Nice! :-) XP in VM :-) That might work ;-)
It looks like experts agree with you:""Microsoft's decision to let Windows 7 users run Windows XP applications in a virtual machine may have been necessary to convince people to upgrade, but it could also create support nightmares, analysts said today. Gartner analyst Michael Silver outlines the downsides. 'You'll have to support two versions of Windows,' he said. 'Each needs to be secured, antivirused, firewalled and patched. If a company has 10,000 PCs, that's 20,000 instances of Windows.' The other big problem Silver foresees: Making sure the software they run is compatible with Windows 7. 'This is a great Band-Aid, but companies need to heal their applications,' Silver said. 'They'll be doing themselves a disservice if, because of XPM, they're not making sure that all their apps support Windows 7.'""
Ahem.Gartner analysts to expert is what Macs are to personal computing. Glossy on the outside...
:-) I do not know about Gartner... but I can say about my MacBook Pro : on inside I have a nice h/w, probably best I had so far :-) OS X is ... well ... I will not even start to compare it with any "strain" of Windows. My CPU is 92% idle, jumping to 96% idle when I stop typing. I have several applications open now as Pages ( ~Word) and XCode ( ~VS) . I also have almost 1 G of free memory now ( of my tiny 2G RAM!) and of course I run Safari and some other crap, like widgets that say me for example CPU and weather :-)OS X is very solid inside ( UNIX) and it is also shiny. People in Apple think very hard about user experience and consistently make it better.Apple care a lot about devs: XCode is free and there are amazing tools there. Take profiler Shark that is just one of the tools: do people in MS even care about performance? They got nice and logical frameworks. Yes, you can use almost any language you like. Even C++. ( Sorry no C#/.NET in XCode yet )Snow Leopard will be 1/2 the size of Leopard and most likely even faster and it will have more cool staff. Like Crand Central - ability to write multi-core programs better. It will even support Exchange now build-in. Happy? And you remember what happens when you instal Vista after XP, right? How smaller and faster it was? Did it come with Mail client that work with Exchange? Yeah, right. :-)iLife and iWork - while very simple looking are much more superior for regular person and you can always get Office , FinalCut or Photoshop ( I did ) if you need it for some specific tasks you need. But all your basic needs are covered without fuss.There is no stupid notifications and pop ups. OS is very ... calm and responsive. It wake up and start very fast: in comparison, Windows was making me angry every day with this things: I had to stair on this craziness for many minutes ( or hours if update was pushed on my by IT) and wonder... THIS IS MY FUCKING COMPUTER. Why I can not just open it up and go about MY FUCKING business? Why MS steal my time and piss me off every single day?Yes, it can be done better. Even much better. With today h/w and decades of s/w writing. But it never was a "goal" in headquarters.I think that is Windows that try to put "shine" on top to be more like Mac ( but it looks not so good IMHO) and have smelling pile of spagety crap under the hood. Just think about it: not only legacy API in Win7, but also second old XP in VM! That is just insane :-) Will this fly? :-) Anyway, that was exactly your point, right?Hell, this blog post by itself seems to say what I said.Bottom line: if applications you need exist on Mac and your work environment does not ban you from Mac and iPhone (and you are not a member of like Gates and Balmer families) it is almost insane to not run OS X but suffer form Vista. :-)Did I say that Apple make a good h/w ?Also, just form integrity point: Apple design system and h/w and s/w works nice together. It is virtually impossible in PC world.As your gift say it: "Mac users are more satisfied with their computers". This is true :-)And no, this is not an invitation to join our camp :-)I am all for freedom and everyone should use what they like ( even if it looks masochistic from the side)So, grrrrrrr :-) Do not get me started about Mac vs PC. It is just no brannier :-)
Also, as a person who use both OS X and Windows regularly and can look on things more or less neutrally, I can actually compare platforms. I keep my mind open. ( I do not use Vista anymore, I did, but I back to XP, sorry if missed amy great things about Vista - if they was dropped after SP2 - last one I used )So, I have a full right to "compare" Mac vs. PC.PC users, that banded from using Mac by work conditions and personal stubbornness :-) can not really say anything on the issue: they are bond and do not have choice. They can not compare.It is more like fox and grapes Esop tale.:-)Past experience does not count: if you used Mac before long time ago. I would assert that in the past Windows was much nicer to developers and users alike. Windows was actually a lot of fun back than. :-)Than MS screwed up, while Apple learned a lesson.
You are, again, comparing a $500 windows laptop with a $2000 mac laptop.My $1500 windows laptop (running Server 2008) currently registers 7% CPU use as I am typing, while running 3 instances of IE, Outlook, 2 instances of Visual Studio, and 2 instances of SQL Server 2008...
7% CPU is very good. 1500$ Laptop with Probably 800$ WS 2008 ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116497) or there are less expensive versions exist? ( I think it is like 200$ in MS Store, right?). not to mention other s/w :-)No, really, you laptop is probably clean from viruses and crap ware, has "unusual" for Laptop OS :-) and probably you picked this laptop after some "research".==================While 7% is nice and on par with Mac - good job, it is not typical Windows machine.Mine Laptop and it s/w IS very typical. You will find similar % CPU numbers on any MacBook Pro laptop.Now, how typical user Vista Home laptop looks ( this 700$ 17'' HP ... ) after it got hit by very popular malware and crap - ware ... one can only wonder.I only know one thing: if it was as calm us our systems : 10% everybody would love Windows.Now, I was never able to get low CPU on WS2003 and WS2008 while on campus or at home on powerful desktops: not all the time. System would "stall" once in a while and do some thing. Some process would run. ( as idle thread of course ) from time to time. Outlook would freeze the system once in while when he sync. When I browse to network, same thing: box would "freezee" a bit. When VS stack and try to communicate with remote box for debugging: same thing: system was turning to molasses. May be it is all now fixed in WS2008 and even Win7 and life is GOOOOD!I hope so and I am happy if this is a case indeed!
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/139588/windows_server_2008_pricing_told.htmlMicrosoft also released the pricing list for the server: Windows Server 2008 Standard, $999 (with five Client Access Licenses, or CALs); Standard without Hyper-V, $971 (with five CALs); Enterprise, $3,999 (with 25 CALs); Enterprise without Hyper-V, $3,971 (with 25 CALs); Datacenter, $2,999 (per processor); Datacenter without Hyper-V, $2,971 (per processor); Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems, $2,999 (per processor); and Windows Web Server 2008, $469How much one needs to pay to have a decent OS on his 1500$ laptop? Asuming he is smart enough to configure it for desktop use and OK with not all s/w even from Microsoft run on it. iTunes will surely run, but will Zune? ( Did they "broadened" OS base they agree to install on)
Btw, talking about desktop use of WS2008. What are limitations?From what I remember1) Some s/w like very important for PC antiviruses will not install and will ask for much more expensive license ( "Server OS") - a few hundred bucks or more. I do not even know if all know recognize a WHS SKU or not yet. This is obviously not an issue for MSFT, but for regular person ill add up.2) Some s/w even from Microsoft may refuse to install. Did you hit this issue. ( I vaguely remember Zune s/w refused and some of last Media Players, also some developers products as Windows Media SDK will not install)3) Games? Will "Vista games" like Halo 2 run? Is it just works or some games will not agree to install or run? ( Yes, I know you have gaming box, but still, I wonder if you tried)
> iTunes will surely runMan, you've got to be kidding me! No reasonable person will put this on his/her computers.iTunes is what keeps preventing me from buying iPhone - not loyalty to Windows CE brand. I've heard it's much better on Macs, but on a PC it is one of the worst apps ever written...Microsoft's official internal antivirus (iTrust) does run on server, but you're right, Zune does not run on my laptop, and neither does Halo.However, because PCs are so much cheaper than Macs, I can afford separate PCs for media (which is where my Zune lives :-)), and gaming (where I play Halo - this is the only Vista machine among 12 or so PCs in my household). So I only use my laptop for development.:-)
What is so bad about iTunes? I think it is very slick in it current re-incarnation on both platforms. UI is very clean ( Apple style) and it offers both sorting and search. Like I know you prefer folders and you can keep your music in folders if you like ( uncheck Import option and iTunes will only import links to files).Like I see nothing wrong with iTunes and for iPhone it is surely work very nice and logical.I can also control it remotely from my iPhone and can tell it to play music to my AppleTV or backyard speakers ( or/and)Like ... what not to like? :-)
Btw:1) Antivirus for Windows Server - a lot of money (just like a SKU itself)2) In my household there are only 2 computers now ( both Mac) now. I do have few old PC's but they are in storage and not in use.That is EXACTLY my point:My Mac h/w cost is 2000+600 = 2600$ for 2 computers.You have 12! I bet you got expensive computers, but even if it would be 500$ ( even so they are NOT that cheap in your case and I am not even count "free MS s/w" that is NOT FREE, especially if it is SQL and Windows Server - far from it!)so it is WELL OVER 6000$ :-) ( tell me, baby, how MUCH is really these 12 boxes cost? Ah?)You see my point? :-)PC is cheap: "BUY MORE - SAVE MORE" :-)
I don't see you point. The 12 PCs that I have cost me ~12k altogether, over the years.But being 5 times more expensive than your two Macs they are at least two orders of magnitude more powerful. And they are also play far bigger role in the household than your two Macs.
Here's an antivirus for Server for 36 bucks, by the way.http://shop.ca.com/business/antivirus/antivirus_1yvm.aspx
I gave up! :-) while we jumped from low cost to 'role' or function of your server farm;-) ( that I dig, btw) I just fail to show you the obviose :-) people who have eyes will see and there is nothing unusual in having a dedicated computer to just play Halo ;-) of course, why?;-)
Post a Comment