never do that so fat chance we'll ever see Apple unlock the proprietary nature of their systems!
I took a look at the pricing of Apple's latest G4 computers and I was insulted at what I saw! $3,799 for a top of the line G4! And get this...512 megs of DDR333 memory cost $250 on Apple's website! That's insane! And they don't even have any of the latest video cards available for their computers! By comparison, I configured a top of the line Alienware workstation just for the hell of it. You can get a kick-ass Alienware computer with 2 gigs of DDR PC-3200 RAM, P4 3Ghz 800FSB, 120 gig Serial ATA HD, DVD-ROM, Plextor DVD+RW, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, XP Pro, and for how much? A little over $3000!! Almost $800 less and it'll run cirles around a Mac any day of the week! Now, granted, this is more of a gaming computer, but it would still work great as a workstation. Alienware does have some systems that run on dual 2.0 ghz Xeon's with workstation quality videocards...but I think those are more reserved for 3D animation work. The point is that if you're gonna buy an Apple for graphics design, video editing, etc....don't waste your money! Buy an upper-end PC and you'll save a buttload of money and you'll end up with something that save you both time and money in the long run! Screw Apple! Nuff said!
Server wise...Linux is a good idea..that is, provided you're running the right software (ie. mail server, web server, database, etc.). Granted, there's plenty that Linux offers...and India (or any other country for that matter) can greatly benefit from this and save a nice chunk of change when compared to the licensing on Windows servers. However, when it comes to the desktop, Windows is still king. Even when it comes to business applications, Windows is still the preferred OS. Reason is simple...Windows has a wider range of software choices, it offers greater integration, and it allows for more compatibility and greater range of document creation and management choices. Ever try to open a Word document in Corel Office or any other Linux-based office suite? It's a pain...a REAL pain. The majority of business users out there use Microsoft Office. It will be a while before Linux can offer the compatibility with Office documents that is required by business users.
:D
Plain and simple...if you're not on Windows or Mac, you can kiss your business infrastructure goodbye. The ability to create cross-compatible documents like speadsheets, word processor docs, PDF's (Adobe Acrobat), and a well integrated mail server platform just isn't quite up to par with Linux. Plus, administration of a Linux based network (although claimed to be easy to use) is an enormous venture in time and configuration.
A good alternative would be Mac...but until Mr. Jobs realizes that a version of the MacOS is needed for the 486 platform (and one that does NOT require the use of Apple branded hardware!) then business users will always be stuck with Windows till Linux gets up to par. I for one would love to use the MacOS platform...but it's even more expensive that Windows...both software and hardware wise. I do too much to move to Linux...business, web development, graphic design, audio editing, MIDI mixing, gaming, etc. Most of the software I use just isn't available on Linux...but it IS available on the MacOS.
Why not petition Apple to release a stand-alone version of the MacOS that is compatible on any 486 PC? It's definitely a thought. And, what's more, the latest verion, OS X, is Linux based!