I only use Macs in my home. I won't allow my family to use PC's because I don't really want to spend all of my time working on that computer every couple months. I'd much rather set up a Mac and let my kids and family use that so I don't have to always be doing something with it so it will work.
I'm not really sure why die-hard PC users don't get that. Perhaps it's because they haven't had to support them enough in their own lives??? I'm not talking about support them as part of their work. Obviously the more the computers don't work, the more likely they have a job.
I'm talking more about setting up a computer for someone else to use. Once you do it (normally you end up doing it for free) you don't really want to have to take it back every few months because something isn't working properly. I especially like the ones that say something like, "Program 'X' isn't working any more because every time I do 'Y', 'Z' happens". In reality, most of the time the cause has nothing to do with program 'X' or either the behavior that is 'Y' and 'Z'.
Regardless of the problem, this is the absolutely infallible reality that will inevitably befall a Windows PC destined for use inside a home. And to Microsoft's credit, when this happens, many home users just go out and buy a new computer since the cost of 'fixing' the problem would cost more than just simply buying a new one at Costco.
So my Question really isn't about Microsoft or their operating system. I just wanted to pose the question as to whether or not Leopard is really that big of a deal? I like Tiger and all of the iterations that came before. I think the functionality of Leopard is pretty nice, too, but is Leopard a great big deal or just a small upgrade?
The funny thing about the question, however, is that even with the changes that Leopard provides the consumers, it's still better than the jump from XP to Vista. I'm not sure how long the development process for Leopard took, but I'm sure it's a lot less than the 5 plus years of Vista. And Vista isn't something I've really seen any where (except on display at Costco). I know some Vendors are having a bang up job just removing Vista installs on OEM PC's and installing XP SP2 instead.
I don't really blame Microsoft. For as much as I don't like their operating systems, XP is a decent product. At least before my family starts using it.
4 comments:
The reason I'm using PCs as opposed to Macs is the cost. Yes, I do understand that PC ownership does have hidden costs but the upfront costs are minimal.
I bought a system for nephews with XP and i got it for under 300. Kids like installing junk on computers and I've had to wipe the HD and reinstall XP 3 or 4 times.
It's not a problem for me but it's not really fair to expect every family to have a "free tech support" person.
I will probably continue using low-end PCS for internet surfing but I'm looking at Ubuntu install of Windows XP.
Ubuntu is a great choice for surfing and email... If your kids are doing things like Webkinz, they can do that just perfectly fine on Ubuntu, also... Nice comments! I understand the cost thing. I've only ever bought used macs. The price is pretty much the same as a PC. IF you buy a used mac (6 months old) you'll get pretty much a brand new machine at a PC price... My last mac was a mini and it cost $450. I already had a monitor and keyboard/mouse for it.
Sure Apple is better but it still runs on a MACH micro-kernel.
Jay
Which should be used?
A micro-kernel is highly portable, easily scalable and very secure. This security comes at the price of speed though. The monolithic kernel isn’t as secure, but is always faster. Micro-kernels tend to be slower (from 50% in the worst case to only 10% in the best case) than the more integrated monolithic kernel. So, it ultimately comes down to which is more important, security and stability, or speed?
Why should I care?
As I mentioned previously, Apple currently uses the Mach micro-kernel. This is a result of Jobs turning NextStep into OS X and in the process keeping what was under the hood. However a big proponent of the Mach kernel, Avie Tevanian, is no longer with Apple. As a result Apple might switch to the same monolithic kernel that most Linux distros use. This would be a tremendous change in the way OS X operates. If Apple does make the switch then they will enjoy a nice boost in speed. It is possible that when 10.6 or 10.7 comes around then Jobs will announce the change. I don’t think they would have enough time to squeeze it into 10.5, but I could be wrong. That would be just like Jobs to announce a kernel change along with a new chip from Intel that would drastically boost OS X’s speed. It could happen sooner than we think.
Post a Comment