I don't see a BTO Blu-Ray do you? Maybe that is for NAB! HD video editing is stuck until we can easily put HD on a DVD (be in either format) and an Apple built in solution is always the safer route in my experience.
You looked for that too, eh?
I really don't see this as a pressing issue as the number of people who want this option are still very few. But if you have to have it there are several HD-DVD and Blu-ray options to choose from. I don't foresee Apple ever having a HD-DVD burner as a BTO option so I'm guessing they are waiting until there is a larger Blu-ray base base before including it.
In case you didn't already know.... HD-DVD has lost.
I really don't see this as a pressing issue as the number of people who want this option are still very few. But if you have to have it there are several HD-DVD and Blu-ray options to choose from. I don't foresee Apple ever having a HD-DVD burner as a BTO option so I'm guessing they are waiting until there is a larger Blu-ray base base before including it.
The number of people that can take advantage of an eight core system is also very few, but here we are. For Apple to claim to be ahead of the game, I'd really like to see them actually bother being consistent about it. They bragged about their iLife '05 being able to take HDV, which was way ahead of the game in regards to consumer software, with no call for it, and now that there's a good way to transport, archive or distribute that video, they aren't bothering to offer it, even in their top of the line system. No one is asking that it be in the standard configuration, BTO that's compatible with the Mac Pro is fine.
Mmmm, interesting. I use both and have very different attitudes.
I cannot possibly see a person who uses both refer to XP as stable! What hour of the day is that? Just curious.
Stable is a matter of opinion. There are those who would say OS 9 is/was brittle and frail and would crash just looking at it, while others would say it was extremely stable (of course, they usually prefaced this with something like "If you know what you're doing!" or "Once you configure it right" which usually entailed using extension managers and such to prune systems to just what was needed and all).
As for XP, I've been using and generally managing it at my office (6-7 people, up to 10 computers) for 4 years or so, and generally we've never had a problem with system stability. Never had slowdowns from virus checkers running all the time (then again, we didn't use Norton, so maybe that's something?), never had a virus get free (only a couple even got seen by the virus checkers), no malware, never incessant crashing and reformats required. And since system admin isn't my actual job, its also not like we did anything restrictive (I turned on auto update for XP and the virus scanners, but all users run as admins or power users, install what they need, etc).
A home setting, well, that's a different story. But XP can easily be stable.
BTW, I'm running Vista at the moment on my MBP in boot camp. Runs perfectly fine. Those bemoaning its eye candy should take a look at OS X, its basically the same kind of eye candy. Can't complain about one without the other.
Four out of five computers within the workplace are not adequately equipped to make the jump to Microsoft's Vista operating system based on the software maker's stated requirements, one study shows.
A report released last week by desktop management firm Everdream exhibits that 79.9 percent of business machines do not match the recommended requirements for "premium-ready PCs" put forth by the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant.
I think people need to keep in mind one thing. The specs they're talking about here is basically MS's high-end spec, the one that gives all the eye candy and such. I think if you looked at the mac base of hardware when 10.3 was released, how much of that could run Apple's new Quartz Xtreme? And how many of the existing base can take advantage of Core Animation when it comes out, let alone the core video/audio features when they were released?
But what's the reason for this lack? Lack of RAM and high-end video cards. Gee, you're kidding me! You mean businesses that outfit their employees don't put in 2 GB of RAM in their machines to run Office? And why would they spend extra on higher-end video cards in an office environment, which generally are meant for 3D work and games and offer little if any performance boost to standard business apps?
Oh, and for those interested in the new MacPros, you'll be happy to know the low-end didn't change. So we don't have to worry about the lower and middle classes buying mac towers and dropping down our own inherent values.
I think people need to keep in mind one thing. The specs they're talking about here is basically MS's high-end spec, the one that gives all the eye candy and such. I think if you looked at the mac base of hardware when 10.3 was released, how much of that could run Apple's new Quartz Xtreme? And how many of the existing base can take advantage of Core Animation when it comes out, let alone the core video/audio features when they were released?
But what's the reason for this lack? Lack of RAM and high-end video cards. Gee, you're kidding me! You mean businesses that outfit their employees don't put in 2 GB of RAM in their machines to run Office? And why would they spend extra on higher-end video cards in an office environment, which generally are meant for 3D work and games and offer little if any performance boost to standard business apps?
Oh, and for those interested in the new MacPros, you'll be happy to know the low-end didn't change. So we don't have to worry about the lower and middle classes buying mac towers and dropping down our own inherent values.
office and windows is so bloated that you need 1gig to run xp + office at a good speeds and 2 gigs to do the same thing in vista.
If 80% of workplace computers fail to meet Microsoft's extremely understated minimum requirements, the company is definitely (and most deservedly) in trouble. Not to mention the fact that Microsoft has most assuredly not sold 20 million copies of Vista. They have stuffed the sales channel with unsold computers on which Vista has been preinstalled, then counted those copies as "sold." It will take more than lies to save Microsoft this time.
They have stuffed the sales channel with unsold computers on which Vista has been preinstalled, then counted those copies as "sold." It will take more than lies to save Microsoft this time.
I've personally takien 6 new HP and Sony notebooks that came with Vista and downgraded them to XP. And it wasn't easy either as the HP machines wouldn't install XP without some fancy formatting first. Then trying to find drivers for these machine were even more difficult as HP and Sony don't offer XP drivers on their website. I had to look at similar specs for older notebooks with XP and also use the device manufacture's website. Should it really be that tough?
More than ever I'm telling people to "GET A MAC!" now I know that downgrading to XP has been made more difficult than it should be.
For the same reason that ITs promote Windows, they would soon find themeless out of a job if they had an OS that does not need baby-sitting. If reporters reported facts and facts only, the world would become a less chaotic place to live in. We can't have that! No job to do anymore.
Dumbest post ever. That makes no sense on any level.
Example: We have many AIX servers housing tons of images for our Radiology systems. AIX is probably one of, if not the most stable platform of Unix since way way way back in the day. Are you telling me since its so stable that we should fire the team of AIX Admins it takes to run, manage, patch, deploy, backup, change, configure these systems?
Dumbest post ever. That makes no sense on any level.
Example: We have many AIX servers housing tons of images for our Radiology systems. AIX is probably one of, if not the most stable platform of Unix since way way way back in the day. Are you telling me since its so stable that we should fire the team of AIX Admins it takes to run, manage, patch, deploy, backup, change, configure these systems?
First, he was responding to the questions I postulated as a means to stmiulate constructive thought and his answers were fairly on point.
Second, I think you missed the rational of the original question and his response. Which is basically this: Were you to ask your AIX admins if they supported moving the images over to a server that they had no knowledge of or experience with, that required half of their numbers to "manage, patch, deploy, back-up, change, configure," would they jump up and say, "HELL YES! Let's do it."
No they wouldn't, because at the very least they would have just relegated half of their numbers to unemployment and most likely they would all lose their jobs because most companies won't pay to retrain them on a new system when it is much more economical and time efficient to hire people who already know the new system.
First, he was responding to the questions I postulated as a means to stmiulate constructive thought and his answers were fairly on point.
Second, I think you missed the rational of the original question and his response. Which is basically this: Were you to ask your AIX admins if they supported moving the images over to a server that they had no knowledge of or experience with, that required half of their numbers to "manage, patch, deploy, back-up, change, configure," would they jump up and say, "HELL YES! Let's do it."
No they wouldn't, because at the very least they would have just relegated half of their numbers to unemployment and most likely they would all lose their jobs because most companies won't pay to retrain them on a new system when it is much more economical and time efficient to hire people who already know the new system.
No my point is that we don't sit around and think...how do we make our lives harder. No offense but the guys that run around and support desktops aint exactly rocket science and they are not the onces making those decisions. Any IT manager making those choices would get nice big fat bonuses if they are able to replace man power with machine power.
Plus that type of IT work is a very small % of what goes on.
No my point is that we don't sit around and think...how do we make our lives harder. No offense but the guys that run around and support desktops aint exactly rocket science and they are not the onces making those decisions. Any IT manager making those choices would get nice big fat bonuses if they are able to replace man power with machine power.
I think it was the guy that writes Roughly Drafted aired his opinion that IT avoids Macs because it would mean less work and he got enough feedback to backtrack on that, and I think he changed his opinion. He admitted that his original opinion was not based in experience or fact. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why Macs aren't used, the comments to that article covers them.
No offense but the guys that run around and support desktops aint exactly rocket science and they are not the onces making those decisions...
Plus that type of IT work is a very small % of what goes on.
I dunno... I work for a very large multinational corporation, and I know the IT guys in our building very well. They actually spend a good chunk of their time dealing with desktop trouble tickets (most of our boxes are running XP, Service Pack 2).
I also know the IT guys at the local community college. They pretty confirm the old saw: it takes about one-third to one-half the manpower for them to support x amt of Macs vs x amt of PCs.
Yes, IT folks do more than just support desktops, our guys are up to their elbows in servers and networking on a daily basis , plus testing apps and OSes for compatibility and future deployment, plus some unfortunate but inevitable end user training on stuff they should know already. \
But even so, it is reasonable to say that a wholesale switch to OS X would still leave some of them unemployed, though perhaps not as many as some among us would like to believe. Hence, I'm not willing to dismiss the 'IT has a vested interest in Windows' argument entirely. It's also the OS(es) they're most familiar with in most cases.
I am pleased however to see that some of our IT guys have shown an increasing enthusiasm for OS X in recent months though- and not only because they have to watch over the art and sound departments' boxes, but because they genuinely like it. In fact, some of them have MacBooks and MacBook Pros at home. Five years ago, I woulda never believed it.
I dunno... I work for a very large multinational corporation, and I know the IT guys in our building very well. They actually spend a good chunk of their time dealing with desktop trouble tickets (most of our boxes are running XP, Service Pack 2).
I also know the IT guys at the local community college. They pretty confirm the old saw: it takes about one-third to one-half the manpower for them to support x amt of Macs vs x amt of PCs.
Yes, IT folks do more than just support desktops, our guys are up to their elbows in servers and networking on a daily basis , plus testing apps and OSes for compatibility and future deployment, plus some unfortunate but inevitable end user training on stuff they should know already. \
But even so, it is reasonable to say that a wholesale switch to OS X would still leave some of them unemployed, though perhaps not as many as some among us would like to believe. Hence, I'm not willing to dismiss the 'IT has a vested interest in Windows' argument entirely. It's also the OS(es) they're most familiar with in most cases.
I am pleased however to see that some of our IT guys have shown an increasing enthusiasm for OS X in recent months though- and not only because they have to watch over the art and sound departments' boxes, but because they genuinely like it. In fact, some of them have MacBooks and MacBook Pros at home. Five years ago, I woulda never believed it.
The company I work for run crappy Dells with Celeron processors with integrated graphics. They run XP Pro like a snail! So no, the company I work for has no intention of ever upgrading to Vista.
The last company I worked for would buy new hardware, surely capable of XP, but used their company-created disk image to install Win2000 Pro and the necessary software required for business use. So even when a company buys new hardware, there is no guarantee they will use the new equipment with Vista. They will continue to use their corporate license for an outdated OS that runs their company-specific software.
Comments
I don't see a BTO Blu-Ray do you? Maybe that is for NAB! HD video editing is stuck until we can easily put HD on a DVD (be in either format) and an Apple built in solution is always the safer route in my experience.
You looked for that too, eh?
I really don't see this as a pressing issue as the number of people who want this option are still very few. But if you have to have it there are several HD-DVD and Blu-ray options to choose from. I don't foresee Apple ever having a HD-DVD burner as a BTO option so I'm guessing they are waiting until there is a larger Blu-ray base base before including it.
In case you didn't already know.... HD-DVD has lost.
You looked for that too, eh?
In case you didn't already know.... HD-DVD has lost.
I really hope so. Watching VHS win in the consumer market was enough for one lifetime!
You looked for that too, eh?
I really don't see this as a pressing issue as the number of people who want this option are still very few. But if you have to have it there are several HD-DVD and Blu-ray options to choose from. I don't foresee Apple ever having a HD-DVD burner as a BTO option so I'm guessing they are waiting until there is a larger Blu-ray base base before including it.
The number of people that can take advantage of an eight core system is also very few, but here we are. For Apple to claim to be ahead of the game, I'd really like to see them actually bother being consistent about it. They bragged about their iLife '05 being able to take HDV, which was way ahead of the game in regards to consumer software, with no call for it, and now that there's a good way to transport, archive or distribute that video, they aren't bothering to offer it, even in their top of the line system. No one is asking that it be in the standard configuration, BTO that's compatible with the Mac Pro is fine.
Mmmm, interesting. I use both and have very different attitudes.
I cannot possibly see a person who uses both refer to XP as stable! What hour of the day is that? Just curious.
Stable is a matter of opinion. There are those who would say OS 9 is/was brittle and frail and would crash just looking at it, while others would say it was extremely stable (of course, they usually prefaced this with something like "If you know what you're doing!" or "Once you configure it right" which usually entailed using extension managers and such to prune systems to just what was needed and all).
As for XP, I've been using and generally managing it at my office (6-7 people, up to 10 computers) for 4 years or so, and generally we've never had a problem with system stability. Never had slowdowns from virus checkers running all the time (then again, we didn't use Norton, so maybe that's something?), never had a virus get free (only a couple even got seen by the virus checkers), no malware, never incessant crashing and reformats required. And since system admin isn't my actual job, its also not like we did anything restrictive (I turned on auto update for XP and the virus scanners, but all users run as admins or power users, install what they need, etc).
A home setting, well, that's a different story. But XP can easily be stable.
BTW, I'm running Vista at the moment on my MBP in boot camp. Runs perfectly fine. Those bemoaning its eye candy should take a look at OS X, its basically the same kind of eye candy. Can't complain about one without the other.
Four out of five computers within the workplace are not adequately equipped to make the jump to Microsoft's Vista operating system based on the software maker's stated requirements, one study shows.
A report released last week by desktop management firm Everdream exhibits that 79.9 percent of business machines do not match the recommended requirements for "premium-ready PCs" put forth by the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant.
I think people need to keep in mind one thing. The specs they're talking about here is basically MS's high-end spec, the one that gives all the eye candy and such. I think if you looked at the mac base of hardware when 10.3 was released, how much of that could run Apple's new Quartz Xtreme? And how many of the existing base can take advantage of Core Animation when it comes out, let alone the core video/audio features when they were released?
But what's the reason for this lack? Lack of RAM and high-end video cards. Gee, you're kidding me! You mean businesses that outfit their employees don't put in 2 GB of RAM in their machines to run Office? And why would they spend extra on higher-end video cards in an office environment, which generally are meant for 3D work and games and offer little if any performance boost to standard business apps?
Oh, and for those interested in the new MacPros, you'll be happy to know the low-end didn't change. So we don't have to worry about the lower and middle classes buying mac towers and dropping down our own inherent values.
I think people need to keep in mind one thing. The specs they're talking about here is basically MS's high-end spec, the one that gives all the eye candy and such. I think if you looked at the mac base of hardware when 10.3 was released, how much of that could run Apple's new Quartz Xtreme? And how many of the existing base can take advantage of Core Animation when it comes out, let alone the core video/audio features when they were released?
But what's the reason for this lack? Lack of RAM and high-end video cards. Gee, you're kidding me! You mean businesses that outfit their employees don't put in 2 GB of RAM in their machines to run Office? And why would they spend extra on higher-end video cards in an office environment, which generally are meant for 3D work and games and offer little if any performance boost to standard business apps?
Oh, and for those interested in the new MacPros, you'll be happy to know the low-end didn't change. So we don't have to worry about the lower and middle classes buying mac towers and dropping down our own inherent values.
office and windows is so bloated that you need 1gig to run xp + office at a good speeds and 2 gigs to do the same thing in vista.
They have stuffed the sales channel with unsold computers on which Vista has been preinstalled, then counted those copies as "sold." It will take more than lies to save Microsoft this time.
I've personally takien 6 new HP and Sony notebooks that came with Vista and downgraded them to XP. And it wasn't easy either as the HP machines wouldn't install XP without some fancy formatting first. Then trying to find drivers for these machine were even more difficult as HP and Sony don't offer XP drivers on their website. I had to look at similar specs for older notebooks with XP and also use the device manufacture's website. Should it really be that tough?
More than ever I'm telling people to "GET A MAC!" now I know that downgrading to XP has been made more difficult than it should be.
For the same reason that ITs promote Windows, they would soon find themeless out of a job if they had an OS that does not need baby-sitting. If reporters reported facts and facts only, the world would become a less chaotic place to live in. We can't have that! No job to do anymore.
Dumbest post ever. That makes no sense on any level.
Example: We have many AIX servers housing tons of images for our Radiology systems. AIX is probably one of, if not the most stable platform of Unix since way way way back in the day. Are you telling me since its so stable that we should fire the team of AIX Admins it takes to run, manage, patch, deploy, backup, change, configure these systems?
Dumbest post ever. That makes no sense on any level.
Example: We have many AIX servers housing tons of images for our Radiology systems. AIX is probably one of, if not the most stable platform of Unix since way way way back in the day. Are you telling me since its so stable that we should fire the team of AIX Admins it takes to run, manage, patch, deploy, backup, change, configure these systems?
First, he was responding to the questions I postulated as a means to stmiulate constructive thought and his answers were fairly on point.
Second, I think you missed the rational of the original question and his response. Which is basically this: Were you to ask your AIX admins if they supported moving the images over to a server that they had no knowledge of or experience with, that required half of their numbers to "manage, patch, deploy, back-up, change, configure," would they jump up and say, "HELL YES! Let's do it."
No they wouldn't, because at the very least they would have just relegated half of their numbers to unemployment and most likely they would all lose their jobs because most companies won't pay to retrain them on a new system when it is much more economical and time efficient to hire people who already know the new system.
First, he was responding to the questions I postulated as a means to stmiulate constructive thought and his answers were fairly on point.
Second, I think you missed the rational of the original question and his response. Which is basically this: Were you to ask your AIX admins if they supported moving the images over to a server that they had no knowledge of or experience with, that required half of their numbers to "manage, patch, deploy, back-up, change, configure," would they jump up and say, "HELL YES! Let's do it."
No they wouldn't, because at the very least they would have just relegated half of their numbers to unemployment and most likely they would all lose their jobs because most companies won't pay to retrain them on a new system when it is much more economical and time efficient to hire people who already know the new system.
No my point is that we don't sit around and think...how do we make our lives harder. No offense but the guys that run around and support desktops aint exactly rocket science and they are not the onces making those decisions. Any IT manager making those choices would get nice big fat bonuses if they are able to replace man power with machine power.
Plus that type of IT work is a very small % of what goes on.
No my point is that we don't sit around and think...how do we make our lives harder. No offense but the guys that run around and support desktops aint exactly rocket science and they are not the onces making those decisions. Any IT manager making those choices would get nice big fat bonuses if they are able to replace man power with machine power.
I think it was the guy that writes Roughly Drafted aired his opinion that IT avoids Macs because it would mean less work and he got enough feedback to backtrack on that, and I think he changed his opinion. He admitted that his original opinion was not based in experience or fact. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why Macs aren't used, the comments to that article covers them.
No offense but the guys that run around and support desktops aint exactly rocket science and they are not the onces making those decisions...
Plus that type of IT work is a very small % of what goes on.
I dunno... I work for a very large multinational corporation, and I know the IT guys in our building very well. They actually spend a good chunk of their time dealing with desktop trouble tickets (most of our boxes are running XP, Service Pack 2).
I also know the IT guys at the local community college. They pretty confirm the old saw: it takes about one-third to one-half the manpower for them to support x amt of Macs vs x amt of PCs.
Yes, IT folks do more than just support desktops, our guys are up to their elbows in servers and networking on a daily basis , plus testing apps and OSes for compatibility and future deployment, plus some unfortunate but inevitable end user training on stuff they should know already.
But even so, it is reasonable to say that a wholesale switch to OS X would still leave some of them unemployed, though perhaps not as many as some among us would like to believe. Hence, I'm not willing to dismiss the 'IT has a vested interest in Windows' argument entirely. It's also the OS(es) they're most familiar with in most cases.
I am pleased however to see that some of our IT guys have shown an increasing enthusiasm for OS X in recent months though- and not only because they have to watch over the art and sound departments' boxes, but because they genuinely like it. In fact, some of them have MacBooks and MacBook Pros at home. Five years ago, I woulda never believed it.
.
I dunno... I work for a very large multinational corporation, and I know the IT guys in our building very well. They actually spend a good chunk of their time dealing with desktop trouble tickets (most of our boxes are running XP, Service Pack 2).
I also know the IT guys at the local community college. They pretty confirm the old saw: it takes about one-third to one-half the manpower for them to support x amt of Macs vs x amt of PCs.
Yes, IT folks do more than just support desktops, our guys are up to their elbows in servers and networking on a daily basis , plus testing apps and OSes for compatibility and future deployment, plus some unfortunate but inevitable end user training on stuff they should know already.
But even so, it is reasonable to say that a wholesale switch to OS X would still leave some of them unemployed, though perhaps not as many as some among us would like to believe. Hence, I'm not willing to dismiss the 'IT has a vested interest in Windows' argument entirely. It's also the OS(es) they're most familiar with in most cases.
I am pleased however to see that some of our IT guys have shown an increasing enthusiasm for OS X in recent months though- and not only because they have to watch over the art and sound departments' boxes, but because they genuinely like it. In fact, some of them have MacBooks and MacBook Pros at home. Five years ago, I woulda never believed it.
.
We will agree to disagree.
The last company I worked for would buy new hardware, surely capable of XP, but used their company-created disk image to install Win2000 Pro and the necessary software required for business use. So even when a company buys new hardware, there is no guarantee they will use the new equipment with Vista. They will continue to use their corporate license for an outdated OS that runs their company-specific software.
We will agree to disagree.
Meh...different strokes for diff'rent folks.
.