|
I wonder, if there is a 'Lexical Chain' (Antakshari) contest going on in the survey.
|
|
|
|
|
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar wrote: I wonder, if there is a 'Lexical Chain' (Antakshari) contest going on in the survey
Wonder how they missed posting it in the Lounge. 
|
|
|
|
|
I would think that most users in a Media environment - ( Graphic design, animation etc) would have chosen "yes" as an option. And listening to people around me that talk about this topic every so often, the same answer always arises. However, myself, being in the it sector as a Software and Systems engineer, i have to stick to what the world out there have chosen as the standard ( mostly microsoft). And it defeats the purpose of loading windows on a Mac.
|
|
|
|
|
jccapetown wrote: And it defeats the purpose of loading windows on a Mac.
How so?
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote: Watson's law:
As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
|
|
|
|
|
For me to load windows on a Mac, is't going benefit me anymore than it would on a dell, ibm or intel box. So why would i bother....
|
|
|
|
|
Sure but it doesn't "defeat the purpose" in any way. I have Windows XP on my Mac. It is a useful development tool being able to run multiple operating systems easily.
And I happen to like the Mac range of computers. I find them to be better than the Dell equivalent. So if I want to run Windows on the hardware best suited to me then a Mac isn't a daft choice.
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote: Watson's law:
As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you use the Mac os, or only xp on your Mac hardware ?
If you dont use one of Mac's os's then, then surely your over paying for hardware, as Mac is definately more expensive than other architecture. ? no ?
If I had my way, I'd can Microsoft os's and make everything run Slackware.
Unfortunately clients are all microsoft dependant, and i dont think they care what the architecture is, I doubt they even now the difference. so in my "environment" why should i overkill if the standard Architecture is not Mac, as for my problem with slackware.
|
|
|
|
|
jccapetown wrote: Do you use the Mac os, or only xp on your Mac hardware ?
I use Mac OS X (just installed Leopard) as my main OS. I had Windows XP and Windows Vista installed with BootCamp but ditched that in favour of VMWare Fusion VMs.
jccapetown wrote: If you dont use one of Mac's os's then, then surely your over paying for hardware, as Mac is definately more expensive than other architecture. ? no ?
It costs more but it is better for my needs. I wouldn't go back to another laptop make unless they bettered Apple.
jccapetown wrote: so in my "environment" why should i overkill if the standard Architecture is not Mac, as for my problem with slackware.
You shouldn't. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Mac OS. Use Slackware if it makes you happy
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote: Watson's law:
As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
|
|
|
|
|
I wish i could use Slackware, but i develop software, and training clients to use slackware as user interface will only cause frustration for both parties. Unfortunately microsoft is the leading desktop  . For core system design and server side development, mail clients, Antivrus (like clamAv, spam-assasin) I definately use slackware. Then I'm in my "happy zone"
|
|
|
|
|
jccapetown wrote: Mac is definately more expensive than other architecture. ?
There's been several articles that indicate that a Mac is no more expensive than the equivalently specced Dell - the thing is that you can get Windows computers with much lower specs than Apple computers - those cost less than Apples.
|
|
|
|
|
For sure. But why buy a state of the art computer to develop admin software for if you will be wasting less than required system performance?. For sure if you require rich interfaces with movies and games,movement and animation, where you will be needing it, you should definately invest in a MAC. Some of my friends are sound engineers and animation artists and use nothing but MACs and never will change to anything else. But only cause it is most suitable for what THEY do.
|
|
|
|
|
Got to have my Visual Studio and SQL Server, and my games 
|
|
|
|
|
You'd get that on XP, why trust Vista? It's shite.
|
|
|
|
|
This is not suppose to be a debate on Vista vs XP, but I'll add some more reasons
IIS7 (which has additional features I may need to use in an upcoming project)
Bit Locker (protects my valuable source code if my laptop was ever stollen)
Start Menu Search (WinKey + 'sql ser' + Enter = quick access to my applications such as Sql Sever Management Studio)
Various other reason including Sidebar gadgets, looks nicer, built in Media Center, supports HD-DVD + BluRay (which I do use).
|
|
|
|
|
I would use one if someone gave me an Apple computer. However, I would not go out and buy one.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not?
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote: Watson's law:
As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson wrote: Why not?
Value for money. I don't perceive that a Mac is as good value as a PC. Sure it looks nice, but I can get the same power cheaper from other vendors. It is the same reason I won't buy a Sony Vaio - Looks nice, but underpowered for the price.
|
|
|
|
|
OK. I take quality as an important factor too, not just features and power.
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote: Watson's law:
As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson wrote: OK. I take quality as an important factor too, not just features and power.
I don't see how it is any higher quality. From my experience all the PCs I've ever owned lasted longer than their usefulness - I still have perfectly usable laptops and desktop PCs going back at least 7 years.
Anything higher quality than that is a bit of a waste of money.
|
|
|
|
|
Quality isn't just longevity but that good feeling engendered by use of well made kit. Macs are screwed together in not only an aesthetically more pleasing manner but also a tactile manner. They reassure the user which to me counts for a lot.
It is the same reason a Leica can sell for $4000 when it actually does less than a $800 DSLR. How the tools we use are made is important.
If that isn't important to you then no worries, buy the plastic Dell
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote: Watson's law:
As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
|
|
|
|
|
Same here It is nice, but if you are patient enough you can get a brand new 64-bit Acer or Gateway with Vista for under $300.00 Apple can't beat that.
|
|
|
|
|
For me, it's not having .NET. If somehow OSX ran .net, I would probably switch, but I haven't heard that hell froze yet, so until then I guess I'll be using Dells
Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you do something and the time you tell a woman what you did.
--Dibert
My left name is Tremendous Savings, Ms. America – Señor Cardgage
|
|
|
|
|
senylity wrote: If somehow OSX ran .net, I would probably switch
Hell has frozen over:
You can run .NET on OSX (PowerPC and Intel) using Mono. Ready to switch? LoL! 
★ Shane Shepherd
|
|
|
|
|
Mono != .NET
If you don't trust me, run MoMA[^] on any real-life .NET application
|
|
|
|
|
Never had any reason to run .NET on the Mac OS myself. Apple has it's own set of development tools and frameworks that are optimized for use in it's OS. Plus, if you need .NET on the Mac...run it in Windows/Bootcamp! 
★ Shane Shepherd
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
