If you're going to cause unnecessary danger, which we certainly are when we speed, than at least fucking pay attention. That includes knowing how fast you're going so you know how much distance you'll need to stop or slow down.
I'll laugh and give the cop a thumbs-up when he gets you by pacing, or from an airplane, or using instant-on, where when your V1 goes off it's too late. If you had been paying attention you would have seen him.
Jerks like you ruin speeding for the rest of us. If people would just pay attention to what they were doing, and be aware that a car is also a 4000-pound missile and should be treated with the corresponding respect, we wouldn't need such low speed limits, or fascist highway enforcement.
Americans would never accept that. You might as well just say "and fairy princesses should fly down from candyland and give us all ponies to ride."
I've posted before that I don't see why we just have to accept this and say it will never change.
People buy large vehicles for two reasons: utility, and "image" (i.e. penis size). (There's also perceived safety, but that is not a valid reason, as no large vehicles except full-size sedans and minivans are actually safer, and those are definitely not the worst fuel and space guzzlers.)
Only a tiny fraction of those who buy large personal, as opposed to work, vehicles use even close to all of their utility on a daily basis.
Therefore, if it is convenient (I imagine delivery on order within 20-30 minutes, without a reservation), comfortable, and not too expensive, it seems that Americans ought to be happy to borrow/rent/timeshare large vehicles on the relatively infrequent occasions when they are necessary rather than paying the fuel, parking, and maintenance costs all the time.
If Americans who are informed about safety don't like such an idea, then, the reason must be penis size.
If you can make people feel stupid about things they are doing for image, the image value will evaporate overnight. Therefore, I don't think it's hopeless to try to get Americans into smaller cars for their daily commuting and errand-running.
I like driving too, but the benefits of having driverless highways and arterials are just too great to ignore. I would give up driving on highways if it would get me higher speeds, fewer accidents (by an order of magnitude or more), much greater capacity (as a computer could safely orchestrate much shorter following distances than humans can manage), and no anger from idiots on their cellphones, driving 50 in the left lane, or doing wheelies on their motorbikes in rush-hour traffic.
The system would not make it to secondary rural roads or residential streets for years, if ever, because the benefits would be much less significant and would not justify the enormous costs. If you want to drive, you'll be able to go to those locations, or to a track.
I know I would get all nostalgic about driving everywhere under an automated system, but if it worked as it should there is no way I would go back.
Man, you haven't been in enough Burger King parking lots.
*Rednecks* would rip the neon right off the car. They're more interested in oversized tires, big loud ugly intake/exhaust components, and torn seats.
*Ricers* put on neon, and fart cans, and decals. Lots of decals.
Oh, and the rednecks are modifying pickups, old Detroit iron, and (when they somehow stumble across money) '90s Camaros. The ricers are modifying Civics and Corollas, mostly.
If you'd bother reading my comment, you'd see I was asking about neglectful owners, not anything in TFA. How many of the people you know actually change their oil on time?
If these were in large-scale use the ethanol *would* run out. Often. My question was whether, when that happens, you get reduced power or your car stops running.
Yes. Note that I don't actually believe the claim about tripling power, at least not with a whole lot of *very heavy* reinforcement of the block and heads.
For example: (Note: Numbers strictly pulled out of ass.)
Your engine is 25% more efficient per hp and is generating 3x as much power.
Of course, the real application they have in mind is to create reinforced motorcycle-size engines that can power sedans, or small car motors that can power SUVs. If your 2.0l engine can create 360 hp, big torque, and get 17-18 mpg, you've reinvented a turbodiesel, except that your engine is (even with reinforcements) way smaller and lighter.
I suppose my first question is, when the owner inevitably lets the ethanol run out, what happens? Can the engine computer dial down the boost enough to prevent detonation? Or does the engine just have to shut down?
That aside, it's always great to improve internal-combustion efficiency, but the real solutions will have a more dramatic effect than this. My own view is that the solution should be a plug-in series hybrid with about 60 miles of electric-only range and the ability to run maybe 400 more with the engine providing generator power. This would not seriously compromise the essential attributes of modern cars, while *dramatically* (think 80% or more) improving their fuel economy in many real-world usage patterns.
Then we should have nuclear power behind all those 220v outlets... and 90% of cars should be much smaller, with people able to obtain bigger trucks for big jobs on demand from time-share or rental companies... a guy can dream, can't he...
The trouble is that no variant of OpenOffice for Mac is remotely Mac-like.
OO.o for Mac requires the use of X11 -- resulting in a completely different interface from any Mac application.
The Aqua port, NeoOffice, at least stays within the Aqua environment, but it is the most un-Mac-like application I have installed on my machines. Its toolbars look straight out of Windows 2000 (complete with close box on the right). It reinvents the wheel for dialog boxes, not using the Mac's built-in resources. And it has some serious speed issues to boot.
NeoOffice works more or less OK, and it's a great tool to have hanging around, but there's no way Apple -- the company that is thankfully concerned with little details, which is the reason most Mac users bother with it -- should ever bundle it with its systems. If someone had the time and resources to create and maintain a fully Mac-like version with Cocoa, that might be different, but it would be a Herculean undertaking, because the interface would have to significantly change, and because it would have to be redone in a different language.
Sadly, this is the sort of business decision that occurs when you are mainly selling to the uninformed. Since they don't know any better, they won't get upset with a vendor who reduces system performance by 15% or even 30% through crapware installs... if they know anything, it's hardware specs, which don't change after crapware is installed.
Thus, it's more cost-effective for the vendor to generate revenue from crapware vendors for installing the stuff than it is to try to sell machines that perform better than the competition because there is no crapware.
Of course, this effect is exaggerated because almost all consumers who would actually be knowledgeable enough to avoid crapware won't buy from big OEMs anyway... they'd rather customize more, pay lower prices, get higher-quality components, install different OSes, or some combination of all of the above. Thus they will build their own systems, buy from small specialized vendors, or (in some nutball cases such as yours truly) buy Macs.
Not true anymore. Now, you get trial versions of all of Pages, Keynote, and MS Office, and no AppleWorks (which never made the transition to Intel). I suppose trial versions are OK, in that Joe Consumer can follow easy instructions to pay more to unlock them, but I agree a consumer machine ought to have word processing -- probably the #2 consumer application for PCs after the series of tubes -- out of the box.
On a Mac, TextEdit is a surprisingly fast and capable little word processor for stuff like letters, grade-school papers, etc. that might be written in Joe Consumer's household. I'm a power user, and, honestly, the only time I exceed the capabilities of TextEdit in word processing is when I'm doing academic writing or some kind of page-layout-ish stuff. The interface is rather reminiscent, in a good way, of MacWrite in 1984. TextEdit is way more capable as a basic word processor than it is as a text editor.
Of course, we could always suggest that non-Mac consumer machines really ought to come with the default install of Ubuntu, which has OO.o installed.../ducks
I believe it was the brief threat of OS/2 that made MS and Apple get their acts partially together way back when. We saw both those companies put out products that were far more sturdy and usable in the period after OS/2 hit the market.
?
I don't see how this is true for any value of OS/2.
OS/2 1.0 came out in 1987, and MS was partially responsible. At that point Apple had more or less the same Mac OS it had in 1984 (with minor refinements). MS's other offering was... DOS.
OS/2 2.0 came out in 1992, when Microsoft was offering... Windows 3.1. Wow, that's some kind of stable operating system. Just before OS/2 2.0. Apple came out with System 7. It was a disaster until 7.1, and was never a particularly "sturdy and usable" product (except possibly for "7 Pro" on 68030 machines).
OS/2 Warp came out in 1994, when Apple was running a nearly entirely emulated OS (680x0 code, PowerPC hardware) with a ton of bugs and Microsoft was *still* peddling Windows 3.11 (soon to be replaced by a very buggy and unstable Windows 95).
Windows really became "sturdy and usable" with Windows 2000. Depending on how you define "sturdy," you could argue that Mac OS 8.6 (the most stable classic Mac OS) in 1999 fit the description, but I wouldn't call any Mac OS release really "sturdy" until OS X Jaguar in 2002. (Even Jaguar was not that usable -- OS X really became both "sturdy and usable" with Panther in 2003.) OS/2 was dying a horrible death by the time these all came out.
Something galls me about having to pay the high premium on average hardware that you get with a Mac Pro.
So many good examples of arguably overpriced Mac hardware (see Mac mini) and you choose the one model that's unequivocally a screaming deal to complain about the price? I'm confused... Most dual-dual Xeon 5100 boxes go for $300 to $700 more than a comparable Mac Pro, and don't even have the slide-out drive bays. The Mac Pro is NOT comparable to ordinary desktops (which is why Apple really ought to offer one).
I moderated your first comment up, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to burn that mod point to respond to this post...
I do have a problem with that because you cannot have freedom of religion or a seperation of church and state with the state telling you or your children that your religion is a fary tale.
Frequently what religious people interpret as "the state telling... children that your religion is a fairy tale" is actually the state merely pointing out that no empirical evidence exists in support of the religion. You have no problem with the state telling kids that no empirical evidence exists that you can turn lead into gold. On the other hand, no empirical evidence exists disproving your religion (although, for most values of "religion," logic suggests that your religious tenets are unlikely), although there is empirical evidence disproving the theory that lead -> gold.
True separation of church and state requires that the state treat all religious and nonreligious propositions alike. It does not involve religious propositions being given special immunity from the usual standards of proof, as you seem to be suggesting.
That's an interesting point, and one I hadn't ever thought about. In my case, it shows just how we adapt without thinking to all kinds of circumstances. I do all my web browsing on my second monitor and everything else, for the most part, on my main monitor. Now that I think about it, a big reason why my usage patterns evolved that way is that I almost never need the menus when web browsing. (Another part of it is that my main monitor is bigger and I rarely need a 1200-pixel-wide browser window.)
Maybe it would be possible at some future point for Apple to add some sort of preference to have a hotkey to shift the menu bar, or to (although I don't know how exactly you'd tell the difference) add a second menubar when the focus of a particular app seems to be on the second monitor.
I'm not advocating that you, or the GP, rip out your entire IT infrastructure and replace it with Macs. You have a lot of good reasons not to, many of which both of you named in your posts. I was simply arguing that you are systematically excluding Macs, even when they may be the best tool for the job, based on either personal preference, misconceptions, or both.
Macs can make media creators more productive. The systemwide color-management tools and some of the media authoring software are unique. If you told our sound and video people you were taking away their Macs, they'd probably leave too. That doesn't mean the Macs have to integrate perfectly with the rest of the enterprise; it just means the extra expense of supporting them is justified by their benefits in this application.
Finally, I don't understand this "software runs slower" myth, unless you're talking about I/O-intensive server applications or DirectX vs. OpenGL for games. Intel-native Mac software on a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo runs at the same speed as equivalent Windows software on a 2.33GHz Core Duo.
And yeah, MY users better damn well do what they're told. I'm the expert, and my job is to tell people what to do for their IT. [snip] Corporations (and most other organizations) are dictatorships, not democracies.
If you have any users who have even the level of aptitude necessary to correctly set up a home network, they already resent your attitude and are circumventing your orders.
I've never worked in system management in a large organization (although I used to do much of the work in a small business). That's exactly why I'm arguing from the *user* perspective, which is what I've been doing from the beginning. As a user, I've worked in organizations where the IT staff had your attitude toward users, and organizations where the IT staff worked *with* the users to accommodate their needs. Frankly, given the importance of IT tools in any modern workplace, your attitude alone (if reflective of the entire IT staff) would be a good reason for me to leave a company, because it's awfully hard to be productive in an inflexible environment built around IT managers and not users. I really don't think you will find management wants all the intelligent users leaving because they "better damn well do" what some tinhorn IT dictator tells them. Remember, they, not you, are generating the revenue.
Corporations that want to be profitable are cooperative organizations with final accountability at the top, not dictatorships. If a corporation has a dictatorial attitude, it's wasting all the talent and ideas that can be generated at the lower levels, because it won't listen.
or that the company waste time and money training me to do a job at which I already excel on several other perfectly viable platforms?
If some subset of your users (e.g. designers, or possibly management) were likely to be more productive with Macs on their desktop, this would not necessarily be a waste of money.
If I have 50 users, with 10 needing Photoshop, I can recycle those licenses as needed, with no concern whatsoever about who gets a copy. If suddenly some might need the Mac version, I find myself in the position, over time, of needing twice as many copies
Um, no. Adobe has cross-platform licensing options available for all of its major (read "expensive") products. MS Office is not nearly as expensive. No other product is nearly as likely to be used by both sets of users.
Does Apple support AD?
Yes.
I don't know about all of the others, since I've never worked in an environment that has Macs and those other products together, but if you wanted things to work smoothly in a real multi-platform environment, you probably wouldn't be using exclusively Microsoft on your servers anyway.
Absolute rubbish. If I had more "empowered" users, my job would get far, far easier.
That would leave my users more skilled than me. If you don't see the problem with that [snip] we can end this conversation here.
Um, which of these do you actually mean? Especially if you're not addressing your own job security?
Users will know things you don't. After all, they actually use the software you support every single day. Provided you have enough knowledge to keep your network secure, this is not a problem, but a good thing. It means your company doesn't only hire CorpoSheep (tm) who meekly do only what they're told.
If Macs don't make sense for any missions in your organization, that's one thing. But I get the feeling that you're more concerned with your own personal preferences than with maximizing the productivity of your users by giving them whatever the right tools may be. Since it's the users who are generating the revenue that pays your salary, *that* is really what your job is.
If a company wants to go wireless, then Macs are not a bad option in this regard. If they don't then *don't get one.* Remove wireless cards from laptops, and the like.
I'm not actually advocating this for a big installation, but if you're just talking about a few machines, or even one for an image-conscious PHB...
The wireless card can be removed from the vast majority of Macs. (The only one I can think of where it's not removable is the final-generation high-resolution 15" and 17" PowerBook G4.) Nothing will go wrong if you run a Mac laptop or an iMac without a wireless card.
If you want to say, "Apple has a limited range of choices", then fine, just say that, its perfectly clear what that means. But if you say "Apple is more expensive", be prepared to back up how an Apple machine costs more than a comparable PC.
Thank you. You just said what I was trying to say much more effectively.
iMacs support a second monitor up to 1920x1200. They're not perfect for everyone, but there is a two-monitor option between the mini and the Pro.
And what do you mean "the support for two monitors in OS X is not ideal?" It works flawlessly and completely transparently. In my experience it's easier to get two monitors working with OS X than any other OS (not that it's hard anymore on those other OSes).
Of course in a big place with the resources and staff to centrally manage all the desktop machines this is a non-issue.
But in a small business with no dedicated IT people, or one who has worked with Windows his whole life, the investment of time and effort to figure out which distro to use and how to use it could very well be unrealistic.
These are exactly the businesses that Apple could make real inroads into, if it chose to... the unique aspect of Macs is that they can save time and effort even for people who don't know that much about them.
Do we really have to have one of these trolls in every Mac-related discussion?
For the last time (until next time...)
1. Macs are NOT significantly more expensive than comparably equipped commodity machines, for the most part.
1a. On the high end, they tend to be *cheaper* than comparable commodity machines (esp. Mac Pro).
2. However, Apple does not sell barebones configurations; that is not its business.
3. Therefore, *base* prices of Macs tend to be higher.
Anyone who says Apple hardware is 2x as expensive is comparing a barebones PC to a fully loaded Mac (and there really isn't any other kind).
Of course, businesses may want those cheap barebones PCs, but if they do, they are not businesses who would ever buy Apple, even if Apple had flawless enterprise-level support. Apple is a maker of highly capable multimedia PCs with lots of easily configurable connectivity options. That, not barebones commodity hardware, is its business.
Remember, Apple is an idealistic company, and likes to push its idea of future tech...
Instead of a docking station, Apple would suggest that you use
a Bluetooth keybard and mouse
a wireless network connection
network-attached printers and mass storage at the other end of that wireless connection
This leaves you with only a power cable and a DVI cable to hook up. When the laptop has ports on both sides (with the power and DVI on opposite sides), so you have to hook up two docks, docks won't save you any effort at all.
I know this won't work for everyone, but it's perfectly representative of how Apple tends to think.
Even if you can't use any of the wireless stuff, you still only have power, DVI, USB, and Ethernet to hook up. (Your monitor probably has a USB hub that you can use to hook up your KB, mouse, printer, mass storage, audio interface, etc., etc.) That's a long way from the old days when you might have had separate connections for your KB/mouse, monitor, printer, external hard drive, network, audio, and power.
if your fellow students are all that keeps you sane, you need to connect with some people outside of law school. Law school is a self-reinforcing echo chamber. The ultimate result is stuff like the idiocy on those boards.
Anything that involves the voter having possession of a record of his/her vote outside the polling place, at a known time and in a known manner, is a non-starter. It makes it easier for people to buy votes.
For the same reason, vote-by-mail is a horrendous idea. To solve the problem of people having no time to vote in person, we should have a national holiday on election day, with polls open 5am-midnight, and a requirement that those who are required to work have sufficient time off to vote.
Might I suggest that they make great software and crappy laptop hardware? Never had a mac desktop die on me (I've bought 5). Rarely had a mac laptop last more than 2 years on me (i've bought 4). The powerbook 1xx series was solid. Have one that still runs. Every other laptop of theirs falls apart.
What on earth are you doing to your laptops? In my family there is a 2001 G3 iBook that works perfectly... a variety of 2003- and 2004-vintage Powerbook G4s, one of which works perfectly despite a drop onto concrete while running... and some newer hardware as well. The only problem was a DOA MacBook, which Apple duly replaced.
My current MacBook Pro takes a severe beating and still runs and mostly looks like new after 1+ year of use (it was a first-week model). I don't think your generalization is accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to cause unnecessary danger, which we certainly are when we speed, than at least fucking pay attention. That includes knowing how fast you're going so you know how much distance you'll need to stop or slow down.
I'll laugh and give the cop a thumbs-up when he gets you by pacing, or from an airplane, or using instant-on, where when your V1 goes off it's too late. If you had been paying attention you would have seen him.
Jerks like you ruin speeding for the rest of us. If people would just pay attention to what they were doing, and be aware that a car is also a 4000-pound missile and should be treated with the corresponding respect, we wouldn't need such low speed limits, or fascist highway enforcement.
Americans would never accept that. You might as well just say "and fairy princesses should fly down from candyland and give us all ponies to ride."
I've posted before that I don't see why we just have to accept this and say it will never change.
People buy large vehicles for two reasons: utility, and "image" (i.e. penis size). (There's also perceived safety, but that is not a valid reason, as no large vehicles except full-size sedans and minivans are actually safer, and those are definitely not the worst fuel and space guzzlers.)
Only a tiny fraction of those who buy large personal, as opposed to work, vehicles use even close to all of their utility on a daily basis.
Therefore, if it is convenient (I imagine delivery on order within 20-30 minutes, without a reservation), comfortable, and not too expensive, it seems that Americans ought to be happy to borrow/rent/timeshare large vehicles on the relatively infrequent occasions when they are necessary rather than paying the fuel, parking, and maintenance costs all the time.
If Americans who are informed about safety don't like such an idea, then, the reason must be penis size.
If you can make people feel stupid about things they are doing for image, the image value will evaporate overnight. Therefore, I don't think it's hopeless to try to get Americans into smaller cars for their daily commuting and errand-running.
I like driving too, but the benefits of having driverless highways and arterials are just too great to ignore. I would give up driving on highways if it would get me higher speeds, fewer accidents (by an order of magnitude or more), much greater capacity (as a computer could safely orchestrate much shorter following distances than humans can manage), and no anger from idiots on their cellphones, driving 50 in the left lane, or doing wheelies on their motorbikes in rush-hour traffic.
The system would not make it to secondary rural roads or residential streets for years, if ever, because the benefits would be much less significant and would not justify the enormous costs. If you want to drive, you'll be able to go to those locations, or to a track.
I know I would get all nostalgic about driving everywhere under an automated system, but if it worked as it should there is no way I would go back.
Man, you haven't been in enough Burger King parking lots.
*Rednecks* would rip the neon right off the car. They're more interested in oversized tires, big loud ugly intake/exhaust components, and torn seats.
*Ricers* put on neon, and fart cans, and decals. Lots of decals.
Oh, and the rednecks are modifying pickups, old Detroit iron, and (when they somehow stumble across money) '90s Camaros. The ricers are modifying Civics and Corollas, mostly.
If you'd bother reading my comment, you'd see I was asking about neglectful owners, not anything in TFA. How many of the people you know actually change their oil on time?
If these were in large-scale use the ethanol *would* run out. Often. My question was whether, when that happens, you get reduced power or your car stops running.
Yes. Note that I don't actually believe the claim about tripling power, at least not with a whole lot of *very heavy* reinforcement of the block and heads.
For example: (Note: Numbers strictly pulled out of ass.)
2.4l conventional engine: 150 hp, 30 mpg
2.4l Super-Mega-Monster-Gas-TDI-Ethanol engine: 450 hp, 12.5 mpg
Your engine is 25% more efficient per hp and is generating 3x as much power.
Of course, the real application they have in mind is to create reinforced motorcycle-size engines that can power sedans, or small car motors that can power SUVs. If your 2.0l engine can create 360 hp, big torque, and get 17-18 mpg, you've reinvented a turbodiesel, except that your engine is (even with reinforcements) way smaller and lighter.
I suppose my first question is, when the owner inevitably lets the ethanol run out, what happens? Can the engine computer dial down the boost enough to prevent detonation? Or does the engine just have to shut down?
That aside, it's always great to improve internal-combustion efficiency, but the real solutions will have a more dramatic effect than this. My own view is that the solution should be a plug-in series hybrid with about 60 miles of electric-only range and the ability to run maybe 400 more with the engine providing generator power. This would not seriously compromise the essential attributes of modern cars, while *dramatically* (think 80% or more) improving their fuel economy in many real-world usage patterns.
Then we should have nuclear power behind all those 220v outlets... and 90% of cars should be much smaller, with people able to obtain bigger trucks for big jobs on demand from time-share or rental companies... a guy can dream, can't he...
The trouble is that no variant of OpenOffice for Mac is remotely Mac-like.
OO.o for Mac requires the use of X11 -- resulting in a completely different interface from any Mac application.
The Aqua port, NeoOffice, at least stays within the Aqua environment, but it is the most un-Mac-like application I have installed on my machines. Its toolbars look straight out of Windows 2000 (complete with close box on the right). It reinvents the wheel for dialog boxes, not using the Mac's built-in resources. And it has some serious speed issues to boot.
NeoOffice works more or less OK, and it's a great tool to have hanging around, but there's no way Apple -- the company that is thankfully concerned with little details, which is the reason most Mac users bother with it -- should ever bundle it with its systems. If someone had the time and resources to create and maintain a fully Mac-like version with Cocoa, that might be different, but it would be a Herculean undertaking, because the interface would have to significantly change, and because it would have to be redone in a different language.
I feel like getting flamed for elitism today...
Sadly, this is the sort of business decision that occurs when you are mainly selling to the uninformed. Since they don't know any better, they won't get upset with a vendor who reduces system performance by 15% or even 30% through crapware installs... if they know anything, it's hardware specs, which don't change after crapware is installed.
Thus, it's more cost-effective for the vendor to generate revenue from crapware vendors for installing the stuff than it is to try to sell machines that perform better than the competition because there is no crapware.
Of course, this effect is exaggerated because almost all consumers who would actually be knowledgeable enough to avoid crapware won't buy from big OEMs anyway... they'd rather customize more, pay lower prices, get higher-quality components, install different OSes, or some combination of all of the above. Thus they will build their own systems, buy from small specialized vendors, or (in some nutball cases such as yours truly) buy Macs.
Not true anymore. Now, you get trial versions of all of Pages, Keynote, and MS Office, and no AppleWorks (which never made the transition to Intel). I suppose trial versions are OK, in that Joe Consumer can follow easy instructions to pay more to unlock them, but I agree a consumer machine ought to have word processing -- probably the #2 consumer application for PCs after the series of tubes -- out of the box.
On a Mac, TextEdit is a surprisingly fast and capable little word processor for stuff like letters, grade-school papers, etc. that might be written in Joe Consumer's household. I'm a power user, and, honestly, the only time I exceed the capabilities of TextEdit in word processing is when I'm doing academic writing or some kind of page-layout-ish stuff. The interface is rather reminiscent, in a good way, of MacWrite in 1984. TextEdit is way more capable as a basic word processor than it is as a text editor.
Of course, we could always suggest that non-Mac consumer machines really ought to come with the default install of Ubuntu, which has OO.o installed... /ducks
I believe it was the brief threat of OS/2 that made MS and Apple get their acts partially together way back when. We saw both those companies put out products that were far more sturdy and usable in the period after OS/2 hit the market.
?
I don't see how this is true for any value of OS/2.
OS/2 1.0 came out in 1987, and MS was partially responsible. At that point Apple had more or less the same Mac OS it had in 1984 (with minor refinements). MS's other offering was... DOS.
OS/2 2.0 came out in 1992, when Microsoft was offering... Windows 3.1. Wow, that's some kind of stable operating system. Just before OS/2 2.0. Apple came out with System 7. It was a disaster until 7.1, and was never a particularly "sturdy and usable" product (except possibly for "7 Pro" on 68030 machines).
OS/2 Warp came out in 1994, when Apple was running a nearly entirely emulated OS (680x0 code, PowerPC hardware) with a ton of bugs and Microsoft was *still* peddling Windows 3.11 (soon to be replaced by a very buggy and unstable Windows 95).
Windows really became "sturdy and usable" with Windows 2000. Depending on how you define "sturdy," you could argue that Mac OS 8.6 (the most stable classic Mac OS) in 1999 fit the description, but I wouldn't call any Mac OS release really "sturdy" until OS X Jaguar in 2002. (Even Jaguar was not that usable -- OS X really became both "sturdy and usable" with Panther in 2003.) OS/2 was dying a horrible death by the time these all came out.
Something galls me about having to pay the high premium on average hardware that you get with a Mac Pro.
So many good examples of arguably overpriced Mac hardware (see Mac mini) and you choose the one model that's unequivocally a screaming deal to complain about the price? I'm confused... Most dual-dual Xeon 5100 boxes go for $300 to $700 more than a comparable Mac Pro, and don't even have the slide-out drive bays. The Mac Pro is NOT comparable to ordinary desktops (which is why Apple really ought to offer one).
I moderated your first comment up, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to burn that mod point to respond to this post...
I do have a problem with that because you cannot have freedom of religion or a seperation of church and state with the state telling you or your children that your religion is a fary tale.
Frequently what religious people interpret as "the state telling... children that your religion is a fairy tale" is actually the state merely pointing out that no empirical evidence exists in support of the religion. You have no problem with the state telling kids that no empirical evidence exists that you can turn lead into gold. On the other hand, no empirical evidence exists disproving your religion (although, for most values of "religion," logic suggests that your religious tenets are unlikely), although there is empirical evidence disproving the theory that lead -> gold.
True separation of church and state requires that the state treat all religious and nonreligious propositions alike. It does not involve religious propositions being given special immunity from the usual standards of proof, as you seem to be suggesting.
That's an interesting point, and one I hadn't ever thought about. In my case, it shows just how we adapt without thinking to all kinds of circumstances. I do all my web browsing on my second monitor and everything else, for the most part, on my main monitor. Now that I think about it, a big reason why my usage patterns evolved that way is that I almost never need the menus when web browsing. (Another part of it is that my main monitor is bigger and I rarely need a 1200-pixel-wide browser window.)
Maybe it would be possible at some future point for Apple to add some sort of preference to have a hotkey to shift the menu bar, or to (although I don't know how exactly you'd tell the difference) add a second menubar when the focus of a particular app seems to be on the second monitor.
I'm not advocating that you, or the GP, rip out your entire IT infrastructure and replace it with Macs. You have a lot of good reasons not to, many of which both of you named in your posts. I was simply arguing that you are systematically excluding Macs, even when they may be the best tool for the job, based on either personal preference, misconceptions, or both.
Macs can make media creators more productive. The systemwide color-management tools and some of the media authoring software are unique. If you told our sound and video people you were taking away their Macs, they'd probably leave too. That doesn't mean the Macs have to integrate perfectly with the rest of the enterprise; it just means the extra expense of supporting them is justified by their benefits in this application.
Finally, I don't understand this "software runs slower" myth, unless you're talking about I/O-intensive server applications or DirectX vs. OpenGL for games. Intel-native Mac software on a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo runs at the same speed as equivalent Windows software on a 2.33GHz Core Duo.
And yeah, MY users better damn well do what they're told. I'm the expert, and my job is to tell people what to do for their IT. [snip] Corporations (and most other organizations) are dictatorships, not democracies.
If you have any users who have even the level of aptitude necessary to correctly set up a home network, they already resent your attitude and are circumventing your orders.
I've never worked in system management in a large organization (although I used to do much of the work in a small business). That's exactly why I'm arguing from the *user* perspective, which is what I've been doing from the beginning. As a user, I've worked in organizations where the IT staff had your attitude toward users, and organizations where the IT staff worked *with* the users to accommodate their needs. Frankly, given the importance of IT tools in any modern workplace, your attitude alone (if reflective of the entire IT staff) would be a good reason for me to leave a company, because it's awfully hard to be productive in an inflexible environment built around IT managers and not users. I really don't think you will find management wants all the intelligent users leaving because they "better damn well do" what some tinhorn IT dictator tells them. Remember, they, not you, are generating the revenue.
Corporations that want to be profitable are cooperative organizations with final accountability at the top, not dictatorships. If a corporation has a dictatorial attitude, it's wasting all the talent and ideas that can be generated at the lower levels, because it won't listen.
or that the company waste time and money training me to do a job at which I already excel on several other perfectly viable platforms?
If some subset of your users (e.g. designers, or possibly management) were likely to be more productive with Macs on their desktop, this would not necessarily be a waste of money.
If I have 50 users, with 10 needing Photoshop, I can recycle those licenses as needed, with no concern whatsoever about who gets a copy. If suddenly some might need the Mac version, I find myself in the position, over time, of needing twice as many copies
Um, no. Adobe has cross-platform licensing options available for all of its major (read "expensive") products. MS Office is not nearly as expensive. No other product is nearly as likely to be used by both sets of users.
Does Apple support AD?
Yes.
I don't know about all of the others, since I've never worked in an environment that has Macs and those other products together, but if you wanted things to work smoothly in a real multi-platform environment, you probably wouldn't be using exclusively Microsoft on your servers anyway.
Absolute rubbish. If I had more "empowered" users, my job would get far, far easier.
That would leave my users more skilled than me. If you don't see the problem with that [snip] we can end this conversation here.
Um, which of these do you actually mean? Especially if you're not addressing your own job security?
Users will know things you don't. After all, they actually use the software you support every single day. Provided you have enough knowledge to keep your network secure, this is not a problem, but a good thing. It means your company doesn't only hire CorpoSheep (tm) who meekly do only what they're told.
If Macs don't make sense for any missions in your organization, that's one thing. But I get the feeling that you're more concerned with your own personal preferences than with maximizing the productivity of your users by giving them whatever the right tools may be. Since it's the users who are generating the revenue that pays your salary, *that* is really what your job is.
If a company wants to go wireless, then Macs are not a bad option in this regard. If they don't then *don't get one.* Remove wireless cards from laptops, and the like.
I'm not actually advocating this for a big installation, but if you're just talking about a few machines, or even one for an image-conscious PHB...
The wireless card can be removed from the vast majority of Macs. (The only one I can think of where it's not removable is the final-generation high-resolution 15" and 17" PowerBook G4.) Nothing will go wrong if you run a Mac laptop or an iMac without a wireless card.
If you want to say, "Apple has a limited range of choices", then fine, just say that, its perfectly clear what that means. But if you say "Apple is more expensive", be prepared to back up how an Apple machine costs more than a comparable PC.
Thank you. You just said what I was trying to say much more effectively.
iMacs support a second monitor up to 1920x1200. They're not perfect for everyone, but there is a two-monitor option between the mini and the Pro.
And what do you mean "the support for two monitors in OS X is not ideal?" It works flawlessly and completely transparently. In my experience it's easier to get two monitors working with OS X than any other OS (not that it's hard anymore on those other OSes).
Depends on the nature of the office.
Of course in a big place with the resources and staff to centrally manage all the desktop machines this is a non-issue.
But in a small business with no dedicated IT people, or one who has worked with Windows his whole life, the investment of time and effort to figure out which distro to use and how to use it could very well be unrealistic.
These are exactly the businesses that Apple could make real inroads into, if it chose to... the unique aspect of Macs is that they can save time and effort even for people who don't know that much about them.
Meh. MBP is not so bad. Try a 12" PowerBook G4.
Do we really have to have one of these trolls in every Mac-related discussion?
For the last time (until next time...)
1. Macs are NOT significantly more expensive than comparably equipped commodity machines, for the most part.
1a. On the high end, they tend to be *cheaper* than comparable commodity machines (esp. Mac Pro).
2. However, Apple does not sell barebones configurations; that is not its business.
3. Therefore, *base* prices of Macs tend to be higher.
Anyone who says Apple hardware is 2x as expensive is comparing a barebones PC to a fully loaded Mac (and there really isn't any other kind).
Of course, businesses may want those cheap barebones PCs, but if they do, they are not businesses who would ever buy Apple, even if Apple had flawless enterprise-level support. Apple is a maker of highly capable multimedia PCs with lots of easily configurable connectivity options. That, not barebones commodity hardware, is its business.
Remember, Apple is an idealistic company, and likes to push its idea of future tech...
Instead of a docking station, Apple would suggest that you use
This leaves you with only a power cable and a DVI cable to hook up. When the laptop has ports on both sides (with the power and DVI on opposite sides), so you have to hook up two docks, docks won't save you any effort at all.
I know this won't work for everyone, but it's perfectly representative of how Apple tends to think.
Even if you can't use any of the wireless stuff, you still only have power, DVI, USB, and Ethernet to hook up. (Your monitor probably has a USB hub that you can use to hook up your KB, mouse, printer, mass storage, audio interface, etc., etc.) That's a long way from the old days when you might have had separate connections for your KB/mouse, monitor, printer, external hard drive, network, audio, and power.
Speaking as another law student...
if your fellow students are all that keeps you sane, you need to connect with some people outside of law school. Law school is a self-reinforcing echo chamber. The ultimate result is stuff like the idiocy on those boards.
Anything that involves the voter having possession of a record of his/her vote outside the polling place, at a known time and in a known manner, is a non-starter. It makes it easier for people to buy votes.
For the same reason, vote-by-mail is a horrendous idea. To solve the problem of people having no time to vote in person, we should have a national holiday on election day, with polls open 5am-midnight, and a requirement that those who are required to work have sufficient time off to vote.
Might I suggest that they make great software and crappy laptop hardware? Never had a mac desktop die on me (I've bought 5). Rarely had a mac laptop last more than 2 years on me (i've bought 4). The powerbook 1xx series was solid. Have one that still runs. Every other laptop of theirs falls apart.
What on earth are you doing to your laptops? In my family there is a 2001 G3 iBook that works perfectly... a variety of 2003- and 2004-vintage Powerbook G4s, one of which works perfectly despite a drop onto concrete while running... and some newer hardware as well. The only problem was a DOA MacBook, which Apple duly replaced.
My current MacBook Pro takes a severe beating and still runs and mostly looks like new after 1+ year of use (it was a first-week model). I don't think your generalization is accurate.