Those using the drives just to store and play downloaded files probably could get away with even slower RPMs to save on money, heat and maybe less noise.
That's why I'm kind of disappointed that 5400RPM drives have pretty much been phased out. The last generations of 5400RPM drives ran cool and quiet, but still plenty fast for mass storage of music, movies, and videos.
Is it me, or have advancements in harddrives been slowing down? 400GB has been king for a over a year, and only two manufacturers seem to even have a 400GB offering. Just a few years ago, it seemed that everytime I turned around bigger drives were coming out. Have we finally hit some kind of limit for magnetic storage?
If that does happen, hopefully Apple decides to start using high resolution screens. Otherwise, the 9" iBook will have a something like a 640x480 display.
Apple's goal is to get you interested in Macs with the Mini, but have you spend more money on a more expensive computer because the Mini is pretty underpowered. The whole Apple line up is based upon the idea of arbitrarily removing features from lower end models to get people to spend more money.
My guess is a lot of places aren't going to bother with Intel Macs. They'll just continue on as they are right now - developing for Windows and PPC Macs. Those people with the Intel Macs can just dual boot and run the Windows version. After a while, they'll drop support for PPC Macs and just develop for Windows. Basically, Mac is dead.
Okay, so I might be "willing" to pay $299 for a copy of Windows XP Professional. But I'm sure that Windows XP is worth a lot more to Microsoft than $299 (probably more like many billions). So, whatever someone is willing to pay isn't really accurate in this case.
The requirements page for Firefox doesn't list Windows 95 as being supported. But it may run anyway (I have no way to check). Mozilla still supports Windows 95 though, as well as Opera 8.
What could possibly be the benefit of OS X as a desktop computer?
OS X does make a pretty lousy desktop computer. For that you'll want something like a Dell, or a HP, or maybe even an Apple. But OS X is a pretty nice operating system.
I've found trying to browse a Windows network with a Mac using the finder resulted in a lot of force quits and spinning beachballs. If you were lucky it would actually work, but you might see 2-3 machines when there are actually dozens.
If you know what you're doing with Windows networking, the machines play along just fine with each other. (I think one of the keys is kicking all the Windows 95/98 machines off the network and just having 2000/XP present). Even Linux based Samba servers work great, though I find browsing Windows shares on Linux to be really tedious.
You're right about blowing smoke. Your OSX next year is only going to run on Apple Intel hardware. You're not going to be buying cheap boxen from Dell for it.
I can run OSX on my AMD Athlon machine right now. It's called PearPC. The real question is, will OSX for Intel run on my machine in a usable fashion, or will it be like PearPC - pretty cool but not something you can actually use as a full time OS.
So while I'm not making any claims whether Macs are 1 in 5 business desktops, to say that Macs aren't prevalent in bullshit.
He didn't say they weren't prevelant, he just said they weren't that prevelant. Even the most Mac heavy organizations I have seen might be 50% Apple machines overall. Factor in all those companies where the Mac usage hoovers around 0%, and there is NO WAY that 21% of computers are Macs.
To further call shenanigans an the article, note that it doesn't say Macs, it says Mac OSX. That means it isn't counting all those older Macs running OS9 and earlier!
In our shop, we tend to replace the PCs every year-18 months & the Macs every 3-4 years. This is mostly due to massive hardware failures on the PCs due to cheap components that are simpler/faster/cheaper to replace than repair them.
What do you buy, the cheapest Dell Dimensions? Hell, even Dells aren't *that* bad. Try buying some decent hardware and not the $199 special at Fry's.
And arguably, the G4 is a faster CPU (though I'd really like to see real-world numbers for this; the G4 is a beast when it comes to number crunching, but the Pentium-M is a beast when it comes to clock-effecieny).
Too bad the G4 is limited by a very slow bus and memory bandwidth, which means a nicely equipped Pentium M system is going to spank a G4 anyday.
Last I checked, there was a 700Mhz Pentium I, and that was about it.
Interesting, as I always thought the Pentium I ended at 200Mhz. Though the MMX version went to 233Mhz, and I believe there was a mobile MMX chip that went to 266Mhz. But hardly to 700Mhz.
It's sort of like the old super socket 7 of old. Nice the fact that AMD offered CPUS as fast as 450 and 550 IIRC, even a tad higher than 450mhz in the amd k6-3 mobile if you were lucky enough to find them. While not nessicarly the best upgrade choice they are not only an option for the budget minded but most importantly those last generation high end chips either hold their value or increase in value. The socket-7 run would have been limited to 233/266mhz had it not been for AMD.
I remember I spent a lot of money back in the day on a K6-3 450 and a Super 7 board. I was thinking "Yeah, Socket 7 has been around a while, so it should hang around a while longer". Then like a month later AMD announced the Athlon and Slot A and I was like "Doh!". Then some other things changed the voltages for AGP cards and it really made that system an expensive dead end. But on the other hand, the system is solid and is still in use today - one of the most reliable computers I have ever built.
I gave up on the upgrade this and that on my PC. Now I just sell my PC and get a new one every 2.5 years. I tend to keep the sound card, network card and DVD-Writter but recently I'm not even bothering with that. During the 2.5 years I'll never buy extra RAM, change CPU and anything else that I won't keep when I'll sell it. So now it tend to just add hard-disks and external peripherals but nothing else. I save the cash for the next purchase.
I thought the same way, but now over 3 years since I built this Socket A system (Athlon XP 2000), it's still pretty fast, though I wish it was a bit faster. Now, I could build another computer - but I'm kind of hesitant right now and would rather wait until the whole 64 bit/dual core thing shakes out - or atleast comes down in price. So I'm considering just buying a 3200 Barton (for a bit over $100) and sticking with what I got for a little while longer.
With adequate hole in mobo, we can cool the CPU from both sides.
Or perhaps we could just put another slot in the motherboard. Kind of like a PCI slot, or maybe a DIMM slot. Then we can put the CPU on it's own riser card, which would allow the CPU to be cooled from both sides, while retaining the ability to easily swap CPUs. Since it would be an AMD chip, I'm thinking maybe it could be called "Slot A". Yeah, that's a great idea.... oh wait....
So, this is both why I voted for him and why I regret that I had to.
Okay, we can all understand why you don't like Kerry. Why didn't you vote for Badnarik or [insert other 3rd party canidate here]? A vote for Bush or Kerry was just a vote for the same two party system that gives us lousy canidates like Bush and Kerry (and Gore and Clinton, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
So long as my cocoon has broadband, I'm fine!
Not a bad idea, but you must of driven your poor roommate nuts!
Those using the drives just to store and play downloaded files probably could get away with even slower RPMs to save on money, heat and maybe less noise.
That's why I'm kind of disappointed that 5400RPM drives have pretty much been phased out. The last generations of 5400RPM drives ran cool and quiet, but still plenty fast for mass storage of music, movies, and videos.
Is it me, or have advancements in harddrives been slowing down? 400GB has been king for a over a year, and only two manufacturers seem to even have a 400GB offering. Just a few years ago, it seemed that everytime I turned around bigger drives were coming out. Have we finally hit some kind of limit for magnetic storage?
If that does happen, hopefully Apple decides to start using high resolution screens. Otherwise, the 9" iBook will have a something like a 640x480 display.
Apple's goal is to get you interested in Macs with the Mini, but have you spend more money on a more expensive computer because the Mini is pretty underpowered. The whole Apple line up is based upon the idea of arbitrarily removing features from lower end models to get people to spend more money.
My guess is a lot of places aren't going to bother with Intel Macs. They'll just continue on as they are right now - developing for Windows and PPC Macs. Those people with the Intel Macs can just dual boot and run the Windows version. After a while, they'll drop support for PPC Macs and just develop for Windows. Basically, Mac is dead.
I don't get it. How was naming NT 5.1 "Windows XP" emulating Apple?
And all of this makes what Barton is doing right... how?
..whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
Okay, so I might be "willing" to pay $299 for a copy of Windows XP Professional. But I'm sure that Windows XP is worth a lot more to Microsoft than $299 (probably more like many billions). So, whatever someone is willing to pay isn't really accurate in this case.
If it's XP only, what's going to run on Windows Vista?
IE7sp1, probably.
The requirements page for Firefox doesn't list Windows 95 as being supported. But it may run anyway (I have no way to check). Mozilla still supports Windows 95 though, as well as Opera 8.
It crashes Internet Explorer here too. Version 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.050301-1526 (and I thought other programs had confusing version numbers!)
What could possibly be the benefit of OS X as a desktop computer?
OS X does make a pretty lousy desktop computer. For that you'll want something like a Dell, or a HP, or maybe even an Apple. But OS X is a pretty nice operating system.
I've found trying to browse a Windows network with a Mac using the finder resulted in a lot of force quits and spinning beachballs. If you were lucky it would actually work, but you might see 2-3 machines when there are actually dozens.
If you know what you're doing with Windows networking, the machines play along just fine with each other. (I think one of the keys is kicking all the Windows 95/98 machines off the network and just having 2000/XP present). Even Linux based Samba servers work great, though I find browsing Windows shares on Linux to be really tedious.
You're right about blowing smoke. Your OSX next year is only going to run on Apple Intel hardware. You're not going to be buying cheap boxen from Dell for it.
I can run OSX on my AMD Athlon machine right now. It's called PearPC. The real question is, will OSX for Intel run on my machine in a usable fashion, or will it be like PearPC - pretty cool but not something you can actually use as a full time OS.
So while I'm not making any claims whether Macs are 1 in 5 business desktops, to say that Macs aren't prevalent in bullshit.
He didn't say they weren't prevelant, he just said they weren't that prevelant. Even the most Mac heavy organizations I have seen might be 50% Apple machines overall. Factor in all those companies where the Mac usage hoovers around 0%, and there is NO WAY that 21% of computers are Macs.
To further call shenanigans an the article, note that it doesn't say Macs, it says Mac OSX. That means it isn't counting all those older Macs running OS9 and earlier!
In our shop, we tend to replace the PCs every year-18 months & the Macs every 3-4 years. This is mostly due to massive hardware failures on the PCs due to cheap components that are simpler/faster/cheaper to replace than repair them.
What do you buy, the cheapest Dell Dimensions? Hell, even Dells aren't *that* bad. Try buying some decent hardware and not the $199 special at Fry's.
And arguably, the G4 is a faster CPU (though I'd really like to see real-world numbers for this; the G4 is a beast when it comes to number crunching, but the Pentium-M is a beast when it comes to clock-effecieny).
Too bad the G4 is limited by a very slow bus and memory bandwidth, which means a nicely equipped Pentium M system is going to spank a G4 anyday.
Last I checked, there was a 700Mhz Pentium I, and that was about it.
Interesting, as I always thought the Pentium I ended at 200Mhz. Though the MMX version went to 233Mhz, and I believe there was a mobile MMX chip that went to 266Mhz. But hardly to 700Mhz.
It's sort of like the old super socket 7 of old. Nice the fact that AMD offered CPUS as fast as 450 and 550 IIRC, even a tad higher than 450mhz in the amd k6-3 mobile if you were lucky enough to find them. While not nessicarly the best upgrade choice they are not only an option for the budget minded but most importantly those last generation high end chips either hold their value or increase in value. The socket-7 run would have been limited to 233/266mhz had it not been for AMD.
I remember I spent a lot of money back in the day on a K6-3 450 and a Super 7 board. I was thinking "Yeah, Socket 7 has been around a while, so it should hang around a while longer". Then like a month later AMD announced the Athlon and Slot A and I was like "Doh!". Then some other things changed the voltages for AGP cards and it really made that system an expensive dead end. But on the other hand, the system is solid and is still in use today - one of the most reliable computers I have ever built.
I gave up on the upgrade this and that on my PC. Now I just sell my PC and get a new one every 2.5 years. I tend to keep the sound card, network card and DVD-Writter but recently I'm not even bothering with that. During the 2.5 years I'll never buy extra RAM, change CPU and anything else that I won't keep when I'll sell it. So now it tend to just add hard-disks and external peripherals but nothing else. I save the cash for the next purchase.
I thought the same way, but now over 3 years since I built this Socket A system (Athlon XP 2000), it's still pretty fast, though I wish it was a bit faster. Now, I could build another computer - but I'm kind of hesitant right now and would rather wait until the whole 64 bit/dual core thing shakes out - or atleast comes down in price. So I'm considering just buying a 3200 Barton (for a bit over $100) and sticking with what I got for a little while longer.
With adequate hole in mobo, we can cool the CPU from both sides.
Or perhaps we could just put another slot in the motherboard. Kind of like a PCI slot, or maybe a DIMM slot. Then we can put the CPU on it's own riser card, which would allow the CPU to be cooled from both sides, while retaining the ability to easily swap CPUs. Since it would be an AMD chip, I'm thinking maybe it could be called "Slot A". Yeah, that's a great idea.... oh wait....
So, this is both why I voted for him and why I regret that I had to.
Okay, we can all understand why you don't like Kerry. Why didn't you vote for Badnarik or [insert other 3rd party canidate here]? A vote for Bush or Kerry was just a vote for the same two party system that gives us lousy canidates like Bush and Kerry (and Gore and Clinton, etc.)
I want to know what happened to 99-1999, I'm sure they were cruddy test versions.
MS probably rolled them out as Me
You got that right. ME actually stands for Many Editions.