It's not even that bad. Compare the iMac to the Dell One, a very similar system, and the dell, missing some of those bells, whistles, and a lot of quality software, costs MORE. The Mac Pro 17" machines are VERY competitive (within $300 +/- of other name brand systems, depending on how much attention you pay to package details, battery life, and weight concerns).
If you want to overstate, fine, but keep in mind, subtract the $1000 in "unneeded parts" and the iMac is a $200 machine... NOT!
Actually, the licence is binding, since the product can be returned, for full refund without penalty, as long as the software seal inside the package remains intact. Since the Licence agreement can be read withough installing or operning the software, there is a clear path for the user to take to refuse its terms.
Further, many products have not only use restrictions from the manufacturer, but under penalty of federal law, the use of certain devices in certain circumstances can be prevented. The FCC has a large part in that with anything that could potentially cause interference. The DMV has a lot to do with how a car can be used, loaded with cargo, and more.
In a more direct comparison, it have been held up in court that a software vendor can sue successfully for the use of non-commercial, or student only software in commercial spaces. Also, the resale of licenses for system-specific use, like anti virus and other subscription based packages, has also been protected.
In this case, the use of Apple's software on non-apple branded equipment would mean that the DRM functionality of that software (The requirements of an EFI firmware as well as a special ROM circuit) had been defeated, and thus is a violation of the DMCA as well as the software licence agreement.
Since the purchaser has 1) been ninformed of the licence, 2) been given an opportunity to refuse it without penalty, and 3) agree to the terms by performing a physical action (breaking the seal or clicking accept), then at that point it is no longer a licence, but a contract between parties. Licences can also be revolked, at will, by the issuer, with or without reason or provocation, and the continued use would thus be unlicenced and illegal. Apple has simply unlicenced every Psystar system.
...but Honda DOES state that you can only use Honda Approved parts, or void your warranty, and they also refuse to allow changes to any parts of the electrical system or engine for the first 36K miles or void just the same (including upgrading/replacing the radio or adding aftermarket DVD systems) You also can't exactly install a Honda computer from one car into another Honda and expect it to work...
beyond that, tinkering to some extents could cause the car to no longer be street legal, including changes to the exhaust, drive height, noise output, tint levels, and more.
government, and the manufacturer itself, have very presice controls on what you can and can't do with their stuff, and it has been held up in court.
Apple has a lot of proprietary technologies in their systems, and installing their OS on hardware that does not conform to their strict hardware specifications (and supported components and drivers list) requires reverse engineering some of those technologies, which is illegal. Also, since their product is commonly understood to "just work" and the Psystar systems clearly don't, and since there's no clear detachment from OS X on that box and Apple itself, the general public could become confused about Apple's OS stability and operation, and that could indeed harm Apple's image.
When intel is ready, Apple will release OS X for EFI based mainboards, conforming to a tight HCL list for additional components (video, chipset, etc). unfoirtunately, until microsoft adds native EFI support to XP, Vista, 2003, and 2008 server, Intel is very unlikely to release in mass those boards (as their only use would be for Apple machines and a few quirky linux distros). Since microsoft is the hold up (especially since they PROMISED EFI support 3 years ago!) I really can't blame Apple much. Their OS is simply NOT COMPATIBLE with i386 and BIOS, so why should they release it unless there is a supported system base?
VoIP over sattelite? 2-3 second ping round trips? Real time anything over a sattelite is simply not a good idea... The travel distance from ground base to ground base is simply too far to use with direct signals, and we don't yet have the technology to use laser light for long distance communication.
Get some fiber run out to your location. Likely, it will be less than 30K, especially if some others nearby can chip in on a shared GBps link. (I'm assuming you're not more than 30KM from somewhere that DOES have a hard line to the backbone. If not, MOVE.
I'm not looking for gaming. I'm looking for the performance to run the OS and at least 1 VM concurrently, without serous performance fall off, and be able to at least meet the minimum reqs of common games (WoW, Diablo iii, etc)
If I want gaming, first of all, desktop is the way to go (LAN party SFF chassis). If I wanted a notebook for gaming, I'd be looking at SLI anyway, and not give a rats ass about weight or battery life, so no, I'd not select a Mac for that.
I rebuild my gaming rig about every 12-15 months. i can't do that with a notebook, so not only would I be doubling my up front costs by using a notebook for gaming, but I'd double tat again over a 3 year period. to use the graphics power, you have to be plugged in anyway, and gaming on a laptop keyboard? no thanks, so that means lugging extra parts around anyway. I'll pass.
Dell uses HDMI now on XPS 17" models, as well as VGA. An HDMI to DVI adapter can run $45. Also, the HDMI is video only, and no digital audio support is included, so hooking up to an HDTV means you loose surround audio out.
The 1730 I configured listed 5400RPM 320GB as the default option. I have since found it in another part of Dells site shipping with a 250 7200RPM as well, i guess it depends on what angle you attack it from. Different prices for the exact same machine can be found in the home, business, student, and other parts of Dell's site (and different support contract prices, and different instant rebates too) the Mac Pro does indeed have a 5400RPM, but I compared the 7200RMP models (200GB in Apple's case) as that is always my chosen option, and compared it using the 2849 price, not the 2799.
The fact remains, the XPS, even if it was a few hundred cheaper, is still a flimsy design, is loud, is heavy, and has half the battery life. Oh, and the 200MHz differnece in FSB means the 2.5GHz mac really compares with a 3.2GHz CPU on 800MHz, but Dell only offers the 2.8, and that's $750 more... Also, no backlit kbd, something near and dear to me.
Of course, I don't buy new anymore from Apple. I buy Refurb. Apple's refurb process is 1) they don;t sell used systems, these are simply systems that failed the tests after coming through the line (typically got scratched, or had a screw loose somewhere, sometimes a bad HDD or something) They've been rebuilt by hand to tighter specs, have the exact same warranty as a new machine, and cost $500-700 less than new Pro 17s. With Dell's (and others) I have found the refurb systems to actually HAVE scratches, or come from b-stock (ship and returned but unopened stock) which does not hold the same quality, and most don't offer full warranty on refurb (or you hear from support "oh, you've got a refurb...")
Your right, we're off topic here. Bundling goes both ways. Competition for Apple? There really isn't any thanks to their practices. Their hardware prices, though high end, are competitive, and if you like the way it looks, but don't like OS X, you can just as easily load windows on it. Their refusal to allow others to support OS X on non-apple hardware is for user consistency. Once Intel releases EFI boards into the mainstream (which won't happen until Microsoft patches both XP and Vista to support booting on it), then OS X can be released as a stand alone OS. Since the ROM has to be cracked to run on a BIOS based board, and there's legal ramifications and license restrictions to that, Apple HAS to protect their intellectual property (patent law REQUIRES it, it's not really their choice).
As far as Microsoft not bundling? You haven't followed any of the monopoly cases, have you... Microsoft doesn't sell hardware, but their contracts with vendors that do, who want to distribute Windows as an option at all, have just now been legally released from clauses that prevented them from selling linux and other OSes on the same hardware in the past. Trust me, call any OEM partner of Microsoft, configure a PC, and try to get it shipped without windows, and without the OEM license. Sure, there are a few select models that offer Linux now, but it's by no means an option on even a small majority of their systems, and you get no money back for choosing another OS. (You can decline the license agreement and return the CD and key for a refund of $68, but it takes hours of phone calls and clear documentation of a complex process). Microsoft threatened dell publicly with legal action last year over their intent on releasing a single linux based model (Dell's lawyers thwarted it by suggesting if actions were filed, Linux would become Dell's default offering, and users would have to manually select Windows to be loaded for an extra charge).
I will argue that Apple's success is partially due to the iPod effect, but that's not a direct cause. The iPod's success has simply brought additional attention to Apple's OS. You can use an iPod with windows no differntly than a mac, so why are so many people switching? They've simply been informed, through a catchy add compaign and product name association, that macs are in fact an option. Intel for so many years, and Microsoft as well, were very successful at spreading FUD that an Apple could not be used in most situations, and therefore was not an option. this line of reasoning has been soundly defeated. It's the same reason people buy Sony PCs. Sony's stuff sucks, but Sony's name carries (carried) great appeal and thus when offered side by side, they sold a lot of machines, at higher prices than the competition for arguably less valuable hardware and lots of proprietary parts. Sony's PC business was FAR worse than Apple's proprietary nature, Toshiba is not much better.
Add to this Apple's physical presence, with a store in every major city now, rolling out in every bestbuy, and shopping malls, and people are starting to realize not only can they get a good looking quality machine and an OS "that just works", but there are people locally who can service it (in the past, one of the biggest hang ups for choosing a vendor).
People who use a mac also typically don't go back the other way. Their repeat business is amazing, so you've got 95% of old mac users buying new ones, them telling everyone they meet to get one, and 8% of those they talk to are buying in. Few mac users buy a PC and rave about that process...
I have owned a dozen macs since 84 (several at once for most of that time). I have also owned a total of 4 PCs (actually 8 if you count the processor/video card upgrades about every 18 months). I use the PC for beta testing, hard core games, and for accessing applications at the enterprise level that, although we COULD switch to Linux, recoding the legacy databases to ANYTHIGN is simply out of the budget, as much as we'd love to (this is the
OK, according to Gartner, 33% of those surveyed in April, who planned to buy a computer in the next 6 months, planned on buying an Apple branded machine. This does exclude business customers, so it's skewed a bit, but also considder this: Apple is intel's best and most profitable customer, by nearly double what they profit from Dell... Who's going to get the most time with their engineers?
also note, they OUTSOLD Microsoft for 6 weeks straight, one version of Apple's OS vs ALL of microsoft's (server, home, workstation, etc)
Nemertes thinks apple can maintain double digit growth for the next 3 years, which would put them selling more PCs than Dell.
The BestBuy here by me in SC, they've sold more macs than all other computers combined since they opened their in-house Apple Store several weeks ago. They would have sold more, but they're out of stock locally on several machine models and are redirecting people to BestBuy.com to fill the gap.
As for sales figures, Apple sold 2 million copies of 10.5 in one weekend back in September (maybe october?), not including those distributed on new machines. They've pushed over 14 million copies to date. Microsoft has pushed 140 million copies of Vista in the same time, but nearly 70% of that is OEM copies on new PCs, and estimates are that in business, more than half the client base, nearly 80% of those systems got reformatted with XP. It's estimated, though no one has solid numbers because of how Microsoft is tracking it all, that as few as 50 million copies of Vista are actually installed and running. That would put apple selling nearly 20% of the OS copies that were actually installed and used in 2007/2008, and less than 30% of their user base has switched thus far with most claiming to be switching later this year.
With Intel's recent announcement to pass on Vista, even with SP1, and IBM as well, big business machines shipping with Vista are not looking to have any significant uptake. With state goverments swithing wholesale to Linux and Mac (like Maine), And with trends in universities all over the world, apple may reach 12% Os marketshare by the end of the year, and could potentially hit 20% by the end of 2009.
Dell has apple beat on the 15" by about $200, equivolently equipped, software and all. On the other hand, it;s a cheap plastic case, uses the battery twice as fast, and weighs more. Dell has no DVI, no digital audio out, and a slower FSB. Also, running Windows on a mac, easy, Mac on a PC, not. I can also bring the mac to any local store for repair, and THEY pay to ship it if I need service, and with a Pro, offer a loaner! Try getting that... I can't even get Dell on-site next day support to come onsite the next day. They complain about "why don't you just open the case and replace the part, we'll ship it to you" No Dell dude... i paid for YOU to fix it, here in my home!
Your 1530 comparrison got the core components right, but you seem to have skipped the accessory list, the software list, the port count (add a firewire card to that Dell), bluetooth, and more. Also, that cheap plastic case is crap, the Dell is heavier, and the battery life is 1.5 hours to Apples 2.5. Prices have come down since I did this round of arguments 2 months ago, and the Dell is still slightly cheaper than the 15", but I've never actually seen a mac owner with a 15" pro, allways a 15" standard or 17" pro...
the 1730, again, it;s in the accessories and other details. In the 17" however, the mac has a 200MHz faster FSB, you're incorrect, the vid RAM in the dell is 256, and the Mac does have a 7200RPM drive @ 200GB. It also includes many options (firewire, DVI, etc) not available on the dell. Software included, it;s about $100 more than the mac, and the mac, as tested by PC World, is fatser than the Dell, all specs aside, likely due to the FSB.
I see you neglected to quote the mini, iMac, and Pro systems, since it's clear even at base price the Apple systems have a better config and lower cost, even without messing with software packages.
??? Apple MacBook Pro has the SAME graphics card, but twice the VRAM for the XPS Dell, 200MHz faster FSB, faster spinning HDD, DVI Out, included bluetooth, backlit kbd, included remote, all aluminum case, exact same processor, exact same screen resolution, what are you smoking?
Comparing the iMac to the dell tower is not an option. Compare the PowerMac to a Dell tower, and the Power mac is nearly $1000 cheaper (8 cores of xeons anyone?) Compare the One to an iMac and the iMac has better components and is cheaper. Even with your tower, adding the monitor, remote, camera, mic, speakers, and more that were not included with it, and you're more than $400 over the iMac price for about 10% faster system specs.
I don't know what options you selected there, but the one I built came out to $1833. The Dell is heavier, has a slower system bus, less than half the battery life....and i didn't even try to match the software that comes with the Mac for free that you have to add to that Inspiron. The dell also has half the video RAM with the same GPU. Also, the Mac is an all aluminum case, the Dell, cheap plastic.
The closest actual comparrison is the XPS1730. Upgrade the processor, HDD spin speed, bluetooth, and just begin to match the software equivolents, and that Dell is already over $2600. Oh, and it still has no DVI out, a cheaper chassis, weighs more, and has even less battery life. Seeing I can run Windows on the mac, and not Mac on Windows... I pick Mac. Prices have adjusted a bit since last time I looked, but the mac, part for part is still the better deal, even if the Dell does look to now be about $100 less all things considdered.
You seem to be confused... We're comparing the Dell ONE to the iMac, not a Dell Desktop and external monitor to the iMac... Your dell is also missing the remote, camera, software packs, microphone, wireless keyboard, bluetooth, and more. Try again with a like to like:
The Dell One STARTS at 1299.99, and is missing a lot of features the base mac comes with at that level.
Per Gartner, Apple enjoys an 81% overall satisfaction rating as of April 08. #1 of all PC manufacturers. This is a rating of how many people gave apple high marks, but does not differentiate the remaining 19% into groups. To get this information, you have to buy a copy of the gartner report. Agencies that do can not publish or link this information or make parts of it public without gartner's permission, so i can't link you to sources. What i can tell you is there are several sub categories making up that 19%, and the bottom tier, "dissatisfied" was just barely over 3%. This basically includes the customers who not only had an issue of some kind with their Mac, or Apple's service of it, but actually disliked how the process was handled. It also includes the extremely small percentage of people who returned a Mac after purchase (far less than 1%).
The 3% is not who has a problem with a mac and needs support, its the 3% who have ISSUE with the Mac itself, or supports processes. More than half of Mac owners call for support at some point during the system's warranty period... Solving these issues with only 3% complaining, that's outstanding.
Check your numbers. unless you're calling Sony, Toshiba, Gateway and others are also small players. Apple is the 3rd largest computer reseller in the world, with over 8.1% of the total market, and gaining fast on HP. They have 66% of the PC user base amoung entering college freshmen. They also, in October of 07, had OS X outsel ALL VERSIONS OF MICROSOFT OS COMBINED in Asia.
I agree that the Apple OS would sell VERY WELL on it;s own. Rumor mills abound with Apple's plans to release it to the open public, but inseders claim the issue is intel is dragging its feet with the firmware support on new chipsets. OS X does not support BIOS, but BIOS's Replacement. Vista currently does not have support for it. It was DROPPED from SP1 as it was DROPPED from the original Vista release. Gee, I wonder why?
Let me poot it this way. On blogspot, a systems security company ran a series of articles called "Mad as Hell" where they took a large portion of their user base, switched them to Macs for 6 months, and did an exhaustive TCO analysis (on a side note, macs came out to be much cheaper to operate, almost by half, than cheaper windows boxes once security, man hours, and more came into play, he had a nice spreadsheet you could plug your own numbers into as well if your rates differed).
The point I'm making here is there were several key (read VOCAL) employees that tried to refuse to use a mac. After 6 months, those same employees BOUGHT the mac they were using from the company, and REFUSED to switch back to a PC.
I've been a mac user since 1984 (and apple user since 1980). Every mac I or my family has owned is still working today, except an iMac G4 that got fried by lightning) including a Lisa bought in 84 and an original imac 128K in 85. Sure, we've had HDDs and power suplies blow out, and they've been repaired, but since every component in a mac is basiccaly the same as a PC, except the motherboard of which I have NEVER had one fail (including the hundred or so macs in an advertising firm I ran IT for).
Saying that people are too proud to complain about their high dollar purchases? Let me tell you, people who buy expensive stuff are VERY vocal about it's issues. They expect it to work, work well, and never die. Try asking a tech at a mercedes dealership... I'd like to see some of your references showing how this psychological phenomenon was measured...
besides, most macs, feature to feayture, are CHEAPER than equivolent Dell systems. Sure, you can't get a Mac for $499, but lets be honest, you can't get a real PC for that either. (A PC that doesn't meet the minimum requirements to run the OS pre-installed on it does not countas a real PC)
I dare you, go to Dell's site, configure matching systems to an iMac, Powerbook Pro, and Mini. The Dell One is about $150 more expensive than an iMac, their gaming notebooks (keep in mind the pro has a very high performance graphics engine and is intended to play Wow and run virtual machines, it's not a toy) are $300-500 more expensive than the mac pro, even their SFF desktop is more than $100 more than a mini. You can get a basic notebook for about $100 less than a standard macbook, with part to part equivolent perfornamce, but the Dell is more than a ound heavier if you do, or more expensive if you go lighter. Nothing Dell has compares to the Air.
So you think Microsoft takes good care of all it's unsatisfied customers, do you?
Where Apple has made a culture of people expecting a positive experience, and plays down the few (less than 3%) who have issues, Microsoft has spent a decade building a culture where people expect the issues, and don't complain simple because' well, it just sux anyway, and what choice do we have"
They do admit failure, regularly. They just don't do it instantly, because unlike others, they like to not only confirm the issue, and go the extra step to find the solution before it speads all over the web that there's an issue, but they actually research how the fault happened in the first place, and work internally to make sure it doesn't happen again.
You obviously don';t read Mac's technicla forums, or work with their engineers very often. Identified problems are solved quickly and accurately. New issues are kept under covers until there's a solution. What a lot of press who are pro-microsoft do is tattle about every time there's an issue that's NOT a bug, but a design choice apple made, that they try to keep quiet.
Microsoft has been doing alot worse lately covering up actual conversations about how they screwed the public with this "vista ready" garbage. They've not only ignored customer complaints, and hundreds of bugs (with dozens of key problems that are still unresolved like copy speeds), but they're also turning their backs on the vendors, and lying about conversations with ISVs and hardware companies.
Apple is not perfect, they have faults in design and implementation, as well as code, but overall, their ability to react to solveable problems is amazing, and their low frequency of serious issues that go unresolved is industry leading.
The phrase "could have" in no way implies intent. "least of which" also in no way implies criminal intent, it's simply a statement of where to begin. Attacking them through the press, headhunter agencies, employment securities, and more are all very viable otions.
I'm not suggesting they buy off employees, I'm saying that peaceful seperation is allways better than a war, wether it's criminal, legal, or just hassles you are trying to avoid.
Line level basic employees, who have little impact on general company systems, they don't get severerence typically until they've been employed for years, and then typically, we're talking about tyhem having reached levels where severence is warented. People who work a line in a facotry for years without advancing, they have other options, assuming they've invested in them (retirement, pent up vacation, etc), and furthermore, they're not typically subject to unemployment limitations like higher up positions are (If I made $10 per hour and got laid off, unemployment covers nearly 70% of my pay, at IT admin salaries, in SC, it covers less than 40%, since I was over the cap).
Businesses should plan for EVERYTHING. Natural disaster, postal employees, lawsuits, and more. It's called due dillegence, and has been not only an accepted business practice for a hundred years, it's a practice that maintains morale, and actually ATTRACTS quality workers.
When interviewing for job recently, the things I wanted to know most about were: vacation caryover policy (unused annual vacation rules), severence package structure, employee direct stock purchase (not options, they're worthless), and medical coverage options beyond simple coverage (ADAD, LTD, etc). I didn't ask about the salary until after those questions were answered.
I'm not saying I'm the type of person who would castrate a company like this IT guy, what I'm saying was I had the opportunity had I been that type of person. Having a seperation package means the company didn't have to be so strict with policy. IT opeople don't like to feel like they're not trusted, and most other employees don't either. Instead of negatively effecting morale through draconian rules and watchguards, they assure employees they'll be covered if things don't work out in the long run, and everyone is happier for it.
This is no different than the reasons why companies keep lawyers on staff, why they have security at the door, and why they have cameras on the inside. People eventually will try to take advantage, or you'll have a bad seed. The bigger the firm, the more likely it will happen. This is an insurance against it. No different from hurricane insurance.
This doesn't even take into account how permissions can get screwed up in Windows when moving data from one drive to another. Permissions can be stripped simply by copying the data to a thumb drive and back again, or can inheret alternate priveleges when copied to another NTFS volume.
and then there's the linux file structure, seperating types of binaries (by execution level), binaries from data, and users from system resources. Windows has all of this basically in 4 locations (Windows folder, user's hidden application and local settings folders, the applications area, and the personal data areas. Linux divides this into not less than 10 containers, many of which can only be accessed by Root, and for which permission can not be retroactively granted as in Vista with UAC.
It's not a matter of "we'll have to disagree" Its a matter of you not being willing to read the information available, nor take an expert's opinion for true. You're the kind of person who willing spreads FUD with no concern for it's basis in reality.
I'm not talking about shitty app writers here, I'm talking about the basic security of the OS, and how easy it is for someone to circumvent user level security in Windows, VS basically every other OS made. the point is, their security models are similar, but small differences in Linux vs windows make skirting an app by the OS and the user nearly impossible. It's not IMpossible, but it's a hell of a lot harder to do, and for a realtime security application, a hell of a lot easier to spot and stop before damage is done.
Windows protection from permission escalation only applies to the application running. Anything launched from WITHIN that approved application (like through a buffer underrun, a hacked binary, or a stupid user clicking "allow) can get by.
Virus writers don't use the Windows installer, so any permission systems deployed there are clearly irrelevent.
I'm not saying Linux is "better", I'm simply that it's permission system is different and more secure. I actually prefer using windows over Linux by a lot.
"run as Administrator" can only be disabled for users if they're actually part of a domain, and if they're logged in as a domain account, not a local user. This also requires the admins to know how to properly configure group policy. Since more than half of the infected windows machines in the world sit on desks in homes and schools, not in corporate domains, and even most companies today have some of their machines infected, this obviously isn't stopping anyone.
I DO know about this stuff. I work in IT, in system security and network design. If you admit you know nothing about the underpinnings of OS security, then why are we even having this argument?!?!?!
Linux adopters are typically more geeky, but a user set in front of a Linux GUI console, and given some basic instructions, can operate with much of the efficiency they would in windows, access e-mail, microsoft docs, databases, and more, but the user can not be circumvented, and if something DOES ask for escalated permissions, the user can't accidentally provide them without a password (you can't su - to root AFTER it's been activated, only before). That same user, simply opening task monitor, will be able to tell a lot more about how their system is operating, and can kill unwanted applications without fear that the OS can be harmed in the process (critical drivers and programs can't be killed with user permissions, unlike Windows).
If we can get equal efficiency out of users, give them access to the same resources, but run an OS that's much less expensive and more secure, and provides much higher levels of administrative control WITHOUT requiring complex central control solutions that require high levels of training to implement, people will switch....and they are, in droves. Whole nations have standardized on Linux, so has the state of Maine and a few others are working on it.
Eventually, linux and Mac will be more of a target than Windows, but since it's impossible to trick a user into causing system damage without them knowing an admin password and entering it first, and since applications can't escalate permissions the same way they can under Windows, getting a virus into a linux system is very difficult and thus more secure. It's MAJOR news when even a POTENTIAL virus is found for the Mac OS. Over 1000 viruses are found DAILY for Windows, and zero day exploits happen on nearly every release date.
see dotyelectric.com... electric scaling with wind can not only be done, but done easily, without the use of farm land. Numbers for electric use in the car are available from Chevy, tesla motors, and other companies who actually make the cars, not to mention the EPA.
I don't have numbers, but valid research organizations do. I don't need to quote how much power a car uses for you when that information is not only freely available, but is common knowledge in environmental circles. Making electricity in a coal plant is approxamately 70% efficient. Making energy in a car with gas is, in the best engines on earth, 40% efficient, and that's not counting refining and distribution losses. Energy can be delivered over wires for about 1000 miles with less than 5% loss in current. Over superconducting lines like those brought online in Long Island in April this year, loss is near 0% and that can be extended 10s of thousands of miles, including intercontinentally.
this is not vaporware, but proven scientific fact.
We can easily measure the amount of fuel used in cars today. This generates X amount of force. It takes the same amount of elecrical force to drive the car (laws of thermodynamics). Generating, storing, and using that electricity is nearly twice as efficient, and that doesn't count refining, transportation, vapor loss, engine efficiency loss, leaks, etc, of which electricity has none of these drawbacks. More over, that energy can be made using 100% renewable resources, and depending on who you talk to, its only going to take 30-70 years to build it out.
Solar can't do it, nuclear will be fought tooth and nail at every step, wind is abundant, free, and just inside the boarder of the texas wind corridor, we can make 20% of the USA's energy requirements, based on 2030 estimated needs per the EPA. Go do your own damn research before slamming someone elses.
I dind't say I would do it, just that I'd likely have had a breakdown. I also did say I'd use legal action, not criminal.
Fortunately, as a patient in a hospital, not only does the doctor have a Hippocratic oath, but also I have malpractice insurance. In IT, I have neither. Criminal laws are the only thing preventing a lot more IT admins from going postal on their systems, and those that think about how to do it properly would not get caught anyway (delayed activation scripts, minor changes to backup routines, etc).
It's not protection money, it's simply a "look, in a perfect world, we'd give you a few weeks notice, but unfortunately, since you have access to secure information, Federal red flag regulations and HIPPA/Sarbanes, etc, require we terminate your access effective immediately, here's a bonus to help you transition into your next job instead of leaving you completely fucked.
This is a cost of doing business. Failure to pay that cost can cost a LOT more.
It's a fact, employees will become disgruntled. It;s a fact, a very small majority of them will go postal. Offering severence packages is a way to not only mitigate that chance, but employees that know they have it also worry less about the [possibility of termination, thereby reducing stress and improving morale, which benefits the company in immesurable ways. too many companies have forgotten this lesson.
Programs in windows can launch as threads of other applications, and those threads are not visible in Task manager at all in Windows, where they are in Linux and Apple systems. Also, applications running as drivers or other system level items do not show up in task manager. You have to install SysInternals to get that detail level, or to find out not only whether a thread is active, but how much resource it's using. Also, too much in windows is simply grouped under SCVhost or another exe, so this makes distinguishing legit processes from viruses that much more difficult. Some of this can be done with the system monitor, but you have to know what to monitor. In Linux, identifying not only what's running, but what launched it is relatively easy, and yes, a linux user is much more likely to know how to do that.
In linux, an application does run with the permissions of the user, but an application can be set so that it can only be run by an admin. Doing so in Windows requires knowledge of group policy or the implementation of 3rd party security measures. Windows UAC does this on some level, but was a poor implementation of such a system since it's generic responses are easy to ignore, and a user can override those permissions with as little as a click (no passwords). run-as is not the same thing, but can restrict what an application can do in Vista if it's simply run by a user, but even a user simply needs to select "run as administrator" and is not prompted for said password to run an application. installers only ask for a password if they're actually using the installer package. A script copying files does not require such access, and can run without the user knowing. they might get an innocuous UAC notice, but that's easy to ignore.
If you want more proof, look at how easy it is to detect an active virus in Linux vs Windows. You can't skirt the permission system without a password, you can't escalate permission without a password. Windows does not have this protection.
...and this is why firms have severence packages... I got fired from a 3 year stint in a high paying position. Between my severence, unspent vacation, and current payroll, I had 16 weeks full pay with which to find a new job, plus unemployment on top of that. I found a new job in 9 weeks (at an even higher salary) and pocketed a nice chunk of change. I had NO had feelings about being let go.
Had I been fired without that package, I'd have likely lost all sense of reason. I'd just moved cities a month before, was paying for an apartment and a house, and had a baby due in 3 weeks... If all i had was unemployment to fall back on, I'd likely have lost the house to foreclosure, and had my credit ruined for years. with the access I had there, it's very likely I would have caused a lot of problems, the least of which would have been a lawsuit. I didn't have admin level access, but I did have access to a few key systems through test accounts they forgot to disable. I could have easily brought down their helpdesk system, possibly their phones.
Severence packages... For employees with critical knowledge and any form of system admin, look into adding them to your HR process! A typical package is 2 months pay plus 2 weeks for each year beyond 3 they've been with the company. Well worth it compared to the risks.
Well, if you work for a city organization, you typically are under contract with the state, and getting rid of you is as hard as firing a tenured teacher. It requires board room meetings, and clear documentation of the errors you comitted on the job. In SC, a right to work state, it's pretty easy to fire someone, but even then, if you got fired improperly, you can typically sue and win. Likely, they got the ball rolling without all their ducks in a row, and he managed to hold onto his job.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not even that bad. Compare the iMac to the Dell One, a very similar system, and the dell, missing some of those bells, whistles, and a lot of quality software, costs MORE. The Mac Pro 17" machines are VERY competitive (within $300 +/- of other name brand systems, depending on how much attention you pay to package details, battery life, and weight concerns).
If you want to overstate, fine, but keep in mind, subtract the $1000 in "unneeded parts" and the iMac is a $200 machine... NOT!
Actually, the licence is binding, since the product can be returned, for full refund without penalty, as long as the software seal inside the package remains intact. Since the Licence agreement can be read withough installing or operning the software, there is a clear path for the user to take to refuse its terms.
Further, many products have not only use restrictions from the manufacturer, but under penalty of federal law, the use of certain devices in certain circumstances can be prevented. The FCC has a large part in that with anything that could potentially cause interference. The DMV has a lot to do with how a car can be used, loaded with cargo, and more.
In a more direct comparison, it have been held up in court that a software vendor can sue successfully for the use of non-commercial, or student only software in commercial spaces. Also, the resale of licenses for system-specific use, like anti virus and other subscription based packages, has also been protected.
In this case, the use of Apple's software on non-apple branded equipment would mean that the DRM functionality of that software (The requirements of an EFI firmware as well as a special ROM circuit) had been defeated, and thus is a violation of the DMCA as well as the software licence agreement.
Since the purchaser has 1) been ninformed of the licence, 2) been given an opportunity to refuse it without penalty, and 3) agree to the terms by performing a physical action (breaking the seal or clicking accept), then at that point it is no longer a licence, but a contract between parties. Licences can also be revolked, at will, by the issuer, with or without reason or provocation, and the continued use would thus be unlicenced and illegal. Apple has simply unlicenced every Psystar system.
beyond that, tinkering to some extents could cause the car to no longer be street legal, including changes to the exhaust, drive height, noise output, tint levels, and more.
government, and the manufacturer itself, have very presice controls on what you can and can't do with their stuff, and it has been held up in court.
Apple has a lot of proprietary technologies in their systems, and installing their OS on hardware that does not conform to their strict hardware specifications (and supported components and drivers list) requires reverse engineering some of those technologies, which is illegal. Also, since their product is commonly understood to "just work" and the Psystar systems clearly don't, and since there's no clear detachment from OS X on that box and Apple itself, the general public could become confused about Apple's OS stability and operation, and that could indeed harm Apple's image.
When intel is ready, Apple will release OS X for EFI based mainboards, conforming to a tight HCL list for additional components (video, chipset, etc). unfoirtunately, until microsoft adds native EFI support to XP, Vista, 2003, and 2008 server, Intel is very unlikely to release in mass those boards (as their only use would be for Apple machines and a few quirky linux distros). Since microsoft is the hold up (especially since they PROMISED EFI support 3 years ago!) I really can't blame Apple much. Their OS is simply NOT COMPATIBLE with i386 and BIOS, so why should they release it unless there is a supported system base?
VoIP over sattelite? 2-3 second ping round trips? Real time anything over a sattelite is simply not a good idea... The travel distance from ground base to ground base is simply too far to use with direct signals, and we don't yet have the technology to use laser light for long distance communication.
Get some fiber run out to your location. Likely, it will be less than 30K, especially if some others nearby can chip in on a shared GBps link. (I'm assuming you're not more than 30KM from somewhere that DOES have a hard line to the backbone. If not, MOVE.
I'm not looking for gaming. I'm looking for the performance to run the OS and at least 1 VM concurrently, without serous performance fall off, and be able to at least meet the minimum reqs of common games (WoW, Diablo iii, etc)
If I want gaming, first of all, desktop is the way to go (LAN party SFF chassis). If I wanted a notebook for gaming, I'd be looking at SLI anyway, and not give a rats ass about weight or battery life, so no, I'd not select a Mac for that.
I rebuild my gaming rig about every 12-15 months. i can't do that with a notebook, so not only would I be doubling my up front costs by using a notebook for gaming, but I'd double tat again over a 3 year period. to use the graphics power, you have to be plugged in anyway, and gaming on a laptop keyboard? no thanks, so that means lugging extra parts around anyway. I'll pass.
Dell uses HDMI now on XPS 17" models, as well as VGA. An HDMI to DVI adapter can run $45. Also, the HDMI is video only, and no digital audio support is included, so hooking up to an HDTV means you loose surround audio out.
The 1730 I configured listed 5400RPM 320GB as the default option. I have since found it in another part of Dells site shipping with a 250 7200RPM as well, i guess it depends on what angle you attack it from. Different prices for the exact same machine can be found in the home, business, student, and other parts of Dell's site (and different support contract prices, and different instant rebates too) the Mac Pro does indeed have a 5400RPM, but I compared the 7200RMP models (200GB in Apple's case) as that is always my chosen option, and compared it using the 2849 price, not the 2799.
The fact remains, the XPS, even if it was a few hundred cheaper, is still a flimsy design, is loud, is heavy, and has half the battery life. Oh, and the 200MHz differnece in FSB means the 2.5GHz mac really compares with a 3.2GHz CPU on 800MHz, but Dell only offers the 2.8, and that's $750 more... Also, no backlit kbd, something near and dear to me.
Of course, I don't buy new anymore from Apple. I buy Refurb. Apple's refurb process is 1) they don;t sell used systems, these are simply systems that failed the tests after coming through the line (typically got scratched, or had a screw loose somewhere, sometimes a bad HDD or something) They've been rebuilt by hand to tighter specs, have the exact same warranty as a new machine, and cost $500-700 less than new Pro 17s. With Dell's (and others) I have found the refurb systems to actually HAVE scratches, or come from b-stock (ship and returned but unopened stock) which does not hold the same quality, and most don't offer full warranty on refurb (or you hear from support "oh, you've got a refurb...")
Your right, we're off topic here. Bundling goes both ways. Competition for Apple? There really isn't any thanks to their practices. Their hardware prices, though high end, are competitive, and if you like the way it looks, but don't like OS X, you can just as easily load windows on it. Their refusal to allow others to support OS X on non-apple hardware is for user consistency. Once Intel releases EFI boards into the mainstream (which won't happen until Microsoft patches both XP and Vista to support booting on it), then OS X can be released as a stand alone OS. Since the ROM has to be cracked to run on a BIOS based board, and there's legal ramifications and license restrictions to that, Apple HAS to protect their intellectual property (patent law REQUIRES it, it's not really their choice).
As far as Microsoft not bundling? You haven't followed any of the monopoly cases, have you... Microsoft doesn't sell hardware, but their contracts with vendors that do, who want to distribute Windows as an option at all, have just now been legally released from clauses that prevented them from selling linux and other OSes on the same hardware in the past. Trust me, call any OEM partner of Microsoft, configure a PC, and try to get it shipped without windows, and without the OEM license. Sure, there are a few select models that offer Linux now, but it's by no means an option on even a small majority of their systems, and you get no money back for choosing another OS. (You can decline the license agreement and return the CD and key for a refund of $68, but it takes hours of phone calls and clear documentation of a complex process). Microsoft threatened dell publicly with legal action last year over their intent on releasing a single linux based model (Dell's lawyers thwarted it by suggesting if actions were filed, Linux would become Dell's default offering, and users would have to manually select Windows to be loaded for an extra charge).
I will argue that Apple's success is partially due to the iPod effect, but that's not a direct cause. The iPod's success has simply brought additional attention to Apple's OS. You can use an iPod with windows no differntly than a mac, so why are so many people switching? They've simply been informed, through a catchy add compaign and product name association, that macs are in fact an option. Intel for so many years, and Microsoft as well, were very successful at spreading FUD that an Apple could not be used in most situations, and therefore was not an option. this line of reasoning has been soundly defeated. It's the same reason people buy Sony PCs. Sony's stuff sucks, but Sony's name carries (carried) great appeal and thus when offered side by side, they sold a lot of machines, at higher prices than the competition for arguably less valuable hardware and lots of proprietary parts. Sony's PC business was FAR worse than Apple's proprietary nature, Toshiba is not much better.
Add to this Apple's physical presence, with a store in every major city now, rolling out in every bestbuy, and shopping malls, and people are starting to realize not only can they get a good looking quality machine and an OS "that just works", but there are people locally who can service it (in the past, one of the biggest hang ups for choosing a vendor).
People who use a mac also typically don't go back the other way. Their repeat business is amazing, so you've got 95% of old mac users buying new ones, them telling everyone they meet to get one, and 8% of those they talk to are buying in. Few mac users buy a PC and rave about that process...
I have owned a dozen macs since 84 (several at once for most of that time). I have also owned a total of 4 PCs (actually 8 if you count the processor/video card upgrades about every 18 months). I use the PC for beta testing, hard core games, and for accessing applications at the enterprise level that, although we COULD switch to Linux, recoding the legacy databases to ANYTHIGN is simply out of the budget, as much as we'd love to (this is the
OK, according to Gartner, 33% of those surveyed in April, who planned to buy a computer in the next 6 months, planned on buying an Apple branded machine. This does exclude business customers, so it's skewed a bit, but also considder this: Apple is intel's best and most profitable customer, by nearly double what they profit from Dell... Who's going to get the most time with their engineers?
also note, they OUTSOLD Microsoft for 6 weeks straight, one version of Apple's OS vs ALL of microsoft's (server, home, workstation, etc)
Nemertes thinks apple can maintain double digit growth for the next 3 years, which would put them selling more PCs than Dell.
The BestBuy here by me in SC, they've sold more macs than all other computers combined since they opened their in-house Apple Store several weeks ago. They would have sold more, but they're out of stock locally on several machine models and are redirecting people to BestBuy.com to fill the gap.
As for sales figures, Apple sold 2 million copies of 10.5 in one weekend back in September (maybe october?), not including those distributed on new machines. They've pushed over 14 million copies to date. Microsoft has pushed 140 million copies of Vista in the same time, but nearly 70% of that is OEM copies on new PCs, and estimates are that in business, more than half the client base, nearly 80% of those systems got reformatted with XP. It's estimated, though no one has solid numbers because of how Microsoft is tracking it all, that as few as 50 million copies of Vista are actually installed and running. That would put apple selling nearly 20% of the OS copies that were actually installed and used in 2007/2008, and less than 30% of their user base has switched thus far with most claiming to be switching later this year.
With Intel's recent announcement to pass on Vista, even with SP1, and IBM as well, big business machines shipping with Vista are not looking to have any significant uptake. With state goverments swithing wholesale to Linux and Mac (like Maine), And with trends in universities all over the world, apple may reach 12% Os marketshare by the end of the year, and could potentially hit 20% by the end of 2009.
Dell has apple beat on the 15" by about $200, equivolently equipped, software and all. On the other hand, it;s a cheap plastic case, uses the battery twice as fast, and weighs more. Dell has no DVI, no digital audio out, and a slower FSB. Also, running Windows on a mac, easy, Mac on a PC, not. I can also bring the mac to any local store for repair, and THEY pay to ship it if I need service, and with a Pro, offer a loaner! Try getting that... I can't even get Dell on-site next day support to come onsite the next day. They complain about "why don't you just open the case and replace the part, we'll ship it to you" No Dell dude... i paid for YOU to fix it, here in my home!
Your 1530 comparrison got the core components right, but you seem to have skipped the accessory list, the software list, the port count (add a firewire card to that Dell), bluetooth, and more. Also, that cheap plastic case is crap, the Dell is heavier, and the battery life is 1.5 hours to Apples 2.5. Prices have come down since I did this round of arguments 2 months ago, and the Dell is still slightly cheaper than the 15", but I've never actually seen a mac owner with a 15" pro, allways a 15" standard or 17" pro...
the 1730, again, it;s in the accessories and other details. In the 17" however, the mac has a 200MHz faster FSB, you're incorrect, the vid RAM in the dell is 256, and the Mac does have a 7200RPM drive @ 200GB. It also includes many options (firewire, DVI, etc) not available on the dell. Software included, it;s about $100 more than the mac, and the mac, as tested by PC World, is fatser than the Dell, all specs aside, likely due to the FSB.
I see you neglected to quote the mini, iMac, and Pro systems, since it's clear even at base price the Apple systems have a better config and lower cost, even without messing with software packages.
??? Apple MacBook Pro has the SAME graphics card, but twice the VRAM for the XPS Dell, 200MHz faster FSB, faster spinning HDD, DVI Out, included bluetooth, backlit kbd, included remote, all aluminum case, exact same processor, exact same screen resolution, what are you smoking?
Comparing the iMac to the dell tower is not an option. Compare the PowerMac to a Dell tower, and the Power mac is nearly $1000 cheaper (8 cores of xeons anyone?) Compare the One to an iMac and the iMac has better components and is cheaper. Even with your tower, adding the monitor, remote, camera, mic, speakers, and more that were not included with it, and you're more than $400 over the iMac price for about 10% faster system specs.
I don't know what options you selected there, but the one I built came out to $1833. The Dell is heavier, has a slower system bus, less than half the battery life. ...and i didn't even try to match the software that comes with the Mac for free that you have to add to that Inspiron. The dell also has half the video RAM with the same GPU. Also, the Mac is an all aluminum case, the Dell, cheap plastic.
The closest actual comparrison is the XPS1730. Upgrade the processor, HDD spin speed, bluetooth, and just begin to match the software equivolents, and that Dell is already over $2600. Oh, and it still has no DVI out, a cheaper chassis, weighs more, and has even less battery life. Seeing I can run Windows on the mac, and not Mac on Windows... I pick Mac. Prices have adjusted a bit since last time I looked, but the mac, part for part is still the better deal, even if the Dell does look to now be about $100 less all things considdered.
You seem to be confused... We're comparing the Dell ONE to the iMac, not a Dell Desktop and external monitor to the iMac... Your dell is also missing the remote, camera, software packs, microphone, wireless keyboard, bluetooth, and more. Try again with a like to like:
The Dell One STARTS at 1299.99, and is missing a lot of features the base mac comes with at that level.
Per Gartner, Apple enjoys an 81% overall satisfaction rating as of April 08. #1 of all PC manufacturers. This is a rating of how many people gave apple high marks, but does not differentiate the remaining 19% into groups. To get this information, you have to buy a copy of the gartner report. Agencies that do can not publish or link this information or make parts of it public without gartner's permission, so i can't link you to sources. What i can tell you is there are several sub categories making up that 19%, and the bottom tier, "dissatisfied" was just barely over 3%. This basically includes the customers who not only had an issue of some kind with their Mac, or Apple's service of it, but actually disliked how the process was handled. It also includes the extremely small percentage of people who returned a Mac after purchase (far less than 1%).
The 3% is not who has a problem with a mac and needs support, its the 3% who have ISSUE with the Mac itself, or supports processes. More than half of Mac owners call for support at some point during the system's warranty period... Solving these issues with only 3% complaining, that's outstanding.
Check your numbers. unless you're calling Sony, Toshiba, Gateway and others are also small players. Apple is the 3rd largest computer reseller in the world, with over 8.1% of the total market, and gaining fast on HP. They have 66% of the PC user base amoung entering college freshmen. They also, in October of 07, had OS X outsel ALL VERSIONS OF MICROSOFT OS COMBINED in Asia.
I agree that the Apple OS would sell VERY WELL on it;s own. Rumor mills abound with Apple's plans to release it to the open public, but inseders claim the issue is intel is dragging its feet with the firmware support on new chipsets. OS X does not support BIOS, but BIOS's Replacement. Vista currently does not have support for it. It was DROPPED from SP1 as it was DROPPED from the original Vista release. Gee, I wonder why?
Let me poot it this way. On blogspot, a systems security company ran a series of articles called "Mad as Hell" where they took a large portion of their user base, switched them to Macs for 6 months, and did an exhaustive TCO analysis (on a side note, macs came out to be much cheaper to operate, almost by half, than cheaper windows boxes once security, man hours, and more came into play, he had a nice spreadsheet you could plug your own numbers into as well if your rates differed).
The point I'm making here is there were several key (read VOCAL) employees that tried to refuse to use a mac. After 6 months, those same employees BOUGHT the mac they were using from the company, and REFUSED to switch back to a PC.
I've been a mac user since 1984 (and apple user since 1980). Every mac I or my family has owned is still working today, except an iMac G4 that got fried by lightning) including a Lisa bought in 84 and an original imac 128K in 85. Sure, we've had HDDs and power suplies blow out, and they've been repaired, but since every component in a mac is basiccaly the same as a PC, except the motherboard of which I have NEVER had one fail (including the hundred or so macs in an advertising firm I ran IT for).
Saying that people are too proud to complain about their high dollar purchases? Let me tell you, people who buy expensive stuff are VERY vocal about it's issues. They expect it to work, work well, and never die. Try asking a tech at a mercedes dealership... I'd like to see some of your references showing how this psychological phenomenon was measured...
besides, most macs, feature to feayture, are CHEAPER than equivolent Dell systems. Sure, you can't get a Mac for $499, but lets be honest, you can't get a real PC for that either. (A PC that doesn't meet the minimum requirements to run the OS pre-installed on it does not countas a real PC)
I dare you, go to Dell's site, configure matching systems to an iMac, Powerbook Pro, and Mini. The Dell One is about $150 more expensive than an iMac, their gaming notebooks (keep in mind the pro has a very high performance graphics engine and is intended to play Wow and run virtual machines, it's not a toy) are $300-500 more expensive than the mac pro, even their SFF desktop is more than $100 more than a mini. You can get a basic notebook for about $100 less than a standard macbook, with part to part equivolent perfornamce, but the Dell is more than a ound heavier if you do, or more expensive if you go lighter. Nothing Dell has compares to the Air.
So you think Microsoft takes good care of all it's unsatisfied customers, do you?
Where Apple has made a culture of people expecting a positive experience, and plays down the few (less than 3%) who have issues, Microsoft has spent a decade building a culture where people expect the issues, and don't complain simple because' well, it just sux anyway, and what choice do we have"
They do admit failure, regularly. They just don't do it instantly, because unlike others, they like to not only confirm the issue, and go the extra step to find the solution before it speads all over the web that there's an issue, but they actually research how the fault happened in the first place, and work internally to make sure it doesn't happen again.
You obviously don';t read Mac's technicla forums, or work with their engineers very often. Identified problems are solved quickly and accurately. New issues are kept under covers until there's a solution. What a lot of press who are pro-microsoft do is tattle about every time there's an issue that's NOT a bug, but a design choice apple made, that they try to keep quiet.
Microsoft has been doing alot worse lately covering up actual conversations about how they screwed the public with this "vista ready" garbage. They've not only ignored customer complaints, and hundreds of bugs (with dozens of key problems that are still unresolved like copy speeds), but they're also turning their backs on the vendors, and lying about conversations with ISVs and hardware companies.
Apple is not perfect, they have faults in design and implementation, as well as code, but overall, their ability to react to solveable problems is amazing, and their low frequency of serious issues that go unresolved is industry leading.
The phrase "could have" in no way implies intent. "least of which" also in no way implies criminal intent, it's simply a statement of where to begin. Attacking them through the press, headhunter agencies, employment securities, and more are all very viable otions.
I'm not suggesting they buy off employees, I'm saying that peaceful seperation is allways better than a war, wether it's criminal, legal, or just hassles you are trying to avoid.
Line level basic employees, who have little impact on general company systems, they don't get severerence typically until they've been employed for years, and then typically, we're talking about tyhem having reached levels where severence is warented. People who work a line in a facotry for years without advancing, they have other options, assuming they've invested in them (retirement, pent up vacation, etc), and furthermore, they're not typically subject to unemployment limitations like higher up positions are (If I made $10 per hour and got laid off, unemployment covers nearly 70% of my pay, at IT admin salaries, in SC, it covers less than 40%, since I was over the cap).
Businesses should plan for EVERYTHING. Natural disaster, postal employees, lawsuits, and more. It's called due dillegence, and has been not only an accepted business practice for a hundred years, it's a practice that maintains morale, and actually ATTRACTS quality workers.
When interviewing for job recently, the things I wanted to know most about were: vacation caryover policy (unused annual vacation rules), severence package structure, employee direct stock purchase (not options, they're worthless), and medical coverage options beyond simple coverage (ADAD, LTD, etc). I didn't ask about the salary until after those questions were answered.
I'm not saying I'm the type of person who would castrate a company like this IT guy, what I'm saying was I had the opportunity had I been that type of person. Having a seperation package means the company didn't have to be so strict with policy. IT opeople don't like to feel like they're not trusted, and most other employees don't either. Instead of negatively effecting morale through draconian rules and watchguards, they assure employees they'll be covered if things don't work out in the long run, and everyone is happier for it.
This is no different than the reasons why companies keep lawyers on staff, why they have security at the door, and why they have cameras on the inside. People eventually will try to take advantage, or you'll have a bad seed. The bigger the firm, the more likely it will happen. This is an insurance against it. No different from hurricane insurance.
If you want a better understanding, start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux#Permissions
This doesn't even take into account how permissions can get screwed up in Windows when moving data from one drive to another. Permissions can be stripped simply by copying the data to a thumb drive and back again, or can inheret alternate priveleges when copied to another NTFS volume.
and then there's the linux file structure, seperating types of binaries (by execution level), binaries from data, and users from system resources. Windows has all of this basically in 4 locations (Windows folder, user's hidden application and local settings folders, the applications area, and the personal data areas. Linux divides this into not less than 10 containers, many of which can only be accessed by Root, and for which permission can not be retroactively granted as in Vista with UAC.
It's not a matter of "we'll have to disagree" Its a matter of you not being willing to read the information available, nor take an expert's opinion for true. You're the kind of person who willing spreads FUD with no concern for it's basis in reality.
I'm not talking about shitty app writers here, I'm talking about the basic security of the OS, and how easy it is for someone to circumvent user level security in Windows, VS basically every other OS made. the point is, their security models are similar, but small differences in Linux vs windows make skirting an app by the OS and the user nearly impossible. It's not IMpossible, but it's a hell of a lot harder to do, and for a realtime security application, a hell of a lot easier to spot and stop before damage is done.
Windows protection from permission escalation only applies to the application running. Anything launched from WITHIN that approved application (like through a buffer underrun, a hacked binary, or a stupid user clicking "allow) can get by.
Virus writers don't use the Windows installer, so any permission systems deployed there are clearly irrelevent.
I'm not saying Linux is "better", I'm simply that it's permission system is different and more secure. I actually prefer using windows over Linux by a lot.
"run as Administrator" can only be disabled for users if they're actually part of a domain, and if they're logged in as a domain account, not a local user. This also requires the admins to know how to properly configure group policy. Since more than half of the infected windows machines in the world sit on desks in homes and schools, not in corporate domains, and even most companies today have some of their machines infected, this obviously isn't stopping anyone.
I DO know about this stuff. I work in IT, in system security and network design. If you admit you know nothing about the underpinnings of OS security, then why are we even having this argument?!?!?!
Linux adopters are typically more geeky, but a user set in front of a Linux GUI console, and given some basic instructions, can operate with much of the efficiency they would in windows, access e-mail, microsoft docs, databases, and more, but the user can not be circumvented, and if something DOES ask for escalated permissions, the user can't accidentally provide them without a password (you can't su - to root AFTER it's been activated, only before). That same user, simply opening task monitor, will be able to tell a lot more about how their system is operating, and can kill unwanted applications without fear that the OS can be harmed in the process (critical drivers and programs can't be killed with user permissions, unlike Windows).
If we can get equal efficiency out of users, give them access to the same resources, but run an OS that's much less expensive and more secure, and provides much higher levels of administrative control WITHOUT requiring complex central control solutions that require high levels of training to implement, people will switch. ...and they are, in droves. Whole nations have standardized on Linux, so has the state of Maine and a few others are working on it.
Eventually, linux and Mac will be more of a target than Windows, but since it's impossible to trick a user into causing system damage without them knowing an admin password and entering it first, and since applications can't escalate permissions the same way they can under Windows, getting a virus into a linux system is very difficult and thus more secure. It's MAJOR news when even a POTENTIAL virus is found for the Mac OS. Over 1000 viruses are found DAILY for Windows, and zero day exploits happen on nearly every release date.
see dotyelectric.com... electric scaling with wind can not only be done, but done easily, without the use of farm land. Numbers for electric use in the car are available from Chevy, tesla motors, and other companies who actually make the cars, not to mention the EPA.
I don't have numbers, but valid research organizations do. I don't need to quote how much power a car uses for you when that information is not only freely available, but is common knowledge in environmental circles. Making electricity in a coal plant is approxamately 70% efficient. Making energy in a car with gas is, in the best engines on earth, 40% efficient, and that's not counting refining and distribution losses. Energy can be delivered over wires for about 1000 miles with less than 5% loss in current. Over superconducting lines like those brought online in Long Island in April this year, loss is near 0% and that can be extended 10s of thousands of miles, including intercontinentally.
this is not vaporware, but proven scientific fact.
We can easily measure the amount of fuel used in cars today. This generates X amount of force. It takes the same amount of elecrical force to drive the car (laws of thermodynamics). Generating, storing, and using that electricity is nearly twice as efficient, and that doesn't count refining, transportation, vapor loss, engine efficiency loss, leaks, etc, of which electricity has none of these drawbacks. More over, that energy can be made using 100% renewable resources, and depending on who you talk to, its only going to take 30-70 years to build it out.
Solar can't do it, nuclear will be fought tooth and nail at every step, wind is abundant, free, and just inside the boarder of the texas wind corridor, we can make 20% of the USA's energy requirements, based on 2030 estimated needs per the EPA. Go do your own damn research before slamming someone elses.
I dind't say I would do it, just that I'd likely have had a breakdown. I also did say I'd use legal action, not criminal.
Fortunately, as a patient in a hospital, not only does the doctor have a Hippocratic oath, but also I have malpractice insurance. In IT, I have neither. Criminal laws are the only thing preventing a lot more IT admins from going postal on their systems, and those that think about how to do it properly would not get caught anyway (delayed activation scripts, minor changes to backup routines, etc).
It's not protection money, it's simply a "look, in a perfect world, we'd give you a few weeks notice, but unfortunately, since you have access to secure information, Federal red flag regulations and HIPPA/Sarbanes, etc, require we terminate your access effective immediately, here's a bonus to help you transition into your next job instead of leaving you completely fucked.
This is a cost of doing business. Failure to pay that cost can cost a LOT more.
It's a fact, employees will become disgruntled. It;s a fact, a very small majority of them will go postal. Offering severence packages is a way to not only mitigate that chance, but employees that know they have it also worry less about the [possibility of termination, thereby reducing stress and improving morale, which benefits the company in immesurable ways. too many companies have forgotten this lesson.
Programs in windows can launch as threads of other applications, and those threads are not visible in Task manager at all in Windows, where they are in Linux and Apple systems. Also, applications running as drivers or other system level items do not show up in task manager. You have to install SysInternals to get that detail level, or to find out not only whether a thread is active, but how much resource it's using. Also, too much in windows is simply grouped under SCVhost or another exe, so this makes distinguishing legit processes from viruses that much more difficult. Some of this can be done with the system monitor, but you have to know what to monitor. In Linux, identifying not only what's running, but what launched it is relatively easy, and yes, a linux user is much more likely to know how to do that.
In linux, an application does run with the permissions of the user, but an application can be set so that it can only be run by an admin. Doing so in Windows requires knowledge of group policy or the implementation of 3rd party security measures. Windows UAC does this on some level, but was a poor implementation of such a system since it's generic responses are easy to ignore, and a user can override those permissions with as little as a click (no passwords). run-as is not the same thing, but can restrict what an application can do in Vista if it's simply run by a user, but even a user simply needs to select "run as administrator" and is not prompted for said password to run an application. installers only ask for a password if they're actually using the installer package. A script copying files does not require such access, and can run without the user knowing. they might get an innocuous UAC notice, but that's easy to ignore.
If you want more proof, look at how easy it is to detect an active virus in Linux vs Windows. You can't skirt the permission system without a password, you can't escalate permission without a password. Windows does not have this protection.
...and this is why firms have severence packages... I got fired from a 3 year stint in a high paying position. Between my severence, unspent vacation, and current payroll, I had 16 weeks full pay with which to find a new job, plus unemployment on top of that. I found a new job in 9 weeks (at an even higher salary) and pocketed a nice chunk of change. I had NO had feelings about being let go.
Had I been fired without that package, I'd have likely lost all sense of reason. I'd just moved cities a month before, was paying for an apartment and a house, and had a baby due in 3 weeks... If all i had was unemployment to fall back on, I'd likely have lost the house to foreclosure, and had my credit ruined for years. with the access I had there, it's very likely I would have caused a lot of problems, the least of which would have been a lawsuit. I didn't have admin level access, but I did have access to a few key systems through test accounts they forgot to disable. I could have easily brought down their helpdesk system, possibly their phones.
Severence packages... For employees with critical knowledge and any form of system admin, look into adding them to your HR process! A typical package is 2 months pay plus 2 weeks for each year beyond 3 they've been with the company. Well worth it compared to the risks.
Well, if you work for a city organization, you typically are under contract with the state, and getting rid of you is as hard as firing a tenured teacher. It requires board room meetings, and clear documentation of the errors you comitted on the job. In SC, a right to work state, it's pretty easy to fire someone, but even then, if you got fired improperly, you can typically sue and win. Likely, they got the ball rolling without all their ducks in a row, and he managed to hold onto his job.