well every time I see it come up it starts with "I am used to photoshop but because of XYZ I cant get the newest version, the gimp seems ok but..."
Once in a while I'll hear or see that however a more common remark as to why people switched to GIMP from PS is because they learned GIMP does everything they need. For them I say bravo, they're not locked into a single vendor and they're saving money. However GIMP isn't suitable for every graphic artist or professional photographer. And for them I would suggest they try CinePaint and or Krita before buying or upgrading PS CS. They're both deep paint editors.
I haven't followed my own advice yet, but then again I haven't used Linux much and I haven't spent the money on PS CS either. Though I did for Photoshop Elements (PE). When PE is no longer adequate and CinePaint and Krita don't work either, that is when I have to get PS CS, I'll buy an older upgradable version on eBay, or somewhere else, first then upgrade. But I'm hoping CinePaint and or Krita is be fine.
You might want to check your prices. Apple's OS X upgrades are historically $129. Windows upgrades are more like $100. And besides, the Windows upgrades are optional, as you get security patches for Windows 7 all the way to 2020 for completely free. You're not going to get that with Apple, you're going to be forced to upgrade the OS to keep getting the updates, until the day arrives that you find out that Apple's latest OS isn't supported on your computer and you have to replace it which is practically guaranteed before it's 8 years old..
Another miss informed poster, or troll. My last OS X upgrade cost me $29, and I didn't pay for the previous 2 OS upgrades. OS X updates are free too, heck Apple still has Mac OS 9 updates for free. Well for the cost of network access, and I can go into an Apple store, go online, and download those updates for free.
Any Windows computer you buy today includes free updates to the operating system for almost 8 years (and that's assuming you never upgrade from Windows 7). Any Mac computer you buy today will be completely unsupported by Apple in 8 years and will have to be replaced.
Besides any computer only needs to be replaced when it no longer does what the user wants, 10 year old computers can still be used. I volunteer for Free Geek rebuilding used PCs and we rebuild and sell PCs with 2 GHz Pentium 4 which were released in 2000, more than 11 years ago. Though slow compared to newer PCs they still run Ubuntu 10.04, Lucid Lynx, fine. You're not going to be editing HD videos or 100+ MB photos but you can surf the web and create documents with Open Office/Libre Office.
> I haven't found anything I could do in Windows or in Ubuntu I can't do on a Mac.
Reliable file sharing.
I quite easily share files between OSX and Ubuntu. And though I haven't installed them yet I'm getting ready to install both Ubuntu 10.04 and 11.10 to triple-boot my Mac. When I do I'll be using the same partition for users in all OSes.
Media playback. You end up falling back to "Linux tools" in order to get a reasonably complete solution.
Apple's Final Cut Pro, which is the video industry's leading video editing software burns Blu-Ray disks. What's that? A video of of someone burning a Blu-Ray movie with Final Cut Pro 7? However you can still run Linux tools on a Mac. OSX includes X11. With Fink you can install software that uses the Debian tools dpkg and apt-get. Or Mac Ports to install.rpm packages. Then there's Homebrew for those who Mac Port drives to drinking.
Keeping your crayon inside the lines (like office software) is not the problem.
AH, you're right. The problem is people not knowing the truth, or not admitting to it. Fact is is a Mac can run Linux, OSX, and Windows software. Which is within what I said above, "I haven't found anything I could do in Windows or in Ubuntu I can't do on a Mac."
Now tell me what you can do with MS Windows and or Linux you can't do with a Mac.
How about virtualization? How about terminal services? How about configuration management?
Virtualizing? Let's see. There'e VirtualBox, VMWare's Fusion 4, and Parallels. I don't have it setup right now but I'm going to try to use VirtualBox so I can run my dualboot Ubuntu installation in a virtual machine while running OSX. If that does not work then I'll try Fusion 4. OSX has terminal. Being based on FreeBSD many of the commands are the same as in Linux. Look at that, there's even Open Source configuration management software that runs on OSX.
I think Apple's of the mindset that as long as they're expecting developers to build on Macs for iPhone and iPad, as well as use Lightroom/FinalCut/etc. in production environments, there's a need for the Mac Pro.
The small and medium business 2.40 GHz quad core model is the same. And for large enterprises Dell doesn't show a 17 inch laptop with a quad core i7, it shows 2 dual core 2.50 GHz i5s.
Shall I go on and post other OEM configurations and prices?
The iMac is a desktop with zero upgrade ability.
The same applies to all other all-in-ones whether Apple, Dell, HP, or any other. The same with the Mac Mini.
One thing I leared about apple computers: NEVER, EVER 'configure' your systems with apple hardware. The prices goes through the roof.
I actually agree. I've even had an Apple employee tell me that if I want more memory or a bigger disk, to buy them from someone else. Before I ordered my MBP I asked about adding more memory than the base amount and he said if I wanted more then I should get the memory from another store.
Macs are hundreds more expensive than their PC counterparts at best.
Again, look above. Mac compare pretty fairly with Windows OEM PCs, more expensive than some but cheaper than others.
I apologize for being unclear, but I meant building using Dell or HP's online shopping tools. I'd give specific examples, but I've been baited into waisting my time making direct comparisons too many times before.
Funny, or not. I've done exactly that, posted the specs for a Mac and various OEM PCs along with the price, a number of tyme. But I don't hear back from those I'm replying too.
If people want to buy expensive Apple hardware because of whatever benefits they see in doing so, more power to them, but I get irked when they try to pretend that they aren't paying out the ear for hardware so they can get access for the vendor-locked operating system that comes along with it.
And I get irked when people say they know what I think or do, as if they have ESP and can read my mind remotely see me. It also irks me when people say say brand X is expensive compared to other brands when in fact they mean Brand X compared to a homebrew computer.
You are either lying or incapable of building computers that actually have similar specs.
I am neither lying nor incapable of building PCs. The only thing I spend more tyme doing than building PCs is on the net. I volunteer for Free Geek. We take in donated old used computers and electronic equipment, which would otherwise end up as e-waste, and dismantle it. We tear-down computers into their component parts, leaving only the motherboard, DVD or CD drive, and RAM in the case. If it POSTs then we connect a network cable running from our PXE server to see if it will boot off the server. This lets us know if the mobo is good. We then remove the RAM and optical drive and test them as well as the HDDs, network cards, and graphics cards. With good parts we rebuild PCs and install Ubuntu Linux 10.04, Lucid Lynx, and test the PC.
I spent most of my day there today testing optical drives. I have a PC with IDE/PATA and SATA and I'll take the drive I am testing and hook it up. I then boot off the PXE server and try to burn either the 10.04 CD or DVD ISO stored on the LAN onto a blank disk. If successful I'll reboot the PC and run a live session off of the disk I just burned to make sure it is good. If so then I put the PC in our store for sell, and we support those PCs for 1 year.
Is it really dumbing it down or spending just a few seconds thinking what other users want to do, and improving the interface to do it?
That's why GIMPShop exists? Because GIMP has a better interface that Photoshop?
Your product might be the best and most powerful in the whole world, but if no one can use it, what good does it do?
Thousands if not hundreds of thousands if not millions of people use Photoshop. How is that "no one can use it"? Can GIMP use and edit photos in 32 bits per colour channel? Don't bother answering I will. No it can't!!! The best GIMP can do is 8 bits per channel for a total of 24 bits. People, that is photographers and other artists have been asking for higher colour depths for years but will GIMP developers ever allow it? Again no. In 1998 Robin Rowe offered higher bit depths but GIMP devs refused to use it. So Robin forked GIMP and released FilmGIMP. It is now called CinePaint. And while it has 32 bit colour depths GIMP is still using only 8 bits.
Eight bit per colour channel is fine for the web, at least right now, but it seriously is lacking for professional print work.
Apple products are somewhat ok if you don't test the boundaries or use them too creatively. Otherwise all bets are off.
I haven't found anything I could do in Windows or in Ubuntu I can't do on a Mac. Hell I can install both Windows and Ubuntu, or other Linux distros, on my Mac. I've been doing prep work planning to install Lucid Lynx (Ubuntu 10.04) on my internal HDD and Oneiric Ocelot (11.10) on an external drive. Tomorrow I plan to actually do the installations.
Now tell me what you can do with MS Windows and or Linux you can't do with a Mac. That is what task not what specific application. For an office suite I was using NeoOffice but now I use LibreOffice. For those who need it MS has MS Office for Macs. For development I have can use Xcode, Eclipse and Bluefish. Databases? I have choices there too. Graphic arts and photo editing? Many firms only use Macs for those. I have Photoshop Elements 10 installed on my Mac but I'm hoping to upgrade to Photoshop CS5.
I'd swap it for an Android tablet tomorrow if I could. I'm sick of Apple telling me how I can (and can't) use the product that I bought.
When I learned Apple would be releasing a tablet I was excited about getting one. But when the iPad was released my dreams were dashed. I imagined a 17" MacBook Pro with a built-in digitizer, like Wacom's. I guess the only way I'll get one is if I get a Mdbook Pro, which hasn't been released yet, I hire some one to make one, or I make my own. Since I don't have the money I guess the only tablet I'll get is an Android. Then I hope I can install OSX and Ubuntu on it.
It's really nice stuff but then it costs a lot of money so it should be.
1996 calling, it wants it's mime back. I dare you to configure Dell, HP, and Leveno products so it will have similar specs to a Mac then compare prices. I did precisely that before ordering the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on. Of them the cheapest was a brand I hadn't heard of before, it was $50 cheaper. The Dell, and I tried Alienware which Dell bought out, cost about $200 more. HP's offering cost more too. Because I planned on installing Ubuntu to dual-boot I also checked out compatibility. The one thing that makes it more difficult to install Ubuntu is using EFI, the GUID Partition Table (GPT), and installing Ubuntu on an HFS+ formatted partition. I'll install Lucid Lynx (Ubuntu 10.04) onto the internal HDD, Oops, there another problem I'll install Oneiric Ocelot (Ubuntu 11.10) onto a USB external drive which presents it's own problems.
What bothers me is that the OS isn't what it could be. It's better than Windows in my opinion but really I remember putting Snow Leopard on my Dell 1545 just for kicks.
That's your personal opinion, others love Snow Leopard. My MBP came with Tiger and it was about 4 months after Leopard came out before I upgraded. The only reason I did was because Java 6 would only run on Leopard, at least without a bunch of hacking. And as I was a member of Apple Developer Connection (ADC) Leopard was free. When Snow Leopard came out it took me a couple of months before buying it, heck it only cost $29. But it took a few more months before I actually installed it. Although Lion has been out for a while, released on 20 July 2011, I still have not bought or upgraded to it.
I want to like OS X but it's so hard to.
I do like OSX, what I have a harder tyme with is liking Apple. It makes, er designs, terrific hardware a programs great software. With the exception of the Mac though it only takes others ideas then releases its own products. And even with hardware Apple is falling behind. While consumer Macs have had more than one revision since the summer of 2010 the Mac Pro has not been upgraded. Try looking for a Sandy Bridge Mac Pro and you won't find one. One rumor has it Apple will Kill Mac Pros just like they did to the XServe. Since they did they've pushed shops to use Mac Minis for servers, but a Mini can't handle tasks the Pro has no problems with. Of course other rumors have it that Minis with Thunderbolt can have external graphics cards as well as storage attached enabling them to be used instead of Mac Pros. As it is now I'd like to get another MacBook Pro but I don't think I will buy any other Apple product.
More ignorance. And history revision. The protectionist law Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act was enacted on 17 June 1930. The State Department itself says "Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade". The Great Depression though started on Black Tuesday, 29 October 1929.
I provided links to data to government and to economics resources, where are yours? Or do you only have voodoo economics yourself? Of course if you provide any I will research it and see what other economists say.
Falcon
Oh, and I dare you to point out anywhere where i mentioned Ayn Rand previously in regard to this thread. You can't because you're making things up that fits into your own world view and not in reality.
We don't, and have never, lived in anything approaching a free market.
Unfortunately you're partially right. Except for slavery the 1820s was as close to a free market as we've had. This was when Alexis de Tocqueville toured the USA before writing his "Democracy in America". Almost all politics was local and there were no career politicians. There weren't all the laws, licenses, and regulations running a business. Or a farm, or inn, boarding house etc. Growing up before I was legally able to get a part-time job in high school from spring to fall I went around my neighborhood with a lawnmower and can of gas cutting grass to earn money. I helped people with their gardens, planning it, digging it out, and planting seedlings or sowing seeds. In many places now to commercially do lawn care or landscaping local governments require licenses. In my own back yard my family and I grew our own garden and I composted anything and everything organic. I tossed our dog's feces and the cats' litter in the compost as well. I few years ago the city I live in said I had to hide the composting feces in a box or other closed container. I couldn't just mix it in with the leafs, cut grass, and other yard debris. Unless of course they were contained too. Just this morning before going online I went outside to do some raking. In maybe 15 minutes I filled 5 large compostable yard bags yet all I did was put a dent in the leafs to be raked. And I'm supposed to have a bin large enough?
Stabilization policies should be used to minimize pricing variations, which is good. The dairy industry for instance benefited from this
I disagree, governments should not be regulating or have many of the policies they do have. The sole purpose of government is to protect life. liberty, and property as well as create a climate wherein everyone has equal opportunity, opportunity not outcome.
Oh, and actually I know of an ISP in Maine that drives DSL over some fairly long distances. He's made a nice business, but it requires a lot of work, and capital. And risk. Telcoms don't much care for risk.
Take away Telcoms' and Cable's monopolies and require them to compeat in a freer market. I don't mean a duopoly, allow any body to offer cable, telephone, and electrical services. Same with cable and fiber. It's not ideal but in "A Broadband Utopia" the IEEE "Spectrum" says how a group of communities in northeastern Utah got together to build a broadband infrastructure. Telcoms and cable cos would not build it so they did themselves. Of course having to face competition these monopoly businesses pressed Utah to pass a law outlawing the communities from delivering their own services. We've had articles on/. about how after a small city in MN asked broadband providers build the infrastructure and was refused it decided to build it out themselves.Of course those who refused to build out broadband themselves then sued the city to stop them. Judge Tosses Telco Suit Over City-Owned Network.
since rural area aren't profitable enough to corporation
One reason providing rural broadband is not profitable is because of licensing. Abolish licensing of the airwaves which cost billions of dollars then SMBs (Small and Medium Businesses) can offer wireless broadband.
I know it won't happen, but it seems like the best way to spend this subsidy money would be for the government to defray the cost from the best and cheapest rural Internet providers (or give out vouchers that people can use to pick their own supplier). That way there will be incentive to provide good service, and there will likely be service provided by more than just the companies that end up coming out on top and getting government money. I'm sure what they'll do instead is just throw money at anyone who provides even crummy service, and as a result they'll get the lowest denominator return on that investment. Maybe this plan won't work as well in monopoly industries like cable, but it seems like the majority of the markets would work better this way.
The government has already thrown money at corporations, and didn't get anything in return. I'd rather let businesses compeat in a free, that is freer, market. Get rid of radio frequency licensing and let people compete to provide wireless broadband.
The FCC was basically established to maintain and regulate the phone companies in 1934.
Better read that again, the FCC and before it the FRC were created to regulate radio as well as telephone. Of course by requiring radio broadcasters to be licensed it ensured the dominance of large corporations, what has become known as "Mass Media".
I think unless they are going to start dropping rates when they start getting more and more money they shouldn't get shit.
Until they deliver what they were already paid for they shouldn't get shit. In what has become the $300 Billion Broadband Scandal so called providers have been given a lot of taxpayer money to build a broadband infrastructure. Did they? No, they pocketed the money as profits.
I'm not at all in favor of subsidizing corn for fuel.
I don't favor subsidies at all, no matter what it is. In a free market if some people can not afford something then businesses will be created to help people afford them. Or civil society will donate.
Stablizing food prices is attractive
A function the free market can do. If food prices go up, in a free market that will attract farmers. And when they go down people will either plant other crops or will stop farming. As a matter of fact, there is not a shortage of food and subsidies for corn ethanol affect corn prices more than other things do. A shortage of corn? Look how much corn is going the ethanol. How much is used to make high fructose corn syrup, you know the sweetener in soft drinks. And how much is feed to livestock. I don't recall exactly how much now but it takes several pounds of corn, which cows do not naturally eat, to produce one pound of beef.
Subsidizing telephone service made sense when the telephone was the only useful means of instant communications. Farms surely used them to call the doctor, fire department, and even to check on commodity pricing.
One of two subsides I agree with initially, but they should have been phased out. The other was the Rural Electrification Act.
Today, though, landline service could be replaced with broadband data.
And what does broadband use? Landline services for the most part. Wifi still doesn't cover much area.
You know, every time I hear various parties say "get government out of business" and all that, I think "okay... maybe... but some regulation is needed because when there isn't, big business ends up raping the country." But then again, I never heard parties say "we need government to stop giving subsidies to business..."
Then you're not listening to people in the right parties.
Put farm subsidies out to pasture
"'It's absurd that we're paying farmers billions of dollars during a time of soaring crop prices,' says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing farmers while paying higher prices at the grocery store."
Libertarians say Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton
"We Libertarians propose eliminating federal functions that are not authorized in the Constitution. Furthermore, Libertarians propose ending foreign wars and foreign troop deployments, allowing huge cuts in military spending. Libertarians would cut the federal government down to less than 10% of GDP, and we'd keep cutting once we got there."
Libertarians: Tea Party betrayed by tiny Republican budget cuts
"It doesn't help that Congressional Republicans voted for more unemployment spending and ethanol subsidies last December, or that they want to keep increasing military spending. And they haven't come up with any serious cuts to entitlements."
Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian
"We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.' We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. "
Someone either isn't looking or has their head buried in sand.
Oh, one more link: My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'
In the video Rep Edward Markey (D) brags that his energy bill has massive subsidies for coal and nuclear power among other dirty energy sources, but little subsidies for alternative energy. Fact is is government picks, or tries to pick, winners and losers all the tyme.
I see no reason why those of who choose to live in urban and suburban areas should have to subsidize those who choose to live farther away.
The middle of nowhere is where a lot of food is grown. If those living there have to pay more for "power, phone, cable, gas, etc." then those who eat pay more for their food. Government should end all subsidies, as well as monopolies. Let markets deliver cable, phone, and power. And food.
Slashdot Mirror
well every time I see it come up it starts with "I am used to photoshop but because of XYZ I cant get the newest version, the gimp seems ok but ..."
Once in a while I'll hear or see that however a more common remark as to why people switched to GIMP from PS is because they learned GIMP does everything they need. For them I say bravo, they're not locked into a single vendor and they're saving money. However GIMP isn't suitable for every graphic artist or professional photographer. And for them I would suggest they try CinePaint and or Krita before buying or upgrading PS CS. They're both deep paint editors.
I haven't followed my own advice yet, but then again I haven't used Linux much and I haven't spent the money on PS CS either. Though I did for Photoshop Elements (PE). When PE is no longer adequate and CinePaint and Krita don't work either, that is when I have to get PS CS, I'll buy an older upgradable version on eBay, or somewhere else, first then upgrade. But I'm hoping CinePaint and or Krita is be fine.
Falcon
You might want to check your prices. Apple's OS X upgrades are historically $129. Windows upgrades are more like $100. And besides, the Windows upgrades are optional, as you get security patches for Windows 7 all the way to 2020 for completely free. You're not going to get that with Apple, you're going to be forced to upgrade the OS to keep getting the updates, until the day arrives that you find out that Apple's latest OS isn't supported on your computer and you have to replace it which is practically guaranteed before it's 8 years old..
Another miss informed poster, or troll. My last OS X upgrade cost me $29, and I didn't pay for the previous 2 OS upgrades. OS X updates are free too, heck Apple still has Mac OS 9 updates for free. Well for the cost of network access, and I can go into an Apple store, go online, and download those updates for free.
Falcon
Any Windows computer you buy today includes free updates to the operating system for almost 8 years (and that's assuming you never upgrade from Windows 7). Any Mac computer you buy today will be completely unsupported by Apple in 8 years and will have to be replaced.
Ah, Ah! Apple discontinued development of Mac OS 9 in 2002 but Apple still has downloads for it. Ten years and Apple still supports it, so there goes your "8 years". Of course Microsoft still supports old Windows versions too, MS still has update downloads for my Windows NT 4.
Besides any computer only needs to be replaced when it no longer does what the user wants, 10 year old computers can still be used. I volunteer for Free Geek rebuilding used PCs and we rebuild and sell PCs with 2 GHz Pentium 4 which were released in 2000, more than 11 years ago. Though slow compared to newer PCs they still run Ubuntu 10.04, Lucid Lynx, fine. You're not going to be editing HD videos or 100+ MB photos but you can surf the web and create documents with Open Office/Libre Office.
Falcon
> I haven't found anything I could do in Windows or in Ubuntu I can't do on a Mac.
Reliable file sharing.
I quite easily share files between OSX and Ubuntu. And though I haven't installed them yet I'm getting ready to install both Ubuntu 10.04 and 11.10 to triple-boot my Mac. When I do I'll be using the same partition for users in all OSes.
Media playback. You end up falling back to "Linux tools" in order to get a reasonably complete solution.
Apple's Final Cut Pro, which is the video industry's leading video editing software burns Blu-Ray disks. What's that? A video of of someone burning a Blu-Ray movie with Final Cut Pro 7? However you can still run Linux tools on a Mac. OSX includes X11. With Fink you can install software that uses the Debian tools dpkg and apt-get. Or Mac Ports to install .rpm packages. Then there's Homebrew for those who Mac Port drives to drinking.
Keeping your crayon inside the lines (like office software) is not the problem.
AH, you're right. The problem is people not knowing the truth, or not admitting to it. Fact is is a Mac can run Linux, OSX, and Windows software. Which is within what I said above, "I haven't found anything I could do in Windows or in Ubuntu I can't do on a Mac."
Falcon
Now tell me what you can do with MS Windows and or Linux you can't do with a Mac.
How about virtualization? How about terminal services? How about configuration management?
Virtualizing? Let's see. There'e VirtualBox, VMWare's Fusion 4, and Parallels. I don't have it setup right now but I'm going to try to use VirtualBox so I can run my dualboot Ubuntu installation in a virtual machine while running OSX. If that does not work then I'll try Fusion 4. OSX has terminal. Being based on FreeBSD many of the commands are the same as in Linux. Look at that, there's even Open Source configuration management software that runs on OSX.
Falcon
True until you realize people have to know of and look for GIMPShop. That's also why people aren't switching from Ubuntu 10.04 to 11.10?
Falcon
I think Apple's of the mindset that as long as they're expecting developers to build on Macs for iPhone and iPad, as well as use Lightroom/FinalCut/etc. in production environments, there's a need for the Mac Pro.
Have you read any comments forums about Final Cut Pro X? Just a couple of days ago I read some, they almost all agreed to properly run Final Cut Pro X the current Mac Pro were lacking. On Final Cut Pro X’s professional exodus. Can Mini run Photoshop CS5 and Final Cut Pro? More: Apple’s Just A Twitch Away From Killing The Mac Pro Line Forever.
Falcon
and the mac mini, you're still looking at big premiums for those systems.
MacBook Pro 17 inch
Price: $2,499.00
For small office: Dell Precision M6600 Mobile Workstation
Starting Price $3,305.00 Instant Savings $792.00 Subtotal $2,513.00
The small and medium business 2.40 GHz quad core model is the same. And for large enterprises Dell doesn't show a 17 inch laptop with a quad core i7, it shows 2 dual core 2.50 GHz i5s.
Shall I go on and post other OEM configurations and prices?
The iMac is a desktop with zero upgrade ability.
The same applies to all other all-in-ones whether Apple, Dell, HP, or any other. The same with the Mac Mini.
One thing I leared about apple computers: NEVER, EVER 'configure' your systems with apple hardware. The prices goes through the roof.
I actually agree. I've even had an Apple employee tell me that if I want more memory or a bigger disk, to buy them from someone else. Before I ordered my MBP I asked about adding more memory than the base amount and he said if I wanted more then I should get the memory from another store.
Macs are hundreds more expensive than their PC counterparts at best.
Again, look above. Mac compare pretty fairly with Windows OEM PCs, more expensive than some but cheaper than others.
Falcon
I apologize for being unclear, but I meant building using Dell or HP's online shopping tools. I'd give specific examples, but I've been baited into waisting my time making direct comparisons too many times before.
Funny, or not. I've done exactly that, posted the specs for a Mac and various OEM PCs along with the price, a number of tyme. But I don't hear back from those I'm replying too.
If people want to buy expensive Apple hardware because of whatever benefits they see in doing so, more power to them, but I get irked when they try to pretend that they aren't paying out the ear for hardware so they can get access for the vendor-locked operating system that comes along with it.
And I get irked when people say they know what I think or do, as if they have ESP and can read my mind remotely see me. It also irks me when people say say brand X is expensive compared to other brands when in fact they mean Brand X compared to a homebrew computer.
Falcon
You are either lying or incapable of building computers that actually have similar specs.
I am neither lying nor incapable of building PCs. The only thing I spend more tyme doing than building PCs is on the net. I volunteer for Free Geek. We take in donated old used computers and electronic equipment, which would otherwise end up as e-waste, and dismantle it. We tear-down computers into their component parts, leaving only the motherboard, DVD or CD drive, and RAM in the case. If it POSTs then we connect a network cable running from our PXE server to see if it will boot off the server. This lets us know if the mobo is good. We then remove the RAM and optical drive and test them as well as the HDDs, network cards, and graphics cards. With good parts we rebuild PCs and install Ubuntu Linux 10.04, Lucid Lynx, and test the PC.
I spent most of my day there today testing optical drives. I have a PC with IDE/PATA and SATA and I'll take the drive I am testing and hook it up. I then boot off the PXE server and try to burn either the 10.04 CD or DVD ISO stored on the LAN onto a blank disk. If successful I'll reboot the PC and run a live session off of the disk I just burned to make sure it is good. If so then I put the PC in our store for sell, and we support those PCs for 1 year.
Can you say the same? Or are you blowing smoke?
Falcon
Is it really dumbing it down or spending just a few seconds thinking what other users want to do, and improving the interface to do it?
That's why GIMPShop exists? Because GIMP has a better interface that Photoshop?
Your product might be the best and most powerful in the whole world, but if no one can use it, what good does it do?
Thousands if not hundreds of thousands if not millions of people use Photoshop. How is that "no one can use it"? Can GIMP use and edit photos in 32 bits per colour channel? Don't bother answering I will. No it can't!!! The best GIMP can do is 8 bits per channel for a total of 24 bits. People, that is photographers and other artists have been asking for higher colour depths for years but will GIMP developers ever allow it? Again no. In 1998 Robin Rowe offered higher bit depths but GIMP devs refused to use it. So Robin forked GIMP and released FilmGIMP. It is now called CinePaint. And while it has 32 bit colour depths GIMP is still using only 8 bits.
Eight bit per colour channel is fine for the web, at least right now, but it seriously is lacking for professional print work.
Falcon
Apple products are somewhat ok if you don't test the boundaries or use them too creatively. Otherwise all bets are off.
I haven't found anything I could do in Windows or in Ubuntu I can't do on a Mac. Hell I can install both Windows and Ubuntu, or other Linux distros, on my Mac. I've been doing prep work planning to install Lucid Lynx (Ubuntu 10.04) on my internal HDD and Oneiric Ocelot (11.10) on an external drive. Tomorrow I plan to actually do the installations.
Now tell me what you can do with MS Windows and or Linux you can't do with a Mac. That is what task not what specific application. For an office suite I was using NeoOffice but now I use LibreOffice. For those who need it MS has MS Office for Macs. For development I have can use Xcode, Eclipse and Bluefish. Databases? I have choices there too. Graphic arts and photo editing? Many firms only use Macs for those. I have Photoshop Elements 10 installed on my Mac but I'm hoping to upgrade to Photoshop CS5.
Falcon
I'd swap it for an Android tablet tomorrow if I could. I'm sick of Apple telling me how I can (and can't) use the product that I bought.
When I learned Apple would be releasing a tablet I was excited about getting one. But when the iPad was released my dreams were dashed. I imagined a 17" MacBook Pro with a built-in digitizer, like Wacom's. I guess the only way I'll get one is if I get a Mdbook Pro, which hasn't been released yet, I hire some one to make one, or I make my own. Since I don't have the money I guess the only tablet I'll get is an Android. Then I hope I can install OSX and Ubuntu on it.
Falcon
It's really nice stuff but then it costs a lot of money so it should be.
1996 calling, it wants it's mime back. I dare you to configure Dell, HP, and Leveno products so it will have similar specs to a Mac then compare prices. I did precisely that before ordering the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on. Of them the cheapest was a brand I hadn't heard of before, it was $50 cheaper. The Dell, and I tried Alienware which Dell bought out, cost about $200 more. HP's offering cost more too. Because I planned on installing Ubuntu to dual-boot I also checked out compatibility. The one thing that makes it more difficult to install Ubuntu is using EFI, the GUID Partition Table (GPT), and installing Ubuntu on an HFS+ formatted partition. I'll install Lucid Lynx (Ubuntu 10.04) onto the internal HDD, Oops, there another problem I'll install Oneiric Ocelot (Ubuntu 11.10) onto a USB external drive which presents it's own problems.
What bothers me is that the OS isn't what it could be. It's better than Windows in my opinion but really I remember putting Snow Leopard on my Dell 1545 just for kicks.
That's your personal opinion, others love Snow Leopard. My MBP came with Tiger and it was about 4 months after Leopard came out before I upgraded. The only reason I did was because Java 6 would only run on Leopard, at least without a bunch of hacking. And as I was a member of Apple Developer Connection (ADC) Leopard was free. When Snow Leopard came out it took me a couple of months before buying it, heck it only cost $29. But it took a few more months before I actually installed it. Although Lion has been out for a while, released on 20 July 2011, I still have not bought or upgraded to it.
I want to like OS X but it's so hard to.
I do like OSX, what I have a harder tyme with is liking Apple. It makes, er designs, terrific hardware a programs great software. With the exception of the Mac though it only takes others ideas then releases its own products. And even with hardware Apple is falling behind. While consumer Macs have had more than one revision since the summer of 2010 the Mac Pro has not been upgraded. Try looking for a Sandy Bridge Mac Pro and you won't find one. One rumor has it Apple will Kill Mac Pros just like they did to the XServe. Since they did they've pushed shops to use Mac Minis for servers, but a Mini can't handle tasks the Pro has no problems with. Of course other rumors have it that Minis with Thunderbolt can have external graphics cards as well as storage attached enabling them to be used instead of Mac Pros. As it is now I'd like to get another MacBook Pro but I don't think I will buy any other Apple product.
Falcon
More ignorance. And history revision. The protectionist law Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act was enacted on 17 June 1930. The State Department itself says "Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade". The Great Depression though started on Black Tuesday, 29 October 1929.
You need to go to economics school. The Chicago school of economics, at the University of Chicago, with more Nobel Prize laureates than any other is a great one. Milton Friedman, one of those Nobel laureates, exposes the Great Depression Myth (almost 10 minute video). In "New Deal or raw deal?" 2 New Deal historians debate whether the New Deal helped during the Great Depression or made it worse. In "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" the political economist Amity Shlaes argues FDR's policies didn't end the depression, that WWII did. Massive government spending, which Obama is advocating, did. In finishing an economics study UCLA economists calculate "FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years".
I provided links to data to government and to economics resources, where are yours? Or do you only have voodoo economics yourself? Of course if you provide any I will research it and see what other economists say.
Falcon
Oh, and I dare you to point out anywhere where i mentioned Ayn Rand previously in regard to this thread. You can't because you're making things up that fits into your own world view and not in reality.
Must be a comfort to be so dense, ignorant and stupid.
Falcon
We don't, and have never, lived in anything approaching a free market.
Unfortunately you're partially right. Except for slavery the 1820s was as close to a free market as we've had. This was when Alexis de Tocqueville toured the USA before writing his "Democracy in America". Almost all politics was local and there were no career politicians. There weren't all the laws, licenses, and regulations running a business. Or a farm, or inn, boarding house etc. Growing up before I was legally able to get a part-time job in high school from spring to fall I went around my neighborhood with a lawnmower and can of gas cutting grass to earn money. I helped people with their gardens, planning it, digging it out, and planting seedlings or sowing seeds. In many places now to commercially do lawn care or landscaping local governments require licenses. In my own back yard my family and I grew our own garden and I composted anything and everything organic. I tossed our dog's feces and the cats' litter in the compost as well. I few years ago the city I live in said I had to hide the composting feces in a box or other closed container. I couldn't just mix it in with the leafs, cut grass, and other yard debris. Unless of course they were contained too. Just this morning before going online I went outside to do some raking. In maybe 15 minutes I filled 5 large compostable yard bags yet all I did was put a dent in the leafs to be raked. And I'm supposed to have a bin large enough?
Stabilization policies should be used to minimize pricing variations, which is good. The dairy industry for instance benefited from this
I disagree, governments should not be regulating or have many of the policies they do have. The sole purpose of government is to protect life. liberty, and property as well as create a climate wherein everyone has equal opportunity, opportunity not outcome.
Oh, and actually I know of an ISP in Maine that drives DSL over some fairly long distances. He's made a nice business, but it requires a lot of work, and capital. And risk. Telcoms don't much care for risk.
Take away Telcoms' and Cable's monopolies and require them to compeat in a freer market. I don't mean a duopoly, allow any body to offer cable, telephone, and electrical services. Same with cable and fiber. It's not ideal but in "A Broadband Utopia" the IEEE "Spectrum" says how a group of communities in northeastern Utah got together to build a broadband infrastructure. Telcoms and cable cos would not build it so they did themselves. Of course having to face competition these monopoly businesses pressed Utah to pass a law outlawing the communities from delivering their own services. We've had articles on /. about how after a small city in MN asked broadband providers build the infrastructure and was refused it decided to build it out themselves.Of course those who refused to build out broadband themselves then sued the city to stop them. Judge Tosses Telco Suit Over City-Owned Network.
Falcon
since rural area aren't profitable enough to corporation
One reason providing rural broadband is not profitable is because of licensing. Abolish licensing of the airwaves which cost billions of dollars then SMBs (Small and Medium Businesses) can offer wireless broadband.
Falcon
and many conservatives would agree with you.
Only if that were true. Facts though show Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed. Red (conservative) states get more of the money blue (big government) states pay the federal government.
Falcon
I know it won't happen, but it seems like the best way to spend this subsidy money would be for the government to defray the cost from the best and cheapest rural Internet providers (or give out vouchers that people can use to pick their own supplier). That way there will be incentive to provide good service, and there will likely be service provided by more than just the companies that end up coming out on top and getting government money. I'm sure what they'll do instead is just throw money at anyone who provides even crummy service, and as a result they'll get the lowest denominator return on that investment. Maybe this plan won't work as well in monopoly industries like cable, but it seems like the majority of the markets would work better this way.
The government has already thrown money at corporations, and didn't get anything in return. I'd rather let businesses compeat in a free, that is freer, market. Get rid of radio frequency licensing and let people compete to provide wireless broadband.
Falcon
The FCC was basically established to maintain and regulate the phone companies in 1934.
Better read that again, the FCC and before it the FRC were created to regulate radio as well as telephone. Of course by requiring radio broadcasters to be licensed it ensured the dominance of large corporations, what has become known as "Mass Media".
I think unless they are going to start dropping rates when they start getting more and more money they shouldn't get shit.
Until they deliver what they were already paid for they shouldn't get shit. In what has become the $300 Billion Broadband Scandal so called providers have been given a lot of taxpayer money to build a broadband infrastructure. Did they? No, they pocketed the money as profits.
Falcon
I'm not at all in favor of subsidizing corn for fuel.
I don't favor subsidies at all, no matter what it is. In a free market if some people can not afford something then businesses will be created to help people afford them. Or civil society will donate.
Stablizing food prices is attractive
A function the free market can do. If food prices go up, in a free market that will attract farmers. And when they go down people will either plant other crops or will stop farming. As a matter of fact, there is not a shortage of food and subsidies for corn ethanol affect corn prices more than other things do. A shortage of corn? Look how much corn is going the ethanol. How much is used to make high fructose corn syrup, you know the sweetener in soft drinks. And how much is feed to livestock. I don't recall exactly how much now but it takes several pounds of corn, which cows do not naturally eat, to produce one pound of beef.
Subsidizing telephone service made sense when the telephone was the only useful means of instant communications. Farms surely used them to call the doctor, fire department, and even to check on commodity pricing.
One of two subsides I agree with initially, but they should have been phased out. The other was the Rural Electrification Act.
Today, though, landline service could be replaced with broadband data.
And what does broadband use? Landline services for the most part. Wifi still doesn't cover much area.
Falcon
but it is a painful one to those dependent upon the Nanny State and her tit.
Precisely. Whether corporate or social, those on welfare don't want it to end.
Falcon
You know, every time I hear various parties say "get government out of business" and all that, I think "okay... maybe... but some regulation is needed because when there isn't, big business ends up raping the country." But then again, I never heard parties say "we need government to stop giving subsidies to business..."
Then you're not listening to people in the right parties.
"'It's absurd that we're paying farmers billions of dollars during a time of soaring crop prices,' says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing farmers while paying higher prices at the grocery store."
"We Libertarians propose eliminating federal functions that are not authorized in the Constitution. Furthermore, Libertarians propose ending foreign wars and foreign troop deployments, allowing huge cuts in military spending. Libertarians would cut the federal government down to less than 10% of GDP, and we'd keep cutting once we got there."
"It doesn't help that Congressional Republicans voted for more unemployment spending and ethanol subsidies last December, or that they want to keep increasing military spending. And they haven't come up with any serious cuts to entitlements."
And we want to get rid of ethanol subsidies and other corporate welfare -- while the Republicans vote to increase it."
"We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.' We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. "
"Alternative" energies are not the only ones heavily subsidized. 2 examples of how oil and nuclear enjoy the largess of the state."
Someone either isn't looking or has their head buried in sand.
Oh, one more link: My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'
In the video Rep Edward Markey (D) brags that his energy bill has massive subsidies for coal and nuclear power among other dirty energy sources, but little subsidies for alternative energy. Fact is is government picks, or tries to pick, winners and losers all the tyme.
Falcon
I see no reason why those of who choose to live in urban and suburban areas should have to subsidize those who choose to live farther away.
The middle of nowhere is where a lot of food is grown. If those living there have to pay more for "power, phone, cable, gas, etc." then those who eat pay more for their food. Government should end all subsidies, as well as monopolies. Let markets deliver cable, phone, and power. And food.
Falcon