Reader Comments

"Microsoft Licensing Office 2007 UI for Free" Well boy howdy! I'm suprised at this. Component makers like Infragistics.com use this as a selling point to have your applications look like Outlook/Office.

"This license will let anyone build applications that look and work like Office 2007, a request the company has gotten repeatedly from partners." Not so fast there, pardner. It's not for "anyone". Microsoft says: "...if you are building a program which directly competes with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, or Access (the Microsoft applications with the new UI), you can't obtain the royalty-free license." Also, you have to accept their licensing terms BEFORE you get the usage guidelines--which you must follow to the letter in order to stay compliant. Microsoft uses the term "virtually anyone". Even that's being generous, IMHO. ----- "And while I'm sure we're all hugely surprising [sic] that there isn't an iota of innovative work in a Microsoft product..." I know I, for one, am hugely surprised. I'm shocked to hear that "The device is essentially a Toshiba GigaBeat wrapped with a branding message that was created by a marketing company in California", because I thought Microsoft worked on this thing for a year! It's been five years since the iPod was introduced. If this is the best that Microsoft and its partners can come up with, it's really sad. ----- "I just want to make sure this is perfectly clear. These guys sell thumbnail-sized text ad placements. On Web sites. That's what they do." Jealous much? ;-) Have a great Thanksgiving.

@lotsamystuff "It's not for "anyone". Microsoft says: "...if you are building a program which directly competes with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, or Access (the Microsoft applications with the new UI), you can't obtain the royalty-free license." No kidding. That's what the majority, if not all, of the component makers licensing terms are. Besides, how many people are actually creating a Word/Outlook/Powerpoint/Excel program. Its pointless if your trying to make money off of it.

@Microsoft Licensing Office 2007 UI for Free: Here's hoping the folks at OpenOffice.org take advantage of Microsoft's free, superior UI. @Not News-Vista Drivers: Not just Microsoft partners, they have to code their own drivers for the Zune! @Microsoft/Novell Pact Already in Tatters: Show us the non-compliant parts, MS. Otherwise, you're just SCO. @US: Windows Vista is in Compliance with Antitrust Accord: The last I saw, Windows Vista has IE7 bundled with it. And for most consumers, they'd have to open IE7 in order to download Firefox/Opera/whatever. By then, they'll probably just settle with IE7 since it has tabs... @Rumor Debunking: No Gears of War for PC: It's only a matter of time before all Windows games are only made for Microsoft Xbox 2009 system, leaving Windows to only be used for spreadsheets and "enterprise" applications. Macs have few games (though my wife and I play WoW on our Macs, so we're set), but when you stop playing games, Macs can do much more. iLife gives you the power to explore and create great things with your digital media. Macs also have industry leading software that can lay out a newspaper, magazine, or produce motion pictures and studio albums. And they can still do Excel. A Windows PC without its games is just a corporate, lifeless box. @Zune: "Buy it ... and you are dumb." Paul, I couldn't have said it better myself. Getting a Zune is almost as dumb as MS fanbois using Windows Live Search because its a Microsoft search engine. Also dumb: iPod owners who refuse to use iTunes to manage it, then complain that their iPod experience is sub-par.

"I've been pretty critical of Microsoft's Zune because the device is a half-hearted attempt at wresting control away from Apple's iPod at a time when Microsoft really needs a home run." That's just plain stupidity. Sometimes it's better to get a few hits than to go for a home-run. Yes, you've been critical of Zune, one of the reasons being that it doesn't support the iTunes music store... WOW, really??? Who would've imagined that, Paul? It's too early to write an epitaph for Zune in my opinion. I don't know if Zune will end up being successful in the long run but I think it's too early to write it off. Regarding the comment by vandil/ bonch/ whatever about a Windows PC being a "corporate, lifeless box," does that mean you've changed your tune now? Didn't you used to say Macs were for getting the real work done while PCs are for playing Sims? Hmmm...

@shark47 Make no mistake. Windows PCs, gaming aside, are for corporation to use for working with Microsoft Office, applications that require IE6/7-on-Windows, legacy applications that require DOS/Win16/Win32 APIs, and other "enterprise" software that's Windows-only. It's all corporate business bookkeeping crap that lifeless "Directors" and execs use, trying to pretend that they're living in a digital lifestyle because they have the batman belt of Windows Mobile phones to play with Excel and Outlook on the toilet. In the workplace, Macs can do spreadsheets, too. But they are primarily called upon to do the heavy, time-sensitive lifting of: movie post-production, studio album recording, DVD mastering, layout of print advertisements and sales papers, layout of almost every major newspaper and magazine, and powering the supercomputers at a few major Universities. All without the risk of viruses and spyware. Ever. Not even the hassles of preventative maintenance! Windows PCs at work: Excel, Oracle, The Sims, viruses and spyware. Macs: For getting real work done, without ANY hassles.

Most computer users(Window or Mac) don't ever do: "movie post-production, studio album recording, DVD mastering, layout of print advertisements and sales papers, layout of almost every major newspaper and magazine, and powering the supercomputers at a few major Universities."

"But they are primarily called upon to do the heavy, time-sensitive lifting of: movie post-production, studio album recording, DVD mastering, layout of print advertisements and sales papers, layout of almost every major newspaper and magazine, and powering the supercomputers at a few major Universities." They are also used to alter time, halt the speed of light, not to mention doing all the household chores! Vandil, that *one* industry. Movie studios use multiple OS's; ILM, *the* standard in CGI, uses custom software they developed for Linux. DVD recording is *so* difficult, I can't do it on my PC! It just stresses my PC too much. . By a *few* universities, I assume you mean in the single digits? Most universities either use Linux or Windows. The art department might use Macs, but the engineering department *will* *not* *ever* use macs. The industry I'm in uses Windows for client PCs and Unix for the production database. Period. It is a manufacturing environment. Big, tough factory workers (some I would classify as thugs!) could not be *paid* to work with a "pretty" UI. They prefer the "ugly" grays of Windows Classic. The day they use macs will be, um, I can't think of one. This past Sunday, I had to use OS X to transfer a file to my flash drive (I was at someone else's house). Trying to be as open-minded as possible, I was struck by how slow and bloated OS X felt. 5-10 seconds to open Safari? The same amount to open the Finder? *Why* can't I see the folder structure? Why must they make it so difficult to tell when your USB drive is "ejected?" Why no fullscreen? On the app I was using, it was slower than the same app ported to Windows (it was flash-based). While I was waiting for it to close, it alternated between the SBBOD (spinning beach ball of doom) and the watch. Ejecting a USB drive was also twice as slow as ejecting it in Windows. I am willing to blame it on the 6-month old Macbook, though.

@mtkates "Most computer users(Window or Mac) don't ever do.." Welcome to the thread. Please start by reading the part where we're talking about IN THE WORKPLACE. Thanks.

I've always felt a sense of slow degradation in the past when using Apple software which is why I didn't stick with it for very long. Windows isn't much better but at least it is tweakable in a more friendly kind of way. But Linux is a breath of fresh air both in maintenance and in transferring files from system to system. 6 months ago I would have written off Linux as pure blarney, but now I am sold in all aspects of computer environments.

@vandil2 I apologize, I didn't realize most workplaces did that type of work.

vandil2: 1) "@US: Windows Vista is in Compliance with Antitrust Accord: The last I saw, Windows Vista has IE7 bundled with it. And for most consumers, they'd have to open IE7 in order to download Firefox/Opera/whatever. By then, they'll probably just settle with IE7 since it has tabs..." They removed the deep intergation with Windows. It has nothing to do about being "bundled" or not. Last time I looked Apple bundles Safari with Mac OSX which means you have to open it to download Firefox or Opera or whatever. 2) Man, you were on a roll a few weeks back - actually contributing to decent discussion. What happened? You run out of anti-Hyde formula or something?

The news about Fresno is a bummer. Too bad it isn't flying, but life goes on. Vandil2: I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the MacOS hype. It doesn't fit into the corporate world where I work. Yes, it works fine with desktop publishing and some other niche markets, however I cannot sell the corporate heirarchy that MacOS is in the company's best interest any more than I can sell any other *IX. First, we'd need to tell the company's customers that they need to exclusively use applications that work with the new found OS and expect to retain or generate new business. Add in that a large number of applications that run on the desktop level would be required to be completely rewritten, not to mention those at the server level. Second, we'd need to hire a completely new support staff with a proficiency in MacOS/*IX. This might sound easy, but it has proven to be difficult finding IT people proficient at Windows, more difficult and expensive finding IT people proficient in *IX and nearly impossible to find technicians with more than a cursory knowledge and experience with Macs. Given the turnover inevitable in most IT departments, this becomes a huge money pit in the IT budget. Third the cost of replacing equipment pre-life cycle couldn't be justified. The math is simple, for a new Desktop, including an additional video card (we have a requirement for all workstations to use dual LCDs), licensing for Windows, Office and Antivirus as well as warranty contracts the cost per desktop is around $950. For a Mac, the cost is a huge question mark. Can the Intel graphics chip on the comparible ~$900 MacMini adequately handle dual monitors? If it can (and a lot of what I read says it really cannot) that would force the company to go with the $2300+ MacPros. Regardless of whichever I choose, I'd need to invest in licenses for Microsoft Office (StarOffice just doesn't work as well as we'd need it to) so add another $150-300 to that total. Cheers, TB

memo to all of bonch's alter egos... notice all of the new people posting. They realize, like most true pros, the OS X is simply a toy. Yeah, its great for that one niche market that you love to mention, but it offers nothing comparable to Oracle SQL Server, SAP, PeopleSoft, etc. I have been saying that for months... Windows does well in mid size servers and dominates the commercial and home desktop. Linux on the other hand, does well in the server market...and very well in the appliance market. All of the commercial UNIX flavors truly excel in back end applications as mentioned above. --tayme

Paul: This is the funniest bunch of short takes in a long time. Well done sir! Tayme: What makes OS X a toy? My Jeep Wrangler doesn't do all the things a tank does. It doesn't fire rockets or stop bullets, but I wouldn't call it a toy. My skillsaw can't cut metal, but I don't let my 5 year old play with it - it's not a toy. Your argument is that because OS X does not provide the same features you can find in Oracle, SAP or PeopleSoft, it is therefore a toy. Windows does not offer those features. Windows just lets you run those programs. Is Windows a toy? OS X will run Windows in a neat little isolated environment and then I can run all those programs - and more - that you mentioned. Will Windows run OS X in a virtual machine? So... my OS can run your OS but your OS can't run mine. Huh. Toy indeed.

bdkjones: I'm still confused by the whole "Mac can run Windows" thing... If OS X is so farking great... if it is the be all and end all of computers (even the new Get a Mac commercials say that Macs can be used at work as well as for "fun, life stuff") then why would you need Windows on your hardware at all?

My only question is why. Why do people keep mentioning untruths? Just because 'a university' has a mac with a bunch of nodes, does not mean 'universities' commonly use them for HPC. They don't. Mac's don't scale well at all. MACH5 - Apple XServe, 2.0 GHz, Myrinet, 3072 Processing nodes. There. That is the meanest Mac supercomputer in the jungle. Oooh so scary. There are 5 Dell supercomputers that are faster than it. Cray. IBM. SGI. NEC. These are the names in the HPC arena. Apple is nothing, they are less than nothing. Dirt is cooler than Apple in the HPC world. So please, just because a school has a Mac cluster, don't try to throw them in with the real boys. BlueGene/L - eServer Blue Gene Solution 131,072 Processor nodes. Roughly as strong as 15 of the Mac clusters. That's a real supercomputer. It will be userped in performance by Cell... once it's matured. So to wipe the 'notions' clear. Mac clusters are toys for the specific purpose of playing with a mac cluster. They are expensive, they are inefficient (don't support infiniband *the performance king*), etc. The current king is IBM. If you've got the bank, and you want the power, call them first. Otherwise call SGI, call Cray, heck even call Dell... but please, don't try to be 'emo-cute' and get a mac cluster b/c the racks look cool. Its insulting, and even Apple won't sponsor their builds, its a completely DIY project. IBM and Cray will hit the PetaFLOP mark inside 3 years. Currently Mac clusters can't even touch the 50 TeraFLOP. And by touch, I mean you can sit there with every cheater simulation, every *pro mac* benchmark, every bit of optimized code and useless-but-fast scheduler in the land and 50 will be still absolutely unatainable. Congrats Apple, your HPC performs around the same as 20 PS3s. Woo Hoo. But that's ok... Dr. Biologist McDo-nothing can run protien simulations over the course of a month instead of a day.

"my OS can run your OS but your OS can't run mine" bdk - nice comment. Your system can't run Windows Vista RTM without a BIOS emu AKA Boot Camp (and we'll see if that's even possible once someone actually confirms that with a Mac and Vista RTM). Likewise, OSuX won't run on a PC, unless you use an EFI emu or OSX hack (of which there are several now). I second sticknick's notion - if Mac OSX can do everything Windows can, why even mention it??! (That's rhetorical - I have yet to see an ERP client software run on it where it could also reside on XServe). So sorry to say, that Microsoft isn't listing OEM copies of Office 2007 for Mac either. I watched the MacWorld 97 video on Soapbox the other day where Jobs was giving the keynote speech about Microsoft bailing them out. It was a laugh! I liked the part near the closing where they zoomed in on people's faces looking like frightened children. Some looked like they were going to cry. One guy was even shaking his head. The gasps when Jobs announced the partnership with (of all people) Microsoft were CLASSIC too! http://soapbox.msn.com/video.aspx?vid=b297d66b-d352-4b7e-9869-fc74d59f7287 Funny how the crowd first boos Microsoft, yet when they announce Office is going to be released for Mac, they applaud. WTF is THAT?!

Waethorn: Vista RTM installed with no problems using Boot Camp for me. Vandil, please for the love of god just leave. Your arguments are dry, stale and hold no foundation. I love OS X, but I'm willing to admit Windows can do everything OS X (iLife is really over rated and has a lot of bugs. iWeb is just a joke when it comes to web work) can do and visa versa. Just like OS X has things Windows doesn't have and visa versa, get off your high horses and stop turning each discussion of Windows into a Mac argument. Unless Paul mentions it, what's the point of bringing them up?

Reflections: Why do you think we flame them back so much considering that they are completely off topic being that they're posting on a WINDOWS site? Here's some more related funniness. http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20060513

"Reflections: Why do you think we flame them back so much considering that they are completely off topic being that they're posting on a WINDOWS site?" Point taken. With that in mind, I'll expect the same amount of righteous indignation coming from you the next time Paul writes about xBox, PlayStation, Wii, Zune, or anything else that isn't "Windows".

I found this entry on Digg.com hilarious. I'm sure most of you have heard of the absurd claim Microsoft has made regrading the Linux kernel. Same old story that SCO was giving. I don't have time to rant on how insane this is or how mad I am at Novell, but I have a suggestion. Everyone collect some Monopoly money and send it to Microsoft, or Ballmer if someone finds his address with this note inside: "Mr. Ballmer, Since you live in a fantasy world, thought we'd pay some fantasy money for your fantasy claim." The address is: Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052-7329 Please, let me know if someone finds Ballmer's address. If you agree with this please post about it everywhere. Maybe we can create a day out of it. I don't reach a very large crowd with my posts so any help would be great. http://www.hasbro.com/monopoly/pl/page.treasurechest/dn/default.cfm

@NateB2: "This past Sunday, I had to use OS X to transfer a file to my flash drive (I was at someone else's house). Trying to be as open-minded as possible, I was struck by how slow and bloated OS X felt. 5-10 seconds to open Safari? The same amount to open the Finder?" Lies, lies, and more lies. It does not take 5-10 seconds to open Safari on a six-month old MacBook. I should know; I own one. "*Why* can't I see the folder structure?" You can. "Why must they make it so difficult to tell when your USB drive is "ejected?"" It's not difficult. The drive doesn't appear as mounted. "Why no fullscreen?" Huh? "On the app I was using, it was slower than the same app ported to Windows (it was flash-based)." Blame Flash. "While I was waiting for it to close, it alternated between the SBBOD (spinning beach ball of doom) and the watch." So? "Ejecting a USB drive was also twice as slow as ejecting it in Windows." Another complete and utter lie. With Macs gobbling up the academic world and achieve 15+% U.S. notebook market share and growing, expect more FUD from frightened PC users who don't want to give up the broken, 5-years-behind technologies of Microsoft Windows. Have fun with the BIOS while the rest of us use EFI.

Like I said, I'm willing to blame it on this particular Macbook. I'm just going by my experiences. By "fullscreen", I meant either fullscreen or maximized. I want the app to *cover* *the* *entire* *screen*. Not "maximize" to display all the data, I want it to fill the screen. My reason is this: I tend to "throw" the mouse; instead of slowly moving my mouse, I jerk it (esp. when I'm in a hurry). This works great with true maximized apps, but when I tried this on the Mac, a bunch of stickies appeared (they were behind the app) and the app went into the background. Annoying. The flash app was made for Macs, and then ported over to Windows. It works on Windows better than Macs. Regarding the close issue, I was running out of characters. Here is what happened. I clicked close (on the PC this same app closed in 2-3 seconds) and waited..and waited...and waited while it kept alternating between the "busy" cursors. What I didn't mention earlier was that the app's thumbnail in the dock became corrupted. There were *two* thumbnails of that app, but one was all distorted, like when apps minimize using the "genie" effect, but in miniture. Minor, but annoying, nonetheless. How did Apple make the Finder so annoying? With Vista, the options are both in text and in pictures, so anyone can figure out how to change views. OS X just has small icons. In a five-minute timeframe, I did not have time to figure out how to display the folder structure. Another question: *Why* can't OS X notify you when you insert/eject the flash drive? When I ejected the flash drive I kept waiting and waiting, and the only indication that it was doing something was that the drive icon on the desktop (which was buried with other icons, BTW) disappeared. The same thing happened when I inserted it. I kept waiting for it to notify my that I could use it, but nothing happened. I searched the desktop and *finally* found the icon, and I correctly assumed the flash drive had mounted.

"How did Apple make the Finder so annoying?" This is something I have been wondering. When I'm using the Mac at work I can't believe how unintuative the Finder window is. You click on a folder and it "slides" over horizontally and shows you another section? By the end you have a horizontal scrollbar of epic proportions. I like the Windows Explorer tree view: the deeper you dig the bigger the *vertical* scroll is. This is a non-issue - ask any designer wich type of scroll aggrivates users - horizontal wins out. As well, the tree allows you to see the entire directory structure all laid out nice and neat. The one true Mac guy at work told me that if Finder with the scroll bothered me that much, then I could change it to have Finder open each directory in a new window. I blinked at him ... "You mean like Windows 95 v. 1 style?" He had no reply.

sticknick/Waethorn: I don't run Windows on my Mac. But I can acknowledge the people who need to run it. My father, for instance, is an airline pilot who uses WinBid to take care of bidding for his trips. no Mac version. Thus, Windows in Parallels works great. Also, I'm not talking about boot camp. I'm talking about Windows running inside OS X in it's own little window thanks to Parallels. Just to clear that up. Reflections: iLife overrated and full of bugs? Please, list them for me if you don't mind. All of them. iWeb is not dreamweaver and it was never meant to be. iWeb works great for the target audience it's set for. Just because you're not that audience doesn't make iWeb a piece of junk. And again: I can run Windows in OS X and therefore run the entire Windows software library in OS X. Anyone care to refute that?

"I'm talking about Windows running inside OS X in it's own little window thanks to Parallels. Just to clear that up." Thanks for clearing up what you're running. Now for the fun part. Parallels is a VM. The graphics chip it emulates is an Intel i815 chipset. Those aren't even DirectX9 compliant!! What a laugh! You say you can run the entire Windows software library and yet anything that requires pixel shader or hardware T&L support won't even run in Parallels. I highly doubt any Windows-only Hardware OpenGL apps will even launch. Parallels doesn't support Windows XP Media Center Edition (probably also due to the video support - or lack thereof). DirectX VA support is completely thrown out the Window. Also, the i815 doesn't support Aero Glass, only the GMA 950 and higher does, but realistically should only be run on the GMA X3000 for performance reasons and also, an emulated version of Intel integrated video hardware would just be sad. Parallels warns against running several different disk defragmenters within a VM. The whole fake-multiple-IP thing plays havoc with domain connections. Also, you mention that you can run the entire Windows software library and yet one of the most important pieces of software WILL NOT RUN - Windows 64-bit versions!! I use Virtual PC 2007 from time to time, and I can run just about the same software in it that you can in Parallels - even moreso, since Virtual PC supports more flavours of Linux, including the latest versions of Ubuntu that Parallels does not, as well as Microsoft Windows Small Business Server which is curiously not listed on their supported OS list! So basically, I just refuted your entire claim. FUD I say! FUD!! BTW: You should try running Windows XP in Parallels, then install Virtual PC in it, and then run all the software I mentioned above that Virtual PC runs that Parallels does not. My point here - VM's suck. Mac users: use Boot Camp instead, or if OSX is so superior, DON'T!

Look, we're not refuting that you CAN run Windows on a Mac - be it Parallels or Boot Camp or ancient Tibetan Magic. What we are trying to say is that Mac's are touted as the be all and end all. "Get a Mac and get your life back." "You can make amazing stuff." "114,000 Viruses? Not on a Mac." "Next year’s OS today. Since Mac OS X engineers aren’t busy damming a flood of viruses, they have the time to think up amazing new technology." "Awesome out of the box. Other computers include software, it’s true. But once you start using that software, you find that you’re hobbled in some way or another." See? You can do ANYTHING on a Mac! Oh but wait! "So you have to run just that one thing, or maybe your office requires it..." Apples marketing and, more so, the ranting of the true Mac Zealot will have you believe that you all you need is a Mac and Windows is a dirty, dying dinosaur that's riddled with bugs and viri and crappy old legacy software. OS X is streamlined! OS X is the most "Advanced most advanced operating system!" "Stay ahead of the curve with Mac OS X." Then the second a Windows user says something like, "Macs don't have the software equivalent of such and such..." all you hear is "BUT MACS CAN RUN WINDOWS TOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! WAHHH!!!!!!!" It's kind of, oh I dunno... hypocritical? Is that the right word?

sticknick, that was my point at the end. If Mac OSX is so great and can do anything a Windows PC can, then why bother making a point that you can use a Microsoft OS to run Windows software??! HMM....let me think about that for a moment.... oh right, U CAN'T!! Apple can't attract developers to a niche market when those same devs know that can't make any money off of it. Why bother putting a huge investment of time and money into such a small market segment, knowing that the returns are miniscule at best. Apple already knows all about this. Why do you think they even bothered to come up with Boot Camp in the first place??! Really, if they wanted to impress people, they should've asked Microsoft to recompile Windows for PowerPC architecture, since the current emulation options for PowerPC suck the big one, and support for the not-so-old PowerPC architecture is getting blown out the airlock by the end of next year as developers are starting to code STRICTLY for Intel-based Mac's ONLY, since most devs code for Windows first.

Waethorn/ Nick: "Why bother making a point that you can use [Windows] to run Windows software?" To shut up people who call OS X a toy because it can't run business software designed for Windows. Last time I checked, Oracle, PeopleSoft, and the thousands of in-house developed programs used by businesses all over the nation didn't require DirectX9 or pixel shading. I'm just tired of people calling OS X a "toy" because it doesn't run enterprise software. That's not fair. Windows does not come with built-in enterprise software, it just has some available for the platform. OS X could just as easily run that same software if it were recompiled. I'm not trying to argue that one OS is superior. I just want to refute the claim that OS X is a toy because it can't run software like PeopleSoft, etc. The truth is, it can. In a VM, yes, but then again, PeopleSoft is not Doom 3; it doesn't require blistering performance - and even with the new Macs and the latest beta of Parallels, you can get around 90% performance of a standard XP box. That's plenty to run Windows-only business software in a Virtual Machine. My point is: time and time again you guys have criticized OS X for not being able to run the thousands of business programs in the world - especially those written in-house. Well, now it can. So, let's all agree to stop using this argument in the future.

bdk....so, do you really think that nay company os going to run thier production apps in a VM...I don't think so. Face it...OS X is not an enterprise OS. Ad mit it. I have said and will say again...I have a Mac at home...I like it...my family likes it...but we also have windows and linux running. Its the iTude that the iPeople have that makes us who support windows in the real world dislike it and the iPeople so much. You don't usually fall into that category...but lately you have been. --tayme

OS X wasn't designed with the enterprise in mind anyway, so I am not sure why there is a debate here. Personally, I think the Apple Microsoft debate is moot because both systems are over bloated eye candy designed for their own proprietary and specific needs. Which is better is a simple matter of personal perspective and taste. In fact, I see the Microsoft/Linux debate as more interesting because of the enterprise idea being stated here....and the biggest issue is those big business corporations that invested heavily in Microsoft. These businesses seem apprehensive to make the complete switch to Linux for some odd reason. What is that reason? Now there are many running both Linux and Windows that are perfectly happy on the surface but if I am indeed a person that has experienced what I am sure others are experiencing, then the grumblings of Windows problems in the background can almost be heard in the distance. But in the end this seems to come down to Microsoft quietly stirring their typical pot of FUD. As usually they can't stay focused on one area and have to dig into areas that they handle like dunce students. Universal, Zune, even the over rated XBOX; and now their main dunce student buffooning out statements of patent infringement that are laughable. Let's face it, everybody infringes if you understand the patent as a true entity. As for Linux, my biggest qualm isn't the software but rather the apple like egoism that comes into play during debate time. Linux advocates tend to see nothing but evil instead of remaining objective and trying to understand what is behind Windows in the first place. Linux users should shut up and ignore....just let Ballmer and the blue buffoons keep stuffing their mouths with rancid feet. It will be their own undoing over the long run unless Microsoft gets back in focus to what they do best. Had they done this in the first place we might all have Vista on our desktops right now.

Now that Thanksgiving is over with (BOTH of them!), I'd just like to say: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT! Here's some Christmas mirth to enjoy over the weekend: http://www.youtube.com/v/De47fjH6RKY

Tayme: Agreed. GE, IBM, GM, and other major enterprises will never run their custom software in a virtual machine, most likely. Although, as processor power continues to increase (especially in the multi-core roadmap) and RAM inside machines continues to increase past the traditional 4GB limit, I think that in a few years you'll see virtual machines that are much much more efficient than today's versions. Still, I see your point and I think it's valid. I've never claimed OS X is targeted at enterprise. In fact, I've said several times that I don't want Apple to focus on businesses because I want all of their efforts targeted at stellar consumer apps and hardware. But, I wanted to point out two things in response to someone who said OS X was a toy because it doesn't have enterprise software. 1) It can, pretty easily and with 90% efficiency. 2) Windows doesn't come with enterprise software built-in either. It just has developers who build such software for the platform. Those developers could just as easily code for OS X - there is no inherent barrier that makes OS X unable to run enterprise software. As for the iPeople comment: I think I've been pretty logical. I've offered solid arguments and evidence. I didn't resort to calling your OS a "toy." So perhaps you should look at yourself before calling me a zealot.

"Those developers could just as easily code for OS X - there is no inherent barrier that makes OS X unable to run enterprise software" The only barrier is Apple - they're not doing enough to attract developers to their platform. With Boot Camp now available included in Mac OSX.5, there is really no benefit to coding for Windows AND OSX, since Mac users can run at least the basic productivity software through Wintel emulation. Then of course, the problem is, there's no benefit for end user's to pay more to buy a Mac system. So it's a deep grave that Apple is digging themselves into - one that may be too deep to climb out of.

Waethorn: "Here's some Christmas mirth to enjoy over the weekend: http://www.youtube.com/v/De47fjH6RKY" HAHAHA AWESOME!!!!!

Waethorn: I disagree. A) Macs are no longer more expensive than PC's. Sure, you can get a Dell system that's little more than a glorified calculator for a couple hundred, but if you match hardware for hardware, PC's are about the same as the new Intel Macs. B) There are more applications being written for OS X than ever before. Jobs reviewed the developer numbers at WWDC in August. They may not match the Windows world, but the Mac is more popular with devs today than it ever has been in the past. Many people have argued that boot camp will mean the end of devs coding for OS X. I can see the logic behind that argument. But, the evidence proves that that is not the case. The number of programs and devs on the Mac platform is steadily increasing. C) There are plenty of benefits for users to buy a Mac and emulate basic windows software. The list is long, but ranges from virus-free operation to iLife for those times you really need it. Throw in superior hardware design that no PC company on Earth can match (I'm talking about the sheer sleek look that Macs have) and the cool factor and there's plenty to encourage users to get a Mac and emulate WIndows for that one program they really can't do without.

"There are plenty of benefits for users to buy a Mac and emulate basic windows software." 1. virus-free operation - I'll give you that one...for now. That may not always be the case, though. But on the other side, I have not had a single virus on my XP machine at home since I've had it...and at work, with all of the right things in place, the same is true. 2. iLife for those times you really need it - Ther eare plenty of programs readily available that do all of the same things as iLife...some are free, others yu have to pay for. We've discussed them in the past on this forum. 3. Throw in superior hardware design..(I'm talking about the sheer sleek look that Macs have) -- meaningless to 95% of users. most people want somethng that will get done what they need done, for most home users and most businesses, those glorified calculators that you talk about perform well and remember...in the business world, PCs are nothing but a commodity, like pencils. If I can buy 2000 Dells for $1.2M vs 2000 Macs for $1.8M, guess which I am going to buy? Remeber, in today's business world, the almighty dollar sign is what rules. Now, thats not to say that there are not niche markets that Macs and OS X server better...but that is not in the businesses that most of America-even the world-are involved in. Throw into the mix, the back end applications that run on the big UNIX boxes and midrange/mainframe computers and that leaves precious little space for OS X in the state that it exists today. Linux is making a dent because it can run many of the same applications as the bigger UNIX boxes, but on commodity PC hardware...and in most cases, it does so better than even Windows. These are just my opinions, based on 25 years in the industry using all of the above mentioned computers. --tayme

bdk: Mac's are still $2-400 more than an equivalent PC. And most PC's nowaday's don't ship with anything less than 1GB of RAM. Apple STILL does and even on their $800(US!) Mac Mini, which should really be marketed as a Front Row "Media Center" (And how come there is still no TV capture - methinks it's because Apple wants you to buy all your TV from the iTunes store, is why). 512MB is just not enough to handle vast amounts of video and 6+megapixel digital photos these days. For $800US you can get a Core Duo PC notebook (with a 15" widescreen!) with a 100GB hard drive and 1GB of RAM. That's just one example I can think of right off the top of my head, but there's so many more. "The number of programs and devs on the Mac platform is steadily increasing." The percentage is more disproportionate to the number of users now though. There are more and more users jumping onboard, but not as many devs/user as there were. "superior hardware design" I'm not gonna touch that one. I already covered that in a previous post. But funny nonetheless. All I can say is that a glossy finish can't sugar-coat their poor reliability. While you read that and start your head smoking like a notebook battery, I'll grab specs for specs two similar systems for a price comparison to show you the price differential between Mac's and Windows systems.

Waethorn: I know you can find cheaper PC's. But you also get quite a bit for an extra $200. You get a built-in webcam with fantastic resolution. You get the entire iLife suite. You get built-in bluetooth. You get Quickbooks or Quicken depending on the Mac. If you add comparable features to a PC, you'll come out around the same price as any Mac. And, also, I would point out to you that MacBook Pros now ship with 2GB of RAM standard. The MacBook comes with 1GB standard. The Mac Mini is the only Mac that ships with 512MB standard. I have seen many Dells advertised with 512MB recently - and they call them "Vista capable." I'd also point out that extra RAM through the Apple store now no longer costs an arm and a leg. I will say, though, that Apple needs to pull its head out of its *** when it comes to the $29 it charges you to "upgrade" to Quicktime Pro just to watch movies in fullscreen. I just spent thousands of dollars on a Mac and Cinema Display; I better d a m n well be able to watch videos in fullscreen! As for your "poor reliability" comment, two things: First, I'm glad we both agree that Macs have "glossy finishes." Common ground between us, who would have thought!? Second, I switched to Mac 3 years ago. Not a thing has gone wrong, except with a mighty mouse. But it got run over by a car. I SUPPOSE I could call up Apple, but I don't think they'd quite understand. And yes, there have been a few bugs in the Intel switch. But Apple has responded to people - as Paul's experience on the SuperSite proves - and has taken steps to correct the problems. I'll cut any company - even Microsoft - a little slack when they move their entire product line to a new architecture within a year.

Don't ask how the mighty mouse got under the car.

I don't give Apple much credence for switching to x86 so quickly. They rode that dying horse straight into the ground and then they are proud of jumping off of it so quickly? IBM gave them the thermal specs way beforehand. They could have started the migration way earlier than they did; however, Mr. Jobs decided to try and force IBM into a corner and make the new PPCs in the way Apple invisioned. I really don't see how Apple thought throwing its weight around would make IBM change its plans... maybe they thought they were bigger than 2/3 of the console gaming market. Regardless, they held out to the bitter end, before jumping ship. You can call this loyalty if you like. But remember, they tried to nerf poor IBM the whole way down. And really, its simple logic. RISC likes small instruction libraries to keep its thermals down. Small instruction libraries arn't in line with general purpose computing. Eventually the wall would be hit, Apple knew this, and they knew they were riding a time bomb. When they told the iPeople that RISC was good for GP computing, they gobbled it up like always. When all of a sudden they switched to CISC, all the iPeople drug those RISC-filled memories straight to the trash bin in their heads. The one thing I am envious of concerning Apple is the death-grip demographic control they have. The way they wield their 16-24 year-olds would make a puppeteer turn green.

bdk: not all MacBook Pro's ship with 2GB standard - only the highest end models do. Ok, so here's a quick example from Apple, and the world's largest system maker too: Dell. I don't recommend Dell, but at least it's easy to get a spec-for-spec comparison using their customization tools on the web. Mind you, I can sell products for cheaper, but I don't have the same kind of customization options available to me. Here are two fairly typical work machines. I say "typical" because both include Microsoft Office as well as a 3 year warranty, and DESPITE what Consumer Reports says, a 3 year warranty on a notebook IS a good idea, because the first thing to go is the hard drive. Hard drives don't fail in the first 90 days of use. They fail when they "feel like it", and I've seen too many name brands with cheap OEM hard drives that fail VERY shortly after the 1 year warranty. So here's the Mac system MacBook Pro 15" WXGA with gloss screen "SuperDrive" 6x DVD±RW 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo 1GB DDR2 667 (1x1GB - standard for this model) 120GB SATA 5400RPM HDD ATI Radeon X1600 128MB video WiFi G ATI Radeon Mobility X1600 128MB Mac OSX 10.4 w/ FrontRow & iLife 06 (no free upgrade to OSX 10.5) Toast 7 Titanium Office 2004 for Mac (no free upgrade to Office 2007 for Mac) 65Whr battery AppleCare 3 year warranty Final price: $3297 Canadian Now lets see what Dell offers Inspiron 6400 Core 2 Duo T7200 2.16GHz Windows XP Media Center 2005 (free upgrade to Vista Home Premium) 15.4" WXGA glossy lcd 2GB DUAL CHANNEL 120GB SATA 5400RPM SuperMulti 8x DVD±RW ATI Radeon X1400 256MB (not exactly the same but has more RAM - I've seen both, performance is not much different) 85Whr battery Office 2003 Small biz (includes Publisher and free upg to 2007) Draft N WiFi Full Paint Shop Pro package Sonic DigitalMedia and MyDVD+ Logitech QCAM Fusion MCE Remote Bluetooth 3 Year regular warranty and the total is (drumroll) $2344 Canadian

"I know you can find cheaper PC's. But you also get quite a bit for an extra $200. You get a built-in webcam with fantastic resolution. You get the entire iLife suite. You get built-in bluetooth. You get Quickbooks or Quicken depending on the Mac. If you add comparable features to a PC, you'll come out around the same price as any Mac." My Acer Laptop has practically the exact same specs as the intor level as the 13" MacBook. The only differnece is that I have an 80GB hard drive. MacBook: $1,249 Canadian plus tax Acer: $950 Canadian tax included. I have built in Blutooth and Wireless. I have a 15" widscreen as opposed to the MacBooks 13" screen. I got Quiken on my laptop, but have no use for it so I uninstalled it. I have no use for iLife because I am a registered user of Premier, Audition, Photoshop and Dreamweaver and don't need any n00b programs so I can pretend I can edit video, music, images and websites. And why on Earth would I want a built in webcam? I'm married. I don't need to video chat with some chick with no teeth from Alabama, or a 19 year old from Thailand looking for a green card. If my family wants photos, I take pictures with my 3.0 megapixle camera; witch both Windows XP and OS X have drivers for... oh yah, I'll go with XP because all of my registered software runs on it and I don't have to pay extra for the OS X version. I also find it funny that a few articles ago I brought up the notion that is Macs were SO superior than Windows, then why worry about something like Time Machine at all, and ALL of the Mac users said "It's the fault of 3rd party hardware!!! It can fail!! It's not Apples fault!!" So there goes your whole "superior hardware design" argument... If I gave you 3rd party sh*t in a shiny white box, it's still just 3rd party sh*t. Right?

(The difference is greater that even I thought!!) So that $900 difference is really worth it eh? Sorry, but with that $900 I'd save, I could go and buy a full version of Adobe Photoshop or Premiere Pro (although I prefer Sony Vegas more). The Paint Shop Pro package offers better stuff than iPhoto, plus you get Media Center Editon (better than Front Row), free upgrades to the next Windows and Office release, Media Center and MyDVD+ offer the same old stuff as iDVD. Oh and Media Center will record REAL TV too. For $63CDN more, I could add a TV Tuner to that system and have a portable Media Center computer. Plus you could take TV shows and record them to DVD (at 8x nonetheless). Now, like I said, I actually sell better systems than Dell at less money. All of my systems come standard with 3 Year's Parts and Labour. ALL of my custom notebooks come with a 1.3MP integrated webcam. Plus they are completely customizable to support from the bottom, a lowly Celeron M 4xx chip, all the way to a top-of-the-line Core 2 Duo T7xxx processor (on 15" models, or to T5xxx on 14" models). So someone can afford to get a fully upgradeable system. I have notebook shells that have GMA 950, ATI X1400, X1600, NVIDIA 7600, 7600GT, and 7900 mobile video chipsets in them. As you might have known, Dell will only sell you a system that is generally NOT CPU upgradeable outside it's initial CPU series. This is also true on desktops - budget CPU's like Celeron's would only have Celeron-capable chipsets, so you can't really upgrade. I never bothered to see what their current low-end is, but most companies don't sell Celerons anymore. I'm just using it as an example. Also, MANY of their desktops with onboard video don't even have a PCI-e 16x slot. I don't build systems like that. I always try to incorporate the MOST upgradeable motherboard available (965 chipset for desktops now) depending on the overall budget of the consumer. It promotes upgrades for me to sell!! ;)

stick: I sell Acer's too. A lot of places do since Acer only sells to the "channel". They also DON'T require any kind of formal authorization to sell, nor do they require a purchase contract. I also sell Fujitsu and LG (LG's are VERY expensive I find, but look kinda like the old silver G4 MacBook Pro's), as well as Toshiba, HP "Smartbuy" notebooks which don't require a purchase contract unlike their regular ones, and of course, my own custom built ones. Generally the custom built ones don't "fit" into the budget market the way that HP and Acer ones do (sub-$1000CDN), but for the mid to high-end, they're cheaper than anything else available (considering the warranty, which is covered by me first, then the manufacturer, then Intel). Plus, replacement parts are easy to come by since the shells are "Verified by Intel" for interchangability.

"If I gave you 3rd party sh*t in a shiny white box, it's still just 3rd party sh*t." stick: I don't put sh*t in my systems. Of course, I don't have a fancy worldwide-known corporate logo to cover up shoddy hardware, so why would I try to pull one over on the consumer? Name-brand parts are what I use. Most of my parts are actually retail or retail-bulk/system-builder (retail warranty, but come in white-box OEM-style packaging). Every piece of hardware that goes into one of my systems comes with AT LEAST a 3 year warranty, so that's why I offer that on the complete system. I know that in the event that a piece of hardware does fail, I can cover my a$$, but at the same time, retail parts fail less often than OEM parts do. OEM parts have a shorter warranty because the lot will have a higher percentage of faults. Retail stuff with the > 1 year warranty will have less faults and therefore less failures over the course of their lifetime. If you know about MDG, you'll know why their Horizon systems only come with a 90-day warranty. They don't even cover peripherals themselves, nor their own MDG-branded Acer laptops - they refer you to the manufacturer. But of course, MDG is a story for another day.

Like I said earlier...If I can spend $1.2M on 2000 Dells vs $1.8M on 2000 Macs, guess which I am going to do...even if I'm not a Fortune 500? --tayme

"Hard drives don't fail in the first 90 days of use. They fail when they "feel like it"" Yeah they crash... my lappy's hdd crapped out around year 3 or 4, I can't really remember. But I just swapped it myself with a larger one from the good old newegg. 75USD shipped. Traditionally, the stuff that is going to break that I'd rather not do on my own (system board, LCD panel, integrated NIC) its gonna die in the first 90. Don't most lappys come with a free year warranty nowadays too?

"But buy it ... and you are dumb." Apparently, the Chicago Sun-Times (http://tinyurl.com/uh6vk) agrees: "Yes, Microsoft's new Zune digital music player is just plain dreadful. I've spent a week setting this thing up and using it, and the overall experience is about as pleasant as having an airbag deploy in your face. " 'Avoid," is my general message. The Zune is a square wheel, a product that's so absurd and so obviously immune to success that it evokes something akin to a sense of pity. "The setup process stands among the very worst experiences I've ever had with digital music players. The installer app failed, and an hour into the ordeal, I found myself asking my office goldfish, "Has it really come to this? Am I really about to manually create and install a .dll file?" "But there it was, right on the Zune's tech support page. Is this really what parents want to be doing at 4 a.m. on Christmas morning? "The Zune is a complete, humiliating failure. Toshiba's Gigabeat player, for example, is far more versatile, it has none of the Zune's limitations, and Amazon sells the 30-gig model for 40 bucks less. "Throw in the Zune's tail-wagging relationship with music publishers, and it almost becomes important that you encourage people not to buy one. "The iPod owns 85 percent of the market because it deserves to. Apple consistently makes decisions that benefit the company, the users and the media publishers -- and they continue to innovatively expand the device's capabilities without sacrificing its simplicity. "Companies such as Toshiba and Sandisk (with its wonderful Nano-like Sansa e200 series) compete effectively with the iPod by asking themselves, "What are the things that users want and Apple refuses to provide?" "Microsoft's colossal blunder was to knock the user out of that question and put the music industry in its place. "Result: The Zune will be dead and gone within six months. Good riddance. "

I still am not convinced by any of the parties involved to buy a multi-gig MP3 device. Apple doesn't let you use it as a central repository. Zune is too new. Toshiba and Sandisk are 'icky' when it comes to UI and control. Half of them want me to downsample (why the heck do i need to downsample when i have a 30GB footprint to play with???). And they all have the huge problem that they are using ancient technology in the realm of high-volume data transfer. USB 2.0 and Firewire B are absolutely pathetic, and I shant wait that long for transfers. So I'm sticking with the flash disk players tyvm. I'm never away from my central repository for more than a few days, and 150 tracks can hold me inbetween. Give me a device that can translate all file formats to a single lossless, eSATA connectivity, and backup capability. Then you'll get my 250USD. And if you tout video and your pixel count is smaller than my L1 cache, I walk from the table in insult. In the age we live in, not even the general public should be so disrespected in terms of quality as it is now. Majority sits around watching their NTSC resolutions listening to their 64Kbps. Thats like walking around in the real world wearing brillo pad scraped glasses and earmuffs. And why? Boo Hoo mcDRM, and a 'we want you to buy HDTV but don't want to broadcast HDTV' don't want to fit their end of the technological bargain. In terms of AV, the world is really sitting 10 to 15 years behind the state of the art because of buracracy. I want my 4096P television and 11.1 channel 1gbps BDaudio damsit. And you know where you can stick HDCP.

Actually will, did you know that Windows Media Audio 10 Professional at 64kbps Average Bitrate VBR (2-pass) holds more audible frequency spectrum data than your average 192kbps CBR MP3? I knew it was good, but I didn't realize it was THAT good! The downside is although it's the best audio encoder for 64kbps, it takes longer to encode and more CPU-power to decode. Many portable music players support WMA10Pro now. Unfortunately, the only encoder that will encode WMA10Pro in VBR is Windows Media Encoder. Windows Media Player won't and given it's target audience, it's to be expected. It does however do WMA10Pro CBR bitrates as low as 64kbps but the quality is not nearly as good as VBR. Any higher bitrates than 64kbps in WMA10Pro are either 24-bit Stereo or 16 or 24-bit 5.1 channel bitrates. 64kbps and 48kbps are the only 16-bit Stereo bitrates in WMA10Pro. WMA9 is available for the other bitrate options. That's typical with encoders though - you'll have different codec "levels" for different bitrate ranges because the transform filters and compression algorithms will be customized for that bitrate, much like how all the MPEG standards (MPEG 1, 2, 4) have different levels and layers (IE. MPEG 1 Layer 3 AKA MP3 and MPEG 4 Level 10 AKA H.264).

The variable bit rate codecs can do a good job, I was mentioning the old MPEG layer 3 bottom-of-the-barrel bit rate. But I mean, I'm just suprised they are putting so much work into VBR and compression in general. I'm assuming its for the smaller flash players, and phones and whatnot. Because with 1GB of secondary storage costing around 50 cents... there is certainly no reason to have your central repository at anything less than multichannel 44.1KHz 24-bit or even 32-bit for that matter. And the annoying thing is there are all these 'home theater' recievers out there boasting 7, 9, even 11 channel audio. Can you name first any dolby digital scheme that uses 11 channels? And if you can, could you name a recorded format that actually streams it? And on top of that an artist or production house that has media for you to listen to that supports it? No. Sadly progress in areas like that is stagnant. Yes, the argument can be made that there is deminishing returns past good old 5channel (i still use stereo myself, even for movies) but why make the technology if its worthless? Its all to make a buck of course. 11channel recievers sound cooler than 5channel ones. But I say, if you are going to make a buck off of people selling them something that is nigh worthless, you should keep up your end of the bargain and at least have things that use its gimmicky quirks; even if that's all they are gimmicks. And we all know who the current king of electronic 'random crap-o-rama' Sony. We makes the recievers, the TVs, monitors, computers, walkmans, cd players, movies, phones, BD/DVD/AV, and 10 permutations of each and a new style for each next year.

CD's aren't recorded in 24-bit though, so there's no point in ripping to that format; you're just wasting space at that point. It's not going to make the music any clearer sounding when that level of clarity isn't there in the first place. It's like resampling a low resolution image and blowing it up. The only thing the software can do is interpolate in between lines of pixels to find out the averages between them, but there's no actual increase in usable resolution. The same can be said for audio in relation to it's sample points. The only thing good about using 24-bit audio is the flexibility in post-processing (such as when using a DSP), but most hardware DSP's will work fine with analog audio and won't care about the bit resolution. I don't bother with DSP's myself. The extra-channel surround systems use a channel differential to use get sound out of those extra channels ie. they're interpolated. Yes, there aren't really those extra channels in the recording, but you can take a 7.1 DTS-ES recording, and calculate the differences between 2 adjacent speakers and insert an extra speaker between them to play it on. It's SUPPOSED to give you a greater surround environment, but read my note above. I agree about Sony. Their quality has faltered as of recent years. It's been one melon after another for them. The only thing I've consistantly liked about theirs lately is their camcorders. They were one of (if not the) first to market with a surround sound mic on their home dvd camcorder line. They also have decent home-HDV camcorders now (including a hard drive based unit).