There's that mythical linux 286 that can stream full screen video at 1280x1024 res at 30fps and relay it with a USB web-cam again.
No one here is claiming you can do that on a 286. It can be done on a processor running at less than XP's minimum requirements, much less Vista's. Less than 10% of all destop users (personal or businesss) have any real need for more than a 1Ghz processor, and an OS any more advanced than Win2K. They don't need or use features added since Office 2000, and were forced to upgrade (and re-train employees on the new versions) simply to support MS's bottom line. While this may have been good for MS's economy, it was detrimental to the economy of the vast majority of business, and the economy in general. Money spent on un-needed uprades was money not spent researching new products or implementing new services. It meant an expense with no actual ROI, spending money for no net gain.
Yeah.... this is why we can't get the sales staff to change their practices to take better advantage of the tools they already have, even though the "difference" would be minimal and yeild greater results.
This is a failure in management, and has nothing to do with which OS or software you use. It actually makes my point - it's as difficult and expensive to train people to use what you have as it is to train them on a new (but very similar in function) software. It's as easy (or difficult, depending on how you want to see it) to train someone to use Open Office instead of Office 98 as it is to train them to use Office 2007 instead of Office 98. The "they already know how to use what we have" argument fails, since Windows or Office upgrades require retraining as much as migrating to Linux or Open Office.
And the old super heavy luggables that masquaraded as laptops with tiny screens and few interfaces simply aren't going to cut it when the sales force demos to a client.
No-one claims that nobody needs newer equipment. However, Linux will work on that shiny new laptop also. Engineers, Video Editors, and others have a real need for faster systems. The secretary, however, can get by just as well on a 1.2Ghz Pentium, and upgrading their computer beyond that is a waste of money and resources.
See, when I first started as an on-staffer (rather than consultant), I was like you. I thought, why not go to pricewatch and get the cheapest everything, I can assemble it, and we can save a few hundred. That was without even having to train any of the other staff on anything new. But the simple act of going to multiple places to buy stuff made it too expensive (purhcasing and recieving dept's costs), not to mention ANY potential issue with ANYthing at all, took longer and more money to deal with. Going to an OEM was cheaper, even if it appeared more expensive.
No, you were not like me. I've never advocated getting the cheapest anything. I have always advocated buying quality products, even when more expensive initially. Spending an extra $50 on a quality power supply instead of a cheap "no-name" can save you hundreds down the road. As you pointed out before, CDW is a very valuable resource.
We are a FOR proft, but we are a TINY company that was bought 2 years ago for 3 million dollars
3 million dollars is not a small business. Small businesses have values well under One million, usually less than $2k. That is a medium business, even if you only employ a half dozen people.
Speaking of which..... now that I think about the shop.... we have a Hendricks 5-axis router (cost well into the 6 figures), it's run by a desktop PC. For something that expensive, and that important, you'd think that the OEM would have used Linux on the white-box they supplied. They didn't. It was initially 95. Never had any problems with it. Now it's on 2K Pro, still no problems. Had it for years.
Modern routers don't require a seperate PC to run them. But thanks for making my point - you have a solution that works and don't see a good reason to upgrade it to a modern more powerfull solution - even though a new Cisco router would be more powerfull, and cost much less than what it's replacing did.
Well given that I go through Windows Explorer and double click on the mp3 which launches WinAMP
That's fine if you want to play a single song, but winapm's playlists rely on paths so moving that collection to a different drive will render any playlist you have useless. Also, please note that I said "your media player" not "Media Player". I also use Winamp, but not the latest version which is packed with features I would never use and hogs resources I'd rather use for something else.
Quote:
Anyone who can't afford that 3Ghz P4.
I'm sure you could get one for $50 these days.
I'm sure I'm not the only person here who would like to know where. Provided, of course, that this is made with quality components and didn't "fall off the back of a truck" somewhere.
Large buisnesses are HP, M$, GM, etc. Small buisnesses are in the sub 100 desktop range.
Small businesses are in the sub 20 desktop range, and provide 65% of the jobs in this country, according to the Dept. of Labor.
That one person's desktop running a DB is great until they kick the plug, or spill something on it, or break the optical drive (and have to shut it down) or get hit with malware, etc. Great for your 5 node network,
Yes, great for a 5 node network, which is the majority of networks in this country. Yet earlier, you said that they should go to the expense of getting a server.
And also, there is nothing wrong with leveraging your product. I don't HAVE to sell you something, I didn't force you to not install the competitors products, I just chose not to sell to you if you did so. It's a subtle point, but an important one.
Actually, MS DID force people to intall their product, even if a competitors product was installed also. That's one of the reasons they were convicted. Forcing someone to pay for your product when they don't want it is wrong. It's essentially a "tax" and only the Government has the right to tax people.
The idea behind competition isn't doing whatever it takes to win. Its to be the best, and win on merit. If you have to break the rules to win, then your product isn't good enough. It should win simply because it's better than the competition, not because it broke the rules to kill the competition. Should football players carry guns on the feild so they can shoot the opposing players to win, or should they just be better players?
Technically it's your duty as a citizen to not follow bad law.
Absolutely incorrect. Please re-read the constitution you claim to revere. Your duty is to protest those laws, petition your representatives to change them, or elect representatives who will. You can challenge a law in court without needing to break it first - that is one of the functions of the Supreme Court. Not following the rules simply because you don't like them doesn't always make you any sort of a patriot, just a criminal.
Trouble is, people think "just because you disagree with the law doesn't mean you can ignore it". And THAT mentality is why I'm convinced that the 18th Amendment wouldn't be repealed if it were passed today.
You can try to ignore a law you don't like, but it's not going to be easy when you're in jail for breaking it. And the 18th Amendment couldn't even get passed in the first place today. Several states have passed laws prohibiting same-sex marraiage,, and those laws usually get repealed by the state supreme courts because they are unconstitutional. The mechanism for rpeealing unjust laws is even stronger today than it was in the 30's, you just need to use the process and do it legally.
Agree with the last statement. But I only point out the "superiority of Windows" (if you wish to use that phrasing, I wouldn't, but hey...) because of the other side saying it sucks for everything, should NEVER be touched,
No-one in this thread said Windows sucks for everything. We just get tired of people like you who claim it's better than it is, and don't like the alternatives. You clearly seem to think that Windows is a better solution for everyone, when it's often not.
In short, the claims of Linux's ability to run on paperweights is the same thing as the ricer argument of horsepower per litre. It's a non-issue, and if we REALLY focused everything on that, we all suffer for it in the long run.
But that 300hp WRT wouldn't be avilable for you to own if "ricers" hadn't found ways to get more power from a smaller engine. The technology that is used to make those cars comes from "ricers", or hot rodders, if you prefer. The technology that Subaru uses to make it's WRT engines comes from their racing department. It was developed so that they could win against other cars without breaking the rules by having more displacement than the rules for that class allowed. If Subaru was the only car manufacturer (or just had an overwhelming semi-monopoly) they would have no reason to innovate, ant those high performance vehicals wouldn't ever have been created in the first place.
The same holds true for computers. If Windows had had any real competition all along, it would be far better today than it is. Look at how long Internet Explorer stagnated before Firefox started giving it a run for it's money. Microsoft may have helped the PC platform be what it is today, but it would be even better if they had had to actually compete on merit. It's not very intelligent to give them credit for helping advance a product when their business practice actually limited advancement, not fostered it. Would Intel be making multicore 45 nm processors available at such a low cost if they didn't have to compete with AMD? I think not.
If MS was truly responsible for pushing the advancement in hardware as you claim, no-one would be offering computers with 4 times the power needed to run Windows. The harware advances you credit MS for are the result of healthy competition between the hardware manufactuters, the same as the fast cars you like are the result of healthy competition between automakers. MS has nothing to do with it. They still compete to build the fastest supercomputer, even though no-one actually buys supercomputers anymore - they use distributed processing such as clusters and clouds. Historical fact of life - Competion breeds advancement - monopolies stifle it.
BTW, Heilor, Orbiter runs just fine on my 900Ghz PC with a 64MB graphics card. I don't need any more computer than I have to enjoy Orbiter, or any of the other games I personally play. I'd like to be playing GTA 4, and that won't run on this box. That's why I'm saving up for a PS3. It's a better platform for most of today's games than a PC.
