On 10/5/2011 11:59 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 07:35:02 -0500, wrote:

At least we're not spending $160 for the privilege of BSODs! I like Puppy
Linux, which I believe is GTK on top of Ubuntu. Not pretty but incredibly
responsive. Will run on anything from first gen Pentium.

I haven't seen many BSOD's on Windoze boxes in maybe 10 years. The
only time I see them is when I'm playing with drivers or when I'm
trying to untrash the filesystem. I look at it differently. $160 is
a bit over 2 hours of my billable labor rate. If Windoze saves me 2
hours of time, I break even.


Unless that sentences you to lots more hours later. Then you cost
yourself. Beware the easy path. Or at least research it.

I have to say the front end investment on Linux has been proven to be a
better investment than Windows "ease of install" and nasty programming
environment. For instance dot net does seem to leak.

Been there, worked all sides of the argument including Apple and I'll
take Linux and Apple in that order.

tom
K0TAR

On 10/5/2011 9:56 PM, tom wrote:
I have to say the front end investment on Linux has been proven to be a
better investment than Windows "ease of install" and nasty programming
environment. For instance dot net does seem to leak.


Actually I misspoke there. I have hard evidence that some parts of dot
net leak. We are fighting a nasty problem at work because of that.

Managed code is not all it's cracked up to be. Especially when from
certain software houses.

tom
K0TAR

On 10/5/2011 10:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:08:26 -0500, wrote:

I use "BSODs" generically for any unrecoverable error that the 3 Finger
Mickey (or "Kill") won't fix.

Well, since you haven't been using Windoze much, you probably haven't
had much experience with its stability. In my day job, I fix
computahs, mostly running various Windoze mutations. I get very few
unrecoverable errors, hung processes, comatose peripherals, or general
weirdness, if the machine is in fairly good shape. No points for
static electricity fried RAM, overheating CPU's (AMD early Athelon),
buggy apps that won't die (Acrobat Reader 10.x and Skype), overly
aggressive backup programs (Memeo), or various sync programs that
fumble over their own semaphores (iTunes, MS ActiveSync). If I try
hard, I can hang a Windoze box running any of the aforementioned. If
I run alternatives, or run them in a VM sandbox, no problem. If
uptime is your standard for reliability, then I can offer several
weather stations running Windoze 2000 that typically stay up for
months. For my personal assortment of machines, I only reboot after
an update, or after a sufficiently large number of config changes to
make sure I still have a working system. When a customer drags in a
system that is acting "erratic" and tends to hang, it's usually either
malware or the all too common bulging capacitor problem. Cleaning up
the malware and replacing the bulging caps usually stabilizes the
system. Incidentally, I only reinstall windoze from scratch if the
malware has made such a mess that it would take me longer to fix than
to reinstall.

Funny, but my experience has been a lot different. Every month after
Patch Tuesday, the phone lines would light up, as people's computers
would stop working, or specific programs would stop. Some times it was
because Microsoft would turn off something that was supposed to be a
security problem, which just happened to be a needed feature for a
program. I had one computer that every time it reached a certain place
in the upgrade cycle, it would hose the OS, requiring a reinstall. Had
to take a perfectly good computer off line. Even aside from instability
issues - and a computer that might work one day, and not the next for no
good reason is unstable - there were issues like killing DVD codec for
Windows media player. Yeah nothing like a serving of ****ed off users
wondering why they couldn't play that demo DVD at their important meeting.

The fact is, my Windows computers had one problem after the other, while
my Mac's just tended to chug along, and their users said we could take
them from them after prying their cold dead fingers off them. Same for
me. I supported Windows, I did as much of my work as possible on the Mac.

There was 1 (one) case where an update made a problem for the mac users.

Windows? Couldn't even count.

Now that I'm retired, I will only be doing computer support for my
family, and as my Windows Desktop just died last week, I'm going to be
replacing it with a yummy 27 inch IMac, and the laptops will all be
running Linux.

Free at last! Thank God Almighty, I'm free at last!

All apologies to MLK

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:18:39 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

On 10/5/2011 10:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Cleaning up
the malware and replacing the bulging caps usually stabilizes the
system.

it would hose the OS, requiring a reinstall. Had
to take a perfectly good computer off line.

From "The IT Crowd" (a British TV comedy program):
(answering a ringing telephone in the shop - without pause for a
Hello)
"Have you tried turning it off and back on?"
....
"Is it plugged in?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:56:11 -0500, tom wrote:

Unless that sentences you to lots more hours later. Then you cost
yourself. Beware the easy path. Or at least research it.

Not my pain or my decision. My customers are the Windoze users. I
also have a few Linux users. Mostly they run Linux servers and a few
desktops. In almost all cases, the decision of the OS is made by the
applications vendors or whatever apps the hired help is familiar with
using. I have little say in the matter.

One of my bad jokes is that I would be out of business if Microsoft
had done a better job. There's quite a bit of truth to that.

I have to say the front end investment on Linux has been proven to be a
better investment than Windows "ease of install" and nasty programming
environment. For instance dot net does seem to leak.

I'm not a programmer, and therefore not qualified to comment on the
relative merits of programming environments. However, I have had to
deal with the multiple mutations of dot.nyet. It sucks. It's quite
common to have to uninstall all 4 mutations of dot.nyet, with a 3rd
party app, and reinstall the whole mess from scratch. I also have a
suspicion that dot.net is responsible for some bizarre application
crashes. I've seen memory leaks, but they seem to be coming from the
apps, not the libraries.

Been there, worked all sides of the argument including Apple and I'll
take Linux and Apple in that order.

I prefer Windoze, Linux, and Apple, in that order. My choice has
nothing to do with the quality of the product. It's in order of which
OS will make me money, and continue to support my decadent and lavish
lifestyle. Windoze needs help, I provide help, and therefore I make
money. At the other end, Apple users assume that if anything goes
wrong, it must be their own fault, and not that of the OS or apps.
They'll only ask for help if they're really desperate. Since I'm not
Apple approved, blessed, and authorized, I can buy parts or get inside
info. I'm also competing with AppleCare. Linux is a mix of the two.
Setting up complex SNMP monitoring and performance tuning is what pays
the bills. Dealing with hardware incompatibilities, is another Linux
favorite.

tom
K0TAR

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On 10/7/2011 4:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I'm not a programmer, and therefore not qualified to comment on the
relative merits of programming environments. However, I have had to
deal with the multiple mutations of dot.nyet. It sucks. It's quite
common to have to uninstall all 4 mutations of dot.nyet, with a 3rd
party app, and reinstall the whole mess from scratch. I also have a
suspicion that dot.net is responsible for some bizarre application
crashes. I've seen memory leaks, but they seem to be coming from the
apps, not the libraries.

And I can't say any more. Wouldn't be prudent.

tom
K0TAR

On 10/7/2011 5:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

One of my bad jokes is that I would be out of business if Microsoft
had done a better job. There's quite a bit of truth to that.

It's 100 percent true. An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account, because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines. But I digress. The people who own Windows computers that I
work on manage to feel that they have gotten a better and cheaper deal,
when in fact, by the time they have paid me for a few fixes, they have
surpassed the cost of "That pricey Apple computer". They also tend to
quote the price of some half a$$ed cheap PC and something like the 27
inch i7 iMac when comparing prices. Check ot the high end Sony all in
one, then we can talk about prices in more of an apple to apple fashion
8^) (not that you've complained about Apple prices AFAIK.

In in the professional world, no one seems to add the labor cost of the
armies of support personnel needed to keep the Windows machines running.
Adds a tad to the price.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 22:00:38 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account,

I beg to differ. In 2009, I went through some effort to compare Dell
and Apple computahs selling just before Christmas time:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mac-vs-PC.xls
Only the 13" MacBook was fairly competative with the equivalent Dell.
In all other cases, Apple was twice as expensive as Dell. I went
through considerable effort to get all the hardware as identical as
possible, but there are some discrepancies. The big one is that the
cost of the firewire port is not included in the PC pricing, because
few PC's actually use firewire. I plan to bring the spreadsheet up to
date sometime in November, when Christmas prices and goodies appear.

because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines.

Interesting. My customers problems seem to revolve around hardware
and software that was insufficiently tested and is therefore infested
with bugs. The problem is not that either was obsolete. It was that
they were permaturely released. Since whomever makes it to market
first usually wins, it's understandable.

But I digress. The people who own Windows computers that I
work on manage to feel that they have gotten a better and cheaper deal,
when in fact, by the time they have paid me for a few fixes, they have
surpassed the cost of "That pricey Apple computer". They also tend to
quote the price of some half a$$ed cheap PC and something like the 27
inch i7 iMac when comparing prices. Check ot the high end Sony all in
one, then we can talk about prices in more of an apple to apple fashion
8^) (not that you've complained about Apple prices AFAIK.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't consider paying for
repairs in advance in the form of AppleCare as a great improvement.
I'll be sure to include the 27" iMac in my comparison, but it might
not be against an overpriced Sony. Nobody else has a 27" so I'll
compare the smaller screens. Very roughly, the Apple 21.5" iMac
starts at $1200. The Dell Inspiron 2320 all-in-one with a 23" screen
starts at $950.

In in the professional world, no one seems to add the labor cost of the
armies of support personnel needed to keep the Windows machines running.
Adds a tad to the price.

I don't have much contact with IT except when they get into trouble.
As far as I can determine, most of IT consists of supporting users,
not machines. As near as I can determine, the level of user support
is about equal, whether Windoze, Mac, or Linux.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Michael Coslo wrote:
It's 100 percent true. An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account, because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines.

I'm not that sure about that. At work we still have Windows XP machines
bought in 2001, and while they are very slow they still work and can
be used e.g. as Citrix terminals or for Microsoft Office 2003.

They still receive security updates from Microsoft.

Apple machines from that era are long obsolete and receive no support
at all.

On 10/9/2011 10:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 22:00:38 -0400, Michael
wrote:

An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account,

I beg to differ. In 2009, I went through some effort to compare Dell
and Apple computahs selling just before Christmas time:


I looked at the all in one's. Dell doesn't even sell an i7, or even an
i5 Biggest they have is an i3, Don't have a 27 inch monnitor, don't have
a 1 TB hard drive. In addition the all in one Mac's have non-laptop
components.

That's the issue I was referring to, Jeff. the Mac is called "too
expensive", and it is compared to a machine that doesn't exist, so a
cheaper machine is trotted out as a comparison.

So yes, the Mac is a whole lot more expensive than a machine that is a
whole lot less capable. And infinitely more expensive than a machine
that doesn't exist.

As I said, the closest thing I found is a Sony, and it's over 2K for a
much smaller screen. Do not want.

The big one is that the
cost of the firewire port is not included in the PC pricing, because
few PC's actually use firewire. I plan to bring the spreadsheet up to
date sometime in November, when Christmas prices and goodies appear.

I do use firewire. And will use Thunderbolt. Check out the specs vs USB3.


because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines.

Interesting. My customers problems seem to revolve around hardware
and software that was insufficiently tested and is therefore infested
with bugs. The problem is not that either was obsolete. It was that
they were permaturely released. Since whomever makes it to market
first usually wins, it's understandable.

Mine tend to revolve around security issues, and updates that turn off
needed functions to "enhance" security. As I joke with them, I note that
the most secure computer is one that doesn't work any more.


But I digress. The people who own Windows computers that I
work on manage to feel that they have gotten a better and cheaper deal,
when in fact, by the time they have paid me for a few fixes, they have
surpassed the cost of "That pricey Apple computer". They also tend to
quote the price of some half a$$ed cheap PC and something like the 27
inch i7 iMac when comparing prices. Check ot the high end Sony all in
one, then we can talk about prices in more of an apple to apple fashion
8^) (not that you've complained about Apple prices AFAIK.


Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't consider paying for
repairs in advance in the form of AppleCare as a great improvement.

Don't use Applecare, and don't need it. The one issue with the bad
Rubycon caps a few years back was taken care of via recall. And that hit
many manufacturers, Dell included. I did have a server power supply go
bad once. Haven't counted the PC machines.



I'll be sure to include the 27" iMac in my comparison, but it might
not be against an overpriced Sony. Nobody else has a 27" so I'll
compare the smaller screens. Very roughly, the Apple 21.5" iMac
starts at $1200. The Dell Inspiron 2320 all-in-one with a 23" screen
starts at $950.

And there we go. I use a 27 inch Imac at work, and I don't want
another dinky screen.

As far as my outside computer support goes, I can make up that
difference in a short time. A couple service calls, and they might as
well spent the extra money on the Mac.

Or they can try the Geek Squad.


In in the professional world, no one seems to add the labor cost of the
armies of support personnel needed to keep the Windows machines running.
Adds a tad to the price.

I don't have much contact with IT except when they get into trouble.
As far as I can determine, most of IT consists of supporting users,
not machines. As near as I can determine, the level of user support
is about equal, whether Windoze, Mac, or Linux.

Windows and Mac. Windows is around 95 percent of the work. The biggest
problem on the Mac side is the permissions, a side effect of switching
to a Unix based system. If not for the Windows support, I wouldn't do
support at all (permission fixes take mere seconds. Weird situation,
since I'm actually a videographer.

but yeah, I'm entitled to my opinion, and you are entitled to yours. If
you want to compare lesser Windows machines to Mac's have at it.

I do have the experience of working a lot with both types - actually
Linux too, but only at home. A lot. 8 hours a day with the Mac, maybe 6
a day with Windows. I don't dislike one or another, but I do put a
premium on the thing working. My Mac's work a whole lot more, and allow
me to meet my deadlines much better than the Windows machines. And that
part is fact, not opinion.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -