Old Computer doesnt work with Shiny New OS?

[plural]

I'm going to be something of an asshole here
so enjoy it, respond to it, or fuck off

I've long been annoyed with people blaming Microsoft when their shit doesn't work or making inane blanket statements like "Microsoft iz TEH SuX0r!@!"

Sure criticizing Microsoft is the "in thing" with the popular crowd, but I get annoyed
when people who cant tell their ass from a hole in the wall with regard to technology
suddenly think they are technology pundits when their ten year old printer doesn't work.

There are plenty of things which I and many other knowledgeable computer professionals
(and yes even some select amateur puter geeks) legitimately criticize Microsoft for. [MSBob anyone?]

But most of you? Fuck off, if you don't like it, run Linux!

Oh wait, you can't run Linux cause you don't know shit about shit
at least when it comes to computers and you do not want to learn

Go buy a Mac, you worthless whining little bitch.

That way you can have a pretty computer
that gives you street cred with all the popular kids and
then you can masturbate to your new glimmering iLifestyle with all the rest of worthless consumerist iTards©.
[iTards & iTarded are copyright me - all rights reserved]
[I'm fairly sure Apple will claim they've got the rights to anything starting with the letter "i" but fuck em]

If you refused to learn how to drive, and subsequently crashed your car.
Whose fault would it be?
The manufacturer of the car? No dumbass, it is your own damn fault.

Essentially MS software has allowed users to do things which because of their limited knowledge of computers they would not otherwise be able to do and they turn around and complain because MS does not do everything perfectly and exactly how they like it. Not to mention that most users are too lazy/disinterested/stupid to bother actually learning enough about how computers and software work to run a real operating system like Linux.

I'll admit that while I've run Linux boxes in the past (and have one now) even I have fallen prey somewhat to this. Microsoft has made OS's easy enough and powerful enough that even a geek like me doesnt really see the benefit of a Linux machine except for a few select tasks. Other than perhaps the ill-advised intention to try to make computers accessible to people who refuse to learn anything about them? How is any of this Microsoft's problem? It isnt, but they try damn hard to fix it anyway.

Are Microsoft products perfect? No, but after working for a number of the major tech firms out there over the past 13 years, I can say they are pretty good.

I've been employed with or done work for the following companies:

Microsoft
Cisco
Nortel
Gateway 2000
IBM
GE
Sony
HP
Compaq
Dell
nVidia
3com
Adobe
WorldCom
Baan ERP

In fact, when you actually understand the computer industry and the process involved with making an OS
[I've worked on the Win95/98/2k/XP product teams]

Microsoft Software looks pretty damn good.

I'm sure that statement will raise the hackles on a bunch of you
[octal, orangecone and budhaboy in particular]

but this is my rant so take your f00kin linux and shove it up your ass (sideways)

Microsoft has taken on the challenge of making computers (a highly complex device) usable to people who do not want to learn how to use them. This is far from easy and while I am happy to discuss what choices and mistakes Microsoft has made, the end reality is that despite all of those mistakes, they have succeeded in making computers accessible to hundreds of millions of people. Microsoft has to make a product that works with anything tom, dick or harry comes up with, and if someone makes a product and it doesnt automatically work?

Then it is Microsoft that gets blamed, not the company that made the shitty software/hardware to begin with.

While I could rant about a whole number of things which I feel people (because they do not know shit) attack Microsoft for.

My biggest pet peeve happens ever time Microsoft releases a new OS.

A billion freaking iTards© stand up and bitch about how their computer doesnt work with Microsofts new OS.

Let me tell you something people.

That isnt Microsoft's fault, in fact, Microsoft is not legally allowed to fix it if they wanted to.

Since almost none of you know jack shit about it
I figured I'd provide a little primer/explanation of how it works.

MS has to make their OS & Software work with hundreds of vendors who until recently (the advent of WHQL) did their own thing (there were maybe six vendors prior to the advent of WHQL who interacted significantly with Microsoft to ensure their products worked), even with WHQL in place the number of manufacturers who do not take advantage of the program is very large.

MS provides to companies who are interested the specifications necessary for their products to be compatible with Windows, far too often companies ignore or alter those specifications. Many times this can result in added features for the customer which is great until Microsoft puts out a patch or a fix that breaks it. Since Microsoft had no idea of the existence of that code, it is hardly fair to blame Microsoft for their patch breaking that code.

WHQL?? What the hell is WHQL? (pronounced Wickle like tickle)


WHQL stands for Windows Hardware Quality Labs and it is a Microsoft program where vendors (companies that make hardware products to use with Windows) receive a detailed specification, advanced access to Windows source code and then submit their drivers to Microsoft who tests them to make sure they work and wont break anything else.

Drivers?? What the hell is a driver?

Drivers (or more accurately "Device Drivers") are specialized pieces of software which act as the traffic cop/translator between an OS and a piece of hardware (like your printer or digital camera). If your hardware doesnt work, generally it is either a driver problem or a hardware failure (what we call it when shit breaks). Drivers are developed by the companies that make hardware (supposedly along specifications provided by Microsoft) and provided along with that hardware for use with your computer. Microsoft maintains a large library (on behalf of the hardware manufacturers) of the most common Device Drivers (the so called default drivers) and includes it with the Operating System.

Since the advent of WHQL, Hardware manufacturers can submit device drivers to Microsoft for certification as being compliant with the OS specs. Microsoft will then includes these drivers in tests of new patches/updates (to my knowledge there have only been 4 WHQL certified drivers broken by service packs or patches and two of them were known breaks announced with the release of the SP/patch, out of literally hundreds of WHQL certified drivers).

Again though, this only helps with vendors who participate in the program.

Microsoft is reliant upon the manufacturers of hardware to supply drivers to be tested with and included as default drivers. Additionally smaller vendors can take advantage of generic drivers written by Microsoft and design their hardware to comply with those drivers. This is the case for keyboards, mice, almost all internal hard drives and CD drives, flash drives, monitors, and every video card on the market supports the generic VGA drivers in addition to the vendor manufactured driver.

Have you followed me so far? Everything making sense?

Shut up and nod your head cause you dont want to know
the only other way I can think of to get this concept through to you.

Because here is what set me off.

Yesterday I read a scathing piece online about how evil Microsoft is
because Vista did not come with drivers for the 3com 3c509x series network cards.
These cards are arguably the most popular/common client network cards on the market (I own four of them).

Unfortunately, 3com made those card too damn well and
network technology hasnt increased quickly enough
so most people are still running 100bT networks at home.
[shaddup octal, orangecone,budhaboy, and nova_starr ]
Since those 3com cards are rock solid (I've had one fail out of the 20 or so I've purchased)
they keep on ticking longer than 3com would like (they want you to purchase new cards).

So 3com stopped supporting those cards declaring them "obsolete" and as such
did not submit a driver to MS for the 3c509x series cards.

While MS could recognize the popularity of those cards and desire to include it into Vista,
the driver code is the intellectual property of 3com
and so MS cannot legally distribute that code.
[even though the XP drivers work fine with Vista]

Same thing happened with my SCSI adapter.
Adaptec phased out my model of SCSI controller and declared it obsolete.
Even though the XP driver works just fine, MS cannot legally include it with Vista
[without the vendors permission which the vendor will not give]

Occasionally a vendor will respond to public outcry
and release a driver on their website well after the release of the OS
but it is Microsoft not the vendor who gets blamed for the hardware not working.

Both Adaptec and 3com list the release date for the Vista drivers as TBD - to be determined, industry speak for lets see how many people bitch even though the current drivers for XP work just fine under Vista. That means there is no actual work to be done by these companies in order to make the hardware work with Vista, they just have to do is say "Want a Vista driver? Ok, here you go".

You see manufacturers count on the release of a new MS operating system to spur new the sales of new hardware so they do not want all of your old hardware to work. Microsoft on the other hand would prefer your old hardware works because if people have to save money for new hardware that means that they are putting off buying the new shiny Microsoft OS and may well decide not to buy it altogether.

Unfortunately, Microsoft is not legally allowed to make drivers for the hardware of other companies
Nor is it legally allowed to distribute any drivers without the specific permission of those companies

Of course, Microsoft cant come out in the media
and bitchslap all the companies who are at fault for your shit not working
because they rely on them keep improving the PC hardware to have more oomph
Oomph that Microsoft can utilize to improve the features in their OS
so Microsoft takes it up the ass.

One quick caveat here.

If the technology has substantially changed since you bought your computer or if it is just plain old
get the fuck over it

Nothing lasts forever

Think of your computer as a car that you drive 100,000 miles a year
If it lasts three years, you are pretty damn lucky

and give me a break people, with computers starting at five hundred bucks
I so do not have any sympathy for people bitching about having to upgrade every three years

As a general rule,
no manufacturer will write more than two drivers for any piece of hardware
that means if you buy something that works with XP
they will probably release a Vista driver
but not one for the OS after Vista

Or to put it in backwards compatibility perspective
If you bought the hardware to run on 98, ME or W2K
They probably wrote a driver for XP
and probably will not write one for Vista

This is perfectly fair.

Now companies that have drivers from XP that still work on Vista
[3com & Adaptec to name two, I'm sure there are others]
but sulk around not telling anyone that it does
because they want you to buy new hardware

well

they fucking suck

and

personally I am extremely disappointed

Adaptec and 3com have been like rockstars in my eyes for years.

They were companies who made products that just fucking worked
Their drivers were always well written, efficient and didnt go breaking other shit
and their hardware damn near always lasted longer than I needed it for

In a world where most shit breaks the day after the warranty expires
and most drivers are klugey (look it up) pieces of crap
that is pretty damn special

Oh, and if one person makes some stupid ass claim like

"Well Apple can do it, why can't Microsoft?"

I swear to god, I will track you down and leave a steaming pile of shit on your pillow

[and just a warning for those of you who would accept buying a new pillow]
[as a ploy to get me to come visit, I wont be sticking around afterward for social hour]
[although if you are a hot female and are waiting naked for me when I arrive]
[I'll probably forget all about the pillow present cause I'm easily distracted like that]

Why?

It isnt because of an Apple/Microsoft rivalry

but rather because

Apple is famous for not providing backwards compatibility between their old hardware and their new OS. That is to say that even though they make both the hardware and the software, they intentionally design their major OS releases to require you to buy all new hardware.

Comments

[octal.livejournal.com]

I am pretty happy with windows client OS from win NT to 2000 to XP.

The only things I really dislike about microsoft are the bad quality of a lot of their server side stuff, and the quality from pre-NT days.

I also dislike closed drivers for hardware, but that's really more the hw developers problem than OS vendor's problem. It's bad on free OSes too, when a vendor doesn't release specs, forcing a reverse engineering, trial and error process to write sw.

I think more people have 802.11 networks at home than 10/100baseT, actually.

Also, when you say you'll forget the pillow for hot girls, does that mean you will shit on them directly? Your kink is not my kink and actually your kink is not even ok!

[plural.livejournal.com]

ROFLMAOCRMB!

In retrospect I can completely see where you got that
but no
I did not mean that I would shit on them directly

I'm kinky but not that kinky
and
yeah
I agree with your assessment of that particular kink

the question remains
do I go and fix it now
or leave it for humor value?

oh
and regarding the computer stuff
I agree entirely
[and you're prolly right about 802.11 as well]

of course, those are the types of criticisms
made by folks who have a clue

[octal.livejournal.com]

Somehow the beginning of "Nasty Boy" by Notorious BIG comes to mind:

[Notorious B.I.G. conversating with someone]
Yeahh, worrd
I remember I met this one bitch
Cause you know me I don't see how I'm the nasty motherfucker
I just thought I thought I'da did anything in the world (yeh?)
I meets this one bitch, I comes up in the spot, or whatever
The bitch got the candles lit or whatever, so
She tell me whatever she wanna get her freak on whatever
So I'm like WHASSUP whatchu wanna yaknahmsayin
I'm read to wear it out or whatever (kssss)
The bitch told me she wanted me to shit on her! [laughing]
Ya know shit I was like whatchu mean shit?
I mean I might shit on you after I, hit it I won't call you no more
Shit on you like that [more laughing]
She talkin about no she want me to cock over her
And shit, on her stomach! [laughing through his teeth]
I said bitch what the, what the fuck??
What the fuck I'm sposed to do after I after I shit on her
I'm sposed to hit that after that?
She's just wilding out so after I shits on the bitch right
[both start laughing]
Ya know I shit, after I shits on the bitch
The bitch, ya know, washed that shit off or whatever
(Ohhh shit!)

[plural.livejournal.com]

ok is that better?

[octal.livejournal.com]

Better, but not best.

best would be "if you're hot and female, I will send you to octal's current location, especially if you're hot jewish girl, because that's the kind of thing I do"

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

Just so we're clear - Apple's OS is backwards compatible across seven years of hardware. And, unlike with Vista, all of the really cute and fun UI stuff works on the old computers.

I don't get what you mean by saying "famous for not providing backwards compatibility between their old hardware and their new OS," because from where I'm sitting (4 years now since I switched), it's Microsoft that makes their OS nearly impossible to run 100% (including Aero) on any computer made more than 18 months ago.

Additionally, while Apple does design a new major OS every 12 - 18 months, it's a) fucking cheap compared to Windows, b) only one version not 6 crippled ones, and c) backwards compatible way beyond what Windows supports.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

PS> the only versions of Windows I've had respect for in the past ___ years have been Win2000, and Server2003. Everything else has been a nightmare (not to say those two haven't been... it's just when someone's hitting you over the head with a hammer and they suddenly start hitting lighter, you feel better about it).

The other problem that I feel you danced around with is that Windows doesn't play the game of "your hardware sucks, fuck you and don't even bother making it work on our system." They let you run on anything. And while it's a testament to human engineering that Windows doesn't explode in the first five seconds it runs on anything, if they simply started enforcing higher hardware standards, life would be much better for them.

And no, I don't mean saying Aero only runs on $5billion graphics cards with Oct-Core Processors.

And while Windows *does* rely on manufacturers to come out with better hardware, blah blah blah, the market is really what drives them there. Game manufacturers, computer geeks, and *other companies* drive hardware manufacturers to "innovate" too. So, Microsoft could bitch-slap them all and still get what they want. It would be a shock to everyone, but I don't see how that's going to hurt them. Is Dell going to suddenly make their consumer PCs Linux only in retaliation? I don't really think so.

[plural.livejournal.com]

W2k and W2K3 were fabulous OSes for the corporate environment, and I was really happy with XP.

Granted I was one of the people who (although initially successful) lost the battle to have XP default to a "Deny All" security stance. Something that would have eliminated 80-90% of the security issues before they even got off the ground.

The first thing I did after installing XP was change the security settings from an "Allow All" stance to a "Deny All" stance and even though I never ran an active virus monitoring software (I just had it set to scan every evening rather than being constantly active) I never got a virus nor got my system compromised.

Unfortunately the users screamed too much in the beta and the program managers buckled to the pressure. They felt it was too difficult and time consuming to configure their systems securely and just wanted shit to work. As we all saw, this backfired in an ugly way.

Which is why they tried it again with Vista, this time calling it User Access Control. Essentially UAC has to capability to prevent any unauthorized program (aka viruses or worms) from executing on your machine.

Unfortunately it pops up a window every time you execute something with Administrative privileges to make sure you really want to do that, and is annoying as all hell, so I suspect most users will disable it rather quickly and open their machines up to attack.

As for the other stuff, MS cant really throw their weight around like that because they will get hit with massive anti-trust allegations. One of the results of the numerous anti-trust suits is that MS essentially was forced to play gently with the rest of the industry.

Today MS pretty much has to lead by evangelism rather than edict (something evidenced by the internal campaign they are running right now to teach people how to evangelize).

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

and I was really happy with XP.
I was with you up to that point . XP was a hack job, from my opinion, and it ran nearly 30% slower than Win2k. Not to mention, the security issues alone negate any good it's done in the world. I'm very displeased with XP's performance and the trouble it's caused. I can only hope Vista will be slightly better, but from what I've read about how people can already hijack the UAC, my hopes aren't very high.

Granted I was one of the people who (although initially successful) lost the battle to have XP default to a "Deny All" security stance. Something that would have eliminated 80-90% of the security issues before they even got off the ground.
And that's what's different. You're a super-power-user. Not a typical user. And when an OS is not protecting typical users, it shouldn't be sold to them.

Unfortunately the users screamed too much in the beta and the program managers buckled to the pressure
I'm very aware. And did you notice the same thing happened with UAC in Vista? Between Beta 1, Beta 2 and RC1, they completely let down the guard of the UAC. You went from being blocked from putting shit in the trash can to being able to do a hell of a lot of damage.

How much you wanna bet...

Today MS pretty much has to lead by evangelism rather than edict (something evidenced by the internal campaign they are running right now to teach people how to evangelize).
Evangelize what? "PCIe is god!", "Good Drivers=orgasm for consumers!" "Be Good!" ?

[nova-starr.livejournal.com]

I, too, am a "super power user"; I, as well, am perfectly happy with XP.

from a 2k pro sp4 install to an xp pro install I watched everything I did run smoother and faster.

Granted I was doing "home user" stuff, like chatting and games, and you can't penalize something for no tdoing well what it wasn't designed to do... however, XP satisfies every computing need I have atm, and I fully intend to stick with it until the next absolutely-must-have game, that requires directx10, comes out without a console port.

that's my biggest gripe about vista (of two): there is no killer app.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

I, too, am a "super power user"; I, as well, am perfectly happy with XP
then you must have never needed to weed something out of the registry.

that's my biggest gripe about vista (of two): there is no killer app.
What's your other gripe?

[nova-starr.livejournal.com]

of the two, they are (in no particular order): hardware requirements (elucidated further down in comments) and planned obsolescence.

and yes, i have had fun with the registry... pain in the ass ATI drivers, foremost on my mind atm. However, usually when I fuck something up bad enough that it's going to take more than a couple hours of research and registry hacking, i just format and reinstall. Especially if I manage to work up the motivation to build a ghost image, it just takes way less time.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

And that, right there, is my biggest gripe with Windows. You should rarely, if ever, have to reformat an OS. The ONLY time I had to install my mac's OS was when I upgraded from Panther to Tiger, and I didn't even reformat.

I used to have to reformat my 2k and XP boxes every year to keep them running in tip top shape. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[nova-starr.livejournal.com]

between 1999 and 2001 i began reformatting/reinstalling my OS more and more often (as I became more and more of a power user). I begain with win95 and ended with win98se. before i finally upgraded to 2kpro i was doing a clean reinstall once a month.

that's disgusting.

as it stands now, I'm using a reduced "distro" of xp, made by some guy in europe (eXperience, perhaps you've heard of it), stripped down to the barest of essentials on my desktop gaming and general fucking around machine. when it's first booted, the system takes up 48mb of ram. I've been running it for 9 months. I have a web server that has seen much less software installed on it (things like apache, a ventrillo server, a dynamic IP client, etc) that has been running vanilla xp pro hacked to enable raid-5 in software for 15 months, flawlessly.
in 2003 I bought my mother a $500 compaq for christmas and loaded windows xp home on it. she plays lots of sim games, uses productivity software (excell & the like), downloads files, and browses to god knows where on the internet*. the only complaint she's given me is that the system started slowing down, and I solved it by using msconfig to turn off programs that load on startup.

the reason that i reinstall often is not because I have to, but because i like to break things. metaphorically speaking, i ride my box hard and put it away wet. that's not an issue for normal users.

*disclaimer: i did install and set to default firefox.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

Normal users, instead, have endless amounts of spyware and viruses to deal with. And for those who do ride their boxes, it's almost worse.

I ride my Mac with the best of them - the thing is that I've never had a kernel panic, never a BSOD and I can even run Windows on this thing faster than anyone I know with a comparable machine (HL2 on this thing is amazing).

I know the benefit of a stripped down XP, and I can agree that when you turn off and take away most of the crap Microsoft put in there, it's better. But it's still not as responsive as a Unix box.

But at the end of the day, the real shining example of quality came when I asked my friend at Cisco, who can crack into an XP box inside of five minutes, to try his hand at a Mac. This guy's a CCNA, so he knows his Unix. I gave him my MacBook Pro and after 10 hours, he still couldn't get into it. That, right there, is why I'll never go back to Windows.

[nova-starr.livejournal.com]

can I trivially install and run osx on pc hardware?

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

it's technically illegal because Apple likes to control the software and hardware (iPod + iTunes is similar to Apple Hardware + OS X). There are a number of groups out there. The most popular is the OSX86 Project.

[nova-starr.livejournal.com]

it comes down to FUD. "windows is unsecure, windows is unstable, windows will kick your puppy". none of it is untrue, but none of it is true to the degree that it's portrayed.

maybe your friend should have tried one of the exploits enumerated in the month of apple bugs. I don't know.

not that i know how this became a discussion about macs; i think we were originally talking about xp vs. vista.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

From my experience, when you're talking about Windows security, Mac tends to come up. That and you're talking to a hardcore Unix geek/Apple user.

[plural.livejournal.com]

I think my little ending comment about Macs set people off
of course, seeing as my perspective was a bit dated
[and apparently reinforced recently by someone at the apple store]
[not knowing their ass from a hole in the wall and giving me bad info]

Of course, technically I wasnt talking about XP or Security

merely the process by which drivers are included into windows
and who is to blame when your old hardware doesnt work
on the new OS

[nova-starr.livejournal.com]

...which means i guess i lied when i said "of two", i should have said "of three".

[plural.livejournal.com]

hmm thats odd cause
when my mother macs was having issues
[its maybe four years old]
[had a really pretty 23inch flat screen monitor]

I took it to the "Genius Bar"
and asked about upgrading it
to the latest OS version
and adding ram etc

they told me it wasnt supported

-

Well Vista is something of an anomoly for me personally as with the exception of my video card, I upgraded all my system's guts about 6 months ago. My video card is about 14-16 months old but has no trouble running Aero at all.

My previous MB would have been a better test for backwards compatibility (dual proc 1ghz) but it wasnt meant to be.

As a general rule Microsoft considers obsoletion for low end systems at 18 months and high end systems at 36 months. I obviously always run high end systems so have never encountered a problem.

and just so we are clear, high end doesnt mean an expensive system from Dell, it means a custom built system in which every component is on the high end of performance and quality, i.e. no cheapo sacrifices.

-

From what you say it seems like Apple has improved in that area more than I realized. My recent information comes mostly from kvetches I gloss over online, as I havent had to support any Mac OS system for about 6-7 years.

-

I'll grant you the point about versions, I dont freaking get it. I understand breaking clients out into Home & Professional like XP was as it allows you to optimize the code base for two very different user groups but I'm still shaking my head at Vistas breakout.

Of course, I'd never run a crippled version soI picked up Ultimate (from the company store for $45 bucks, it is nice to be an alumni).

Additionally, I've got no idea what Vista costs. However with regard to Mac OS, until the whole x86 platform release (very recent), you had to buy Mac Hardware which was ridiculously overpriced so pardon me if I dont give you much credit on the price thing.

Of course, I'll be curious to see if the price structure on the Mac OS remains the same now that you can buy a cheap clone and run Mac OS.

From what I saw at the Mac store when I was replacing my mom's machine, it doesnt look like Mac is really aiming at the low end of the market (the cheapest monitor for example was 700 bucks, granted it was a nice 20 inch HD monitor but I was able to get a 23 inch HD monitor for around 500 bucks).

sorry, posted in the wrong spot.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

I took it to the "Genius Bar"
and asked about upgrading it
to the latest OS version
and adding ram etc

they told me it wasnt supported

That's very odd. If you check the specifications on OS X.4 Tiger, it says it supports all G3 processors with 256mb of RAM or higher. Even if you don't have a DVD Drive, you can call apple and they'll SEND you CDs.

So, long story short, the guy at the genius bar was mistaken. My older brother has an iBook from 1999 that runs the latest OS absolutely fine.


As a general rule Microsoft considers obsoletion for low end systems at 18 months and high end systems at 36 months. I obviously always run high end systems so have never encountered a problem.
So, 18-36months at Microsoft vs 60-72 months with Apple.


and just so we are clear, high end doesnt mean an expensive system from Dell, it means a custom built system in which every component is on the high end of performance and quality, i.e. no cheapo sacrifices.
Oh, I get it. I used to build my own PCs all the time. Created some really great systems. And while I somewhat miss that aspect of computing, I'm frankly enjoying not having to deal with drivers or scouring the internet for deals. Or getting bad parts thanks to Q/A issues.

I'll grant you the point about versions, I dont freaking get it. I understand breaking clients out into Home & Professional like XP was as it allows you to optimize the code base for two very different user groups but I'm still shaking my head at Vistas breakout.
What gets me is SERVER versions. For christ's sake, it's a SERVER. OS X Server has two versions: 10 Client or Unlimited. It's not about broken registry keys. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Not to mention, the entire Mac OS is built on BSD Unix, every one of the machines already has apache and php installed! And that's a lot better than dealing with IIS.

Additionally, I've got no idea what Vista costs.
$100 - $400. $100 will get you a flaming bag of shit, while $400 will give you that same bag with a nicer look and Bill Gate's signature above the fold.

However with regard to Mac OS, until the whole x86 platform release (very recent), you had to buy Mac Hardware which was ridiculously overpriced so pardon me if I dont give you much credit on the price thing.
Again, things have changed significantly. For the exact same hardware, Apple is currently priced lower than Dell by nearly $200 - $500 on consumer machines, and $1,500 on servers. The "overpriced" thing is a myth now, and has been for a couple of years.

Of course, I'll be curious to see if the price structure on the Mac OS remains the same now that you can buy a cheap clone and run Mac OS.
You can't legally do that though. Apple is in the business of selling hardware, not software. They make excellent software (iTunes/iLife/Aperture) to push the hardware (iPods/iMacs/MacBookPros). The likelihood the OS will ever be licensed out to the likes of Dell (which has so much as gotten on their knees in public, begging) is really low.

From what I saw at the Mac store when I was replacing my mom's machine, it doesnt look like Mac is really aiming at the low end of the market (the cheapest monitor for example was 700 bucks, granted it was a nice 20 inch HD monitor but I was able to get a 23 inch HD monitor for around 500 bucks).
Apple's never been about the low-end market. And yes, their monitors are expensive - but they're also the highest rated in the industry. They're the stuff that's actually used in Hollywood. So, they're going to be expensive.

[plural.livejournal.com]

That's very odd...

Apparently so.

So, 18-36 months at Microsoft vs 60-72 months with Apple...

Considering that 12 months is the standard warranty period (even for Apple), I dont think that is too far out of line.

Oh, I get it. I used to build my own PCs all the time...

I dont know about all of that, I have a longstanding relationship with a vendor that gets me prices about 10% below retail (or the best deal I can find on the net from a reputable company) and which provides all the drivers I need when I acquire the hardware.

What gets me is SERVER versions...
Actually that makes perfect sense to me, having spent much of my professional career working in and being responsible for large datacenters, the breakdowns in server OS make far more sense to me than what they've done with Vista. To me the server breakdowns are much like the XP breakdowns, and allow you to pick (and pay for) the appropriate tool for the job.

Additionally, unlike the crippling of Vista, the server builds offer differing functionality between builds as opposed to more or less

$100 will get you a flaming bag of shit, while $400 will give you that same bag...

Tomato tomahto, I'm pretty happy with Vista actually, especially considering I'd never run a mac OS especially since Vista now gives me most of the Mac stuff I thought was cool with Aero (if I need something windows doesnt provide do well, I simply run linux).

It's about time if you ask me, I was wondering when buying Apple to run as an MS R&D lab was going to start producing some nifty stuff.

Apple is currently priced lower than Dell

What crack are you smoking? (all prices from the Dell or Apple website as of this writing)

The Mac Mini starts at $600 bucks, I can get a similarly configured Dell for $389 (and actually I have to upgrade the Mac HDD to 80gb for a total price of $649 to get the same configuration).

The iMac starts at a grand with a 17 inch monitor for I could buy a comparable dell and a 23 inch HD monitor for same price.

The MacBook is $1099 compared to a comparable Dell laptop (well comparable except for the fact that the MacBook had a 13inch screen WTF? compared to the Dell 15.4 inch screen) which came out at $639.

The closest to a comparable configuration between a Dell & Mac 1U server blade priced the Mac1U at $4,195 and the Dell1U at $3,773, and that configuration does not account for the 3 year basic server support plan that Dell provides. If you select equivilent plans (the Apple select plan and the Dell Gold plan) The price for each jumps to $10,190 for the Mac and $5,822 for the Dell.

In other words, Mac are in fact, significantly more expensive, and they dont even have the excuse of being built on a different/ "superior" hardware architecture that they would claim before switching to the x86 infrastructure. Now hardware wise it isnt apples and oranges anymore but golden vs red delicious.

You can't legally do that though.

Wait so even thought the OS is built to run on any x86 box, it is illegal for me to run in on a box I didnt buy from them? So basically OS upgrades are cheap because they are content just raping you on the software. Nice, I feel so much better now.

Apple's never been about the low-end market. I'll agree that that their monitors are first rate. No question about it, but you pay for every last drip dribble drop of it. For example I'm running a 23inch HD monitor on my machine, I paid 500 bucks for it, I will freely admit that the comparable apple monitor is better, but definitely not the almost 30% better that the price tag implies.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

Actually that makes perfect sense to me, having spent much of my professional career working in and being responsible for large datacenters, the breakdowns in server OS make far more sense to me than what they've done with Vista. To me the server breakdowns are much like the XP breakdowns, and allow you to pick (and pay for) the appropriate tool for the job.

Additionally, unlike the crippling of Vista, the server builds offer differing functionality between builds as opposed to more or less
I'm not talking sql server vs. exchange; I'm talking Enterprise vs. Standard vs. Pro. They have different networking abilities, and different things turned off via registry keys. Why they can't just sell one version of server like Apple does, I'll never understand. It's really easy: sell Microsoft Server, then charge up the wazoo for add-ons like Exchange, SQL, and blowjobs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with a scheme that doesn't fuck someone over for having bought the wrong version of the OS instead of the wrong add-on.

The Mac Mini starts at $600 bucks, I can get a similarly configured Dell for $389 (and actually I have to upgrade the Mac HDD to 80gb for a total price of $649 to get the same configuration).
I'll admit, the MacMini is a bad example. It's woefully underpowered.

As for the MacBook Pro, I'll refer you to this article.

Since then, it seems prices have evened out again. The problem now is that Dell doesn't even offer the same processor (they only offer a 2.0GHZ where Apple offers a 2.33GHZ)

So, for comparable specs, here's what I've got:

17 MBP from Apple: 2,799.
weight: 6.8 lbs

OS X.4 Tiger
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
160GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
SuperDrive 8x (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
256mb Video RAM PCIE ATI
MacBook Pro 17-inch Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
Built-in Camera
Built-in Sensor and Remote
Built-in HardDrive motion sensor
Magnetic Safe Power Adapter
Optical Audio in and Out
Express34 Slot
802.11 a/b/g/n


Dell XPS M1710: $3,563
weight: 8.71 lbs

Vista Ultimate
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
160GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
8x (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
256mb Video RAM PCIE nVIDIA
17 inch UltraSharp™ Wide Screen UXGA Display with TrueLife™
no Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
no Built-in Camera
no Built-in Sensor and Remote
no Built-in HardDrive motion sensor
no Magnetic Safe Power Adapter
no Optical Audio In and Out (standard instead)
Express34 Slot
802.11 g/n (no a or b)

and that's without iLife, the ability to create PDFs on the fly, and without factoring in virus protection for years.

I added Corel's photo manager just to try and reach iPhoto, but it's not half as good.


To match up the MacBook, I was unable to come close because Dell doesn't offer the same screen or the same hard drives. But, suffice is to say, when I added the integrated webcam, the price went through the roof and was hovering at around $2,245 (2ghz Core2Duo, 80gig HD, 2gig RAM) for what Apple offers at $1,474 (2ghz Core2Duo, 80gig HD, 2gig RAM).


The last time I priced out a MacPro vs. a Dell Server, the Dell came out to $3,600 before it could touch Apple's specs at $2,499.


I've never done the 1Us against each other before, but I imagine that the prices should be a lot different from what you suggested.


That said, I get the feeling you weren't matching up hardware spec-for-spec.



Wait so even thought the OS is built to run on any x86 box, it is illegal for me to run in on a box I didnt buy from them? So basically OS upgrades are cheap because they are content just raping you on the software. Nice, I feel so much better now.
You've missed the point. Apple believes in the end-to-end solution. iPod + iTunes. Apple hardware + Apple Software. It's a win-win for them. They can optimize the OS and drivers for the hardware, and as a result, they get MUCH better performance. Even Microsoft has begun to follow suit with the XBOX, and now the Zune (which only works in the paradigm of Zune's Windows Media Player and the Zune marketplace).

[plural.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking sql server vs. exchange; I'm talking Enterprise vs. Standard vs. Pro

I was aware, however there are a number of features which are included in some versions which justify separating them out. The optimization and configuration requirements, as well as the actual OS kernel varies dramatically between the versions.

What works best to manage a massive server cluster at a tier 1 datacenter is dramatically different than your average product group file server. And what you would never need the capability to run octo-proc and beyond machines for a domain server.

with regards to the rest, as I said I checked the prices on both the Apple and Dell website this morning, so you quoting from an article written nearly a year ago doesnt seem persuasive.

That said, I get the feeling you weren't matching up hardware spec-for-spec.

Give me a break. I'm a hardware/systems engineer, this is what I do for a living, I've been doing it for over a decade and I get paid a lot of money to do it. We can bicker back and forth about software designs, corporate strategies, policies and motivations but if there is one thing I know a lot about, it is the x86 hardware platform. Hell, I wrote and tested a significant chunk of the APM/ACPI code.

Please dont insult me by asserting that I cant look at two sets of product specs and tweak the system configurations to be as equivilent as the sales configuration tool will allow.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

I was aware, however there are a number of features which are included in some versions which justify separating them out. The optimization and configuration requirements, as well as the actual OS kernel varies dramatically between the versions.
Fair enough. And I admit, my experience with Server is not far beyond working with Enterprise Edition and troubleshooting/setting up Exchange. So, I probably do have a lot to learn about the various flavors, but what I had assumed was that aside from ad-on systems, the differences between the actual servers was rooted in flipping registry keys on and off and essentially withholding abilities from one to the other. Much like what they do with the client versions. Apparently, I was mistaken.


with regards to the rest, as I said I checked the prices on both the Apple and Dell website this morning, so you quoting from an article written nearly a year ago doesnt seem persuasive.
I wasn't quoting from an article when I gave you those numbers on the 17inch laptops. Those are now, today, off the website.

Please dont insult me by asserting that I cant look at two sets of product specs and tweak the system configurations to be as equivilent as the sales configuration tool will allow.
I didn't meant to insult at all. That was not my intent, and I am sorry if it came across that way. I was just surprised when I priced out the two 17s and came up with such dramatic numbers compared to what you had told me earlier. That was all.

[plural.livejournal.com]

Nope thats why I said I understood it with server OSes but not so much with client OSes.

Thats nice but it doesnt invalidate my point. The base system cost to get into a mac is significantly higher than a PC for essentially the same hardware.

Compared to the same Apple system you quoted:

17 MBP from Apple: 2,799.
weight: 6.8 lbs

OS X.4 Tiger
*2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
*2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
*160GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
*SuperDrive 8x (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
*256mb Video RAM PCIE ATI
*MacBook Pro 17-inch Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
Built-in Camera
Built-in Sensor and Remote
Built-in HardDrive motion sensor
Magnetic Safe Power Adapter
Optical Audio in and Out
Express34 Slot
*802.11 a/b/g/n

I selected this Dell system:

Dell Inspiron E1705 $2755
weight: 7.65 lbs

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7400 (2.16GHz, 4MB L2 Cache, 667 MHz FSB)
Windows Vista™ Ultimate
17 inch UltraSharp™ Wide Screen UXGA Display with TrueLife™
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
200GB 4200rpm SATA Hard Drive
8x CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
256MB ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON® X1400 HyperMemory
Integrated Audio
External USB TV Tuner w/Remote Control
Dell Wireless 1390b/g (54Mbps)
Dell Wireless 355 Bluetooth Internal (2.0 + Enhanced Data Rate)
Network Card Integrated 10/100 Network Card and Modem

Retractable Portable Notebook Combination Lock
Dell Photo All-In-One Printer 926 - Includes Media Card Reader
Dell USB Printer Cable - 10 ft black
Microsoft Works Suite 2006


now you'll notice I intentionally chose a processor that was .16ghz slower, because it was a better value for a minimal performance trade.

Additionally, the other components it offered more closely matched the Macbook Pro (such as having the identical video card).

As an illustration, instead of just showing the lower price once I had matched the configs up. I went ahead and spent the difference, the idea being sure you get some extra Mac features for the money which are kinda snazzy, lets see what the same money will buy you from Dell (FYI you forgot to include bluetooth which Macs have so it was only fair to add it to the dell spec).

An extra 40gb of HDD space
A TV Tuner w/remote
Dell Photo All-In-One Printer 926 - Includes Media Card Reader & Printer cable
Microsoft Works Suite 2006
Retractable Portable Notebook Combination Lock

Not bad.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

I would also like to reiterate my point from earlier:

Apple does not do low-end. They don't sell cheap hardware and they don't have cheap models. Part of it, in my opinion, because they don't want to deal with the q/a issues on cheap hardware. But that's entirely speculation.

[plural.livejournal.com]

eh

I'm sorry but I disagree, the only Mac hardware platforms which I would say are high end are the Mac Book Pro and the Mac Pro, and of course all of their stand alone monitors, as I've said before are top of the line.

I cannot view a laptop with a 13inch display as anything but ridiculous and subpar. Similarly the MacMini and particularly the iMac are overpriced for the technology specs. Even if you give Apple the benefit of the doubt with their x86 machines and deduct a reasonable premium for higher quality parts they are unable to be price competitive.

Which is why Apple spends so much money on marketing and creating the brand identity so iTards will willingly buy their iLifestyle components for premium bucks.

You may be obstinate in your adoration of Mac to the point of abject denial but you have a pretty good idea of the basics and I'll assume you know fall into the category of an advanced user and I'm sure there are just as many PC users who are equally retarded although significantly less well branded. So I'm not saying that everyone who buys or uses a Mac is an iTard, hell one of my closest friend bought a Mac mini, of course he gave it to his four year old son to dual boot XP with but thats another story.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

I can definitely see what you're saying.

I think that, personally, the iBook/MacBook/MacMini is a concession to the lower-end market. Originally, I think Apple wanted to be totally upper-end, and that's why the iBook was one of the last announced items after Jobs returned to the company. Yes, they're nice, but they're nowhere near the bang vs. buck of the MacBook Pro. Same with the iMac.

Now, do I think they're overpriced? The iMac certainly is, I will never argue on that one - but at the same time, its design is worth a few hundred bucks to me.

And, being a continuing Unix geek, I want a stable Unix platform with a nice GUI. And while people usually scream Gentoo or the like as an answer, I'm happy with OS X and I'm pleased with how it has matured even since I started.

As for the XP thing, I know plenty of people who do that. It's kinda funny.

[rdg.livejournal.com]

I cannot view a laptop with a 13inch display as anything but ridiculous and subpar

???

small laptops are extremely portable; handy if you move around all day or travel frequently. nothing ridiculous or subpar about that at all. lots of people are hoping for a 13" macbook pro, and i don't blame them.

so iTards will willingly buy their iLifestyle components

ilife is overrated. but the other things -- quicksilver, scrivener, omnioutliner, etc just work exceptionally well, and their windows counterparts unfortunately don't compare.

[coolstring.livejournal.com]

scrivener is the bomb. Oh my god, that's an ingenious program.

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

Fuck off, if you don't like it, run Linux!

We do.

Ironically, the rest of MS isn't quite as detached about that decision as you are. They decided that they'd bribe us into running Windows, throwing some of their cash reserves around to get us to switch. And to provide the extra hardware required because Windows can't handle as many customers per box as the Linux systems. And for the extra rack space. And for the extra power. And for the extra support staff. All so they could get a bogus market share number boosted by a couple of percentage points. (And the industry figured out what was going on the day after we threw the switch.)

Hey, we'll be happy to take your money. We're whores. But MS has to use whores. And these whores still use Linux everywhere MS doesn't pay.

[plural.livejournal.com]

We do...

Yup so do I and I should I have included you with Octal and the others, but this rant wasnt directed at people who have enough skills to run linux.

I'm not a Microsoft employee, I dont have to sell the party line anymore. Sure I'm temporarily working on a project there as an independant contractor, but thats merely a short term lease on my ass not my soul.

I've never argued vis a vis the superiority of linux as an OS, as I said above:

learning enough ... to run a real operating system like Linux

Luckily for me I'm plenty vain so all this quoting of myself doesnt make me bashful in the least.

The simple reality is that the only real advantage that Microsoft has in the server market is the combination of a certain amount of ease of use/management and assloads of money to buy support/dev/testing time to deal with whatever problems come up.

Unfortunately for Linux geeks, there just isnt a company making Linux with deep enough pockets to shut MS down in this regard.

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

That's just my point. Linux doesn't have to have deep pockets supporting them. They're winning in the server market just because you can rack 'em & stack 'em and support more customers per kilowatt. Windows wins on the small enterprise where there is no IT department and no particular need for hardware efficiency, but once you have a server farm and people to run it, the only reason to choose Microsoft is their deep pockets.

[plural.livejournal.com]

Actually windows has a pretty large install base in the ERP level customers primarily because those customers rely on MS's willingness to throw money around to fix an issue quickly

I'm not going to argue that Linux isnt better on almost every front, but MS has had a fair amount of success in spite of that (much of which but not all is attributed to the reasons you mentioned earlier).

[dwigsgotissues.livejournal.com]

LOL @ I-Tarded.

This was a legitimate rant. Preach on brotha

[plural.livejournal.com]

*grin*

yeah

it just so fits
its like it was made to be

[nova-starr.livejournal.com]

what annoys me is that computer science isn't like an essay... you don't just scrap everything and start over every time you want to make a revision. it took MS six years to make NT both stable and secure, and only a year after that to drop support for it completely. and 2000? it got dropped BEFORE it was stable OR secure. 12 months from now you won't be able to get an XP cd key, and xp still suffers from major issues in the hands of an amateur.

linux OTOH, is nothing more than a continually evolving kernel -- not a kernel and monolithic GUI being violently upheaved every three years. security, stability-wise, it IS mature. it only suffers from usability issues... and half of solving those issues is going to be a matter of reducing the overall security of the system.

that and the hardware requirements are seriously off-putting. I HAVE the minimum requirements, and I was able to play PREY when it came out. when windows' GUI is taking up 128mb of my 128mb video card, how are my games going to perform?

[nova-starr.livejournal.com]

also, I run a mostly-802.11g network... secured to the best of its ability, of course.

[octal.livejournal.com]

I'd also consider ubuntu to be several steps above "linux" in a generic sense in terms of usability.

I think ubuntu is about a year from "if it were preinstalled on a home user's machine, the home user would be fine with it until they replace the machine" level.

Especially if there were some good ubuntu-tied online services.

[plural.livejournal.com]

I have to agree the linux system I currently possess is ubuntu and I'm very happy with it, hell appget alone makes it stand above the rest.

[budhaboy.livejournal.com]

I believe it's 'aptget' and that is a Debian feature, not ubuntu.

What sets ubuntu apart (IMHO) is the support network, and the streamlining of the OS while still maintaining the power of debian.

[budhaboy.livejournal.com]

I'm getting in a little late here, but...

It's true, when MS works, it does work and work well. If you wanted a stable platform on which to roll out pre configured boxen to the masses, it's a great piece of software.

But dude... It's a little too convient to say it's Hauppauge's fault when the driver won't install properly on a newly acquired TV card that is at least a year old technology. ESPECIALLY when it works out of the box with Ubuntu.

My problem with MS is the same as my problem with Apple: they add insult to injury by making me PAY MONEY to experience problems that are inherent in all complex systems. As you know, given my druthers, I'd rather go Mac only becuase they are more wife/fiveyearold compatible... plus they look cool, and who among us doesn't gain instant satisfaction from superficially looking cool?

[caoilte.livejournal.com]

You rant a lot. I don't think it's healthy. Still, you make a lot of smart points here and before.

I think, however, it would be better to think of ordinary users and popular media who whine not understanding the flaws inherent in the system and turn their head to that.

Windows operates a monopoly. It is both convenient and problematic, rather like a single choice of utility company. The convenience is technical (a single platform guarantees interopability), the problems are political (you've no where else to take your custom).

People who can't vote with their feet are forced to vote with their mouthes and that is why Microsoft attracts so much flak.

If you were to think of the scathing article in question as agitating for a political solution to a political problem it's tone might start to sound a whole lot more reasonable, or at least fitting in the present political climate. Your approach is too technically focused.