Microsoft is THE ground breaking innovator on what a very large and rich company can do (or not do) to stay ahead of the competition. Its capitalism incarnate. This is how business works. . Most of their products follow this same strategy (and always have): . Some other company (or poor bastard individual) comes out with a new innovative technology or product and creates a new market.
. Microsoft immediately floods this new market with their inferior rip off. . . the M$ (and Dell) fanbois with their blinders reinvent history... "Microsoft invented this!" . . . Profit!!!
I'm just pointing this out, so hold off on your flamebait mods. I don't hate Microsoft, and I couldn't be happier with them! God Bless America!
One of the reasons I am a fan of NetBSD is their excellent documentation. Not only is it well done, it is easy to find. Also, their mailing lists are full of helpful people who always try to answer questions, even obvious ones from n00bs.
Nearly every site that aims to be helpful in learning linux is not. It often has references, without links, to utilities you have to scour the internet to find. The people who aim to help never begin at a point where someone who knows little to nothing about linux can begin.
Where is THE linux documentation? (if you're going to say man pages, please don't)
I forget which Tom Clancy novel explored the idea of what would happen if the Islamic extemists went all peaceful demonstration on us, sit-in style. Basically, he says, they'd win.
Where did "repartitioning" a drive with data come from anyway? (I've had to do it in a pinch, but I wouldn't dare try if it wasn't necessary... and dual booting Windows on Mac isn't necessary).... If that's part of the directions... I'd immediately opt to do it another way... namely, from scratch. Start with a wiped drive with no data (no chance of data loss), and then go at it.
While I'm not a huge fan of Tucker Carlson, he made a very good point last night (that I cought while flipping past M$-NBC). The gist of it was this:
The Islamic extremists that hate america, americans, the 'Western values,' civil liberties, and freedom in general, will settle for nothing less than the annihilation of all americans. There is no diplomatic solution, and they make sure of this... there's just no negotiating with a bomb with a nut strapped to it. Either they are going to kill us, or we are going to kill them, and its not going to stop until either we are all dead, or they are all dead.
So, yeah... these unlawful combatants are not being treated 'fairly,' and I have little doubt they must have some that are entirely innocent. But the alternative, 'innocent until proven guilty,' the right to trial... becomes too risky. The collateral damage becomes acceptable even if it saves one blue blood.
That being said, the US should leave that guy alone (or make him an offer for hiring him).
I really can't stand (most) towing companies. The set up contracts with certain places, like condos, businesses, to tow cars, and they overcharge to get your car back. There is no municipaility involved, no ticket that needs paid... basically, they steal your car and extort money from you to get it back.
I need a glue strong enough that when I glue my car to the parking lot, its strong enough to break the hydrolic lift on the tow truck when those bastages try to tow my car away.
Sue the RIAA for perpetuating the myth that mp3s are the same digital quality as CDs...
This is simple to prove. If the RIAA doesn't mind if people tape songs off regular radio... then mp3 sharing should be allowed. mp3s do not even meet broadcast quality standards... yet because the RIAA says its so... everyone seems to believe it.
listen pud hump, you're the one that started with the insults. The Nyquist limit is take care of by dithering (assuming tracking is done at resolutions higher than 16-bit, or mastering an analogue source digitally from resolutions higher than 16-bit). It's not something you really need to worry about... what freq.s are you expecting to see, anyway? If a microphone has a dynamic range from 20hz-20khz, guess what the highest frequencies captured are going to be? It's not necessary to filter out frequencies that aren't there... and if there are cymbols peaking at 22k, dithering works just fine.
you're pissing me off because you are speaking from some position of self-appointed authority. I gave an OPINION, and YOU insulted me, giving me garbage about how my opinion was false. You may think you know what you are talking about... but you ought to read a little more Wittgenstein, you arrogant little nerd.
My point is merely that DVD will handle stereo just as good as the new formats, or at least close enough that the new formats become a waste of resources. Yes, another question... but still germane. Please don't get me started about what I think about 5.1, 7.1 and 9.1 surround. I've heard stereo mixes that make things sound like they are coming from behind you (its freaky). 2 ears, so only 2 speakers necessary for 3D audio. If you are recreating a theater, fine. Go to town with 5.1 (but all movie theaters are a completely different, but comprehensible 6-channel, R L F B T B). Yes, the surround stuff sounds good. Yes, transparently, the same 3D sound can be recreated with only two speakers.
When I first heard about 24-bit audio, I was skeptical because I was aware of the limits of human hearing. After working in a pro studio, I was fortunate enough to hear the different bit depths side by side, and, no kidding, 24-bit sounds better. I'd give Sony credit if they would have skipped 24-bit and went right to 32-bit (a ridiculous bit depth, still...), but they didn't. Sony has problems. I still like their products (usually), but their problems are there.
Point taken. Who needs their own opinions when someone's out there to give them to you?
I'm not a 'fan boy.' I bet that if a double blind test showed that mp3s sound better than CD audio, you'd believe that too. Dumbass. The simple fact of the matter is this: the RIAA lied or exaggerated about the quality of mp3s, and everyone agreed with them. But mp3s, and even ACCs do not sound as good as the source uncompressed CD. They don't even sound as good as a radio broadcast! Listen carefully to the high end on mp3s and ACCs and maybe you'll figure it out... the format can't handle high end, esp. cymbol crashes. Cymbols will sometimes make waves in the 22K area of the spectrum... and while most can't hear that, what happens in the 22K part WILL affect what happens at 20K and 18K and 16K... thus you will hear a cymbol crash turn into what sounds like ice particles hitting glass, or a digital static sound.
If iPod could could record QUALITY (I did say Quality, not some stupid external mic that no one in their right mind would use to record anything but a conference or a meeting or notes or something... but not a concert), I would have one.
I suppose DAT really is the best to use... but I can't stand VCR technology (a spinning head? wtf? pull the media right out of its protective case??? huh?). Using a MD recorder, at the lowest compression setting, really does approach CD quality. I can't tell the difference. Therefore, to my ears, CD and MD are the same. I have, and I acknowledged, that some very good ears (I'm talking pro enginneers) have pointed out something about the high end on MD, but I can't hear it. I don't care how bad your ears are. If you concentrate... you can hear the problems with mp3. Once you do... you'll look back at your massive mp3 collection and wonder if its in all of them. One by one, you will realize, yes it is. They all suck.
why did I get modded as flaimbait??? I give kudos to both iPod and MD... what is it? that I'm bashing mp3? There are rabid mp3 FANS out there? Well... the truth hurts. I suggest abandoning trying to stand up for a steaming pile of shit that the mp3 format is... and look into the wonders of FLAC and Apple Lossless.
and where's any response to my suggestion that the 24-bit audio disc formats were superfluous because there already existed a format that supported 24-bit (namely, the good ol' DVD)? I'd be buying albums I already have if they were in plain ol' DVD format, and remastered in 24-bit audio...
Something that people seem to miss is audio quality. When the RIAA perpetuated the myth that mp3s are as good as CD quality (and killed Napster), its like everybody got stupid. IMHO, no matter what super-high and variable bit rate you use, mp3s sound like a PLATE OF ASS. Even at the lowest quality setting, the sound quality off a minidisc, though not perfect, is VASTLY superior to mp3s. ACC (m4a) approaches the quality of the MD audio, and also are much better than mp3s.
iPods are pretty fucking neat, no doubts. Forget the competition, you can't really take them seriously. iPods rule... and that's not an opinion. They dominate. But they can't record audio. They could, but Apple won't let them. I hope the linux projects get better... because I'd buy an iPod in a heartbeat if I knew that I could use it to get a high quality, uncompressed board recording from a live show, and transfer the recording back to my Mac.
It's really too bad Sony fucked the format. For all intensive purposes, a MD was a CD with.2 compression. The high and low end are separated for different compressions, and I think the low end is split again, so there are 3 different compressions going on in MD. Some really good ears have problems with the MD high end... but it never bothered me... certainly not as much as what mp3s do to high end. I wish they could have left that alone... let the thing be a small rerecordable CD, so no software other than the OS would be needed to transfer audio back and forth. I wish the linux crowd would adopt the minidisc format, and figure out a way to completely bypass sony's software issues. Even if the iPod could record, I'm pretty sure the converters are better in the MD. If I'm not mistaken, its the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit, which isn't negligable... often, descriptions explain about the threshold of human hearing... but I swear anyone whose listened to 16-bit and 24-bit side by side can tell the difference... 24-bit is much better. Don't take my word for it... go hear for yourself.
I think Sony's saving grace could be the plain old DVD. I know they had a 20-bit CD-like format, and currently have a 24-bit format... but... WHY ARE THEY INTRODUCING A NEW FORMAT??? Plain ol' DVD supports 24-bit audio. Most DVD players are still only 16-bit..... but... Why are we, as humans, such idiots?? DVD is here, but for some reason, sony sees the need to introduce yet another format just for audio... and then some OTHER competing format has popped up.... this is so retarded... we have a format that is just fine... but we have to introduce 2 more formats of IDENTICAL quality, and they are all incompatible with each other (there are players that will play all 3, though, but still, its pretty fucked up).
So here we are... the cassette is gone... DAT uses sucky VCR technology... and Sony is killing MD... and iPod can't record. Who the fuck is working at these technology companies??? Those sadistic bastards are driving me fucking crazy!!
(1) provide more cpu cycles per dollar spent translating to cheaper hardware costs or more powerful workstations for the same cost
but the hardware won't last (i.e. be even remotely useful) half as long, so it really doesn't even out... Macs become the better value (I defy you to name 1 person running XP on a PC that was built in 2000. Right now, I can name at least 7 people (I know of) running OS X on a machine made in 1996-7. What was that about more cpu cycles?).
(2) better capitalize on user familiarity/experience, translating into training money saved or higher productivity per employee. I for one would give away or sell an Apple computer if it was given to me.
Yeah, because everyone knows Macs are just impossible to learn how to use, and you know you're no genius, so how the heck could you expect to learn something other than what you already think you know?... it would take way too long to figure out the whole one button thing. You're loosing my respect, btw.
(3) as the default it is generally cheaper to stay with something, anything, than to switch. For example, as component X fails (e.g. keyboard, monitor), one can swap in a component from a retired machine. Thus, for most people staying with Windows/XP is cheaper than switching to anything, but especially to new hardware. XP doesn't sell much at retail, but it doesn't have to. Once it is OEM'd on 300M machines, on the other hand, it tends to stay there.
Barely saved yourself here with this misunderstanding.... You don't take a perfectly good, 6 month old, Windows box and chuck it to switch. When its time for new hardware, that is the time to switch (when bagging old equipment, not replacing it with the same thing). Pretty soon serial is gonna disappear, btw, so this swapping in older hardware to replace the new hw that broke (instead of getting it warranty replaced) won't be possible forever. Besides, any peripheral hw that works with PCs will work with Macs. So the point becomes moot... save your old keyboards/mice/monitors/printers/scanners/cameras/ etc if you wish, they will work fine, if not better, with Macs.
But in my challenge, I was really referring to a specific task... like... uh, a claim, like...
"Windows can compile Java, and OS X can't," or "You can't interact a Mac with Exchange Servers and Active Directory"
as examples (although the content is incorrect). Off list, someone gave me one that is valid... but lame. Macs can't load a site properly that requires IE6 only. Really... this is another reason to switch... to not give business to those that would restrict you to this or that platform (there is no analogue to crap like that in the Mac world, btw... though maybe in the iPod world;-)
Sounds to me like you've found solutions in areas that I've just been banging my head against a wall with because I wasn't aware they existed. My ignorance has me in a corner right now... and I'm stuck doing things in a more round about way. And ignorance is the only reason I can give for most Win Admins thinking that it can't get easier... meaning, because they are unaware, they think it doesn't exist. I know this will probably only be this way temporarily, but just image how much time you personally would have saved in the last year alone if you didn't have to deal at all with virus protection or spyware? I've never had an infection in my dept,.... the anti-virus works pretty good... but still... think about that... how much time cummulatively would be saved by all users if virus/spyware were not a concern (just think how long it takes to run a single virus scan on a single machine... then multiply that by how many machines, how many times each machine was scanned in the last year). This alone, I'm guessing, could save literally dozens and dozens, maybe even hundreds of man hours, but definately millions and millions (maybe billions) of processor cycles. I have a Panther box at home that had an uptime of 4 months, with daily use. I was saddened when an update finally forced me to reboot... but its a credit to the OS. I know that not all OS X boxes everywhere will necessarily have uptimes like that, but I'll bet my boots that if you take 100 OS X boxes, and 100 XP boxes, I guarantee you that all of the XP will need rebooted before even 5% of the OS X boxes will need rebooted.
It takes maybe 30 minutes to get one setup.
A lie.. an exaggeration. This is impossible. I use ghost to set up new win boxes, and it does save LOTS of time....
But you can't do it in 30 mins.
Windows workstations aren't the worst or hardest to setup and support. Try installing one of the old Linux distributions from the mid 1990's with all of the countless text-based steps. Or try installing DEC OpenVMS on an old VAX box. Or try installing Solaris 7 on an old Sun box.
I respect your experience, immensely, as I've never set up a network full of these other boxes, but can only imagine what you say is true.. Windows is less of a pain than those. However, I really believe that you are satisfied with Windows because you haven't been admining a big network of OS X boxes (and neither have I, but I've seen them, big networks of OS X boxes, and I read a lot about it, do a lot of experimenting at home). It's not just easier... its really smarter.
And most of that time is all of the Windows Updates automatically downloading and installing themselves.
I love that "Most of the time." I'm only responsible for ~50+ boxes, but every time an update is available, I still have to touch every box to check and see. Half of them, for unknown reasons, sometimes just don't update, or the update fails. I know you MUST have come across this occuring. For no good reason, with auto updates configured just like every other box, the update doesn't take.
Before I start a flame war for calling you a liar... please, no offense meant. I know you are exaggerating. Even if I had a ghost image that was entirely current in its OS updates, it takes a little longer than 30 mins to wipe and set up the box on the network. Unfortunately, I can't take the time to create a new ghost image for every single software/OS update. So currently, my last ghost image is just a few months old (as far as OS updates). Once I ghost to a new drive, I have to spend, now, ~4 HOURS just updating the box. 4 hours? just to get current from a ghost image only months old? yeah.. that's about how long it takes, with all the updates, restarts, etc. And this isn't counting the updates for Office and other apps like Acrobat. Maybe I should make a new ghost image every month... yeah, I probably should.... Problem is, I know the ghost image I have is correct. Every time I make a new one, I risk adding something that shouldn't be there, or forgetting something that should be there. One little mistake, and I'd have to either do it again, or jump back to the older image. Where the Ghost image saves me frustration is all the little security configurations and softwares that my organization has deployed for all the machines, the back up clients, all the drivers needed for the printers in the office, etc...
so... apologies... but I'll belive you can wipe a box and ghost a new image to it, have it updated and ready to work on the network in 30 mins when I see it.
How do you remotely support Mac OS X workstations? Do you run a VNC client, pcANYWHERE, etc.? How do you remotely deploy software installations? Windows has had SMS for over 10 years, and now it must exist as some other three letter acronym undoubtedly. I'm not sure what remote software deployment package exists for Mac OS X. How would you apply an Mac OS X patch to remote workstations? Just curious.
Without going into all details, I'll just briefly answers these... in case you really think this is all only possible on Windows boxes.
How do you remotely support Mac OS X workstations?
I'd use the command line (ssh, sftp) -- there are cmd line tools for all admin tasks. Personally speaking, it'd just be simpler (though slightly more arcane). Its simple to use the GUI remotely if you like (yes, can use VNC, any vnc client can control a OS X box if the box has Remote Access turned on, and is set to allow VNC clients to control it. But I wouldn't use VNC to do it as the PW are sent in the clear.) Apple's Remote Desktop allows secure GUI logins remotely. Also, Timbuktu is still alive and kicking, and some prefer it to ARD.
How do you remotely deploy software installations?
In a small network, I might individually touch each machine remotely and install the software with the command line... but in a large network, I would use Open Directory, and netboot. I'd have all the machines booted to the same freaking installation. Updates and software installations become, literally, as easy as updating/installing on a single box (installation). Each morning all the machines in the network are netbooted to a fresh, clean copy of a the OS. This isn't the only solution... no need to use Open Directory and netboot... if you are proficient at scripting, you can remotely deploy anything you like to a list of machines (IPs), each grabbing updates from Apple directly, or even from a local server.
Windows has had SMS for over 10 years, and now it must exist as some other three letter acronym undoubtedly
now... I know you're not talking about instant messaging....
I'm not sure what remote software deployment package exists for Mac OS X. How would you apply an Mac OS X patch to remote workstations?
Let's just say there's more than one way to skin a cat. I can think of at least 3 ways of doing this (but I know there must be more). I'm not gonna ruin it for you by just giving you the answers... but encourage you to explore the possibilities. You are pregressive, among Windows admins, to even be asking these questions. And when you get the answers, you will wonder why you didn't ask sooner. Admining OS X is a breeze remotely. It's UNIX, man. But its also Apple... so they add some cool tools to the UNIX environment (and leave all the "standard" ones there).
next time you get access to a OS X box, try this:
open/Applications/Utilities/Terminal and type this stuff to learn more:
man installer
man softwareupdate
man diskutil
apropos remote
(will give a big list of stuff you can man to learn more about)
Keep asking your questions, esp. if there's anything that annoys you about admining Windows. I assure you that with little effort you will discover OS X is a much more elegant and customizable (plastic) solution (from both the user and admin perspective). And you will enjoy learning the new (well... not new, just not Windows) way.
I think I should add that I do believe that in 1996, 7, 8, 9... Windows was a better solution. The legacy Apple OS was not ideal to admin... but I think Windows now is as bad as Apple's OS was 10 years ago.
but in a corporate environment with hardware and software standardization administering these boxes is far from a nightmare
I imagine, like most, you don't see it as a nightmare, but job security. As long as Windows "works" the way it always has worked, you will have a job.
But as for the admin functions as long as there are firewalls, AV, anti-spyware, etc. measures in place administering a Windows network isn't the end of the world.
Did I compare admining Windows with Armageddon? No, not the end of the world. But of all the working solutions available, it just so happens to be the worst (and the most common). I base this assessment on the undeniable fact that any other solution is less complex, requires less hands on f-ing with the machine to get it set up, and less f-ing with the machine
so... no takers on my challenge?... i.e. What can Windows do better than OS X (from the users perspective)? (For arguments sake... lets say the users aren't necessarily near-computer-illiterate, but they might all have Ph.D.s in Computer Science and genius IQs.)
I respectfully disagree. As a Windows administrator, I've been assessing exactly what the users need to be able to do in my small department (@50 Dells). I can't think of a SINGLE instance where Windows is better suited to any task than OS X. I defy you to name one (from user's perspective)!
Basically, my users need a secure browser for (effictively) intranet access to java applications that are a front end to the "big database," a mail client with calendaring that accesses the Exchange server, and MS Office for other specific tasks. Most of the machines are 2.6-3.0 GHz Dells, so, this should cover their needs good enough. The problem is the amount of time I have to spend to keep these machines running smoothly. All the users are limited (so no extraneous apps are installed), and the machines, of course, all have virus and spyware protection. I've disabled a lot of the OS, such as MSN Explorer, MSN Messenger, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player (replaced with VLC).
As an experiment, I set up a 1GHz G4 iMac (lampshade) to access our network's Active Directory structure. Configuring was a little bit of a pain... (AD Plugin) but once set up, any of my users could log in to the machine and their domain, and their home folders are automatically created in/Users on login. Office 2004 is installed (for want of a better solution). All of the users, most of whom are older, relatively non-computer-literate computer users, who tried my test box preferred the experience to working on their Dells. As far as I can figure, it comes down to, not the applications needed that are superior on the Mac (I'm not sure that they are), but that there is less struggling with the OS. Windows itself gets in the way of the users' efficient use of the machine. Using the iMac, the OS becomes completely transparent to them (well... that's my assessment). The OS no longer is the issue.
IMHO, I'm surprised anyone champions Windows anymore, period. At first opportunity (@ 8 months), I'm dumping ALL the Dell hardware and replacing with Macs (the new hardware may delay this... I may have to wait for Office to be native, or put another solution in its place). Windows isn't just slow... it will periodically break itself with use (my complaint of linux, too), requires nearly constant attention, and even when everything is working right, there exists still the anxiety of "what's going to go wrong now?"
If I was at a higher level in my organization, I would be trying to figure out how to replace AD with OD, and the Exchange with Open Source solutions. The sooner Windows is eliminated entirely, the better.
I try to be open minded about Vista, but I just don't see the point. OS X is mature. Vista is vaporware. Even if it was available... with all its juicy new features and security... why bother struggling with it for 2 or 3 years while it becomes a viable and mature OS? Screw it. OS X was mature 2 years ago... what is Vista going to offer that OS X can't (other than crashing faster)?
forget 'mp3' has suddenly become the generic for all audio file formats (the Kleenex of facial tissues, the Q-tip of cotton swabs), no one seems to care that CD's sound better. When I found out that DVD's were capable of 24-bit audio, I couldn't understand why there weren't more records available on DVD format. This is an aspect Sony tried to explore with a 20-bit media, but it failed miserably. By the time I had heard about it, it was long gone. DVD players are nearly ubiquitous now... what the industry needs is a hybrid CD/DVD... a disc that would play audio in all CD players (but not much, maybe 20 mins of 16-bit audio), and would also play quite a lot of 24-bit audio. From what I understand of the technology, the formats are completely incompatible. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be developed.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has some inovations... I'm sure of it.
Microsoft is THE ground breaking innovator on what a very large and rich company can do (or not do) to stay ahead of the competition. Its capitalism incarnate. This is how business works.
.
Most of their products follow this same strategy (and always have):
. Some other company (or poor bastard individual) comes out with a new innovative technology or product and creates a new market.
. Microsoft immediately floods this new market with their inferior rip off.
.
. the M$ (and Dell) fanbois with their blinders reinvent history... "Microsoft invented this!"
.
.
. Profit!!!
I'm just pointing this out, so hold off on your flamebait mods.
I don't hate Microsoft, and I couldn't be happier with them!
God Bless America!
Thanks!
Nearly every site that aims to be helpful in learning linux is not. It often has references, without links, to utilities you have to scour the internet to find. The people who aim to help never begin at a point where someone who knows little to nothing about linux can begin.
Where is THE linux documentation? (if you're going to say man pages, please don't)
Just like in the case of Ryan Holt and his balloons.
uh... saw the video... What's (Where's) the 'real' story, with the rest of the context? TIA
Google Cache
I forget which Tom Clancy novel explored the idea of what would happen if the Islamic extemists went all peaceful demonstration on us, sit-in style. Basically, he says, they'd win.
Thanks for posting that...
Where did "repartitioning" a drive with data come from anyway? (I've had to do it in a pinch, but I wouldn't dare try if it wasn't necessary... and dual booting Windows on Mac isn't necessary).... If that's part of the directions... I'd immediately opt to do it another way... namely, from scratch. Start with a wiped drive with no data (no chance of data loss), and then go at it.
And what's the big deal with reinstalling OS X?
While I'm not a huge fan of Tucker Carlson, he made a very good point last night (that I cought while flipping past M$-NBC). The gist of it was this:
The Islamic extremists that hate america, americans, the 'Western values,' civil liberties, and freedom in general, will settle for nothing less than the annihilation of all americans. There is no diplomatic solution, and they make sure of this... there's just no negotiating with a bomb with a nut strapped to it. Either they are going to kill us, or we are going to kill them, and its not going to stop until either we are all dead, or they are all dead.
So, yeah... these unlawful combatants are not being treated 'fairly,' and I have little doubt they must have some that are entirely innocent. But the alternative, 'innocent until proven guilty,' the right to trial... becomes too risky. The collateral damage becomes acceptable even if it saves one blue blood.
That being said, the US should leave that guy alone (or make him an offer for hiring him).
I really can't stand (most) towing companies. The set up contracts with certain places, like condos, businesses, to tow cars, and they overcharge to get your car back. There is no municipaility involved, no ticket that needs paid... basically, they steal your car and extort money from you to get it back.
I need a glue strong enough that when I glue my car to the parking lot, its strong enough to break the hydrolic lift on the tow truck when those bastages try to tow my car away.
Nothing to see here... move along...
Sue the RIAA for perpetuating the myth that mp3s are the same digital quality as CDs... This is simple to prove. If the RIAA doesn't mind if people tape songs off regular radio... then mp3 sharing should be allowed. mp3s do not even meet broadcast quality standards... yet because the RIAA says its so... everyone seems to believe it.
you're pissing me off because you are speaking from some position of self-appointed authority. I gave an OPINION, and YOU insulted me, giving me garbage about how my opinion was false. You may think you know what you are talking about... but you ought to read a little more Wittgenstein, you arrogant little nerd.
O! So you were a test subject! That's super.
When I first heard about 24-bit audio, I was skeptical because I was aware of the limits of human hearing. After working in a pro studio, I was fortunate enough to hear the different bit depths side by side, and, no kidding, 24-bit sounds better. I'd give Sony credit if they would have skipped 24-bit and went right to 32-bit (a ridiculous bit depth, still...), but they didn't. Sony has problems. I still like their products (usually), but their problems are there.
sure... no idea what THAT is... being blind twice?
So you're just going to back down... and not bother listening for yourself? OK, then.
Point taken. Who needs their own opinions when someone's out there to give them to you?
I'm not a 'fan boy.' I bet that if a double blind test showed that mp3s sound better than CD audio, you'd believe that too. Dumbass. The simple fact of the matter is this: the RIAA lied or exaggerated about the quality of mp3s, and everyone agreed with them. But mp3s, and even ACCs do not sound as good as the source uncompressed CD. They don't even sound as good as a radio broadcast! Listen carefully to the high end on mp3s and ACCs and maybe you'll figure it out... the format can't handle high end, esp. cymbol crashes. Cymbols will sometimes make waves in the 22K area of the spectrum... and while most can't hear that, what happens in the 22K part WILL affect what happens at 20K and 18K and 16K... thus you will hear a cymbol crash turn into what sounds like ice particles hitting glass, or a digital static sound.
If iPod could could record QUALITY (I did say Quality, not some stupid external mic that no one in their right mind would use to record anything but a conference or a meeting or notes or something... but not a concert), I would have one.
I suppose DAT really is the best to use... but I can't stand VCR technology (a spinning head? wtf? pull the media right out of its protective case??? huh?). Using a MD recorder, at the lowest compression setting, really does approach CD quality. I can't tell the difference. Therefore, to my ears, CD and MD are the same. I have, and I acknowledged, that some very good ears (I'm talking pro enginneers) have pointed out something about the high end on MD, but I can't hear it. I don't care how bad your ears are. If you concentrate... you can hear the problems with mp3. Once you do... you'll look back at your massive mp3 collection and wonder if its in all of them. One by one, you will realize, yes it is. They all suck.
why did I get modded as flaimbait??? I give kudos to both iPod and MD... what is it? that I'm bashing mp3? There are rabid mp3 FANS out there? Well... the truth hurts. I suggest abandoning trying to stand up for a steaming pile of shit that the mp3 format is... and look into the wonders of FLAC and Apple Lossless.
and where's any response to my suggestion that the 24-bit audio disc formats were superfluous because there already existed a format that supported 24-bit (namely, the good ol' DVD)? I'd be buying albums I already have if they were in plain ol' DVD format, and remastered in 24-bit audio...
Something that people seem to miss is audio quality. When the RIAA perpetuated the myth that mp3s are as good as CD quality (and killed Napster), its like everybody got stupid. IMHO, no matter what super-high and variable bit rate you use, mp3s sound like a PLATE OF ASS. Even at the lowest quality setting, the sound quality off a minidisc, though not perfect, is VASTLY superior to mp3s. ACC (m4a) approaches the quality of the MD audio, and also are much better than mp3s.
iPods are pretty fucking neat, no doubts. Forget the competition, you can't really take them seriously. iPods rule... and that's not an opinion. They dominate. But they can't record audio. They could, but Apple won't let them. I hope the linux projects get better... because I'd buy an iPod in a heartbeat if I knew that I could use it to get a high quality, uncompressed board recording from a live show, and transfer the recording back to my Mac.
It's really too bad Sony fucked the format. For all intensive purposes, a MD was a CD with .2 compression. The high and low end are separated for different compressions, and I think the low end is split again, so there are 3 different compressions going on in MD. Some really good ears have problems with the MD high end... but it never bothered me... certainly not as much as what mp3s do to high end. I wish they could have left that alone... let the thing be a small rerecordable CD, so no software other than the OS would be needed to transfer audio back and forth. I wish the linux crowd would adopt the minidisc format, and figure out a way to completely bypass sony's software issues. Even if the iPod could record, I'm pretty sure the converters are better in the MD. If I'm not mistaken, its the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit, which isn't negligable... often, descriptions explain about the threshold of human hearing... but I swear anyone whose listened to 16-bit and 24-bit side by side can tell the difference... 24-bit is much better. Don't take my word for it... go hear for yourself.
I think Sony's saving grace could be the plain old DVD. I know they had a 20-bit CD-like format, and currently have a 24-bit format... but... WHY ARE THEY INTRODUCING A NEW FORMAT??? Plain ol' DVD supports 24-bit audio. Most DVD players are still only 16-bit..... but... Why are we, as humans, such idiots?? DVD is here, but for some reason, sony sees the need to introduce yet another format just for audio... and then some OTHER competing format has popped up.... this is so retarded... we have a format that is just fine... but we have to introduce 2 more formats of IDENTICAL quality, and they are all incompatible with each other (there are players that will play all 3, though, but still, its pretty fucked up).
So here we are... the cassette is gone... DAT uses sucky VCR technology... and Sony is killing MD... and iPod can't record. Who the fuck is working at these technology companies??? Those sadistic bastards are driving me fucking crazy!!
but the hardware won't last (i.e. be even remotely useful) half as long, so it really doesn't even out... Macs become the better value (I defy you to name 1 person running XP on a PC that was built in 2000. Right now, I can name at least 7 people (I know of) running OS X on a machine made in 1996-7. What was that about more cpu cycles?).
(2) better capitalize on user familiarity/experience, translating into training money saved or higher productivity per employee. I for one would give away or sell an Apple computer if it was given to me.
Yeah, because everyone knows Macs are just impossible to learn how to use, and you know you're no genius, so how the heck could you expect to learn something other than what you already think you know?... it would take way too long to figure out the whole one button thing. You're loosing my respect, btw.
(3) as the default it is generally cheaper to stay with something, anything, than to switch. For example, as component X fails (e.g. keyboard, monitor), one can swap in a component from a retired machine. Thus, for most people staying with Windows/XP is cheaper than switching to anything, but especially to new hardware. XP doesn't sell much at retail, but it doesn't have to. Once it is OEM'd on 300M machines, on the other hand, it tends to stay there.
Barely saved yourself here with this misunderstanding.... You don't take a perfectly good, 6 month old, Windows box and chuck it to switch. When its time for new hardware, that is the time to switch (when bagging old equipment, not replacing it with the same thing). Pretty soon serial is gonna disappear, btw, so this swapping in older hardware to replace the new hw that broke (instead of getting it warranty replaced) won't be possible forever. Besides, any peripheral hw that works with PCs will work with Macs. So the point becomes moot... save your old keyboards/mice/monitors/printers/scanners/cameras/ etc if you wish, they will work fine, if not better, with Macs.
But in my challenge, I was really referring to a specific task... like... uh, a claim, like... ;-)
"Windows can compile Java, and OS X can't," or "You can't interact a Mac with Exchange Servers and Active Directory"
as examples (although the content is incorrect). Off list, someone gave me one that is valid... but lame. Macs can't load a site properly that requires IE6 only. Really... this is another reason to switch... to not give business to those that would restrict you to this or that platform (there is no analogue to crap like that in the Mac world, btw... though maybe in the iPod world
Sounds to me like you've found solutions in areas that I've just been banging my head against a wall with because I wasn't aware they existed. My ignorance has me in a corner right now... and I'm stuck doing things in a more round about way. And ignorance is the only reason I can give for most Win Admins thinking that it can't get easier... meaning, because they are unaware, they think it doesn't exist. I know this will probably only be this way temporarily, but just image how much time you personally would have saved in the last year alone if you didn't have to deal at all with virus protection or spyware? I've never had an infection in my dept, .... the anti-virus works pretty good... but still... think about that... how much time cummulatively would be saved by all users if virus/spyware were not a concern (just think how long it takes to run a single virus scan on a single machine... then multiply that by how many machines, how many times each machine was scanned in the last year). This alone, I'm guessing, could save literally dozens and dozens, maybe even hundreds of man hours, but definately millions and millions (maybe billions) of processor cycles. I have a Panther box at home that had an uptime of 4 months, with daily use. I was saddened when an update finally forced me to reboot... but its a credit to the OS. I know that not all OS X boxes everywhere will necessarily have uptimes like that, but I'll bet my boots that if you take 100 OS X boxes, and 100 XP boxes, I guarantee you that all of the XP will need rebooted before even 5% of the OS X boxes will need rebooted.
Windows workstations aren't the worst or hardest to setup and support. Try installing one of the old Linux distributions from the mid 1990's with all of the countless text-based steps. Or try installing DEC OpenVMS on an old VAX box. Or try installing Solaris 7 on an old Sun box.
I respect your experience, immensely, as I've never set up a network full of these other boxes, but can only imagine what you say is true.. Windows is less of a pain than those. However, I really believe that you are satisfied with Windows because you haven't been admining a big network of OS X boxes (and neither have I, but I've seen them, big networks of OS X boxes, and I read a lot about it, do a lot of experimenting at home). It's not just easier... its really smarter.
And most of that time is all of the Windows Updates automatically downloading and installing themselves. I love that "Most of the time." I'm only responsible for ~50+ boxes, but every time an update is available, I still have to touch every box to check and see. Half of them, for unknown reasons, sometimes just don't update, or the update fails. I know you MUST have come across this occuring. For no good reason, with auto updates configured just like every other box, the update doesn't take.
Before I start a flame war for calling you a liar... please, no offense meant. I know you are exaggerating. Even if I had a ghost image that was entirely current in its OS updates, it takes a little longer than 30 mins to wipe and set up the box on the network. Unfortunately, I can't take the time to create a new ghost image for every single software/OS update. So currently, my last ghost image is just a few months old (as far as OS updates). Once I ghost to a new drive, I have to spend, now, ~4 HOURS just updating the box. 4 hours? just to get current from a ghost image only months old? yeah.. that's about how long it takes, with all the updates, restarts, etc. And this isn't counting the updates for Office and other apps like Acrobat. Maybe I should make a new ghost image every month... yeah, I probably should.... Problem is, I know the ghost image I have is correct. Every time I make a new one, I risk adding something that shouldn't be there, or forgetting something that should be there. One little mistake, and I'd have to either do it again, or jump back to the older image. Where the Ghost image saves me frustration is all the little security configurations and softwares that my organization has deployed for all the machines, the back up clients, all the drivers needed for the printers in the office, etc...
so... apologies... but I'll belive you can wipe a box and ghost a new image to it, have it updated and ready to work on the network in 30 mins when I see it.
Without going into all details, I'll just briefly answers these... in case you really think this is all only possible on Windows boxes.
How do you remotely support Mac OS X workstations?
I'd use the command line (ssh, sftp) -- there are cmd line tools for all admin tasks. Personally speaking, it'd just be simpler (though slightly more arcane). Its simple to use the GUI remotely if you like (yes, can use VNC, any vnc client can control a OS X box if the box has Remote Access turned on, and is set to allow VNC clients to control it. But I wouldn't use VNC to do it as the PW are sent in the clear.) Apple's Remote Desktop allows secure GUI logins remotely. Also, Timbuktu is still alive and kicking, and some prefer it to ARD.
How do you remotely deploy software installations?
In a small network, I might individually touch each machine remotely and install the software with the command line... but in a large network, I would use Open Directory, and netboot. I'd have all the machines booted to the same freaking installation. Updates and software installations become, literally, as easy as updating/installing on a single box (installation). Each morning all the machines in the network are netbooted to a fresh, clean copy of a the OS. This isn't the only solution... no need to use Open Directory and netboot... if you are proficient at scripting, you can remotely deploy anything you like to a list of machines (IPs), each grabbing updates from Apple directly, or even from a local server.
Windows has had SMS for over 10 years, and now it must exist as some other three letter acronym undoubtedly
now... I know you're not talking about instant messaging....
I'm not sure what remote software deployment package exists for Mac OS X. How would you apply an Mac OS X patch to remote workstations?
Let's just say there's more than one way to skin a cat. I can think of at least 3 ways of doing this (but I know there must be more). I'm not gonna ruin it for you by just giving you the answers... but encourage you to explore the possibilities. You are pregressive, among Windows admins, to even be asking these questions. And when you get the answers, you will wonder why you didn't ask sooner. Admining OS X is a breeze remotely. It's UNIX, man. But its also Apple... so they add some cool tools to the UNIX environment (and leave all the "standard" ones there).
next time you get access to a OS X box, try this: /Applications/Utilities/Terminal and type this stuff to learn more:
open
man installer
man softwareupdate
man diskutil
apropos remote
(will give a big list of stuff you can man to learn more about)
Keep asking your questions, esp. if there's anything that annoys you about admining Windows. I assure you that with little effort you will discover OS X is a much more elegant and customizable (plastic) solution (from both the user and admin perspective). And you will enjoy learning the new (well... not new, just not Windows) way.
I think I should add that I do believe that in 1996, 7, 8, 9... Windows was a better solution. The legacy Apple OS was not ideal to admin... but I think Windows now is as bad as Apple's OS was 10 years ago.
I imagine, like most, you don't see it as a nightmare, but job security. As long as Windows "works" the way it always has worked, you will have a job.
But as for the admin functions as long as there are firewalls, AV, anti-spyware, etc. measures in place administering a Windows network isn't the end of the world.
Did I compare admining Windows with Armageddon? No, not the end of the world. But of all the working solutions available, it just so happens to be the worst (and the most common). I base this assessment on the undeniable fact that any other solution is less complex, requires less hands on f-ing with the machine to get it set up, and less f-ing with the machine
so... no takers on my challenge? ... i.e. What can Windows do better than OS X (from the users perspective)? (For arguments sake... lets say the users aren't necessarily near-computer-illiterate, but they might all have Ph.D.s in Computer Science and genius IQs .)
I respectfully disagree. As a Windows administrator, I've been assessing exactly what the users need to be able to do in my small department (@50 Dells). I can't think of a SINGLE instance where Windows is better suited to any task than OS X. I defy you to name one (from user's perspective)!
Basically, my users need a secure browser for (effictively) intranet access to java applications that are a front end to the "big database," a mail client with calendaring that accesses the Exchange server, and MS Office for other specific tasks. Most of the machines are 2.6-3.0 GHz Dells, so, this should cover their needs good enough. The problem is the amount of time I have to spend to keep these machines running smoothly. All the users are limited (so no extraneous apps are installed), and the machines, of course, all have virus and spyware protection. I've disabled a lot of the OS, such as MSN Explorer, MSN Messenger, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player (replaced with VLC).
As an experiment, I set up a 1GHz G4 iMac (lampshade) to access our network's Active Directory structure. Configuring was a little bit of a pain... (AD Plugin) but once set up, any of my users could log in to the machine and their domain, and their home folders are automatically created in /Users on login. Office 2004 is installed (for want of a better solution). All of the users, most of whom are older, relatively non-computer-literate computer users, who tried my test box preferred the experience to working on their Dells. As far as I can figure, it comes down to, not the applications needed that are superior on the Mac (I'm not sure that they are), but that there is less struggling with the OS. Windows itself gets in the way of the users' efficient use of the machine. Using the iMac, the OS becomes completely transparent to them (well... that's my assessment). The OS no longer is the issue.
IMHO, I'm surprised anyone champions Windows anymore, period. At first opportunity (@ 8 months), I'm dumping ALL the Dell hardware and replacing with Macs (the new hardware may delay this... I may have to wait for Office to be native, or put another solution in its place). Windows isn't just slow... it will periodically break itself with use (my complaint of linux, too), requires nearly constant attention, and even when everything is working right, there exists still the anxiety of "what's going to go wrong now?"
If I was at a higher level in my organization, I would be trying to figure out how to replace AD with OD, and the Exchange with Open Source solutions. The sooner Windows is eliminated entirely, the better.
I try to be open minded about Vista, but I just don't see the point. OS X is mature. Vista is vaporware. Even if it was available... with all its juicy new features and security... why bother struggling with it for 2 or 3 years while it becomes a viable and mature OS? Screw it. OS X was mature 2 years ago... what is Vista going to offer that OS X can't (other than crashing faster)?
forget 'mp3' has suddenly become the generic for all audio file formats (the Kleenex of facial tissues, the Q-tip of cotton swabs), no one seems to care that CD's sound better. When I found out that DVD's were capable of 24-bit audio, I couldn't understand why there weren't more records available on DVD format. This is an aspect Sony tried to explore with a 20-bit media, but it failed miserably. By the time I had heard about it, it was long gone. DVD players are nearly ubiquitous now... what the industry needs is a hybrid CD/DVD... a disc that would play audio in all CD players (but not much, maybe 20 mins of 16-bit audio), and would also play quite a lot of 24-bit audio. From what I understand of the technology, the formats are completely incompatible. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be developed.
What a maroon.