November 2007 Archives
Don Reisinger, the CNet News journalist who said that Microsoft should abandon Vista, is back with another article about Vista called "Vista won't be abandoned so here's how to fix it". I agree with about 90% of what he says...especially when he recommends that Microsoft go open-source with Windows.
I'm not so sure about the idea of bringing Windows online though. I think before Microsoft considers that, they really need to step back and consider reinventing themselves.
The architecture of Windows hasn't really changed all that much in over 10 years. We still have the registry, drive letters, DLL hell, and other areas that simply don't make sense anymore. With the need for more semantically structured systems and so much going online, Windows simply needs to change to reflect the times and pave a new path for the future.
An "open sauce" version of Windows would certainly be a step in the right direction, but I think Microsoft needs to go a step further and redo Windows from the ground up. They should consider following in the footsteps of Apple and base a new version of Windows on a Unix or Linux kernel. Open sourcing it after that would have effects of an immense proportion.
CNet recently posted an article saying that Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmark tests. So much so that in some tests Windows XP with a beta version of Service Pack 3 had twice the performance of Windows Vista on the same hardware. That's staggering and, quite frankly, unacceptable by any measure. As an IT professional, I expect any new OS to have marginal improvements over the prior OS. In the case of Vista, I expected that it might not perform quite as well as XP due to the extra overhead. But a few percentage points is different than a whole bunch of percentage points...especially when it as much as a 50% drop in performance!
Now, with that mind, consider your average customer walking into a Best Buy to buy a cheap desktop or laptop. All they want is something that works and costs less than a $1,000. They don't want your service plan, they don't want any bells and whistles, they basically just want a cheap-ass computer. But is it worth buying a sub-$1,000 computer? What kind of hassles does the unsuspecting buyer have awaiting for them? One word: Vista!
"When you see a cheap laptop, you're seeing one that almost certainly has a gigabyte or less RAM and some kind of embedded graphics chip like an Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 with 8MB to 64MB dynamically allocated shared graphics memory. Vista really requires 2GB before it becomes usable, and there's no point in even trying to run Vista's Aero interface with that low level of graphical horsepower, or perhaps I should say ponypower." [Cheap Laptops Bad for Vista, Good for Linux]
Yep! It's any wonder why anyone would want to use Vista on a cheap computer. When CNet UK puts Windows Vista on their top ten terrible tech products list you know you've got trouble. And CNet isn't the only one...many other IT professionals have expressed their discontent for Windows Vista and recommend holding off as long as possible before adopting the OS.
So what other options do buyers have? Best advice is that if you must purchase a sub-$1,000 computer, consider installing a flavor of Linux like Ubuntu. Granted, you won't be able to run a lot of the off-the-shelf software but you will get a very solid and capable OS. If you absolutely must have Windows then you're only other option is to purchase a copy of Windows XP, which could likely set you back another $100 or so. Your other option is to spend a little more and get something like an Apple MacBook, which start at about a $1,000 and give you a lot more bang for the buck.
When you're buying a computer, you're not just buying a product...you're buying a solution! Don't settle for just good enough. Take time out to explore all your options. You'll be much happier in the long run! :)
After writing my previous blog post about Hillary Clinton a lot of thoughts came to mind. I realize that simply saying that Hillary Clinton sucks because she screwed Stan Lee over isn't much of a reason. As such, I figure that giving more concrete reasons as to why I think Hillary Clinton should not be President is in order if, for anything, clearing my mind of a little clutter.
What our country needs more than anything is leadership, a source of inspiration, and a voice of the people. A leader is more than just someone who can give you an answer; rather is someone who will find the answer. No candidate will give you all the answers you are looking for, but if there is someone who can inspire people to rise to the occasion and come up with a winning solution...that is a true leader.
I also feel that it is unwise to vote on someone strictly on the issues. It is dangerous to vote on the basis of a specific issue. There are tons of really important issues right now: the Iraq war, immigration reform, health care, social security reform, taxes, global warming, and many, many other issues. Part of the reason we are in the mess we're in is due to the fact that too many people vote on the basis of a particular issue. Many of these issues are subject to personal beliefs (pro-life, pro-choice, pro-guns, pro-inhale, pro-this, pro-that, etc.).
Another dangerous way to vote is by straight-party ticket. Regardless of whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or for an independent party, you can't tell me that every candidate exemplifies what that party represents. If the candidates do not represent your party properly then you need to do something; change parties, vote for someone else, convince your party to endorse someone else, anything! Just don't vote a straight-party ticket and assume that your party is doing everything they can to represent you!
The other reason we're in this mess is because not enough people vote. France has, on average, an 80-85% or more voter turn-out. What's our average? 30 -40%! Pathetic by comparison! Why is that? Honestly...I don't know. If I had to guess though it is probably because a lot of people have no faith or trust in our government. Many people believe that our government is run by corporations, lobbyists, and corrupt politicians. There appears to be a tremendous amount of distrust in our government. That is something that needs to change and the only way to do it is to get people out to vote. We need to convince people that their vote matters and they are responsible for their government. That is the only way we can promote the kind of change that our country needs.
So what makes a good leader? USA Today has an older article that asks that very question. One specific point that I found interesting was this one: To become a leader, you must know yourself first. Ask yourself: Out of all the Presidential candidates, which one has the appearance of being very comfortable in their own shoes? Are there candidates that clearly have a hard time showing their true selves?
Another point that has a lot of truth in it: Leadership cannot be achieved in isolation. If our country continues to be divided then true change will never occur. We must work together and act together to promote change. That is why it is so important that we be very careful on how we vote for the next leader of our nation.
Some of the best leaders we've ever had were good problem solvers. Think about the best bosses you've ever had. Was it because they were charming and friendly? Not likely. For me, the best bosses I've ever had were the ones who were good problem solvers. They may not have had all the experience in the world nor were they the most knowledgeable, but they made up for it because they simply knew how to solve problems and they inspired others to help them solve those problems.
So, why should Hillary Clinton NOT be our next President of the United States? Because she does not exemplify what a true leader should be. She does not have the commanding presence, dignity, honesty, and/or passion that truly good leaders should have. There has been way too many instances where her integrity and honesty have come into question, too many times when some form of a political scandal has been released to the press. I feel that most of her responses on the issues feel pre-written, boilerplate responses. I just don't hear her saying anything that makes me feel that she is a good problem solver. And I just don't feel any passion from her that suggests to me that she would be a good leader for the nation nor that she would inspire our nation to change.
As much as I would like to see the first woman President, I'm sorry, Hillary Clinton is just not that woman. If a woman is to be President of the United States, that woman needs to be a leader...not a caricature of what we think a woman leader should be. Regardless of whether a candidate is a man, woman, black, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim, or whatever race, color, creed, and/or religion you can possibly criticize a candidate on, I want a true leader! So, again, setting differences aside, regardless of the issues and/or political affiliation, Hillary Clinton is just not the leader we need.
We need someone who is truthful and sincere...not someone who only says things to be politically correct and what you want to hear. We don't need someone who does things for political and/or financial gain...we need someone who will do things for the benefit of the American people. We need a leader! A leader who represents us, the people! Not corporations! Not lobbyists! Not special interest groups! For the people, by the people! I expect no less than that!
Did that headline get your attention? Good! Yes, it's true, the book "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" has the word nigger in it! Now, before you go nuts and yell "RACISM" on me, finish reading my post...
A couple of weeks or so ago, I opened up the weekend edition of USA Today and read an article entitled School apologizes after 'Finn' lesson backfires. After reading it, I was pissed. Go read the article and maybe you'll see what I mean.
In a nutshell, a teacher was preparing the class to read "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by going over various racial slurs in the book. One particular student, a black student, was offended by one of the words that the teacher had written on the blackboard. The word was (you guessed it!) nigger. [And, no, I am not going to substitute this word for "the N-word" or the like! A word is just a word and doesn't have any meaning unless it's put into context. More on this in a second.]
The teacher "badgered" Mohamed after denying his request to remove the slur from the chalkboard or change it to the "N-word," and she continued to say the word during class, said his mother, Tunya Mohamed. The teen said that he felt singled out when the teacher asked whether the word offended him and that she told him, "'It hurts, doesn't it?"'
Now, I'm going to give the kid the benefit of the doubt cause I can understand how a young kid can feel singled out when they are the only black kid in the class, especially given the subject matter. However, I don't think the teacher was being maliced and pointing a finger at him. I think she was merely making him and everyone else in the class understand that these slurs can hurt people if taken out of the wrong context.
But wait! There's more:
Birdville Superintendent Stephen Waddell agreed to issue a written apology to the teen and his family and arrange sensitivity training for faculty, said Thomas Muhammad, spokesman of a group called Coalition to Stop the N-Word.
Coalition to Stop the N-Word? Wha??? Sensitivity training? Are they serious?
So the school officials, the student, his parents and members of the coalition have a meeting, the book is removed from the class, the kid enrolls in a different English class, and all is well. Right? Wrong!
"We are here today to say we will not tolerate the N-word being used by any educators anywhere in any school district throughout our region or the state of Texas," said Ron Price, a Dallas school board member who attended the meeting. "It's critical that we examine all of our textbooks to ensure that the language is proper and that the language is not being used to abuse any child in any public school."
This is taking the issue way overboard. What next? Are we going to remove the word bitch too from every textbook and novel? Cause my wife doesn't like being called that and she certainly won't want her children to be exposed to that word! Hell, why stop there! Might as well bring back book burning while we're at it!
Look, you can't remove every stinky word from every textbook or novel a student might read; that just isn't any common sense. Teachers don't need any sensitivity training and students don't need baby sitting when it comes to the words they could potentially read or hear. There just isn't any sensitive way of exposing a student to slur words.
"The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is a part of American history. Like it or not, white people used to refer to black people as niggers. As far as I'm concerned the teacher did the right thing. She wrote all the slur words, including nigger, on the black board and said, "Here are the words you're going to see in this book and here's what they meant during the 1800's". There are plenty of teacher's guides and comments about this very thing. As Minnie Phillips on Time.com says:
Thirty years after first teaching the novel in my American literature class at Webster Groves High School in suburban St. Louis, Mo., I've decided the novel is not about race but about freedom.
Does this book really call for any special attention? A word in and of itself isn't bad. It's the racist son-of-a-bitch who uses the word that you should really be worried about. But this book isn't about race...it's about freedom and it's a part of our history. I think our students can handle it. History is history. Get over it!
I recently spoke with a co-worker who has a friend who works for Microsoft. We talked a bit about the problems associated with Windows Vista. The problem, according to my co-worker's friend, is drivers; manufacturers simply have not written good, solid drivers for Windows Vista. Which brings to mind a quote that the Macalope made on a recent blog post:
Hey, the Macalope doesn't do it often, but he will give Microsoft credit for one thing: what it does to get Windows running on all those different machines is a pain in the ass. It's no wonder Apple doesn't want to get into that.
Indeed, getting Windows to run right on every machine is indeed a pain in the ass. So I wonder...how much access do developers have to the innards of Windows that allow them to make all these device drivers work? Do they get any source code of Windows itself? Microsoft does make a Windows Driver Kit available to developers, but there is no mention of any source code available. My guess is that developers are given all the documentation about hooks, API's, and such into the OS and are given tools to test the integrity of the code written for a driver but none of the actual source code within Windows that would allow developers an insight into how their drivers will interact with Windows.
Take a video card driver for Vista, for instance. Given the complexity of the new Windows Display Driver Model in Vista, DirectX 10, the requirement for some drivers to be digitally signed, as well as the DRM placed on the video subsystem, a lot can go wrong very quickly. Multiply that complexity out to how many different models of Vista certified video cards there are and you'll realize very quickly what the problem is.
The debate on whether an open platform is better than a closed platform is a subject that will forever be debated. And it's not just a Mac vs. PC thing. On the PC front, you have Windows and you have Linux...both very distinct OS's with different philosophies as well. Your choice of Windows, Linux, or Mac is entirely dependent on your needs and what you want to get out of it. I've dabbled in all of them with most of my experience being on Windows. But over the years I've learned what the benefits are to each OS.
The difference between Windows and Linux is that Windows is a closed system whereas Linux is an open one. The benefit of Linux here is that you have the opportunity to tweak any part of the OS that is causing you problems by rebuilding and compiling the source code, which in turn leads to more stability. That's not something you can do so easily with Windows.
The difference in a Mac versus Windows and Linux is that the Mac is a platform, a combination of software and hardware, and one that is semi-open. I say semi-open because the Mac OS does have a lot of open-source components under the hood. It is based on Unix and does have things like Samba, Apache, and other popular open-source software driving part if its functionality. Apple has chosen to retain control of the hardware in an effort to provide the greatest degree of stability for their OS. The downside to this is that you don't have as much choice in the way of hardware, which for some is a deal breaker.
So depending on what you want to do will depend on what OS you choose...
There are plenty of other reasons to use Windows, both for personal and business use. Windows has captured about 90% of the desktop market and continues to be the most used operating system. Familiarity and availability of software have continued to make it the number one operating system in the world. Because of that most people consider it the default and thus other operating systems are not even considered.
Many people consider Windows the defacto standard for enterprise use. However, the gap is narrowing and the use of other alternative operating systems are being explored. So this particular point could very well be moot in short order.
If you're a gamer, of course Windows will be your platform of choice. DirectX-based games pretty much rule the roost in the gaming world and thus neither a Mac or a Linux-based PC can supplant this.
Someone who has a really old PC and simply doesn't want to spend any money on it might try the Ubuntu flavor of Linux. It's a great way to breath new life into an old PC and at least get basic internet access, e-mail, and office applications. Other PC hobbyists might enjoy the level of customization and freedom that other Linux distributions provide.
By far the greatest use of Linux is for server purposes. Many small businesses who wish to have a server but don't want to spend a whole lot of money on both hardware and software licenses can choose to buy a cheap server and throw a copy of Linux on it. It's cheap, stable, and does the job. As a web server, Linux is a great OS to host a PHP/MySQL-based website using Apache.
Apple's Macintosh platform is as much as a hardware platform as it is an operating system platform. The two really go hand in hand and thus it's hard to draw on comparisons with PC's. With new Macs being Intel-based, technically speaking you could say that a Mac is a PC...especially if you consider the fact that you can install Windows on an Intel-based Mac. Right now, the Mac is probably the best alternative solution to a PC and Windows and is most targeted towards the home user. That doesn't mean that a Mac couldn't be used for business use though. In fact, Apple's servers are as robust as their desktops and are great for the small business who wants to adopt Mac's and doesn't want to pay for any in-house IT staff.
For the average home user, I think a Mac is the best solution. With all the hassles associated with viruses, spyware, and maintenance on a Windows-based PC, I feel that a lot of home users would benefit greatly from a Mac because virtually none of those hassles exist on a Mac. Plus, most of the software that people typically use is available for the Mac so there is some familiarity there that people can latch on to. With the sheer easy of use and availability of software tools for managing and editing photos, videos, and music, the Mac is a great computer for the average Joe.
I used to be a Windows guy...still am because of my job. But at home I'm more of a Mac guy. I also use Linux quite a bit for web development purposes. The main takeaway from this is that there isn't a one size fits all solution. As much as I would like to say that the Mac is the perfect solution for everyone and everything, it just ain't. Same applies to Windows and Linux. But I do recommend that you take a serious look at each solution and weigh your options. The default may no longer be the best option for you. Think about what you do when you buy a car. A little research goes a long way in determining what will work the best for you and, in the long run, allows you to make the best, most educated decision. Why should your computer be any different?
There are people in the world who think they are right and no matter how many times you tell them, no matter how much evidence you put in front of them, they are never wrong. Kind of like the people who think the holocaust never happened. Or that dinosaurs never existed. Or that global warming is a hoax. Even with all evidence pointing to the contrary, some people won't budge and will point blank tell you that you're wrong.
Yesterday I posted a rebuttal to a blog post made on Calloftheday.net. His reaction, shall we say, was expected and only proves my point...that no matter how you point out to someone they are wrong, they still insist they are right:
Now, as some of you already know, I screen all comments before they’re posted. This is mainly because about 30% of the comments I get in are just people trying to advertise their own sites. About 69% is dedicated to porn spam. (69, geddit? I’ll get my coat). About 1% are actually comments.
I have no doubt that you get spam and that a lot of the comments you receive are complete shit. However, I have no doubt in my mind that my initial comment was within the 1% you claim are actually comments...which goes back to my initial question on why it wasn't posted in the first place.
What your original post actually contained was along the lines of “HAI GUISE, WHATS GOIN ON IN THIS THREAD!�, and then threw a link back to your own website.
No, my original post was along the lines of "GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!". I didn't throw a link to my site until after the fact. I took some time to write a solid, well thought out response to your post and, well, it didn't get posted. What did you think my response would be? If you were screening posts and saw my first initial post, why didn’t you go ahead and post it? What was it about my initial post you didn’t like?
Like I said, your “response� was simply a direct link back to your own website. If you want to argue, feel free to do it directly. Now, I’m only going to say this once - to all further mac hatemail, please examine the following closely;
Otherwise, your comment wont get posted. And the Almighty Jeff will hate me. And the whole world will come to a fucking standstill.
Umm...right...so stupid is as stupid does, right?
Look, I don’t care whether you agree or disagree with my opinions or anyone else’s for that matter. Whether you’re a Mac user, a PC user, a gamer, you hate Macs, you think Microsoft is the devil, or whatever the hell you believe…it doesn’t matter one iota! However, what does matter is that you get the facts straight. I’m not a MacIdiot, a Mac fanboy, or any like that. This is not a PC vs. Mac thing. This is a “Get your facts straight� thing. If you’re going to argue and create a flame war, you better have your facts straight.
So I saw this Digg post yesterday that linked to a blog post of a system comparison between a Mac Pro and a high-end gaming PC. Here's the specs of the PC he was talking about:
Asus P5E3 Deluxe Socket-775 Motherboard Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 @ 3GHz 2GB DDR3 Ram @ 1333mhz 2x 1TB Hard Drives @ 7200rpm EVGA GeForce 8800Ultra (768MB) Graphics Card Samsung 24″ LCD Syncmaster Display Creative SB X-Fi Elite Pro sound card D-Link draft-802.11n Wireless Adapter Windows Vista Premium 700W Power supply & NorthQ 2500 Chasis Subtotal: $6019.18
Not bad, right? Looks like a pretty solid configuration for any gaming PC. Now, let's look at the specs he presented for the Mac Pro:
“Bundled� iLife software Dual-Core Intel Xeon Processor @ 3.0ghz 2GB DDR2 Ram 500GB 7200rpm Hard Drive Nvidia Quatro FX 4500 (512meg) Graphics Card 20″ LCD Display 16x CD/DVD-RW Drive AirPort Wireless Card Mac OSX Leopard Standard Chassis Subtotal: $6,102.00
The author went on to say this:
There, you still save just over $80, and the Windows PC is now about three times more powerful than the Macintosh. Thus leading back to my original point, iThings cost 300% more than normal things. Or are 300% less powerful than normal things. Take your pick.
Umm...300% Right. Do you see any flaws in the comparison of these two systems? I do! And when I did, I tried to post a very honest, very open counter-point to his argument. One commenter felt that the author's points are bastardized. So here's what my response was:
Bastardized? Not just that, but irresponsible as well! Here's the problem...your comparison is waaaaay off and not fair by a longshot.
Let's take the processors for example. A dual-care Intel Xeon is a different processor from a Intel Core 2 Extreme, one is designed for servers and workstations and the other for gamers. Yeah, they cost the same...but here's the catch...Apple gives you two dual-core Xeon processors for the price of your single Core 2 Extreme! In fact, you don't have a choice...Apple won't sell you a Mac Pro with just one Xeon processor! How's that for value?
Next, the video cards. Another one that is waaay off! In no way can an nVidia GeForce 8800 Ultra compare to a Quadro FX 4500! The GeForce is a gaming card and the Quadro is a precision graphics card. Just like the processors, two video cards for two completely different applications. Hell, the Quadro card in and off itself is over $1600! Yeah, they're expensive...and there's a reason for it. You don't want to use a card that is built for gaming and risk it screwing up a very important rendering job on a CAD project.
If you buy a Mac Pro without the Quadro card and stick with the default NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB card, you can get it for about $4400. At that price, I can go out and buy a 8800 Ultra off the shelf and still save over $1000!
Now, go to HP's website and configure a xw6400 or xw8400 workstation with the same specs as a Mac Pro. Why the workstation? Because you can't buy a consumer-line computer with a Xeon! What you'll find is that Apple undercuts the competition a bit. Yeah...believe it or not, they are actually cheaper than the competition! Dell may or may not be more expensive but, even then, it won't be by much.
The point is this isn't a fair comparison and you need to get your facts straight. Can a Mac Pro be a good gaming computer? Absolutely...but you may have to customize it a bit to get what you want out of it. But that's not why people buy Mac Pros. People buy Mac Pros because they want the fastest, most powerful Mac to do high- end stuff like video editing and graphics.
And on that note, the other thing is that with a Mac I can still run Windows. You can talk about the high points of Windows Vista all you want but I will still prefer Mac OS X Leopard over it any day. And the cool thing is that I have my own copy of Windows XP and can boot natively into it any time I want and play a game or two. With a PC, you're stuck...you have no choice unless you use a Linux distro as your primary OS...which, ironically, isn't so bad! I use both SuSE and Ubuntu on a few PC's myself. ;)
I've been a Windows user for the better part of 12 years since Windows 95 came out. For me to say I prefer a Mac over a Windows-based PC is saying a lot. I used to be an ASP/ASP.NET developer and got very frustrated with all the problems I was having. Switched to PHP and a Mac and am a lot happier. :)
To end my comments, just remember this...the Mac is a platform. You can't compare it to a PC on hardware alone. What makes a Mac a Mac is the combination of the hardware AND the software. That's a very important distinction and one that will give a much fairer comparison between the two.
Hope these comments are enlightening. :D
Jeff
My response was not posted at all. In fact, just about any opposing viewpoints were deleted from the comments as well. It seems that the author does not want to hear it which is foolish. The fact that the author does not allow for this proves that he is ignorant and stupid, the two very things I abhor.
The whole point I was trying to make is that before you go and make the kind of claims you are trying to make, do yourself a favor and make sure that you get your facts straight. If you're going to make a bold statement about something like this, you better have the facts to back it up.
I've used every major operating system that is out there: Windows, Linux, and Mac. I've built a few of my own gaming PCs and I'm an IT Administrator. I do know a thing or two about hardware and the cost of it. I order workstations all the time for the architectural firm I work for. My opinion is a highly educated opinion based on real-world experience.
The gentleman who made this blog post is a moron. Until he has spent a significant amount of time using a Mac, he and any of the other visitors who have made bogus comments have no right to criticize something they know nothing about. If you are a gamer then great...stick to a gaming PC. But don't try to make comparisons like this and then dismiss any hardcore facts...you only make yourself look like a f$%ing idiot!
