(at some level), they should be/are in some way based on God.
Not everyone shares the same "morality" and not everyone's morality is based on any "God", mine certainly isn't. Mine can't as I don't believe in any "God" or supreme diety. And yes I have my own sense of morality, Live and let Live. As long as one person isn't harming another they should be able to do what they want.
There is a gargantuan difference between asserting that the government has no right to take what is mine, and asserting that other people have no right to keep what was once in the distance past owned by my ancestors.
So then it's alright if the government takes the land you own when you die and give it someone else instead of you giving the land to your inheritors?
Would you say that algae farms that photosynthesize sunlight and produce hydrogen to burn to get energy is a more efficient energy path that soaking up the sunlight's energy directly with solar panels? I think not.
Ce depend, it depends. Though they are improving in efficiency solar PVs, photovoltaic, panels aren't really efficient. The best ones I've heard of are only about 22% efficient. They are good at the point of use, but if the place the energy derived is not local then an energy carrier such as hydrogen may be better than putting up transmission lines. And in some cases it is impractical forget inefficient to build landline carriers. For those who build homes away from any powerlines it's cheaper to use locally produced energy such as PV, wind generators, or hybrid systems than it is have powerlines strung out. Which is why more and more people are going Off The Grid. It cases like this PV or wind gennies make perfect sense.
Simply, you use the most appropiate tech for a given situation. Sometimes hydrogen is more appropriate and in other in other case it's pv that appropriate or another energy source is better.
You'll never catch ME going out and suing the government to get back land that my great grandparents were too stupid to not trade for muskets.
Would you feel the same if government killed your relatives then took the land they lived on? How about if your city hall condemned your land and gave it to someone else so they could build a multimillion dollar plant as in a case the USSC heard last year about a case in New Jersey where a city condemned some people's homes to give to a multinational corporation to build some offices. Those Justices ruled, dispite any constitutional authority, that cities can steal land from some and give it to others for no reason other than the profit motive. If individuals tried doing that they'd be called criminals, gangsters. or organized crime syndicates.
Buddy, if we could find some way to turn Roses into the most efficient fuel known to man, there would be people opposed to having rose-plantations near their house. It's called "NIMBY", and you'll find that a case of it exists for any project worth pursuing.
Just because NIMBYism exists doesn't mean mining for uranium isn't envornmentally distructive. And in some cases, such as the ones I cited regarding the Diné or Navajo and the aboriginals of Australia, it's their land that's being mined without their approval. Would you like it if someone took your land to mine for anything, not just uranium and then left the waste for you to clean up? If it didn't ruin your health. In some cases mining projects are approved dispite inadequate studies and planning such as the Palladin Resources Kayelekera Uranium Project in Malawi Africa.
Coal CAN be extracted from the earth in a less destructive manner. It can even be burnt in a relatively clean fashion with minimal emissions, if one is willing to build plants that are marginally more expensive.
Granted, nuclear beats coal on all of those counts
Have you ever seen what uranium mining does? Many of those who live where it is mined are opposed to the mining, such as the Diné or Navajo and those in Saskatchewan. Aboriginals in Australia have fighting mining since before it started, the Mirrar and Jabiluka have been fighting it since at least the 1970s.
Never heard of the Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountain range then have you? Or Black Mesa? Coal mining was extensive in both places and still is in Appalachia.
Might want to catch up. Its 2007 and your government now doesnt give a shit about privacy.;)
This is right and wrong. It's true the US admin cares nothing about privacy, but it isn't my government. If it were my government, one I supported, today Michael Badnarik would be occupying the White House. He was the Libertarian candidate in the 2004 campaign.
and the only time the average user would need to surf anonymous is when he/she knows he is doing something wrong. I mean, i'm not trying to start anything here, but rather understand WHY you would need to do this.
BS! Something does not need to be bad to a reason to remain anonymous. Politics and political speech are very good reasons to be anonymous. If someone can't remain anonymous then they can't enjoy free political speech.
Unfortunately, you don't have any rights to privacy in the US. This is a common misconception.
You're quite wrong I'm glad to say. As early as the early 1800s the US Supreme Court ruled anonymousity was an important part of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech. The ruling said that if a person could not remain anonymous then they could not enjoy freed political speech, that if they had to watch their words then they wouldn't speak out. Denying anonymousity is a powerful tool for authoritarian regimes.
Why do people do things anonymously that they wouldn't do if their name was stamped on it? I think the world would be a lot better place if everyone took responsibility for what they said and what they did.
I don't know about you but I don't want any government tracking me or monitoring what I say or where I go, online or offline. If a person is concerned about who's taking note of what they say then they won't exercise political speech freely.
Activation, WGA/WPA! You know, the spyware that phones home and won't run if you don't allow it to do so. I don't know about you but I believe in innocence before being proven guilty, however MS wants you to constantly prove your innocence.
Corporate versions that are volume licensed don't have this "feature"
I am an individual not a corporation.
The last price comparison I saw had the Mac as a better value than the PC it was compared to which was a Dell.
Read what I wrote. This is only true if you take into account all of the features of the Mac that nobody cares about, like the integrated webcam or Firewire. Most PCs offer far better expandability than Macs, something many Mac advocates often ignore. There are also glaring weaknesses in Mac desktop configurations, the most important being the incredibly poor graphics capabilities of most Macs.
I did read what I replied to, but again:
Macs remain overpriced. Mac zealots like to point out that Mac systems often have lots of features not widely available (as far as I'm aware, there is no hardware feature unique to any Mac system) on Windows desktops. This is largely because there is little demand for those features, like Firewire, Wifi on desktops, remote controls, etc. This is especially true in the business world.
I still stand by what I said regarding direct comparisons. And as far as demand, there may not be much of a demand now but that doesn't mean there won't be a demand in the future. For instance there was no demand to edit photos on a computer until after Photoshop created the market, the demand was for darkrooms, which I loved working in. There was no demand for USB but now there is, apply that to Firewire. And yes, there is a demand for it now, especially amoung photographers who shoot digitally. Wifi? Have you ever tried to setup a wired network, and run cabling? My sister runs her own business and she frequently works at home, especially at this tyme of year as she's a CPA working on taxes, and she now uses one long cable she runs whereever she feels like working on her laptop. That's not a good idea as she has a two year old running around the house. Admittedly though she uses a laptop. Just think how much better using wifi would be for her. Now with the remote control, do you ever use one watching tv? Or maybe two or three, one for the tv, on for the tape/dvd player, and one for the stereo? Doesn't Vista have something like it?
I agree with you though on desktop configurations. Apple needs a desktop Mac that fits between the iMac and the Mac Pro, something that is expandable.
but can you name one app for Windows which Macs don't have an equivalent app?
AutoCAD, which is the first app everyone mentions when this comes up.
There are CAD programs for Macs. Actually there's communities of CAD users running Macs such as Architosh. Mac Googling "CAD" I get 1,690,000 results. Quite simply there are CAD programs for Macs.
This always irritates me. Dell makes cheap commodity crap. There used to be company called Packard Bell that also made crap computers that always broke down, they were bought by NEC and they NEC stopped making desktops. If you're going to compare Apple to a PC ventor you should compare them to another BOUTIQUE vendor, like Alienware.
And who owns Alienware? Dell, that's who. As for whether Dell is good or bad, I've heard people say both. SOme say it's good whereas others say it's bad.
The main advantage of Apple systems is their asthetics, which is far and away the major argument I've heard for putting them in business.
For me the main advantage of Macs over Windows PCs is they last longer. I've bought 4 b
Which is why enterprise has enterprise class gateways. Enterprise doesn't need to worry about this, so if that is your main reason to switch you need a new reason.
I am not an enterprise, I AM an individual! Why should I have to buy a massive volumn license just to avoid having to Activate my OS and prevent it from phoning home?
It's not the virii or spyware that he was referring to. He was referring to trying to put a Mac on a Windows 2003 domain. It can't be done natively without destroying the security of the Windows domain. You either turn off all the security that MS has added due to complaints or you get a third party program that lets the Mac talk to the domain securely.
This problem rests entirely at MS's feet. Apple didn't create it MS did. Probably as another attempt to kill Apple.
When it comes to the operating system, yes. But when it comes to hardware and third party software, no. Say whatever you want, the choice of software is still way larger for Windows than for the Mac. The only software that's not available on Windows but on a Mac comes from Apple. And third party software producers only half-heartedly support the Mac: Just look at Adobe, there's still no Intel-version of Photoshop.
Wrong, there are third party software companies out there that writes only, or mainly, Mac versions. As for Adobe, while they are taking too long to release universal or Mactel binaries of Photoshop, they are releasing one when they release CS3, they have had one out for beta testing. They said that when Apple released Intel based based Macs. And Photoshop was at one tyme only for Macs.
And as for choices of apps, Macs offer more choices than anyother OS, Macs run Mac software as well as Windows and X11 software. However neither *nix nor Windows run any OSX software.
Your position on applications seems practical enough but consider that it limits you in terms of variety (Windows apps) and IT architecture (X11) without opening up one to a lot of supportability issues.
Actually if you want the maximum number of apps to run then you want a Mac. Macs can run Mac, Windows, and X11 apps whereas Unix can run Unix apps whether X11 or not and some Windows apps and Windows runs some Windows and some X11 apps but neither one runs Mac apps. Notice I said Windows runs some Windows apps, however some apps require specific versions of Windows. I've got an NT 4 box and forgetting "modern" or newer software, when I got it I was only able to install one commercial app on it, Borland C++ Powerbuilder. I couldn't even get Netscape to install on it. The PC I'm using now runs Win ME as it's OS and while I could install Win 2000 on it, it would be real slow and I have doubts I could install much current software on it.
As for hardware, if the Mac hardware seems great, go for it. If not, why pay your IT people to remove wireless cards you paid for when you could just as easily buy a computer without one?
Now this does bring up some shortcomings Apple has with it's hardware however having to remove a wireless card isn't one of them. Looking at Apple's online store right now I see Apple offers 4 wireless options, at least for the Mac Pro:
None
Bluetooth 2.0+EDR Module
Airport Extreme card (wifi)
both Bluetooth 2.0+EDR Module and Airport Extreme card (wifi)
The problem Apple has with it's hardware range is that it does not offer a computer between the iMac and the Mac Pro, one that is expandable just not as "beefy" or powerful as the Mac Pro. They only offer an all-in-one that's isn't really upgradable and the Pro at 2 1/2 tymes the cost. I'd like to see a Mac in a desktop form factor, not a tower, at a price between the iMac and the Pro. Also I see a lot of people would like a Macbook that's smaller than 13". Myself, a few months ago I saw a Windows laptop that had a 21" screen and found myself wishing Apple would release a Macbook Pro that big. I'd just need to get an extra beefy backpack for it, to carry it and my camera equipment.
* Although you can, I understand, run Windows apps on a Mac, the experience is not exactly pleasent.
I want to run apps that get the job done, not specifically Windows apps.
* I have heard many complaints about the X11 architecture on a Mac. No X11, none of the flexibility
Same thing, I want to run apps that get the job done not X11 apps.
* Lack of choice of hardware.
True, however unlike MS or the various Linux distros, Apple is as much a hardware as a software business. At one tyme Apple did license Mac clones but they found out they lost more than they gained. Not only that but because Apple controls the hardware OSX runs on they can make sure it just works. Also if Apple were to release OSX for commodity hardware they'd run smack dab into and would be in direct competition with MS.
Hmm.. I think it's actually the other way around: While the "all-MS shop" allows you to change the (hardware-)horse whenever you want, once you're using the "mixed environment OS X", you're bound to one supplier (Apple) once and forever.
Now I'll ask again, "And Windows users aren't bound to MS?" Lockin is lockin no matter who's doing the locking.
Very few people are reliant on MS for their hardware needs.
But they are reliant on MS for thier software/OS needs, which was my point to begin with, maybe I should of said it so it was clearer. Whether it's hardware or software lockin is lockin. Apple locks users with hardware and MS locks users with software.
Frankly, I'm still waiting for that compelling reason to switch to Macs
Activation, WGA/WPA! You know, the spyware that phones home and won't run if you don't allow it to do so. I don't know about you but I believe in innocence before being proven guilty, however MS wants you to constantly prove your innocence. For the past 10+ years I've used Windows PCs 99% of the tyme, yet because of MS's requirements for Activation and WPA/WGA I decided to switch. A few months ago for a desktop I got a PC with Linux preinstalled and for a laptop I plan on getting a Macbook Pro.
Patently false. There is a dearth of software on Macs, and what their is tends to run slower on Macs. In fact, the vast majority of business apps aren't available for the Mac.
I'll grant you the bit about being slower, because until software companies release universal binaries translation will slow running the software, but can you name one app for Windows which Macs don't have an equivalent app?
3) Macs give you better "bang-for-the-buck" in terms of hardware.
Macs remain overpriced.
The last price comparison I saw had the Mac as a better value than the PC it was compared to which was a Dell.
The main advantage of Apple systems is their asthetics,
As I see it the main advantage Macs have over Windows PCs is stability. I use Windows PCs now, which crash and or freeze on me too often and I have to reboot at least once a day, if not three or four tymes. I have a computer to use not to be rebooting. And don't say that is no longer true. The very first tyme I used XP, it was on a brand new Dell, it never finished booting up. The only thing I could do was hold in the power button to shut it down then reboot. Actually since Win 3.x the only version of Windows I did not have trouble with the OS was NT 4.
Side note: iMacs are an incredible ripoff, especially in the business world. Monitors generally outlast desktops, often by nearly double, and iMacs force you to ugrade both. Basically the iMac is a way for Apple to gouge (more) on monitors by "integrating" them and then jacking up the price.
On this I totally agree with you!!! And the Mac Mini isn't any better. As far as I'm concerned they are both a waste of resources. Apple needs something expandable/upgradable between the iMac and the Mac Pro too.
Mac's have actually less flexibility than Windows despite the *nix base. You can only buy the systems from Apple, and the really nice aspects of an Athena-style deployment are not possible. Add to that the more limited choices of hardware, and you have some real concerns.
This may be true where you are but I know of more stores that sell Macs that aren't Apple stores than are Apple stores. There are two Apple stores I know of but off the top of my head I know of 4 non Apple stores that sale Macs, one of then is maybe a 10 minute walk from where I am now.
However, they would not be my first or even second choice for a corporate general-purpose desktop.
The PCs are old, battered, and being run in the "back office" for routine business tasks like HR and accounting.
Psss, Macs run both accounting and HR software.
It is usually security that ends up pushing the Macs out the door.
Macs and OSX are less secure than Windows? HAHA Though there might be some I haven't heard of any Mac virii out in the wild however there are hundreds if not thousands of Window virii on the loose. Spyware? Same, well XP and Vista is spyware. Spyware that constantly phones home and refuses to run if it can't.
once you're using the "mixed environment OS X", you're bound to one supplier (Apple) once and forever.
And Windows users aren't bound to MS?
if you find out that Apple's support isn't as good as you were expecting, you'll face the high cost of changing back your IT to the Windows world.
This doesn't apply to Windows and MS also?
If I had a business, I'd prefer to have options and I'd stick with Microsoft (while as a private user, I'm using a Mac and Linux).
If I had a business, and I'm hoping to start one this year, I'd want ease of use and stability, which I get from Macs but not from Windows. As well as functionality, will it do what I want it for, and Macs do. And with Macs I don't have someone, MS, spying on what I do or demanding I Activate my OS nor do I have my OS phoning phone. For almost ten years I've used mostly Windows, 95%+ of the tyme, but because MS wants users to prove their innocence instead of MS proving thier guilt MS is driving me away from Windows. A few months ago I bought a new PC tower with Linux preinstalled for my desktop and when I get a new laptop I plan on getting a Macbook Pro.
Slashdot Mirror
(at some level), they should be/are in some way based on God.
Not everyone shares the same "morality" and not everyone's morality is based on any "God", mine certainly isn't. Mine can't as I don't believe in any "God" or supreme diety. And yes I have my own sense of morality, Live and let Live. As long as one person isn't harming another they should be able to do what they want.
FalconThere is a gargantuan difference between asserting that the government has no right to take what is mine, and asserting that other people have no right to keep what was once in the distance past owned by my ancestors.
So then it's alright if the government takes the land you own when you die and give it someone else instead of you giving the land to your inheritors?
FalconWe are being asked to overturn the very edifice of free-market capitalism
There is no free market or free trade capitalism.
FalconWould you say that algae farms that photosynthesize sunlight and produce hydrogen to burn to get energy is a more efficient energy path that soaking up the sunlight's energy directly with solar panels? I think not.
Ce depend, it depends. Though they are improving in efficiency solar PVs, photovoltaic, panels aren't really efficient. The best ones I've heard of are only about 22% efficient. They are good at the point of use, but if the place the energy derived is not local then an energy carrier such as hydrogen may be better than putting up transmission lines. And in some cases it is impractical forget inefficient to build landline carriers. For those who build homes away from any powerlines it's cheaper to use locally produced energy such as PV, wind generators, or hybrid systems than it is have powerlines strung out. Which is why more and more people are going Off The Grid. It cases like this PV or wind gennies make perfect sense.
Simply, you use the most appropiate tech for a given situation. Sometimes hydrogen is more appropriate and in other in other case it's pv that appropriate or another energy source is better.
FalconYou'll never catch ME going out and suing the government to get back land that my great grandparents were too stupid to not trade for muskets.
Would you feel the same if government killed your relatives then took the land they lived on? How about if your city hall condemned your land and gave it to someone else so they could build a multimillion dollar plant as in a case the USSC heard last year about a case in New Jersey where a city condemned some people's homes to give to a multinational corporation to build some offices. Those Justices ruled, dispite any constitutional authority, that cities can steal land from some and give it to others for no reason other than the profit motive. If individuals tried doing that they'd be called criminals, gangsters. or organized crime syndicates.
FalconBuddy, if we could find some way to turn Roses into the most efficient fuel known to man, there would be people opposed to having rose-plantations near their house. It's called "NIMBY", and you'll find that a case of it exists for any project worth pursuing.
Just because NIMBYism exists doesn't mean mining for uranium isn't envornmentally distructive. And in some cases, such as the ones I cited regarding the Diné or Navajo and the aboriginals of Australia, it's their land that's being mined without their approval. Would you like it if someone took your land to mine for anything, not just uranium and then left the waste for you to clean up? If it didn't ruin your health. In some cases mining projects are approved dispite inadequate studies and planning such as the Palladin Resources Kayelekera Uranium Project in Malawi Africa.
FalconCoal CAN be extracted from the earth in a less destructive manner. It can even be burnt in a relatively clean fashion with minimal emissions, if one is willing to build plants that are marginally more expensive.
Granted, nuclear beats coal on all of those counts
Have you ever seen what uranium mining does? Many of those who live where it is mined are opposed to the mining, such as the Diné or Navajo and those in Saskatchewan. Aboriginals in Australia have fighting mining since before it started, the Mirrar and Jabiluka have been fighting it since at least the 1970s.
FalconSo we'll probably burn coal to make Hydrogen that we can than use to power our cars.
Actually reforming natural gas makes a better source of hydrogen than coal. The best way to produce hydrogen though may be using algae to produce it.
FalconCoal is not usually associated with mountains.
Never heard of the Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountain range then have you? Or Black Mesa? Coal mining was extensive in both places and still is in Appalachia.
FalconIf you want to stop vista from phoning home you can always get a cheap, consumer class firewall.
And how long will it be before Vista stops working if it's not allowed to phone home?
FalconMight want to catch up. Its 2007 and your government now doesnt give a shit about privacy. ;)
This is right and wrong. It's true the US admin cares nothing about privacy, but it isn't my government. If it were my government, one I supported, today Michael Badnarik would be occupying the White House. He was the Libertarian candidate in the 2004 campaign.
Falconand the only time the average user would need to surf anonymous is when he/she knows he is doing something wrong. I mean, i'm not trying to start anything here, but rather understand WHY you would need to do this.
BS! Something does not need to be bad to a reason to remain anonymous. Politics and political speech are very good reasons to be anonymous. If someone can't remain anonymous then they can't enjoy free political speech.
Falcon
Unfortunately, you don't have any rights to privacy in the US. This is a common misconception.
You're quite wrong I'm glad to say. As early as the early 1800s the US Supreme Court ruled anonymousity was an important part of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech. The ruling said that if a person could not remain anonymous then they could not enjoy freed political speech, that if they had to watch their words then they wouldn't speak out. Denying anonymousity is a powerful tool for authoritarian regimes.
FalconWhy do people do things anonymously that they wouldn't do if their name was stamped on it? I think the world would be a lot better place if everyone took responsibility for what they said and what they did.
I don't know about you but I don't want any government tracking me or monitoring what I say or where I go, online or offline. If a person is concerned about who's taking note of what they say then they won't exercise political speech freely.
FalconActivation, WGA/WPA! You know, the spyware that phones home and won't run if you don't allow it to do so. I don't know about you but I believe in innocence before being proven guilty, however MS wants you to constantly prove your innocence.
Corporate versions that are volume licensed don't have this "feature"
I am an individual not a corporation.
The last price comparison I saw had the Mac as a better value than the PC it was compared to which was a Dell.
Read what I wrote. This is only true if you take into account all of the features of the Mac that nobody cares about, like the integrated webcam or Firewire. Most PCs offer far better expandability than Macs, something many Mac advocates often ignore. There are also glaring weaknesses in Mac desktop configurations, the most important being the incredibly poor graphics capabilities of most Macs.
I did read what I replied to, but again:
Macs remain overpriced. Mac zealots like to point out that Mac systems often have lots of features not widely available (as far as I'm aware, there is no hardware feature unique to any Mac system) on Windows desktops. This is largely because there is little demand for those features, like Firewire, Wifi on desktops, remote controls, etc. This is especially true in the business world.
I still stand by what I said regarding direct comparisons. And as far as demand, there may not be much of a demand now but that doesn't mean there won't be a demand in the future. For instance there was no demand to edit photos on a computer until after Photoshop created the market, the demand was for darkrooms, which I loved working in. There was no demand for USB but now there is, apply that to Firewire. And yes, there is a demand for it now, especially amoung photographers who shoot digitally. Wifi? Have you ever tried to setup a wired network, and run cabling? My sister runs her own business and she frequently works at home, especially at this tyme of year as she's a CPA working on taxes, and she now uses one long cable she runs whereever she feels like working on her laptop. That's not a good idea as she has a two year old running around the house. Admittedly though she uses a laptop. Just think how much better using wifi would be for her. Now with the remote control, do you ever use one watching tv? Or maybe two or three, one for the tv, on for the tape/dvd player, and one for the stereo? Doesn't Vista have something like it?
I agree with you though on desktop configurations. Apple needs a desktop Mac that fits between the iMac and the Mac Pro, something that is expandable.
but can you name one app for Windows which Macs don't have an equivalent app?
AutoCAD, which is the first app everyone mentions when this comes up.
There are CAD programs for Macs. Actually there's communities of CAD users running Macs such as Architosh. Mac Googling "CAD" I get 1,690,000 results. Quite simply there are CAD programs for Macs.
This always irritates me. Dell makes cheap commodity crap. There used to be company called Packard Bell that also made crap computers that always broke down, they were bought by NEC and they NEC stopped making desktops. If you're going to compare Apple to a PC ventor you should compare them to another BOUTIQUE vendor, like Alienware.
And who owns Alienware? Dell, that's who. As for whether Dell is good or bad, I've heard people say both. SOme say it's good whereas others say it's bad.
The main advantage of Apple systems is their asthetics, which is far and away the major argument I've heard for putting them in business.
For me the main advantage of Macs over Windows PCs is they last longer. I've bought 4 b
Which is why enterprise has enterprise class gateways. Enterprise doesn't need to worry about this, so if that is your main reason to switch you need a new reason.
I am not an enterprise, I AM an individual! Why should I have to buy a massive volumn license just to avoid having to Activate my OS and prevent it from phoning home?
FalconIt's not the virii or spyware that he was referring to. He was referring to trying to put a Mac on a Windows 2003 domain. It can't be done natively without destroying the security of the Windows domain. You either turn off all the security that MS has added due to complaints or you get a third party program that lets the Mac talk to the domain securely.
This problem rests entirely at MS's feet. Apple didn't create it MS did. Probably as another attempt to kill Apple.
FalconWhen it comes to the operating system, yes. But when it comes to hardware and third party software, no. Say whatever you want, the choice of software is still way larger for Windows than for the Mac. The only software that's not available on Windows but on a Mac comes from Apple. And third party software producers only half-heartedly support the Mac: Just look at Adobe, there's still no Intel-version of Photoshop.
Wrong, there are third party software companies out there that writes only, or mainly, Mac versions. As for Adobe, while they are taking too long to release universal or Mactel binaries of Photoshop, they are releasing one when they release CS3, they have had one out for beta testing. They said that when Apple released Intel based based Macs. And Photoshop was at one tyme only for Macs.
And as for choices of apps, Macs offer more choices than anyother OS, Macs run Mac software as well as Windows and X11 software. However neither *nix nor Windows run any OSX software.
FalconYour position on applications seems practical enough but consider that it limits you in terms of variety (Windows apps) and IT architecture (X11) without opening up one to a lot of supportability issues.
Actually if you want the maximum number of apps to run then you want a Mac. Macs can run Mac, Windows, and X11 apps whereas Unix can run Unix apps whether X11 or not and some Windows apps and Windows runs some Windows and some X11 apps but neither one runs Mac apps. Notice I said Windows runs some Windows apps, however some apps require specific versions of Windows. I've got an NT 4 box and forgetting "modern" or newer software, when I got it I was only able to install one commercial app on it, Borland C++ Powerbuilder. I couldn't even get Netscape to install on it. The PC I'm using now runs Win ME as it's OS and while I could install Win 2000 on it, it would be real slow and I have doubts I could install much current software on it.
As for hardware, if the Mac hardware seems great, go for it. If not, why pay your IT people to remove wireless cards you paid for when you could just as easily buy a computer without one?
Now this does bring up some shortcomings Apple has with it's hardware however having to remove a wireless card isn't one of them. Looking at Apple's online store right now I see Apple offers 4 wireless options, at least for the Mac Pro:
The problem Apple has with it's hardware range is that it does not offer a computer between the iMac and the Mac Pro, one that is expandable just not as "beefy" or powerful as the Mac Pro. They only offer an all-in-one that's isn't really upgradable and the Pro at 2 1/2 tymes the cost. I'd like to see a Mac in a desktop form factor, not a tower, at a price between the iMac and the Pro. Also I see a lot of people would like a Macbook that's smaller than 13". Myself, a few months ago I saw a Windows laptop that had a 21" screen and found myself wishing Apple would release a Macbook Pro that big. I'd just need to get an extra beefy backpack for it, to carry it and my camera equipment.
Falcon* Although you can, I understand, run Windows apps on a Mac, the experience is not exactly pleasent.
I want to run apps that get the job done, not specifically Windows apps.
* I have heard many complaints about the X11 architecture on a Mac. No X11, none of the flexibility
Same thing, I want to run apps that get the job done not X11 apps.
* Lack of choice of hardware.
True, however unlike MS or the various Linux distros, Apple is as much a hardware as a software business. At one tyme Apple did license Mac clones but they found out they lost more than they gained. Not only that but because Apple controls the hardware OSX runs on they can make sure it just works. Also if Apple were to release OSX for commodity hardware they'd run smack dab into and would be in direct competition with MS.
Falconpreceding line
Oka, I'll include the lines before it:
Hmm.. I think it's actually the other way around: While the "all-MS shop" allows you to change the (hardware-)horse whenever you want, once you're using the "mixed environment OS X", you're bound to one supplier (Apple) once and forever.
Now I'll ask again, "And Windows users aren't bound to MS?" Lockin is lockin no matter who's doing the locking.
Very few people are reliant on MS for their hardware needs.
But they are reliant on MS for thier software/OS needs, which was my point to begin with, maybe I should of said it so it was clearer. Whether it's hardware or software lockin is lockin. Apple locks users with hardware and MS locks users with software.
FalconFrankly, I'm still waiting for that compelling reason to switch to Macs
Activation, WGA/WPA! You know, the spyware that phones home and won't run if you don't allow it to do so. I don't know about you but I believe in innocence before being proven guilty, however MS wants you to constantly prove your innocence. For the past 10+ years I've used Windows PCs 99% of the tyme, yet because of MS's requirements for Activation and WPA/WGA I decided to switch. A few months ago for a desktop I got a PC with Linux preinstalled and for a laptop I plan on getting a Macbook Pro.
Patently false. There is a dearth of software on Macs, and what their is tends to run slower on Macs. In fact, the vast majority of business apps aren't available for the Mac.
I'll grant you the bit about being slower, because until software companies release universal binaries translation will slow running the software, but can you name one app for Windows which Macs don't have an equivalent app?
3) Macs give you better "bang-for-the-buck" in terms of hardware.
Macs remain overpriced.
The last price comparison I saw had the Mac as a better value than the PC it was compared to which was a Dell.
The main advantage of Apple systems is their asthetics,
As I see it the main advantage Macs have over Windows PCs is stability. I use Windows PCs now, which crash and or freeze on me too often and I have to reboot at least once a day, if not three or four tymes. I have a computer to use not to be rebooting. And don't say that is no longer true. The very first tyme I used XP, it was on a brand new Dell, it never finished booting up. The only thing I could do was hold in the power button to shut it down then reboot. Actually since Win 3.x the only version of Windows I did not have trouble with the OS was NT 4.
Side note: iMacs are an incredible ripoff, especially in the business world. Monitors generally outlast desktops, often by nearly double, and iMacs force you to ugrade both. Basically the iMac is a way for Apple to gouge (more) on monitors by "integrating" them and then jacking up the price.
On this I totally agree with you!!! And the Mac Mini isn't any better. As far as I'm concerned they are both a waste of resources. Apple needs something expandable/upgradable between the iMac and the Mac Pro too.
FalconMac's have actually less flexibility than Windows despite the *nix base. You can only buy the systems from Apple, and the really nice aspects of an Athena-style deployment are not possible. Add to that the more limited choices of hardware, and you have some real concerns.
This may be true where you are but I know of more stores that sell Macs that aren't Apple stores than are Apple stores. There are two Apple stores I know of but off the top of my head I know of 4 non Apple stores that sale Macs, one of then is maybe a 10 minute walk from where I am now.
However, they would not be my first or even second choice for a corporate general-purpose desktop.
Can you name one reason why?
FalconThe PCs are old, battered, and being run in the "back office" for routine business tasks like HR and accounting.
Psss, Macs run both accounting and HR software.
It is usually security that ends up pushing the Macs out the door.
Macs and OSX are less secure than Windows? HAHA Though there might be some I haven't heard of any Mac virii out in the wild however there are hundreds if not thousands of Window virii on the loose. Spyware? Same, well XP and Vista is spyware. Spyware that constantly phones home and refuses to run if it can't.
Falcononce you're using the "mixed environment OS X", you're bound to one supplier (Apple) once and forever.
And Windows users aren't bound to MS?
if you find out that Apple's support isn't as good as you were expecting, you'll face the high cost of changing back your IT to the Windows world.
This doesn't apply to Windows and MS also?
If I had a business, I'd prefer to have options and I'd stick with Microsoft (while as a private user, I'm using a Mac and Linux).
If I had a business, and I'm hoping to start one this year, I'd want ease of use and stability, which I get from Macs but not from Windows. As well as functionality, will it do what I want it for, and Macs do. And with Macs I don't have someone, MS, spying on what I do or demanding I Activate my OS nor do I have my OS phoning phone. For almost ten years I've used mostly Windows, 95%+ of the tyme, but because MS wants users to prove their innocence instead of MS proving thier guilt MS is driving me away from Windows. A few months ago I bought a new PC tower with Linux preinstalled for my desktop and when I get a new laptop I plan on getting a Macbook Pro.
Falcon