I used to work at a big defense company (it doesn't matter which one, they are all the same) that was constantly striving for CMM level 3.
I knew one nice lady (a rarity in both respects) whose entire job consisted of going from meeting to meeting carrying a stack of paper at least a foot high. And this was a project that was about 1000 times smaller than the shuttle project.
This is too bad. I bought RealPC when OS X came out. It seems that VPC, even the classic version, initially wouldn't work on OS X. (One would think that Connectix had OS X in beta for a long time. Why couldn't they get it running in that time? The same is true for HP, but only much worse - another story)
RealPC worked OK in classic mode under X. It was a little buggy, but quite fast.
VPC is now X-native and I am relatively happy with version 5. I will probably have to upgrade when it breaks on 10.3.
In any event, to answer those who ask, VPC (and even RealPC) are better PCs than PCs.
Slow? Yes, but I can save states and come back to them.
I also have 4 OS-versions in various stages of hibernation.
I can back and restore entire disks using drag and drop.
I can run any exe in the world, including viruses, and just "undo" any disk changes.
You would have a hard time finding a stronger Mac zealot than myself. That having been said, I hate Applescript.
I only use it because I need to use some Classic apps that don't know bash is running.
I have one script that only runs from within Script Editor. It refused to work when saved as an Application.
And, of course, this is a new development. It used to work as an application, but never on the first try. I wized up an put an exception handler in to display a pretty message that "Applescript is acting up today. You have to run your script again."
I guess the new configuration is better. It works from ScriptEditor every time now.
But at least the book review works. I do need such a book and will be buying it.
I have never understood why, but in 1987, there were far, far fewer Mac users than today. But there were Mac books and magazines everywhere. Now, people are surprised when a Mac book is published. "The user base is too small." It was a helluva lot smaller 15 years ago.
The same operation would take 2 minutes. That means you haven't tried it have you? Acrobat 6 installed just fine on my 14" iBook, and did so in way less than 6 minutes. The PC locked up during the install of Acrobat 6.
(It is a moot point though, Acrobat 6 is awful. I went back to 5.1)
A 486/66 is faster than a G5 huh? Even the PC bigots wouldn't believe that one.
My biggest pet peeve with these benchmarks is that they only test one particular operation. How about testing how long it takes the start menu to appear on a 2Ghz PC? How about how long it takes to edit a file in notepad when the only part of the window it displays is the title bar background? How about testing how long it takes to receive an e-mail when an entire University's IT system has been shutdown due to SoBig?
Just what kind of "meaningful information" does a GPF provide?
This one I really don't get. This is standard '80s Mac technology and is actually more difficult to do in X.
Actually, the correct term is "Ethernet." You install the software on a shared drive and then use it. But, of course, it doesn't require 20 different management utiltites - so I guess Win98 wins this one.
I will admit, repair for repair, PCs are always cheaper. But that is purely a supply and demand issue.
So, if you use Macs, you don't need support staff. But if you have a support staff, there is no need for Macs. I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew one nice lady (a rarity in both respects) whose entire job consisted of going from meeting to meeting carrying a stack of paper at least a foot high. And this was a project that was about 1000 times smaller than the shuttle project.
RealPC worked OK in classic mode under X. It was a little buggy, but quite fast.
VPC is now X-native and I am relatively happy with version 5. I will probably have to upgrade when it breaks on 10.3.
In any event, to answer those who ask, VPC (and even RealPC) are better PCs than PCs.
I only use it because I need to use some Classic apps that don't know bash is running.
I have one script that only runs from within Script Editor. It refused to work when saved as an Application.
And, of course, this is a new development. It used to work as an application, but never on the first try. I wized up an put an exception handler in to display a pretty message that "Applescript is acting up today. You have to run your script again."
I guess the new configuration is better. It works from ScriptEditor every time now.
But at least the book review works. I do need such a book and will be buying it.
I have never understood why, but in 1987, there were far, far fewer Mac users than today. But there were Mac books and magazines everywhere. Now, people are surprised when a Mac book is published. "The user base is too small." It was a helluva lot smaller 15 years ago.
(It is a moot point though, Acrobat 6 is awful. I went back to 5.1)
A 486/66 is faster than a G5 huh? Even the PC bigots wouldn't believe that one.
My biggest pet peeve with these benchmarks is that they only test one particular operation. How about testing how long it takes the start menu to appear on a 2Ghz PC? How about how long it takes to edit a file in notepad when the only part of the window it displays is the title bar background? How about testing how long it takes to receive an e-mail when an entire University's IT system has been shutdown due to SoBig?
It sounds like someone knows MIT or at least has taken a stroll along the Charles river.
So, if you use Macs, you don't need support staff. But if you have a support staff, there is no need for Macs. I think you've hit the nail on the head.