Ok, this is my last response as it seems you're not going to be objective about this.
First, if you go to Dell and click "business" they don't list the Studio. That's why it's cheap. It's not in the same class as the Lenovos I listed or the MacBook Pro. Let's review your assessment in detail, shall we?
Mac Baseline: $2499.
Let's compare that to the Dell Studio:
Dell Studio 17 Baseline: $1099.
Upgrade to Windows Vista Ultimate: +$150 (OS X has everything, so you have to pick the Windows edition with everything)
Upgrade to 500 GB HDD: +$75
Upgrade to CD/DVD Writer: +$29
Upgrade to Bluetooth: +$25
Upgrade to Backlit keyboard: +$25
Upgrade to Sony Imagination Studio (near iLife equivalent): +$100
Total: $1500
Whoa! That's really cheap!!! So why the price gap? Apple must be robbing us, right? Not so fast...
Dell resolution: 1440x900. Mac 1920x1200
Dell HDD: 5400 rpm, Mac HDD: 7200rpm
Dell RAM: DDR2, Mac RAM DDR3
Dell Weight: 7.8 lbs., Mac Weight: 6.6 lbs
Dell Battery: 4 hours, Mac Battery 8 hours
Dell thickness: 1.7", Mac thickness: 0.9"
Dell Video card: 256MB, Mac Video Card: 512MB
You can continue the list if you'd like. All you have to do is actually look at the spec pages. So, nice try, but I've been around the block before. You should go check the Dell business class systems and price them. I just matched specs on the Dell Precision and it's $2884. You get what you pay for. It's not that these systems are overpriced, they're simply better spec'ed.
But hey, as long as you can convince yourself, that's all that really matters. The last word is yours if you want it. I'm done with this thread.
1) Have you had an experience whatsoever with computers?
Yes, I have a degree in computer science, telecommunication experience, and currently lead a team that delivers ERP reporting solutions to Windows, OS X, and Linux users.
There was an article a while back reviewing OSX server... not even close to being an integrated and coherent product as Windows Server.
Who's talking about servers? This thread started with me stating that a dock is not sufficient criteria to not allow user to have Macs. I'm focused on my laptop. I do agree that OS X Server isn't that great.
Wrong, spec for spec Apple *is* more expensive.
No, you're wrong. Let's stop bickering and use these crazy things called "facts."
Apple MacBook Pro, 17": $2,499
Lenovo W700ds, 17" (upgraded to match Mac specs): $3,533, currently on sale for $2,494
Lenovo T400s, 14.1" (upgraded to match Mac specs): $2,695, currently on sale for $2,592
It's not 2001 anymore. Time to update your "why I hate Mac" argument.
I think if you'd just step back for one second, you'll see that 1 solution seldom fits all. Windows/PCs have their strengths, but so does any system.
wrong again, although I don't think you know it. Macs are a terrible choice here because PCs are the target platform, and applications and software are designed and tested for them.
It sounds like your IT staff made some poor decisions. If you are in a situation where you've tied yourself to one vendor, then you may be correct about PCs. However, I recommend you look for software that follows standards and isn't made for a specific version of a specific application on a specific platform.
And in addition, Windows is light years ahead for any sort of administration--in both speed, convenience and simplicity--for any size organization (and would be more efficient the larger the org) than Apple computers.
Not sure what you mean here. Remote login, controlled updates, automatic backups, MS Office, ERP software, etc., etc., etc., is all available on Mac too. Again, this is a dated argument.
And did I mention? The $500-1000 different PER computer cost isn't exactly in Apple's favor.
That's an easy stat to toss out, but I'd challenge you to back it. When you go spec-for-spec, Apple's hardware isn't much more expensive (sometimes cheaper) than the PC alternative. And there's the cost of support to consider too. In general, you get what you pay for. If you buy a cheap PC, it's probably going to cost you time and money to keep it running. If I'm getting paid $50/hr, it only takes a day of me screwing around with my quirky PC to cover your price gap (if it even exists). You've got to look beyond the sticker price.
If you had to use a Mac because you couldn't figure out how to use XP, well thank god you're not in charge of administering those computers.
No, this is why geeks who don't know when to "turn off their geekness" shouldn't be put in charge. Low level people tend to have fluff in their schedules. They have time to sit at their desk and think "stupid PEBCAK!" and tweak either their hardware or software to deal with it. As you move up the food chain though, time to do stuff like that goes down as you spend all of your time trying to get the 50 guys that work for you to focus on the business and not PEBCAK. The result is that your time to tweak your system diminishes while the impact of hardware/software issues rises.
I assure you it's not that I don't have the aptitude. I just choose to apply myself elsewhere and expect my hardware/software to just work.
And your implication that Mac is somehow for dumb people is just wrong. If you're in charge of administering anything, I strongly recommend you step out of your geek shoes and look at people as individuals and offer/support systems that meet their needs, not yours.
no corporation should ever consider using laptops that don't have docking ports.
This advise is just silly. I work for a large corporation (10K+ employees) and Mac is fully supported in every area of the business (along with PCs/Windows). I know it's really hard to plug 3 cables into the very accessible ports on the side of my computer every morning when I get to work, but somehow I manage.
So, let's not say "no corporation should ever" about anything. There are tradeoffs with most anything. Where you may want a dock, other people like me couldn't care less (I actually prefer not to have the extra hardware on my desk).
I think in general the "Macs are bad for business" argument died about 5 years ago. It's simply not true anymore. On the contrary, I find myself far more productive on my Mac. The computer I had before at the same company was an HP NC6220 running XP. It was a nightmare.
Was it just me, or did anyone else find the process of getting Window 7 Beta to be a pain? I was amazed at just how difficult it was to obtain their software using a non-Windows OS.
OmniNerd.com, a site I do hobby development for, is running on Rails 2.0. We switched over from PHP this fall and site maintenance has been a dream since. Our site has even survived a few Slashdottings and Diggs since the switch, which used to murder it before. (Granted, the PHP code wasn't the best.) I've heard the "doesn't scale" debate a million times, but I'm curious if there is anyone out there who has recently moved a project from one language/framework to Ruby/Rails and whether you're glad you did or if it's been a nightmare. We're a medium-to-low traffic site with big surges every few weeks and it's worked well for us.
Well, in the classroom you may be correct, but when you're looking for solutions, XML is often times a better place to store static data than a database. A perfect example is on OmniNerd, when one of our articles gets Slashdotted, or we think it's going to be, we bypass the database and create a static copy of our article in XML. It's faster since no "thought" is required to query specific data as it's all just there. The results have been that our server doesn't flinch when the massive wave of HTTP requests hit our site.
I also use it to store data for parts of the site that remain static. Why insert my FAQ into my database if it's not structured in a dynamic manner? It's far easier for me to go edit an XML file than run a bunch of queries, and we already mentioned the removed burden from the database.
Consider the alternative of storing it in an XHTML file. If I change the style of my site, then I have to update the XHTML file too as it's static. I can quickly translate the XML via XSLT with PHP, ASP, etc. There's no need to touch the data when I make a structural change. So given the static nature not requiring a database, the desire for easy updates, and the need to remove data from structure, I still choose XML.
So, yes, from a purist perspective it's for describing data. But from the perspective of someone trying to run a functional and effective site, it can be useful for storing certain data as well.
I authored the site OmniNerd. When I first started writing code, I made a point of storing data either in a database or XML, translating data to XHTML with XSLT, using CSS for all style issues, and controlling everything with PHP. What I struggled with for over a year was the XML/XSLT portion of the site. I was constantly having to jump through all sorts of hoops to get things done that could easily be handled with just PHP and a database.
This isn't intended to be me bashing XML/XSLT, but more of a warning. If you plan to use these two, ensure you fully understand them and how they will tie into your site. I've found with OmniNerd that XML/XSLT solutions are very nice for the more static or semi-static content and that using PHP to generate XHTML directly from the database is better suited for dynamic content.
One minor thing that irritated me when I had my first Slashdot story accepted was the fact that it was edited. It may have very well been posted somewhere that my submission would be edited, but it was not clear to me. Now, the edits were good ones, but I had no idea they were going to be made. It seems like if the front page is going to say "markmcb writes," then I should have written it or at least consented to any edits.
I tried to implement a solution to this when I coded OmniNerd. When a user submits a story on OmniNerd there is a box they can check to allow the moderators to edit freely. If they uncheck the box, we do not have the freedom to edit their text... at all. Though this may increase the chance of their submission getting rejected should they submit a poorly written post, it does give them some freedom and ownership rights. I think this is an important part of our news submission page and one that Slashdot should consider.
I personally switched to Mac for my personal platform in '03. I love it, it's great, etc, etc, etc. But I still use Windows at work. And I think it's probably the best solution given the alternatives. It just seems that there are so many services that Microsoft provides that simply don't exist (in an easy to use manner any way) on other platforms. Things like Sharepoint, MS Project come to mind, but we also use countless programs that simply aren't available for other platforms. I understand that other platforms ARE possible for use, but is it really worth it? Anyone out there using another platform that never finds themself asking, "man, if I only had Windows?"
I don't know about that article being funny, but I knew a guy in colleg who woke up to a random dude pissing in his keyboard. I'm not sure if the keyboard was ruined, but I do know that it was trashed (much like the random dude). Cops were involved and the guy ended up having to buy a whole new system for my friend.
So if you're in college and you're not locking your dorm room door, you might want to put a towel or something over your keyboard at night.
I'm about to migrate a site I administer, OmniNerd, to PHP5 from PHP4. Any areas of focus from those of you who have already done it? I do a lot of XSLT translations and I've noticed that I'm going to have to recode of xslt_process() calls. Any other major changes I should be looking for?
For anyone interested, here's a link to a hearing (not sure if it's the one referenced), that gives some insight into the broader goals of the the strategic command that this hacking force falls under.
I actually had the system lock up when I put my AirPort Extreme card in and didn't seat it properly. It was very reminiscent of the old Solaris startup screen with about 50 different languages. The big difference was that instead of telling me "welcome," they were all telling me that the system was done.
That's the only time I've ever had it die on me in since Jan '03.
On the flipside, I've found that using a computer to write with has greatly enhanced my spelling. I'm a huge fan of the little red line that appears in Word. It seems like more programs are using ideas like this. For example, in the net arena, iChat for OS X checks your spelling as you type.
So I tend to think the online world has made people communicate in written form more than ever before. That considered, I think it's helped far more than it's hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
3 Cables? How do you figure that.
Actually it's usually 2: power supply and monitor. One is a mag connection and the other is mini-DisplayPort so it's super easy to plug them in.
I use a wireless keyboard and mouse. And our network is 802.11n so I rarely ever plug in the ethernet cable, but that would be #3.
I don't use external speakers at work. When I do occasionally need sound, the built-in speakers are quite good.
Ok, this is my last response as it seems you're not going to be objective about this.
First, if you go to Dell and click "business" they don't list the Studio. That's why it's cheap. It's not in the same class as the Lenovos I listed or the MacBook Pro. Let's review your assessment in detail, shall we?
Let's compare that to the Dell Studio:
Total: $1500
Whoa! That's really cheap!!! So why the price gap? Apple must be robbing us, right? Not so fast ...
You can continue the list if you'd like. All you have to do is actually look at the spec pages. So, nice try, but I've been around the block before. You should go check the Dell business class systems and price them. I just matched specs on the Dell Precision and it's $2884. You get what you pay for. It's not that these systems are overpriced, they're simply better spec'ed.
But hey, as long as you can convince yourself, that's all that really matters. The last word is yours if you want it. I'm done with this thread.
1) Have you had an experience whatsoever with computers?
Yes, I have a degree in computer science, telecommunication experience, and currently lead a team that delivers ERP reporting solutions to Windows, OS X, and Linux users.
There was an article a while back reviewing OSX server ... not even close to being an integrated and coherent product as Windows Server.
Who's talking about servers? This thread started with me stating that a dock is not sufficient criteria to not allow user to have Macs. I'm focused on my laptop. I do agree that OS X Server isn't that great.
Wrong, spec for spec Apple *is* more expensive.
No, you're wrong. Let's stop bickering and use these crazy things called "facts."
It's not 2001 anymore. Time to update your "why I hate Mac" argument.
I think if you'd just step back for one second, you'll see that 1 solution seldom fits all. Windows/PCs have their strengths, but so does any system.
wrong again, although I don't think you know it. Macs are a terrible choice here because PCs are the target platform, and applications and software are designed and tested for them.
It sounds like your IT staff made some poor decisions. If you are in a situation where you've tied yourself to one vendor, then you may be correct about PCs. However, I recommend you look for software that follows standards and isn't made for a specific version of a specific application on a specific platform.
And in addition, Windows is light years ahead for any sort of administration--in both speed, convenience and simplicity--for any size organization (and would be more efficient the larger the org) than Apple computers.
Not sure what you mean here. Remote login, controlled updates, automatic backups, MS Office, ERP software, etc., etc., etc., is all available on Mac too. Again, this is a dated argument.
And did I mention? The $500-1000 different PER computer cost isn't exactly in Apple's favor.
That's an easy stat to toss out, but I'd challenge you to back it. When you go spec-for-spec, Apple's hardware isn't much more expensive (sometimes cheaper) than the PC alternative. And there's the cost of support to consider too. In general, you get what you pay for. If you buy a cheap PC, it's probably going to cost you time and money to keep it running. If I'm getting paid $50/hr, it only takes a day of me screwing around with my quirky PC to cover your price gap (if it even exists). You've got to look beyond the sticker price.
Anyway, best of luck to you.
If you had to use a Mac because you couldn't figure out how to use XP, well thank god you're not in charge of administering those computers.
No, this is why geeks who don't know when to "turn off their geekness" shouldn't be put in charge. Low level people tend to have fluff in their schedules. They have time to sit at their desk and think "stupid PEBCAK!" and tweak either their hardware or software to deal with it. As you move up the food chain though, time to do stuff like that goes down as you spend all of your time trying to get the 50 guys that work for you to focus on the business and not PEBCAK. The result is that your time to tweak your system diminishes while the impact of hardware/software issues rises.
I assure you it's not that I don't have the aptitude. I just choose to apply myself elsewhere and expect my hardware/software to just work.
And your implication that Mac is somehow for dumb people is just wrong. If you're in charge of administering anything, I strongly recommend you step out of your geek shoes and look at people as individuals and offer/support systems that meet their needs, not yours.
no corporation should ever consider using laptops that don't have docking ports.
This advise is just silly. I work for a large corporation (10K+ employees) and Mac is fully supported in every area of the business (along with PCs/Windows). I know it's really hard to plug 3 cables into the very accessible ports on the side of my computer every morning when I get to work, but somehow I manage.
So, let's not say "no corporation should ever" about anything. There are tradeoffs with most anything. Where you may want a dock, other people like me couldn't care less (I actually prefer not to have the extra hardware on my desk).
I think in general the "Macs are bad for business" argument died about 5 years ago. It's simply not true anymore. On the contrary, I find myself far more productive on my Mac. The computer I had before at the same company was an HP NC6220 running XP. It was a nightmare.
Was it just me, or did anyone else find the process of getting Window 7 Beta to be a pain? I was amazed at just how difficult it was to obtain their software using a non-Windows OS.
OmniNerd.com, a site I do hobby development for, is running on Rails 2.0. We switched over from PHP this fall and site maintenance has been a dream since. Our site has even survived a few Slashdottings and Diggs since the switch, which used to murder it before. (Granted, the PHP code wasn't the best.) I've heard the "doesn't scale" debate a million times, but I'm curious if there is anyone out there who has recently moved a project from one language/framework to Ruby/Rails and whether you're glad you did or if it's been a nightmare. We're a medium-to-low traffic site with big surges every few weeks and it's worked well for us.
XML is not for "storing data".
Well, in the classroom you may be correct, but when you're looking for solutions, XML is often times a better place to store static data than a database. A perfect example is on OmniNerd, when one of our articles gets Slashdotted, or we think it's going to be, we bypass the database and create a static copy of our article in XML. It's faster since no "thought" is required to query specific data as it's all just there. The results have been that our server doesn't flinch when the massive wave of HTTP requests hit our site.
I also use it to store data for parts of the site that remain static. Why insert my FAQ into my database if it's not structured in a dynamic manner? It's far easier for me to go edit an XML file than run a bunch of queries, and we already mentioned the removed burden from the database.
Consider the alternative of storing it in an XHTML file. If I change the style of my site, then I have to update the XHTML file too as it's static. I can quickly translate the XML via XSLT with PHP, ASP, etc. There's no need to touch the data when I make a structural change. So given the static nature not requiring a database, the desire for easy updates, and the need to remove data from structure, I still choose XML.
So, yes, from a purist perspective it's for describing data. But from the perspective of someone trying to run a functional and effective site, it can be useful for storing certain data as well.
I authored the site OmniNerd. When I first started writing code, I made a point of storing data either in a database or XML, translating data to XHTML with XSLT, using CSS for all style issues, and controlling everything with PHP. What I struggled with for over a year was the XML/XSLT portion of the site. I was constantly having to jump through all sorts of hoops to get things done that could easily be handled with just PHP and a database.
This isn't intended to be me bashing XML/XSLT, but more of a warning. If you plan to use these two, ensure you fully understand them and how they will tie into your site. I've found with OmniNerd that XML/XSLT solutions are very nice for the more static or semi-static content and that using PHP to generate XHTML directly from the database is better suited for dynamic content.
Whatever you choose to use though, good luck!
One minor thing that irritated me when I had my first Slashdot story accepted was the fact that it was edited. It may have very well been posted somewhere that my submission would be edited, but it was not clear to me. Now, the edits were good ones, but I had no idea they were going to be made. It seems like if the front page is going to say "markmcb writes," then I should have written it or at least consented to any edits.
... at all. Though this may increase the chance of their submission getting rejected should they submit a poorly written post, it does give them some freedom and ownership rights. I think this is an important part of our news submission page and one that Slashdot should consider.
I tried to implement a solution to this when I coded OmniNerd. When a user submits a story on OmniNerd there is a box they can check to allow the moderators to edit freely. If they uncheck the box, we do not have the freedom to edit their text
That's it, I'm going through with my patent on whitespace. You're all going down! Mwuhuahahahahaha!
I personally switched to Mac for my personal platform in '03. I love it, it's great, etc, etc, etc. But I still use Windows at work. And I think it's probably the best solution given the alternatives. It just seems that there are so many services that Microsoft provides that simply don't exist (in an easy to use manner any way) on other platforms. Things like Sharepoint, MS Project come to mind, but we also use countless programs that simply aren't available for other platforms. I understand that other platforms ARE possible for use, but is it really worth it? Anyone out there using another platform that never finds themself asking, "man, if I only had Windows?"
I don't know about that article being funny, but I knew a guy in colleg who woke up to a random dude pissing in his keyboard. I'm not sure if the keyboard was ruined, but I do know that it was trashed (much like the random dude). Cops were involved and the guy ended up having to buy a whole new system for my friend. So if you're in college and you're not locking your dorm room door, you might want to put a towel or something over your keyboard at night.
I'm about to migrate a site I administer, OmniNerd, to PHP5 from PHP4. Any areas of focus from those of you who have already done it? I do a lot of XSLT translations and I've noticed that I'm going to have to recode of xslt_process() calls. Any other major changes I should be looking for?
What is this "VCR" you speak of?
I promise!
Someone's got to make it a good name again... I do what I can.
We can only hope they don't get stabbed as well.
For anyone interested, here's a link to a hearing (not sure if it's the one referenced), that gives some insight into the broader goals of the the strategic command that this hacking force falls under.
I actually had the system lock up when I put my AirPort Extreme card in and didn't seat it properly. It was very reminiscent of the old Solaris startup screen with about 50 different languages. The big difference was that instead of telling me "welcome," they were all telling me that the system was done.
That's the only time I've ever had it die on me in since Jan '03.
What's that? I run OS X. :-)
I knew I shouldn't have gotten that bar code tattoo... Idiot!
On the flipside, I've found that using a computer to write with has greatly enhanced my spelling. I'm a huge fan of the little red line that appears in Word. It seems like more programs are using ideas like this. For example, in the net arena, iChat for OS X checks your spelling as you type.
So I tend to think the online world has made people communicate in written form more than ever before. That considered, I think it's helped far more than it's hurt.
Oh man. Thanks for the laugh. That was quality humor. :-)