RadioBanter - View Single Post

Alan Baker

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

On 10/10/2011 3:19 PM, BAR wrote:
In , says...

On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
Alan wrote:

In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com,
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form
[over] substance

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
--
--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
--
--

Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original
Apple
computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC).
Apple
maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even
after
PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one.

If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an
exhorbitant
price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then
that
is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this
case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody
were
buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market.

They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole
generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion
thing.
I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the
"creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows
machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types
are
insufferable boors.

Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion
thing".

How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools.

Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students
in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free
will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either.

What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four
years ago?

Intel won.

Linux is surely the equal, or better, of windows -- however, it is a tad
bit more difficult to use (unbutu perhaps breaks that rule) and is just
as prone to viruses and such, if used by people without proper education
and/or a virus/malware scanner ...

Plus, when you give people a product with is dirt free, they just can
never really trust it, they have to suffer payment or they just have
"that uncomfortable feeling." ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

You get what you pay for. When it is free that is exactly what you get,
free software.

We tend to go with Red Hat ES and SUSE Linux. These have proved to be
the most stable and most apps are supported on them.

I have just gone through migrating a class of applications from Solaris
(SPARC) to Windows. The rational is that there was no need to have your
"highly educated" workforce supporting the applications on UNIX/Linux
when they can be supported by just about anyone on a Windows system.
And, since they are on Windows they easily run in a VM. The cost went
from about $25,000 a year to about $300 for the systems. The run support
is expected to be about $2,500 for the partial off-shore Windows head.

Well, red hat and suse have what some don't, proprietary hype and cutsy
GUI tools and implement their own "methods of doing things" ... the most
"honest linux", which stays true to form, the most, to the old UNIX, is
slackware ... simply pick the GUI interface you want to use with it, or
are most comfortable with ... coming from times before the "GREAT GUI
GOD", and related/associated "biblical scriptures in 'GUI syntax'", I
use a command line as much as possible ... but then, up until vista, I
knew how to turn off the windows gui and go mainly commandline (almost
like a 32-bit "super dos!") ... the gui just got too tough to fight ...
I now use the Great GUI Gods tools ...

Well you're religion has now been made clear...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg