Sell me a Mac

[SkyHog]

Nick...

I'm not going to sell you a Mac. Yeah, you heard me. We haven't heard anything about what you want to do with this computer, just a very specific set of fairly meaningless performance criteria that seem to be tailored towards the computer you want.

If you want the Dell XPS, then buy the Dell XPS. If you want to feel "superior" because you have a WinAMD box, go ahead. Enjoy. Hell, go for the free red bezel, it looks pretty cool. But you don't need to have us tell you to do that.

Now... If you want to get into the Mac OS cheap, just get a Mac Mini and plug it into existing DKM. If you like it, maybe you'll decide to get an iMac or something with a bit more horsepower.

If you really are interested in a Mac with more horsepower, I'd suggest a Refurb iMac. They have the full warranty and all that, and there's a lot of people who have said very good things about the refurbs. Plus it'll even save ya a couple hundred bucks.

As far as that particular model - What it does NOT have from your list is 2.7 GHz (it's 2.66), 500GB HD (320) and 512MB VRAM (256). Do you really need 512MB of VRAM? It doesn't sound like this is gonna be a gaming system, so what's the point? Were you to spend the extra $200 to get a non-refurbished model, you could upgrade the hard drive to 500GB for $50.

What it DOES have that's not on your list: A beautiful 20-inch LCD display, a stylish design, Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard", and the ability to run any operating system you want.

And yes, this is about the software. Mac OS X is the gold standard for ease of use *and* functionality. That doesn't mean "ooh, look at the pretty stuff on the screen." What it means is that you have a backup system included for FREE that's so dirt simple to set up - You plug in a drive, computer will ask if you want to use it for backups, you click "Yes" and you're done. What it means is that you'll never again have to go looking for drivers for that new digital camera or other peripheral you just bought, you just simply plug it in and it just plain works. What it means is that everything just plain works, without any hassle, the vast majority of the time (99.9% - I cannot claim that they work 100% of the time, because nothing does).

So again - If you want to try Mac OS X, buy a Mac. If you don't, just buy the damn PC already and be happy with it.

This wasn't really a loaded question, I really was considering a Mac....

The video ram is important because I do a fair bit of gaming, enough to warrant a better video card.

After pricing the computer, I found it had a 500GB hard drive at 7200 RPM,
and a video card with 512MB of VRAM. I think we may have been looking at different PCs.

Perhaps a Mac is just not for me at this time then, I really wasn't trying to find the one hole in the Mac lineup.

Thanks everyone.

 

[SkyHog]

Which processor do you have? Exact model please. There is a lot more to this than clock speed.

From Dell's website (Its a Dimension 9200, Tag # JJB2MC1
Processor,915,2.8,2X2MB Pentium D Presler,C1

So, without taking the computer apart and looking, it appears to be an Intel Pentium D processor running at 2.8Ghz. From cat /proc/cpuinfo:
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 6
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz
stepping : 4
cpu MHz : 2792.940
cache size : 2048 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 2
core id : 0
cpu cores : 2
apicid : 0
initial apicid : 0
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 6
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx lm constant_tsc pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl est cid cx16 xtpr lahf_lm
bogomips : 5585.88
clflush size : 64
power management:

processor : 1
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 6
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz
stepping : 4
cpu MHz : 2792.940
cache size : 2048 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 2
core id : 1
cpu cores : 2
apicid : 1
initial apicid : 1
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 6
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx lm constant_tsc pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl est cid cx16 xtpr lahf_lm
bogomips : 5586.05
clflush size : 64

So, I guess 2.8 would be a goal speed. I know processor speed ain't it all, but still...

 

[jesse]

Yeah. Like I said. Ignore the clockspeed, that processor is old. The 2.4 GHZ processor in the iMac is *WAY* faster.

Your current: Passmark score of 696
2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo (in iMac): Passmark score of 1298

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+D+2.80GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+D+2.80GHz

They scaled the clockspeed back a few years ago when they were hitting some limits and improved drastically in other areas. The 3.6 Ghz procs from several years ago will get schooled by the new ones in the upper 1 ghz range.

 

[gprellwitz]

LOL, my bad, sorry. I currently have a 2.6ghz. I want to upgrade, so 2.7 is the minimum upgrade for me.

What Jesse said. Long gone are the days when just clock speed determined the performance of the processor.

Edit: Okay, I added zilch to this thread. Sorry!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

This wasn't really a loaded question, I really was considering a Mac....

But if you don't care about having OS X, why would you buy a Mac?

*Unless you're Slappy, in which case you buy one solely to taunt Mac users that you're running Windows, and only Windows, on it.

The video ram is important because I do a fair bit of gaming, enough to warrant a better video card.

I thought you said something about knowing how few games there were on the Mac and figured you weren't going to be doing much gaming.

After pricing the computer, I found it had a 500GB hard drive at 7200 RPM, and a video card with 512MB of VRAM. I think we may have been looking at different PCs.

My point was... Do you *need* 500GB and/or 7200 RPM? If not, why specify it as such? You can get a very nice machine that's pretty close to your specs for a reasonable price. To hit every single one is gonna cost ya some coin.

Perhaps a Mac is just not for me at this time then, I really wasn't trying to find the one hole in the Mac lineup.

I think the "Hole" isn't so much of a performance hole as it is the fact that the Macs in that particular performance range (the iMacs) are all-in-ones with those nice LCD displays, so comparing them with a minitower-style PC is gonna put them at a price disadvantage automatically.

If you didn't buy the Dell yet, maybe you could see if Mike's right about the new iMac introduction, it may include everything you want *AND* the display for a price that's within your range.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What Jesse said. Long gone are the days when just clock speed determined the performance of the processor.

Actually, those days never existed. Only when comparing the same exact model of processor does the clock speed mean anything.

Tell that to a PC marketing guy from the 90's, though...

Actually, it was funny. In the early 90's the PC folks were all about "megahertz megahertz megahertz" because the Macs had slower-clocked processors. So Megahertz was king... Until all of a sudden IBM changed something that allowed them to have faster clock speeds than Intel. When the first 300MHz Mac came out and 233 was the best Intel was offering, they shut up QUICK!

 

[gprellwitz]

Actually, those days never existed. Only when comparing the same exact model of processor does the clock speed mean anything.

Tell that to a PC marketing guy from the 90's, though...

Actually, it was funny. In the early 90's the PC folks were all about "megahertz megahertz megahertz" because the Macs had slower-clocked processors. So Megahertz was king... Until all of a sudden IBM changed something that allowed them to have faster clock speeds than Intel. When the first 300MHz Mac came out and 233 was the best Intel was offering, they shut up QUICK!

I was going to say "sure they did, just look at the 8086/8088", then thought about the 8080, Zilog's(?) Z80, the 8085, as well as some of the others out at the time. Heck, I remember just enough to be able to rattle off some of the names! Must be all that LDS I did at Berkeley! Of course back then in the late '70's, early '80's, we were talking 4-10MHz!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I was going to say "sure they did, just look at the 8086/8088", then thought about the 8080, Zilog's(?) Z80, the 8085, as well as some of the others out at the time.

Don't forget the 6502, 6800, etc...

Must be all that LDS I did at Berkeley!

You did a bunch of Mormons at Berkeley?

OH, you meant LSD! Killed one too many brain cells there, buddy.

 

[gprellwitz]

Don't forget the 6502, 6800, etc...

That's "some of the others out at the time."

Must be all that LDS I did at Berkeley!

You did a bunch of Mormons at Berkeley?

OH, you meant LSD! Killed one too many brain cells there, buddy. [/quote]
You have seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, haven't you?
"Oh, him? He's harmless. Part of the free speech movement at Berkeley in the sixties. I think he did a little too much LDS." (Kirk, referring to Spock, talking to Dr. Gillian Taylor)

 

[Bob Noel]

>But if you don't care about having OS X, why would you buy a Mac?
>
>*Unless you're Slappy, in which case you buy one solely to taunt Mac users
>that you're running Windows, and only Windows, on it.

That's not a taunt. It'll just generate sympathy for him...

 

[Bob Noel]

> Why bigger engines? Why slick up the airframe?

Some people just want bigger/faster to *say* that they have some bigger/faster.

Some people confuse need/requirement with solution (actually a LOT of people
confuse the two)

 

[SCCutler]

At this point, I'd like to get away from Windows just because it decides it knows more than I about what to select in a document. I wind up letting it do its selection and deleting the stuff I dont want

That's not Windows, that's Word, and if you are processing text heavy-duty (as opposed to pseudo desktop publishing), you should use the gold standard in word processing, WordPerfect from Corel. It does not try to outsmart you, it just works and (oh by the way) shows you why it does whatever it does.

www.wordperfect.com

 

[jason]

That's not Windows, that's Word, and if you are processing text heavy-duty (as opposed to pseudo desktop publishing), you should use the gold standard in word processing, WordPerfect from Corel. It does not try to outsmart you, it just works and (oh by the way) shows you why it does whatever it does.

www.wordperfect.com

Oh, wait...you were serious....

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Oh, wait...you were serious....

Hey, I hate Word too. I use Pages, part of Apple's iWork suite of office apps. But that's not available on PC's so Spike's gotta go with WordPerfect.

Last I used WordPerfect was a long time ago, and it was better than Word back then too - I just wish there wasn't the occasional need to "show codes" to figure out what the F it was thinking...

 

[ReverendSlappy]

*Unless you're Slappy, in which case you buy one solely to taunt Mac users that you're running Windows, and only Windows, on it.

>But if you don't care about having OS X, why would you buy a Mac?
>
>*Unless you're Slappy, in which case you buy one solely to taunt Mac users
>that you're running Windows, and only Windows, on it.

That's not a taunt. It'll just generate sympathy for him...

"Sympathy?" I can do about 75%-80% of what I need to do in OS X. I can do 100% of what I need to do in Vista -- and minus all the Mickey Mouse kiddie BS. And it works great.

No "sympathy" necessary.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

In /Applications/Utilities you'll find a program called "Terminal" that takes you right to the command line. And it's UNIX. Gotta love it.

"Gotta love it?" A desktop environment on top of BSD is even remotely remarkable somehow, let alone something you "gotta love?"

Nick: If you want to pay for a very well-built and good-looking laptop that'll peform decently, get a MacBook. I did, and I'm quite happy.

But if you do, my suggestion is that unless you plan on using it for mickey mouse, kiddie BS like creating bad music with GarageBand or pointless, narcissistic waste-of-time movies that nobody will watch (and wouldn't be impressed with even if they did) with iMovie, save yourself the effort and wipe OS X off it, install a real OS and don't look back. OS X is nothing more than BSD for people who don't know what BSD is, with a couple niche apps on top of it. Ho-hum.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

"Gotta love it?" A desktop environment on top of BSD is even remotely remarkable somehow, let alone something you "gotta love?"

Nick's a UNIX geek. If you're a UNIX geek, having an OS without all the administration needs of UNIX/Linux but *with* all the benefits and power available at a unix command line just a heartbeat away, yes, ya gotta love it.

But if you do, my suggestion is that unless you plan on using it for mickey mouse, kiddie BS like creating bad music with GarageBand or pointless, narcissistic waste-of-time movies that nobody will watch (and wouldn't be impressed with even if they did) with iMovie, save yourself the effort and wipe OS X off it, install a real OS and don't look back. OS X is nothing more than BSD for people who don't know what BSD is, with a couple niche apps on top of it. Ho-hum.

It's quite easy to make good music in GarageBand - The fact that people make bad music with it is irrelevant. Also, Hollywood makes a lot of movies using Final Cut Pro on the Mac, and there's an awful lot of nobodies watching them.

Does it have to be a pain in the ass to be a "real" OS?

Oh, and as for your comment about not being able to do what you want - Fine. It's the opposite for me. To create the Pilotcast, we use a program called Audio Hijack Pro that can intercept only the various audio streams from Skype and omit other stuff (system sounds, other apps, and whatnot). It's not available on Windoze, and one of my PC-using podcaster friends keeps begging all his twitter followers to write something equivalent. And that's just one example.

I'd also suggest that for most people, even if they can only do 80% of what they do in Mac OS X, that they'd be better served by doing that 80% on Mac OS X and doing the other 20% in Windows under Parallels, where Windows' quirks can be kept in a nice secure little box that can be isolated from the Internet (unless the app itself requires Internet access). It'll save a lot of time and hassle. And in the event you still manage to get a virus or spyware inside of said box and bring it down, the Mac OS X side will still be working just fine, so you can still get that 80% done instead of 0%.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Nick's a UNIX geek. If you're a UNIX geek, having an OS without all the administration needs of UNIX/Linux but *with* all the benefits and power available at a unix command line just a heartbeat away, yes, ya gotta love it.

But that's hardly exclusive to OS X. At the end of the day, he can do that having bought a lot more box for a lot less dough than a Mac.

It's quite easy to make good music in GarageBand - The fact that people make bad music with it is irrelevant. Also, Hollywood makes a lot of movies using Final Cut Pro on the Mac, and there's an awful lot of nobodies watching them.

It seems to me that "Check out what I made with iMovie/GarageBand" translates to about the same as, "If you come over to my house, you're going to see the slide show of my trip to the Grand Canyon" which further translates to "Light yourself on fire and do it right now if you know what's good for you."

Does it have to be a pain in the ass to be a "real" OS?

No, of course not. Vista and XP are both good examples.

Oh, and as for your comment about not being able to do what you want - Fine. It's the opposite for me. To create the Pilotcast, we use a program called Audio Hijack Pro that can intercept only the various audio streams from Skype and omit other stuff (system sounds, other apps, and whatnot). It's not available on Windoze, and one of my PC-using podcaster friends keeps begging all his twitter followers to write something equivalent. And that's just one example.

Makes sense.

I'd also suggest that for most people, even if they can only do 80% of what they do in Mac OS X, that they'd be better served by doing that 80% on Mac OS X and doing the other 20% in Windows under Parallels, where Windows' quirks can be kept in a nice secure little box that can be isolated from the Internet (unless the app itself requires Internet access). It'll save a lot of time and hassle. And in the event you still manage to get a virus or spyware inside of said box and bring it down, the Mac OS X side will still be working just fine, so you can still get that 80% done instead of 0%.

I disagree. I'm still of the opinion that protecting Windows boxes from malware is an absolutely trivial task for damn-near all users and that the vastly overblown, bordering on fantastic threat of being in a "get 0% done" situation because of anything inherent to Windows doesn't come close warranting virtualizing the OS that does 100% in favor of the OS that does 80%. If anything, that's completely backwards, but an unsurprising suggestion given the practical un-VMableness of OS X.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But that's hardly exclusive to OS X. At the end of the day, he can do that having bought a lot more box for a lot less dough than a Mac.

I'm pretty sure he's already got a Linux box... But hey, I was answering his question, which was whether you could easily get to the command line in OS X, and the answer is yes.

It seems to me that "Check out what I made with iMovie/GarageBand" translates to about the same as, "If you come over to my house, you're going to see the slide show of my trip to the Grand Canyon" which further translates to "Light yourself on fire and do it right now if you know what's good for you."

First, again, it's mostly dependent on the user, not the platform. Second, if you compare the average iMovie project to the average Windows Movie Maker project, IME the iMovie ones are much better and easier to watch in general. Whether that's because iMovie is easier to use (and thus people use more of its features and create better movies) or because creative types tend to buy Macs more than Windows, I can't say.

No, of course not. Vista and XP are both good examples.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Makes sense.

I was simply responding to your implication that Macs can't do as much as Windoze.

I disagree. I'm still of the opinion that protecting Windows boxes from malware is an absolutely trivial task for damn-near all users

If that was the case, we wouldn't have so many threads over in Technical Corner on the subject.

and that the vastly overblown, bordering on fantastic threat of being in a "get 0% done" situation

If Windows gets eaten up by malware and you're on a Windows box, you're in a get 0% done situation until you get it fixed. If Windows gets eaten up in a virtualized environment within the Mac OS, you can still get the other 80% (in your example) done and fix the Windows mess later. And it's really not a "vastly overblown, bordering on fantastic threat."

 

[jesse]

But that's hardly exclusive to OS X. At the end of the day, he can do that having bought a lot more box for a lot less dough than a Mac.

Since I am a Linux guy by trade, and have been using it for the majority of my life, I would like you to explain to me which laptop I can buy for less money that has the capability of Mac OS?

Which distribution would it be? I cannot think of a Linux distribution that would work for me for my primary laptop that would not be an utter pain in the ass and keep me away from my real work which pays real money.

Mac OS makes a great laptop/desktop OS for a *nix administrator, developer, etc. Do I like using Mac OS as a server operating system? Hell no. It is a giant pain in the ass for that purpose. That said, I've made a decent chunk of change as a sub-contractor consulting/engineering web systems that must scale on Mac OS Server (their contract requires they use Apple hardware / Mac OS Server). It can be a real ***** sometimes to get something to compile that works fine on a traditional *nix system.

The right tool for the right job.

 

[Keith Lane]

Be careful, you might crash the internet, and unless things have changed since the last time it crashed (see this report of the last internet tragedy)

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/breaking_news_all_online_data

there is no government backup.......

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I'm pretty sure he's already got a Linux box... But hey, I was answering his question, which was whether you could easily get to the command line in OS X, and the answer is yes.

Fair enough.

First, again, it's mostly dependent on the user, not the platform. Second, if you compare the average iMovie project to the average Windows Movie Maker project, IME the iMovie ones are much better and easier to watch in general. Whether that's because iMovie is easier to use (and thus people use more of its features and create better movies) or because creative types tend to buy Macs more than Windows, I can't say.

Well you're right about one thing: I'd consider the "check out the movie I just made in Windows Movie Maker" to translate the exact same way. But I don't agree that there's any substantive difference in the outcome.

Thank you for making my point for me.

I was under the impression that you consider them to be pains in the ass, which they simply aren't.

I was simply responding to your implication that Macs can't do as much as Windoze.

There are apps for OS X that don't run on Windows. And there are apps for Windows that don't run on OS X. But for my use, there simply aren't any of the former and are there are plenty of the latter. And that's the case for most people.

If that was the case, we wouldn't have so many threads over in Technical Corner on the subject.

If somebody can't be bothered to spend the few minutes taking care of their system -- regardless of the OS -- necessary to prevent most of the kinds of problems you're talking about, they deserve what they get.

If Windows gets eaten up by malware and you're on a Windows box, you're in a get 0% done situation until you get it fixed. If Windows gets eaten up in a virtualized environment within the Mac OS, you can still get the other 80% (in your example) done and fix the Windows mess later. And it's really not a "vastly overblown, bordering on fantastic threat."

And again, preventing -- virtually absolutely preventing -- that is an absolutely trivial matter with Windows.

Some people make it sound like it's some vastly difficult, burdensome task. They're usually people selling something.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Since I am a Linux guy by trade, and have been using it for the majority of my life, I would like you to explain to me which laptop I can buy for less money that has the capability of Mac OS?

Which distribution would it be? I cannot think of a Linux distribution that would work for me for my primary laptop that would not be an utter pain in the ass and keep me away from my real work which pays real money.

A distro that comes with mickey mouse junk like iLife? Sure, there aren't any. But you make it sound like that's a bad thing.

And as far as "staying out of the way and letting me make money" goes, I've got every single Windows machine I've ever used to point to as examples. And if I were still in my last environment, I'd have ~22,000 more... Instead I only currently have about 900.

And sure, in a *NIX environment, a *NIX-based machine is going to be better. No argument here. But the point is that "I'm in a *NIX environment" does not always directly translate to "I should have a Mac."

Mac OS makes a great laptop/desktop OS for a *nix administrator, developer, etc. Do I like using Mac OS as a server operating system? Hell no. It is a giant pain in the ass for that purpose. That said, I've made a decent chunk of change as a sub-contractor consulting/engineering web systems that must scale on Mac OS Server (their contract requires they use Apple hardware / Mac OS Server). It can be a real ***** sometimes to get something to compile that works fine on a traditional *nix system.

Yeah, I can't think of any good technical reason to run OS X Server over straight Free/Net/OpenBSD. Maybe there is one, I dunno.

The right tool for the right job.

Absolutely. It's just that we tend to hear so much from people who seem to believe that the only right tool is a Mac and that Windows is always the wrong tool.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well you're right about one thing: I'd consider the "check out the movie I just made in Windows Movie Maker" to translate the exact same way. But I don't agree that there's any substantive difference in the outcome.

Seems the WMM people all put their titles in white text on that plain blue background.

On the other hand, here's the third video I ever made using iMovie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTOr0QyNbJE

The camera work is the suckiest part, which has nothing to do with the software.

If somebody can't be bothered to spend the few minutes taking care of their system -- regardless of the OS -- necessary to prevent most of the kinds of problems you're talking about, they deserve what they get.

Which, in the case of Mac OS X, is a computer that just keeps on working anyway.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Seems the WMM people all put their titles in white text on that plain blue background.

On the other hand, here's the third video I ever made using iMovie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTOr0QyNbJE

The camera work is the suckiest part, which has nothing to do with the software.

Good stuff.

Which, in the case of Mac OS X, is a computer that just keeps on working anyway.

Sure. Right up until it doesn't anymore -- an epoch which is much likelier to come to pass if it's neglected.

 

[jesse]

A distro that comes with mickey mouse junk like iLife? Sure, there aren't any. But you make it sound like that's a bad thing.

I don't use iLife. I live in the terminal and work in the real world which means I need to deal with all kinds of weird software. Mac OS gives me commercial software that I just sometimes need, like Entourage, Office, etc.

There are some VPN systems that I deal with..that would take me...a full day to make work right on Linux.. Probably longer . Instead I can just install a commercial vpn client designed for the firewall and Mac OS.

And sure, in a *NIX environment, a *NIX-based machine is going to be better.

And it is..No messing with cgywin and native access to all the tools I use constantly. bash, scp, traceroute, all in teh form that I am used to on my Linux servers. It makes things a lot easier when I can use my laptop like a Linux machine.

No argument here. But the point is that "I'm in a *NIX environment" does not always directly translate to "I should have a Mac."

Agree--but for me--it beats the hell out of Windows while allowing me to still easily deal with the Windows world.

I know, about everything I do on my Mac, I could make work on a *nix distribution...I simply just cannot spend the hours to do it when Apple has already done it for me.

Yeah, I can't think of any good technical reason to run OS X Server over straight Free/Net/OpenBSD. Maybe there is one, I dunno.

About the only good technical reason is if you're using it as a Directory server for a large Mac based environment.

There are other not so good reasons too..the reason I deal with..is a marketing / contractual reason. I can't complain, I basically get paid by the client to make all the Linux stuff work in Mac OS.

Absolutely. It's just that we tend to hear so much from people who seem to believe that the only right tool is a Mac.

Those people are out there. Mac OS has its place..and its place has been expanding over the years. That part is hard to argue.

Is it as easy to maintain in super multi thousand corporate installations? No..It isn't there yet. Windows / AD still makes sense in that arena.

The problem is--people--who come out screaming saying that Mac OS is just a toy and you can't do serious work on it. That is just as annoying as the Mac people saying it is god's answer to computing.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Absolutely. It's just that we tend to hear so much from people who seem to believe that the only right tool is a Mac and that Windows is always the wrong tool.

Two things:

1) I've never said that.

2) You seem to believe the exact opposite, that Windows is always the right tool.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I don't use iLife. I live in the terminal and work in the real world which means I need to deal with all kinds of weird software. Mac OS gives me commercial software that I just sometimes need, like Entourage, Office, etc.

There are some VPN systems that I deal with..that would take me...a full day to make work right on Linux.. Probably longer . Instead I can just install a commercial vpn client designed for the firewall and Mac OS.

Those are good examples. And like I said, I can't fault you or anybody else for making that decision given those factors. What I'm more talking about are the people for whom Apple is a solution for which they must endlessly sojourn in an effort to find a problem.

And it is..No messing with cgywin and native access to all the tools I use constantly. bash, scp, traceroute, all in teh form that I am used to on my Linux servers. It makes things a lot easier when I can use my laptop like a Linux machine.

Agree--but for me--it beats the hell out of Windows while allowing me to still easily deal with the Windows world.

Oh yeah, I'd never (er, as "never" as "never" can be in this regard, anyway) specify Windows for that situation. Wouldn't make sense.

I know, about everything I do on my Mac, I could make work on a *nix distribution...I simply just cannot spend the hours to do it when Apple has already done it for me.

Again, that's fair. I'm sure, though, that there are plenty of *NIX environments into which lots of distros would more or less just drop right in. We're on the same page, I think.

About the only good technical reason is if you're using it as a Directory server for a large Mac based environment.

That's what I was thinking.

There are other not so good reasons too..the reason I deal with..is a marketing / contractual reason. I can't complain, I basically get paid by the client to make all the Linux stuff work in Mac OS.

Meh.

Those people are out there. Mac OS has its place..and its place has been expanding over the years. That part is hard to argue.

OS X today is a quantum leap of almost incomprehensible proportions over the steaming piles of inept dog crap that were the old MacOSs. I've talked about those before, though.

Is it as easy to maintain in super multi thousand corporate installations? No..It isn't there yet. Windows / AD still makes sense.

Yeah. In addition, I'd also say that running Windows makes for a pretty tough-to-beat end-to-end app solution, too. Windows Server, .NET, IIS, SQL Server, and Active Directory... That's a robust platform on which to build just about any kind of enterprise application one could want, and it's priced competitively (at worst).

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Two things:

1) I've never said that.

Didn't say you did.

2) You seem to believe the exact opposite, that Windows is always the right tool.

Not at all.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

That's not Windows, that's Word, and if you are processing text heavy-duty (as opposed to pseudo desktop publishing), you should use the gold standard in word processing, WordPerfect from Corel. It does not try to outsmart you, it just works and (oh by the way) shows you why it does whatever it does.

www.wordperfect.com

I sure hope they fixed it up- I gave up on that program and CorelDraw years ago. It was slow as molasses and they insisted on installing their own drivers that were incompatible with software I was selling (foreign language typefaces). Those typefaces would work reliably on everything I could lay my hands on EXCEPT wordperfect (even Corel, and Corel wasn't ever the most stable software). The good folks in Utah told me it was my typefaces at fault but couldn't explain the mystery that they work fine on everything else. I replaced CorelDraw with PaintShop Pro for standard work (I know- they are Corel now) and I use NIH image or ImageJ if I need analysis or deblurring.

I've seen odd selections on all Windows programs, even when typing in Pilots of America- that lead me to beleive it was Windows rather than just Word. Word is sometimes annoying but I have a MARCOM department to make my stuff look purty. I just write what I need to say and put images roughly where they need to be.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

> Why bigger engines? Why slick up the airframe?

Some people just want bigger/faster to *say* that they have some bigger/faster.

Some people confuse need/requirement with solution (actually a LOT of people
confuse the two)

Maybe he just wants a computer that can run Vista at a reasonable speed.

 

[mikea]

...
Yeah. In addition, I'd also say that running Windows makes for a pretty tough-to-beat end-to-end app solution, too. Windows Server, .NET, IIS, SQL Server, and Active Directory... That's a robust platform on which to build just about any kind of enterprise application one could want, and it's priced competitively (at worst).

Suurrreeeee.....that's why I've been dealing with the app - supported by 7-10 developers - that takes SIX FRICKING MINUTES to update the opening web page.

I actually made a movie and pointed out that even if I clicked in 2ms I could only update my work 10 times in an hour.

(They just got it down to one minute after torturing us for 18 months, by moving to real Oracle database server.)

 

[jesse]

Suurrreeeee.....that's why I've been dealing with the app - supported by 7-10 developers - that takes SIX FRICKING MINUTES to update the opening web page.

I actually made a movie and pointed out that even if I clicked in 2ms I could only update my work 10 times in an hour.

(They just got it down to one minute after torturing us for 18 months, by moving to real Oracle database server.)

As much as I dislike the Microsoft stack--it is silly to blame it for this. Obviously they have some major architectural problem that they either don't have the resources to fix, don't have the skill to fix, or just don't care.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yeah. In addition, I'd also say that running Windows makes for a pretty tough-to-beat end-to-end app solution, too. Windows Server, .NET, IIS, SQL Server, and Active Directory... That's a robust platform on which to build just about any kind of enterprise application one could want, and it's priced competitively (at worst).

Ummm... Really?

Mac OS X Server with 10 clients: $499
Windows Server with 5 client licenses: $999
Mac OS X Server with unlimited clients: $999
Windows Server with 25 clients: $3,999

So, you can either pay twice as much for half the clients, or four times as much to be limited to 25 clients instead of no limit. That's not what I call competitive pricing "at worst".

 

[mikea]

Ummm... Really?

Mac OS X Server with 10 clients: $499
Windows Server with 5 client licenses: $999
Mac OS X Server with unlimited clients: $999
Windows Server with 25 clients: $3,999

So, you can either pay twice as much for half the clients, or four times as much to be limited to 25 clients instead of no limit. That's not what I call competitive pricing "at worst".

Not to mention Microsoft's brain shower to let Windows 7 Starter Edition users run only exactly TWO applications at once.

 

[gibbons]

Hey wildwobby,

See why I suggested we move this thread to spin zone?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not to mention Microsoft's brain shower to let Windows 7 Starter Edition users run only exactly TWO applications at once.

Wow.

So now all the spyware has to do is spawn another instance of itself, and then you can't even run any anti-spyware tools! Brilliant!

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Ummm... Really?

Mac OS X Server with 10 clients: $499
Windows Server with 5 client licenses: $999
Mac OS X Server with unlimited clients: $999
Windows Server with 25 clients: $3,999

So, you can either pay twice as much for half the clients, or four times as much to be limited to 25 clients instead of no limit. That's not what I call competitive pricing "at worst".

First of all, that's not per-seat licensing. Nobody uses that, and it's not a 1-to-1 comparison.

Second of all, nobody pays retail.

Thirdly, if you think OS X Server is as capable a platform as Windows Server, please practice that theory in a ZIP code other than the one my datacenter is in.

Edit: There's a fourthly too... Cost doesn't end with OS licensing (especially when it's done the wrong way, like in your comparison). App development costs, support costs, training costs, and on and on and on need to be factored in too, and when you add it all up, yeah, calling Microsoft's price point "competitive" is understating it, if anything.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Suurrreeeee.....that's why I've been dealing with the app - supported by 7-10 developers - that takes SIX FRICKING MINUTES to update the opening web page.

I actually made a movie and pointed out that even if I clicked in 2ms I could only update my work 10 times in an hour.

(They just got it down to one minute after torturing us for 18 months, by moving to real Oracle database server.)

Pretty sure that Microsoft apps don't have a monopoly on crappy developers.

 

[mikea]

First of all, that's not per-seat licensing. Nobody uses that, and it's not a 1-to-1 comparison.

Second of all, nobody pays retail.

Thirdly, if you think OS X Server is as a capable platform as Windows Server, please don't ever enter the same ZIP code as my datacenter.

I'll take the bet of ANY *nix-based OS on performance over Windows any day, any time.

This is where you say you get to run $14,000 Enterprise Edition on 16 CPUs and 128GB RAM and I don't.