There isn't a competitor out there that is that much better than Windows. Remember that the system is only as good as the person operating it.
Apple is great - It's much easier to upkeep (from a technical standpoint) than Windows. But you still have user issues, and that's a (the?) major time sync. Sure, you don't have the time expenditure in doing defrags and virus scans, but then again.. If you're in an IT shop and not using some form of centralized management software (MOM, SMS, Antivirus Server,...), you're doing things wrong.
Same concept for Linux, but *much* more time spent trying to educate the normally uninformed user.
If you're talking about from the server market aspect, Windows isn't as dominant as you might think. But even there again, any computer (including servers) is only as good as the person that is operating it.
Admittedly, I said that based on some threads I'd read (mostly regarding needing Vista Ultimate to play games - I'm still not quite sure where that comes from, unless that person was flat out wrong as well). No citation. And, in fact, I was wrong. I double checked on it. The cost for Windows Vista Home Premium is $160, direct from Microsoft. Which will run DX10. That is still a slight bit more, but not as significant as Vista Ultimate.
Though, I have to say.. Why have 6 different versions? They've managed to confuse everyone quite thoroughly as to which one can and/or can't do certain things. The Apple commercial on TV with the wheel of 'Choose a Vista' kinda sums it up nicely for how I feel on the situation. Why not like everyone else? All they are proving is that they aren't willing to give everyone all the features (which, in fact, already exist in the code) for the same cost.
Personally, I prefer the tier structure for Mac (either Mac OS X, or Mac OS X Server, with obvious reasons for the second one to exist)... or even for most *nix distros out there, now days. It's pretty much 'Desktop' or 'Server' version.
I think that Apple is as close to full adoption for Linux as we're going to see in the main stream (Yes, Apple's OS is based on BSD, I know, I know. Close enough.)
Regarding the parent article: I doubt that he has actually used OS X if he thinks that Vista leads the pack in terms of "Eye Candy". Most of that eye candy is just a rip off what the Apple has been doing since OS X came out (in 2001? 2002? I don't remember specifically), except more intrusive.
Yes, I have used Vista Ultimate (have it, in fact). I prefer the way that Apple moves "smoothly" out of my way when I'm trying to do something, whereas Vista gets "in your face" when you try to do something (that involves eye candy).
Wine may "emulate" the capabilities of Windows, but you seem to assume that it is inherently slower (or just 'worse') than Windows. This is just not the case.
I run Crossover (a commercial fork of Wine for gamers) on my Mac. It runs every game I've needed so far, almost perfectly. There are a few glitches here and there (usually regarding intro/cutscene videos oddly), but it's better than having to submit to the overlords of Redmond and pay their entry level fee of $300 for Vista Ultimate (required for most gamers because of DX10 - Otherwise they'd have to upgrade later). Or even $200 for XP Pro (because, lets face it, what geek is going to settle for XP Home?).
Mac OS, for upgrades only, is ~$120 (though I just got my 10.5 upgrade for $100), and actually has functional changes in it (New ways to interact with folders, a user friendly way of backing things up, a GUI that always works in a familiar way, et al.).
The only downside I can see is the "entry fee" in to Mac. They do tend to cost ~$200-$500 more than their PC cousins. I still hold that Apple should open up their OS to ALL Intel systems. Yes, they'd have some standard Driver issues... But I think there would be a mass exodus by many M$ users that are hold overs because of the added entry cost of Apple systems.
You're missing the point. Yes, IT Professionals are going to have to support it whether they want to or not...... But where is the ROI in upgrading? You have to.. retrain users, buy new hardware (very few 'in use' enterprise worthy systems will run Vista properly) and invest in a new OS that doesn't have the 'field time' that is currently available for any other established OS (XP, Mac OS 10.4 or Linux).
Not only those, but.. Where does the return come from? Are you becoming more productive with XP (Cancel or Allow?)? Are you wasting less time on customizing your OS (Where did they put that darn setting I used to know wher it was?)? Less time on defragging your hard drive?
Or, are they just trolling for more money? It certainly seems like a beautified Windows XP (albeit with more issues), that they are requiring you to have and run bloatware (DRM, et al), without any new 'killer app' to make you really want to switch.
Where are the rest of these "some huge issues"? The firewall is one issue. I think we should look at the score of the recent OS launches...
Microsoft delivered perhaps 1/5th the promised functionality with Vista. Apple delivered exactly what they promised with Leopard.
Microsoft has disabled many programs that worked in their previous operating systems. Apple has not.
Microsoft is already releasing a major patch for Vista. Apple still releases their patches incrementally. They don't have enough to roll into one big 'service pack' (what the heck is that anyways? like they're doing a service to you for making something work the way it should have to begin with..).
While I happily admit to being an Apple/*nix fan(boy), the score is definitely in Apple's favor as far as OS launches go.
Finally....A larger organization that doesn't fold under another organizations demand.
I hope this is the start of many, many more responses of the same ilk. The only way for laws that don't work for the country to be dealt with is to see some serious damage done and watch for the outcry. Hopefully, someone in the gov't is keeping track of how many people are crying out for the RIAA to stop. Just because its business model is hurting does not mean it should be allowed to lash out at single mothers, college students and anyone that they believe cannot defend themselves properly.
RDP, yes. Not a standard, however. Unless you consider whatever M$ does as a standard (yes, I have some mild bias against them).
While admittedly I am not familiar with "Power Shell," it appears that it is not something that comes directly with Windows on a quick google search... and the fact that Secure Shell (aka SSH) does not come with Windows is what this whole debate appears to be over. It was never in debate whether or not you could get some external software to serve SSH. It's a matter of if they should include it with the distribution.
While it wouldn't necessary be "required" for Windows administration, it would easy bandwidth requirements at least somewhat. That aside, I think the biggest reason that MS should want it is due to standardization (which Microsoft is not exactly known for adhering to).
Another solid reason why they may believe it is not necessary is due, in part, to the lack of fully trained sysadmins that work on their products. Many System Admins that work in a Windows environment expect that they can administer everything from the GUI... when it is usually faster to do most things from a command prompt (assuming you already know what you are doing / what you are looking for), and more efficient for reuse of procedures (wsh scripting, et al).
Don't get me wrong, I just think that Windows has less reason not to do it than to do it. In this case, I believe it comes down to a matter of political pushback.
Developers: "It would make our fully trained and certified system administrators life easier, Steve!" Steve: "Yes, but we don't want them out of our GUI. Who knows! Next, they might want to try something with an even more powerful command line! We can't have that. Next!"
It's not as though there aren't SSH solutions for Windows Server... But as usual, Redmond is trying to hold all the unknowledgable system admins in their grasp by not allowing them to develop portable skill sets. I mean.. after all.. if they allowed them to develop portable skill sets, how would they keep them paying thousands of dollars for their overbloated, all-your-overpriced-hardware-are-belong-to-us OS?
Why is it that people on slashdot feel compelled to put each other down? But since that is apparently what we are doing..
If you want to talk about statistics (which there is a reason they have the saying 'there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics'), then at LEAST have some basic understanding that when you do want to use them, you need to find the right metric, and verify its validity.
Microsoft does not publish (nor are they likely ever to) how they arrive at their patches. The same cannot be said about Apache. I know I certainly haven't seen a [bugzilla|Jira|other-bug-tracking-webapp] site for IIS. For all we know they could have 100 critical flaws that were all rolled up into the one patch release.
If you could please point me in the direction of Microsoft bug tracking application (assuming that they religiously keep that up as the Apache-people do), I would be happy to provide some real, valid statistical feedback for you.
Until then, stop comparing apples to oranges. It'll make all of us that have an understanding of Microsoft business practices feel better.
God most certainly can exist, right along with science. There is no reason it cannot. It's the religions that have an issue. The more you look at them, the more they can intertwine. It's when you try and put a public face on this "God" that the problem begins. It's the religions, not the concept, that causes an issue. God does not have to be benevolent. God could simply be the thing behind the 'big bang' or whatever creation story you prefer.
Sure, you can talk about eternity, but we little humans don't have much of a concept of that either. We can talk big, but can you really imagine everything always having existed? Just look at the concepts of entropy. Energy burns itself out eventuall. I'm no scientist, nor do I claim to be an expert on the issue. I think it's just important to be true to yourself. If you have to believe in a God who is benevolent and all-seeing and all-knowing, then why should I stop that? Why should anyone? If it comforts you and makes you happy... Well those are important, and should be important. Me? I don't generally feel that it's necessary to believe in a religion.
God, in concept, is just 'that which was and will always be' at it's core. It's easier to believe in one solid thing that is eternal (be there omnipresc---any of those silly omni words that are applied), rather than a whole universe of fluctuating energies that had a massive growth period and will eventually burn out...or somehow be reborn....etc....etc....
All the rest is just a socially constructed way of which we can all view this "greater" concept. Call it God, Allah, or The Oil Field That Was Mined To Fuel the Big Bang.
All the rental places would simply have to adapt. It's as simple as this:
Instead of Rent - Everyone buys. They have a slight markup, and add neat things like signings or something, while actors rove around different stores now and then, to do signings. Hell, even I would pay an extra few bucks for the signature of Antonio Benderas.
Simple. Companies aren't interested in bringing people into compliance with the law. They're interested only in what makes them the highest dollar amount.
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't a competitor out there that is that much better than Windows. Remember that the system is only as good as the person operating it.
...), you're doing things wrong.
Apple is great - It's much easier to upkeep (from a technical standpoint) than Windows. But you still have user issues, and that's a (the?) major time sync. Sure, you don't have the time expenditure in doing defrags and virus scans, but then again.. If you're in an IT shop and not using some form of centralized management software (MOM, SMS, Antivirus Server,
Same concept for Linux, but *much* more time spent trying to educate the normally uninformed user.
If you're talking about from the server market aspect, Windows isn't as dominant as you might think. But even there again, any computer (including servers) is only as good as the person that is operating it.
Admittedly, I said that based on some threads I'd read (mostly regarding needing Vista Ultimate to play games - I'm still not quite sure where that comes from, unless that person was flat out wrong as well). No citation. And, in fact, I was wrong. I double checked on it. The cost for Windows Vista Home Premium is $160, direct from Microsoft. Which will run DX10. That is still a slight bit more, but not as significant as Vista Ultimate.
Though, I have to say.. Why have 6 different versions? They've managed to confuse everyone quite thoroughly as to which one can and/or can't do certain things. The Apple commercial on TV with the wheel of 'Choose a Vista' kinda sums it up nicely for how I feel on the situation. Why not like everyone else? All they are proving is that they aren't willing to give everyone all the features (which, in fact, already exist in the code) for the same cost.
Personally, I prefer the tier structure for Mac (either Mac OS X, or Mac OS X Server, with obvious reasons for the second one to exist)... or even for most *nix distros out there, now days. It's pretty much 'Desktop' or 'Server' version.
I think that Apple is as close to full adoption for Linux as we're going to see in the main stream (Yes, Apple's OS is based on BSD, I know, I know. Close enough.)
Regarding the parent article: I doubt that he has actually used OS X if he thinks that Vista leads the pack in terms of "Eye Candy". Most of that eye candy is just a rip off what the Apple has been doing since OS X came out (in 2001? 2002? I don't remember specifically), except more intrusive.
Yes, I have used Vista Ultimate (have it, in fact). I prefer the way that Apple moves "smoothly" out of my way when I'm trying to do something, whereas Vista gets "in your face" when you try to do something (that involves eye candy).
Wine may "emulate" the capabilities of Windows, but you seem to assume that it is inherently slower (or just 'worse') than Windows. This is just not the case.
I run Crossover (a commercial fork of Wine for gamers) on my Mac. It runs every game I've needed so far, almost perfectly. There are a few glitches here and there (usually regarding intro/cutscene videos oddly), but it's better than having to submit to the overlords of Redmond and pay their entry level fee of $300 for Vista Ultimate (required for most gamers because of DX10 - Otherwise they'd have to upgrade later). Or even $200 for XP Pro (because, lets face it, what geek is going to settle for XP Home?).
Mac OS, for upgrades only, is ~$120 (though I just got my 10.5 upgrade for $100), and actually has functional changes in it (New ways to interact with folders, a user friendly way of backing things up, a GUI that always works in a familiar way, et al.).
The only downside I can see is the "entry fee" in to Mac. They do tend to cost ~$200-$500 more than their PC cousins. I still hold that Apple should open up their OS to ALL Intel systems. Yes, they'd have some standard Driver issues... But I think there would be a mass exodus by many M$ users that are hold overs because of the added entry cost of Apple systems.
Before I say this: I am an apple fanboi. I own an iPhone, iPod and my main computer is a MacBook Pro.
That said..
If M$ did this, there would be a shitstorm of the century.
Apple isn't much (if any) better than M$. It's all in the perception of the people.
I'll take the cute and cuddly overlords over the sharp and harsh ones anyday.
You're missing the point. Yes, IT Professionals are going to have to support it whether they want to or not... ... But where is the ROI in upgrading? You have to.. retrain users, buy new hardware (very few 'in use' enterprise worthy systems will run Vista properly) and invest in a new OS that doesn't have the 'field time' that is currently available for any other established OS (XP, Mac OS 10.4 or Linux).
Not only those, but.. Where does the return come from? Are you becoming more productive with XP (Cancel or Allow?)? Are you wasting less time on customizing your OS (Where did they put that darn setting I used to know wher it was?)? Less time on defragging your hard drive?
Or, are they just trolling for more money? It certainly seems like a beautified Windows XP (albeit with more issues), that they are requiring you to have and run bloatware (DRM, et al), without any new 'killer app' to make you really want to switch.
Why don't the guys at Microsoft focus on what they're good at - Office and Database products.
...Dvorak keeps posting tech blather.. JUST so that he can come over to Slashdot to laugh at all the flames that he manages to generate!
Obviously it's okay. The masses have already spoken, and they will accept the charge!
Where are the rest of these "some huge issues"? The firewall is one issue. I think we should look at the score of the recent OS launches...
Microsoft delivered perhaps 1/5th the promised functionality with Vista.
Apple delivered exactly what they promised with Leopard.
Microsoft has disabled many programs that worked in their previous operating systems.
Apple has not.
Microsoft is already releasing a major patch for Vista.
Apple still releases their patches incrementally. They don't have enough to roll into one big 'service pack' (what the heck is that anyways? like they're doing a service to you for making something work the way it should have to begin with..).
While I happily admit to being an Apple/*nix fan(boy), the score is definitely in Apple's favor as far as OS launches go.
Finally....A larger organization that doesn't fold under another organizations demand.
I hope this is the start of many, many more responses of the same ilk. The only way for laws that don't work for the country to be dealt with is to see some serious damage done and watch for the outcry. Hopefully, someone in the gov't is keeping track of how many people are crying out for the RIAA to stop. Just because its business model is hurting does not mean it should be allowed to lash out at single mothers, college students and anyone that they believe cannot defend themselves properly.
RDP, yes. Not a standard, however. Unless you consider whatever M$ does as a standard (yes, I have some mild bias against them).
While admittedly I am not familiar with "Power Shell," it appears that it is not something that comes directly with Windows on a quick google search... and the fact that Secure Shell (aka SSH) does not come with Windows is what this whole debate appears to be over. It was never in debate whether or not you could get some external software to serve SSH. It's a matter of if they should include it with the distribution.
While it wouldn't necessary be "required" for Windows administration, it would easy bandwidth requirements at least somewhat. That aside, I think the biggest reason that MS should want it is due to standardization (which Microsoft is not exactly known for adhering to).
Another solid reason why they may believe it is not necessary is due, in part, to the lack of fully trained sysadmins that work on their products. Many System Admins that work in a Windows environment expect that they can administer everything from the GUI... when it is usually faster to do most things from a command prompt (assuming you already know what you are doing / what you are looking for), and more efficient for reuse of procedures (wsh scripting, et al).
Don't get me wrong, I just think that Windows has less reason not to do it than to do it. In this case, I believe it comes down to a matter of political pushback.
Developers: "It would make our fully trained and certified system administrators life easier, Steve!"
Steve: "Yes, but we don't want them out of our GUI. Who knows! Next, they might want to try something with an even more powerful command line! We can't have that. Next!"
It's not as though there aren't SSH solutions for Windows Server... But as usual, Redmond is trying to hold all the unknowledgable system admins in their grasp by not allowing them to develop portable skill sets. I mean.. after all.. if they allowed them to develop portable skill sets, how would they keep them paying thousands of dollars for their overbloated, all-your-overpriced-hardware-are-belong-to-us OS?
Not that I figure you're serious, but in the interest of sheer amusement.....
...Anytime. ;)
(26 terabytes) / (1.2 megabytes) = 22,719,146.7
This is assuming that you are using *high density* 5.25" floppy disks. Now, if you were talking about the low density disks.....
And.. assuming that my memory doesn't fail me...
(26 terabytes) / (320 kilobytes) = 87,241,523.2
Why is it that people on slashdot feel compelled to put each other down? But since that is apparently what we are doing..
If you want to talk about statistics (which there is a reason they have the saying 'there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics'), then at LEAST have some basic understanding that when you do want to use them, you need to find the right metric, and verify its validity.
Microsoft does not publish (nor are they likely ever to) how they arrive at their patches. The same cannot be said about Apache. I know I certainly haven't seen a [bugzilla|Jira|other-bug-tracking-webapp] site for IIS. For all we know they could have 100 critical flaws that were all rolled up into the one patch release.
If you could please point me in the direction of Microsoft bug tracking application (assuming that they religiously keep that up as the Apache-people do), I would be happy to provide some real, valid statistical feedback for you.
Until then, stop comparing apples to oranges. It'll make all of us that have an understanding of Microsoft business practices feel better.
God most certainly can exist, right along with science. There is no reason it cannot. It's the religions that have an issue. The more you look at them, the more they can intertwine. It's when you try and put a public face on this "God" that the problem begins. It's the religions, not the concept, that causes an issue. God does not have to be benevolent. God could simply be the thing behind the 'big bang' or whatever creation story you prefer.
Sure, you can talk about eternity, but we little humans don't have much of a concept of that either. We can talk big, but can you really imagine everything always having existed? Just look at the concepts of entropy. Energy burns itself out eventuall. I'm no scientist, nor do I claim to be an expert on the issue. I think it's just important to be true to yourself. If you have to believe in a God who is benevolent and all-seeing and all-knowing, then why should I stop that? Why should anyone? If it comforts you and makes you happy... Well those are important, and should be important. Me? I don't generally feel that it's necessary to believe in a religion.
God, in concept, is just 'that which was and will always be' at it's core. It's easier to believe in one solid thing that is eternal (be there omnipresc---any of those silly omni words that are applied), rather than a whole universe of fluctuating energies that had a massive growth period and will eventually burn out...or somehow be reborn....etc....etc....
All the rest is just a socially constructed way of which we can all view this "greater" concept. Call it God, Allah, or The Oil Field That Was Mined To Fuel the Big Bang.
All the rental places would simply have to adapt. It's as simple as this: Instead of Rent - Everyone buys. They have a slight markup, and add neat things like signings or something, while actors rove around different stores now and then, to do signings. Hell, even I would pay an extra few bucks for the signature of Antonio Benderas.
Simple. Companies aren't interested in bringing people into compliance with the law. They're interested only in what makes them the highest dollar amount.