Look, if HP & Dell could save 5 cents per machine by removing PS/2 ports, they would. The fact is the total cost of PS/2 keyboard/mouse + connectors is still cheaper than USB. That's why 99% of new systems ship with PS/2 devices.
All PCs today ship with USB ports, and mainly of the USB 2.0 variety. So the cost of USB is inmaterial in your argument. It is a done deal. The PS/2 and other ports are legacy and they increase the price of the machine. It may not matter on a single machine, but when you multiply that across an entire platform line for a manufacturer, then it becomes a considerable cost factor. Considering how many PC companies refused to place Firewire ports on their wares because of the $1 licensing fee, you can see my point in action.
Maybe that's who I meant. BitBoys, BitMap Bros., I dunno. Maybe the BitMap Bros. were that British coding team from the late 80s who did all those Amiga and ST games ports. But I digress. Whichever group of guys it was who kept on claiming they'd bring out graphics chips that would trump any of Nvidia's and 3dfx's chips. I guess by now they truly can beat the Voodoo2 SLI mode...
But putting the ports in the spec allows them to meet the needs of all users, and for Intel's part it takes away a possible reason for some manufacturers to use ATX instead (as otherwise, anyone making a board with legacy ports would have to either use ATX or take up expansion slots with ugly brackets).
Good argument. However, when Intel does not take a strong stand, OEM's such as HP will continue churning out PCs for the home user that will continue to offer these ancient relics of interfaces and in turn, Joe Blow is going to be out extra money for something he won't use. My point is that the ports should be eliminated so that the average user can either have a lower price or conversely more technology that is suitable for today's needs. And if someone feels so inclined that they require legacy ports like PS/2, then let them buy an ugly expansion board with the ports on them. At least they will be the only ones paying for such a thing.
I cannot believe anyone is taking that script seriously. The only thing the author nailed was that the StormTroopers are/were clones. I remembered reading a big synopsis CineScape Magazine did on the prequels before Episode I hit the screen, based heavily upon the *Fall of the Republic* treatment. They went into great detail that StormTroopers were clones and even printed an illustration of a StormTrooper assembly line with a LucasFilm copyright notice underneath it. I thought it was a stupid idea but then Episode II then confirmed it. My only hope is that Anakin does indeed fall into a volcanic pit like Lucas said he would back in 1979. Its great symbolism, much like the "Vader in Flames" crew patch during the filming of ESB was...
...the last vaporware product announced by the BitMap Brothers. Seriously, I think Atari will have a decent videocard out before either of these two previously-mentioned chuckleheads bring anything serious to the market. If you believe that, I have a spare Athlon64 Adapter for your TI99/4A I could sell you.
the kicker quote on why there isn't an OS X port
on
Review: Sun StarOffice 7
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
"Also, personally I would really like to see StarOffice 7 ports for FreeBSD and OS X, but Sun says that isn't likely to happen because of the extensive platform testing that goes into StarOffice."
Say what? The reason why Sun won't port Star Office to OS X is because of "extensive platform testing"? What is so extensive about the Mac platform? You could restrict it to G4 and G5 class Macs and that would be a lot less headaches than with the Windows platform with a myriad of devices to support. And how can there be more differences between Solaris and OS X than between Solaris and Windows? That is seriously a king size load of _______.
For the Love of Gawd, why is there legacy ports?
on
More on BTX Motherboards
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For supposedly a state-of-the-art motherboard design (all 3 BTX reference boards), why did Intel wuss out and keep legacy ports on these mobos?
I'm looking at the pic for the micro-BTX board (yes, the micro edition) and I still see two (2) PS/2 ports and one (1) parallel port. What a waste. I bet they'll chicken out and retain ATA and floppy drive ports on the mobo itself too.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1876&p =3
C'mon Intel, Apple did away with legacy ports back in 1997. This design won't hit the market until 2004. Quit slacking. You either want the mobo manufacturers and PC brands to move away from legacy or you don't. I personally would rather have the $3 or so that goes into putting these dopey ports on the machines go toward something else, like Bluetooth support or extra Firewire ports.
How about Star Office for OS X? Plenty of people are buying Macs today, and why should Microsoft get revenue from that platform as well? As it stands, Sun could make money in this endeavor because how many rank-and-file OS X users are actually going to stoop to using Open Office via the X11 Window? And officially, Open Office for OS X is being delayed until 2005! Apple surely cannot assign any of their programming staff to working on the OS X port because Microsoft would then cut out all Mac development in response. So all I can see are $$$'s if Sun would be so inclined to spend a little cash on porting Star Office over to OS X...
Ever since the movie 'Star Wars' came out and there was a distress call from Princess Leia," -- generated in thin air by the robot R2D2 -- "people all over the world have been wanting one of these."
Speak for yourself, Agent Provocateur. You can keep the Star Wars holograms; I'd rather have the computer from "Time Cop" myself...:)
and please, nobody bring up the BSD TCP/IP stack in Windows. We all know about that already. I meant there might be much much more Unix/BSD/Linux code present in Windows than we know about...
Didn't you guys read the same press releases/statements about Sun's Java Desktop System (the platform formerly known as *Mad Hatter*)? Now I can't find the article, but what I read stated Sun would indemnify customers of Mad Hatter regarding Linux IP issues. So this is a total upside. Whereas Microsoft goes about stating Linux is an IP blackhole that could lead your company into lawsuitville, Sun says, "hey, don't worry, you can have your Linux and SCO can go screw." Considering Microsoft paid $15 million for their special advertising package (ie. IP licensing with SCO) on the benefits of M$ Windows vs. Linux, I think Sun is going to get much more bang for their buck since they only shelled out $300k to the beasts from Utah. Sun can even play up them indemnifying their own Linux offerings while IBM won't.
Then again, wouldn't it be funny if Win2K and beyond really does have Unix coding in it and SCO actually caught them? Of course, that would mean SCO is a bunch of cheap hookers settling for $15 mil when even the bankrupt chumps at Be are receiving $25 million for their settlement...
Its not an admission of guilt on SCO's part for misleading their own shareholders and playing a massive game of BULLS**T with the open source community, not to mention the American legal system (please, nobody bring up the 9th Circuit Court!)...
What I found funny about Mr. Card's article was the following truism:
Here's a clue: Movie studios have, for decades, used "creative accounting" to make it so that even hit movies never manage to break even, thus depriving the creative people of their "percentage of profits."
Hollywood uses "creative accounting" to diminish revenue sharing with their creative talent in order to actually maximize their profits. Warner Bros. took a lot of flack over how they claimed "Batman" never was profitable, yet for some reason, they made a sequel. Or for example, Paramount claiming "Coming to America" never made a profit either when sued. Yet on the other hand, you have companies such as Enron and Worldcom who use "creative accounting" to inflate their profits. Wow, isn't that ironic?
I guess the moral of the story is, when you overstate profits, investors lose confidence and your company goes bankrupt; run a Hollywood movie studio, claim you never make a profit, and you stay in business forever.
My question is, is there really any benefit to owning a Linux PDA on the pure OS technical terms? Or is this for sheer geek factor? Take for example the PC market. Linux caters to people interested in 1. reliability, 2. cost, 3. anti-Microsofties, and 4. coders. And for a great number of people, Linux is for users who want to remain in the x86 shop and not pay what they perceive as the fortune it costs to go the Apple route. But now, in the PDA market, you have all the operating systems using the same common harware: they all pretty much run on Intel or TI chips based upon ARM designs. So when you have the Microsoft offering and its competitor Palm on the same platform, is there any practical reason to choose a Linux PDA? I'm interested to hear the reasoning, especially when it only shaves $10 off the price of the unit in terms of licensing...
Microsoft owns more of Apple than SCO owns of Trolltech.
How do you figure? Microsoft sold all of those non-voting rights shares a few years ago. And they were only worth $150 million at the time of the original purchase.
Guess you should stop reading the register and start reading something where the people writing the article doesnt pull the information out of their ass?
You mean like the New York Times? Err...wait a second...:)
I'd also like to make a point that the Register claimed sources in the assembly plants in Taiwan where the PowerBooks are produced...Apple could be sitting on them ready to deploy when OS X Panther hits the streets. But then again, since Steve Jobs originally left Apple in the mid-80s over an inventory build-up misfire, I doubt he'd take a chance at repeating that scenario.
First off, I agree with you on your #3 drawback. I don't like the single button mouse. But, as of today, if you can get over that, you now have the functional Bluetooth options for keyboards and mice; and they are implemented without using a brand specific USB dongle ala the Microsoft route. And I am assuming there is sufficient encryption involved so that text going to one machine does not end up on a different user's screen.
Now #2. Aside from iBook owners, who in their right mind is purchasing Macs with G3's? My parents have a 1ghz eMac and it is no slouch. It will run faster with more memory just like a PC. $50 can get you a decent PNY 512 meg chip and take a standard eMac with a Superdrive to 768 megs.
Now for your #6. I haven't had a problem with.Mac "commercials" in OS X. Does it work better with iTunes and some of the other software? Yes. It isn't necessary. Its not like Microsoft Product Activation. Apple is not going to march down to your office and demand.Mac subscriptions.
You've also not addressed any of the benefits I mentioned regarding going over to Macs. And what's with the "eye candy" bashing? OS X is great! Are you telling me you would prefer a non-attractive woman over an extremely attractive woman if everything else is equal???
While I applaud the steps in the right direction regarding Bluetooth support, I'm a little disappointed over the lack of G5's in the new Powerbooks. Yes, I know, cooling issues. But after reading all the reports from *The Register* about them being in production, this is a let down. I guess this is a way for Apple to squeeze a little more life out of the G4 before introducing G5 PowerBooks. The Apple G4's for the PowerBook and iMac (1.25 Ghz) are now at the baseline clock frequency of the PPC970, although Apple started out at the higher 1.6 frequency for the PowerMac. It would be nice to begin seeing the G3 phased out of the iBooks, and fast.
I also know Belkin makes a USB Bluetooth adapter. I don't know the price, but considering how Belkin charges out the ass for everything else they make, it's probably not cheap.
The Belkin USB/Bluetooth adapter has been hovering in around $39 at CompUSA; sometimes with rebates too. I've been eyeing it since my parents bought an eMac and its time for my mom to upgrade her phone with Cingular (*cough cough* hate that company!).
You haven't mentioned that AOL is the partner helping to bring iTunes to the PC... It hasn't come up in Beta release though...AOL is still trying to promote MusicNet which is probably still a remaining contractual issue. I hope AOL is smart enough to integrate iTunes through WinAmp since Apple will probably not want to promote the iTunes music player on the PC...
I just wanted to report that I ate lunch at the Chipotle location in downtown Sacramento yesterday. While waiting in line to pay for my meal, their computerized cash register crashed. Management decided to let everyone in line have their lunch for free in response. How does this relate to SCO? McDonalds uses SCO UnixWare products, and Chipotle is a wholly-owned subsidiary of McDonalds. Thanks again for your great coding skills, SCO!
I like Apple. In fact, if I win the lottery (or get a good IT job - same odds) any time soon, I've got my eye on one of the new dual G5s. However, I can't think of any compelling reason why I'd try to convince me boss to do the same thing companywide.
Hmmm...can I chime in?
1. Relatively few viruses.
2. Stable operating system built upon BSD from a commercial corporation.
3. Rarely, if ever crashes (OS X). IT staff do not have to continually run around and patch everything.
4. Parallel processing 64-bit hook in the operating system (found in the modified OS X Jaguar and more thorough in the upcoming Panther). The only thing holding it back is getting the machines out the door. There is no wait for the operating system to catch up unlike in the Windows world. This only applies if you are interested in 64 bits today.
5. The operating system and the hardware come from the same company. If there are any questions, you call Apple. You don't have to be caught up in the blame game of the OEM vs. Microsoft as to who should support the system compatibility with a particular piece of hardware (driver).
6. No product activation. The licenses are cheaper for multiple machines (vs. Microsoft unless you waive the "Linux matching price" deal with your MS rep). Relatively no chance for a BSA audit.
7. Easier to use for the average joe. It might be an advertising cliche, but it "simply works."
8. The boss can cut 1/3rd of the IT staff it takes to adminster the machines versus maintaining PCs.
9. No ridiculous IP issues.
10. This may be stupid for most, but your management staff can sync their Bluetooth equipped mobile phones with iCal. Where I work, the managers all receive PocketPCs but the majority of them do not know how to operate them which would be useful for maintaining their management calendars. However, they can operate their mobile phones.
but it seems they have an IT department that is Like A Rock(TM)
Are you suggesting the Ford IT staff drive Chevy trucks? Blasphemer! In the old days, a Ford employee would be fired if they were seen driving a non-Ford vehicle, or rode in a friend's car that was not a Ford...
Slashdot Mirror
Look, if HP & Dell could save 5 cents per machine by removing PS/2 ports, they would. The fact is the total cost of PS/2 keyboard/mouse + connectors is still cheaper than USB. That's why 99% of new systems ship with PS/2 devices.
All PCs today ship with USB ports, and mainly of the USB 2.0 variety. So the cost of USB is inmaterial in your argument. It is a done deal. The PS/2 and other ports are legacy and they increase the price of the machine. It may not matter on a single machine, but when you multiply that across an entire platform line for a manufacturer, then it becomes a considerable cost factor. Considering how many PC companies refused to place Firewire ports on their wares because of the $1 licensing fee, you can see my point in action.
*chuckle* You've got it bad? My first claim to computerdom consisted of an Atari 1200XL.
Cool. The only Atari 8bit computer that had function keys...Do you still have it?
That is a filthy, stinking lie. I haven't been with Pam for years.
by Scott Baio (549373)
Great. First we have Wesley Crusher here on Slashdot and now Scott Baio. Who next? Max Casella (Vinnie Delpino) from "Doogie Howser, M.D."?
Bitboys
Maybe that's who I meant. BitBoys, BitMap Bros., I dunno. Maybe the BitMap Bros. were that British coding team from the late 80s who did all those Amiga and ST games ports. But I digress. Whichever group of guys it was who kept on claiming they'd bring out graphics chips that would trump any of Nvidia's and 3dfx's chips. I guess by now they truly can beat the Voodoo2 SLI mode...
But putting the ports in the spec allows them to meet the needs of all users, and for Intel's part it takes away a possible reason for some manufacturers to use ATX instead (as otherwise, anyone making a board with legacy ports would have to either use ATX or take up expansion slots with ugly brackets).
Good argument. However, when Intel does not take a strong stand, OEM's such as HP will continue churning out PCs for the home user that will continue to offer these ancient relics of interfaces and in turn, Joe Blow is going to be out extra money for something he won't use. My point is that the ports should be eliminated so that the average user can either have a lower price or conversely more technology that is suitable for today's needs. And if someone feels so inclined that they require legacy ports like PS/2, then let them buy an ugly expansion board with the ports on them. At least they will be the only ones paying for such a thing.
I cannot believe anyone is taking that script seriously. The only thing the author nailed was that the StormTroopers are/were clones. I remembered reading a big synopsis CineScape Magazine did on the prequels before Episode I hit the screen, based heavily upon the *Fall of the Republic* treatment. They went into great detail that StormTroopers were clones and even printed an illustration of a StormTrooper assembly line with a LucasFilm copyright notice underneath it. I thought it was a stupid idea but then Episode II then confirmed it. My only hope is that Anakin does indeed fall into a volcanic pit like Lucas said he would back in 1979. Its great symbolism, much like the "Vader in Flames" crew patch during the filming of ESB was...
...the last vaporware product announced by the BitMap Brothers. Seriously, I think Atari will have a decent videocard out before either of these two previously-mentioned chuckleheads bring anything serious to the market. If you believe that, I have a spare Athlon64 Adapter for your TI99/4A I could sell you.
http://www.thejemreport.com/software/staroffice7.h tm
"Also, personally I would really like to see StarOffice 7 ports for FreeBSD and OS X, but Sun says that isn't likely to happen because of the extensive platform testing that goes into StarOffice."
Say what? The reason why Sun won't port Star Office to OS X is because of "extensive platform testing"? What is so extensive about the Mac platform? You could restrict it to G4 and G5 class Macs and that would be a lot less headaches than with the Windows platform with a myriad of devices to support. And how can there be more differences between Solaris and OS X than between Solaris and Windows? That is seriously a king size load of _______.
For supposedly a state-of-the-art motherboard design (all 3 BTX reference boards), why did Intel wuss out and keep legacy ports on these mobos?
I'm looking at the pic for the micro-BTX board (yes, the micro edition) and I still see two (2) PS/2 ports and one (1) parallel port. What a waste. I bet they'll chicken out and retain ATA and floppy drive ports on the mobo itself too.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1876&p =3
C'mon Intel, Apple did away with legacy ports back in 1997. This design won't hit the market until 2004. Quit slacking. You either want the mobo manufacturers and PC brands to move away from legacy or you don't. I personally would rather have the $3 or so that goes into putting these dopey ports on the machines go toward something else, like Bluetooth support or extra Firewire ports.
How about Star Office for OS X? Plenty of people are buying Macs today, and why should Microsoft get revenue from that platform as well? As it stands, Sun could make money in this endeavor because how many rank-and-file OS X users are actually going to stoop to using Open Office via the X11 Window? And officially, Open Office for OS X is being delayed until 2005! Apple surely cannot assign any of their programming staff to working on the OS X port because Microsoft would then cut out all Mac development in response. So all I can see are $$$'s if Sun would be so inclined to spend a little cash on porting Star Office over to OS X...
Ever since the movie 'Star Wars' came out and there was a distress call from Princess Leia," -- generated in thin air by the robot R2D2 -- "people all over the world have been wanting one of these."
:)
Speak for yourself, Agent Provocateur. You can keep the Star Wars holograms; I'd rather have the computer from "Time Cop" myself...
and please, nobody bring up the BSD TCP/IP stack in Windows. We all know about that already. I meant there might be much much more Unix/BSD/Linux code present in Windows than we know about...
Didn't you guys read the same press releases/statements about Sun's Java Desktop System (the platform formerly known as *Mad Hatter*)? Now I can't find the article, but what I read stated Sun would indemnify customers of Mad Hatter regarding Linux IP issues. So this is a total upside. Whereas Microsoft goes about stating Linux is an IP blackhole that could lead your company into lawsuitville, Sun says, "hey, don't worry, you can have your Linux and SCO can go screw." Considering Microsoft paid $15 million for their special advertising package (ie. IP licensing with SCO) on the benefits of M$ Windows vs. Linux, I think Sun is going to get much more bang for their buck since they only shelled out $300k to the beasts from Utah. Sun can even play up them indemnifying their own Linux offerings while IBM won't. Then again, wouldn't it be funny if Win2K and beyond really does have Unix coding in it and SCO actually caught them? Of course, that would mean SCO is a bunch of cheap hookers settling for $15 mil when even the bankrupt chumps at Be are receiving $25 million for their settlement...
Its not an admission of guilt on SCO's part for misleading their own shareholders and playing a massive game of BULLS**T with the open source community, not to mention the American legal system (please, nobody bring up the 9th Circuit Court!)...
What I found funny about Mr. Card's article was the following truism:
Here's a clue: Movie studios have, for decades, used "creative accounting" to make it so that even hit movies never manage to break even, thus depriving the creative people of their "percentage of profits."
Hollywood uses "creative accounting" to diminish revenue sharing with their creative talent in order to actually maximize their profits. Warner Bros. took a lot of flack over how they claimed "Batman" never was profitable, yet for some reason, they made a sequel. Or for example, Paramount claiming "Coming to America" never made a profit either when sued. Yet on the other hand, you have companies such as Enron and Worldcom who use "creative accounting" to inflate their profits. Wow, isn't that ironic?
I guess the moral of the story is, when you overstate profits, investors lose confidence and your company goes bankrupt; run a Hollywood movie studio, claim you never make a profit, and you stay in business forever.
My question is, is there really any benefit to owning a Linux PDA on the pure OS technical terms? Or is this for sheer geek factor? Take for example the PC market. Linux caters to people interested in 1. reliability, 2. cost, 3. anti-Microsofties, and 4. coders. And for a great number of people, Linux is for users who want to remain in the x86 shop and not pay what they perceive as the fortune it costs to go the Apple route. But now, in the PDA market, you have all the operating systems using the same common harware: they all pretty much run on Intel or TI chips based upon ARM designs. So when you have the Microsoft offering and its competitor Palm on the same platform, is there any practical reason to choose a Linux PDA? I'm interested to hear the reasoning, especially when it only shaves $10 off the price of the unit in terms of licensing...
Microsoft owns more of Apple than SCO owns of Trolltech.
How do you figure? Microsoft sold all of those non-voting rights shares a few years ago. And they were only worth $150 million at the time of the original purchase.
Guess you should stop reading the register and start reading something where the people writing the article doesnt pull the information out of their ass?
:)
You mean like the New York Times? Err...wait a second...
I'd also like to make a point that the Register claimed sources in the assembly plants in Taiwan where the PowerBooks are produced...Apple could be sitting on them ready to deploy when OS X Panther hits the streets. But then again, since Steve Jobs originally left Apple in the mid-80s over an inventory build-up misfire, I doubt he'd take a chance at repeating that scenario.
Okay...My turn:
.Mac "commercials" in OS X. Does it work better with iTunes and some of the other software? Yes. It isn't necessary. Its not like Microsoft Product Activation. Apple is not going to march down to your office and demand .Mac subscriptions.
First off, I agree with you on your #3 drawback. I don't like the single button mouse. But, as of today, if you can get over that, you now have the functional Bluetooth options for keyboards and mice; and they are implemented without using a brand specific USB dongle ala the Microsoft route. And I am assuming there is sufficient encryption involved so that text going to one machine does not end up on a different user's screen.
Now #2. Aside from iBook owners, who in their right mind is purchasing Macs with G3's? My parents have a 1ghz eMac and it is no slouch. It will run faster with more memory just like a PC. $50 can get you a decent PNY 512 meg chip and take a standard eMac with a Superdrive to 768 megs.
Now for your #6. I haven't had a problem with
You've also not addressed any of the benefits I mentioned regarding going over to Macs. And what's with the "eye candy" bashing? OS X is great! Are you telling me you would prefer a non-attractive woman over an extremely attractive woman if everything else is equal???
While I applaud the steps in the right direction regarding Bluetooth support, I'm a little disappointed over the lack of G5's in the new Powerbooks. Yes, I know, cooling issues. But after reading all the reports from *The Register* about them being in production, this is a let down. I guess this is a way for Apple to squeeze a little more life out of the G4 before introducing G5 PowerBooks. The Apple G4's for the PowerBook and iMac (1.25 Ghz) are now at the baseline clock frequency of the PPC970, although Apple started out at the higher 1.6 frequency for the PowerMac. It would be nice to begin seeing the G3 phased out of the iBooks, and fast.
I also know Belkin makes a USB Bluetooth adapter. I don't know the price, but considering how Belkin charges out the ass for everything else they make, it's probably not cheap. The Belkin USB/Bluetooth adapter has been hovering in around $39 at CompUSA; sometimes with rebates too. I've been eyeing it since my parents bought an eMac and its time for my mom to upgrade her phone with Cingular (*cough cough* hate that company!).
You haven't mentioned that AOL is the partner helping to bring iTunes to the PC... It hasn't come up in Beta release though...AOL is still trying to promote MusicNet which is probably still a remaining contractual issue. I hope AOL is smart enough to integrate iTunes through WinAmp since Apple will probably not want to promote the iTunes music player on the PC...
I just wanted to report that I ate lunch at the Chipotle location in downtown Sacramento yesterday. While waiting in line to pay for my meal, their computerized cash register crashed. Management decided to let everyone in line have their lunch for free in response. How does this relate to SCO? McDonalds uses SCO UnixWare products, and Chipotle is a wholly-owned subsidiary of McDonalds. Thanks again for your great coding skills, SCO!
I like Apple. In fact, if I win the lottery (or get a good IT job - same odds) any time soon, I've got my eye on one of the new dual G5s. However, I can't think of any compelling reason why I'd try to convince me boss to do the same thing companywide.
Hmmm...can I chime in?
1. Relatively few viruses.
2. Stable operating system built upon BSD from a commercial corporation.
3. Rarely, if ever crashes (OS X). IT staff do not have to continually run around and patch everything.
4. Parallel processing 64-bit hook in the operating system (found in the modified OS X Jaguar and more thorough in the upcoming Panther). The only thing holding it back is getting the machines out the door. There is no wait for the operating system to catch up unlike in the Windows world. This only applies if you are interested in 64 bits today.
5. The operating system and the hardware come from the same company. If there are any questions, you call Apple. You don't have to be caught up in the blame game of the OEM vs. Microsoft as to who should support the system compatibility with a particular piece of hardware (driver).
6. No product activation. The licenses are cheaper for multiple machines (vs. Microsoft unless you waive the "Linux matching price" deal with your MS rep). Relatively no chance for a BSA audit.
7. Easier to use for the average joe. It might be an advertising cliche, but it "simply works."
8. The boss can cut 1/3rd of the IT staff it takes to adminster the machines versus maintaining PCs.
9. No ridiculous IP issues.
10. This may be stupid for most, but your management staff can sync their Bluetooth equipped mobile phones with iCal. Where I work, the managers all receive PocketPCs but the majority of them do not know how to operate them which would be useful for maintaining their management calendars. However, they can operate their mobile phones.
How's that?
but it seems they have an IT department that is Like A Rock(TM)
Are you suggesting the Ford IT staff drive Chevy trucks? Blasphemer! In the old days, a Ford employee would be fired if they were seen driving a non-Ford vehicle, or rode in a friend's car that was not a Ford...