| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:59:11 -0800, Kurt Albershardt
wrote: IE: What is the maximum hard disk data xfer speed on each? Depends on the hard disk chosen more than anything else. The newest generation of Seagate (Barracuda 7200.8) drives are the current speed leaders in 7200 RPM drives. The 10,000 RPM WD Raptor is even faster--but limited to 74 gB, hot, and noisy. Man, I like these drives. After years of avoiding Seagate, I am back. I converted almost all my drives to the new Barracuda's. They are fast, cheap, trouble free and dead quiet. Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10 @/ |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Pick the software that suits your needs and workflow pattern best. Pick the OS that runs that SW. Pick the hardware that runs that OS. And that's the totality of the story. -- ha |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
When I say "application" I don't mean software application, I mean a
situation where it matters. Like a real world "application". For example, are you going to be doing a full orchestra 96 tracks to disk at 192kHz all while slaved to two 3348 machines and locked to a DoReMi video machine? Because for most people's real world "applications" on a modern computer, the platform doesn't make a difference as long as the operator is familiar enough with the OS and software. Cheers, Trevor de Clercq Chip Borton wrote: Trevor de Clercq wrote: What kind of application are you going to be doing that any of this makes a difference? How about Pro Tools since most are familiar with it and it has both a mac and pc version. The average high-end PC and the average high-end Mac are both going to be good enough for almost anything if you know how to use the machine properly (and someone's written a good piece of software for it). Agreed, they are both good enough ... |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message love to have a Mac and they're great computers and look cool, I think they look contrived and wanky. geoff |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
S O'Neill wrote: Chip Borton wrote: Ok, I probably shouldnt be jumping on this thread so don't kill me to bad for asking but ... So far it seems that most of the posts in this thread (and other discussions too) are very subjective answers as to why this or that is better. Can someone really define what is better about one platform or the other (aside from reliability issues which is also debatable). IE: What is the maximum hard disk data xfer speed on each? Is there really a difference in the quality/speed of the video? Can one handle more plug ins than the other? What is "Core Audio" and what actually is going on under the hood? What benchmarks have been done for each realating to audio? Etc. Etc. IOW, lets see some numbers and hard data, instead of "I like the case better" or "I think xyz is better" Lets put pricing/personal preference aside and compare raw data if there is any. There are so many variables in that you'll never be able to answer with numbers. A G4 at 0.933 GHz runs about as fast as a 1.6 GHz P4. So which is better? The Mac is still far more stable. I've been forced to reinstall Windows about eight times to, ah, zero times for OSX. Lots of little crap on Windows (I mean NT, XP, 2000, *and* 2003; ME and 9x lose hands down) just plain doesn't work right, and it varies what that may be from day to day or machine to machine; I finally just learned to grin and call it "entertainment" when Windows pulls some new stupid ****. I even got my parents a Mac because I was tired of the weekly phone calls (their first computer ran CP/M, never got support calls for that, either). I keep all my machines running well. My Macs altogether involve far less maintenance time than either of the Windows machines I have left. And Macs have a longer useful life, as OS upgrades don't slow the machine down nearly as much. Also, OSX doesn't develop gremlins over time, like Windows does. Neither platform is perfect, but there's just no contest. Maybe my disgust results from having to produce software that's more reliable than Windows is; if your software costs $2k per seat, folks just don't want to hear "it's a well-known Windows problem" when their equipment fails. YMMV if you keep your eyes closed. The only advantage Windows has over OSX is that its users desperately want it to be as good, and it's not. I have plenty of examples to support all this, but I really wanted to stay out of the debate, and I'll get flamed for this as it is. Sometimes I feel like a reformed smoker talking to a cigar club. You obviously don't know as much about Windows as you do about Macs. I know a lot about Windows, and therefore never have to reinstall it, let alone eight times. I know nothing about Macs and I don't conjecture about how reliable they are. But I do know that PCs can be 100% reliable when deployed by people who know what they are doing. There are many, many major banks and other institutions running on the Windows/Intel platform providing services far more financially important than ****ant amounts like $2K/seat. They wouldn't be doing this if Windows blew up periodically or "developed gremlins over time". The answer to your question is: just go get one and figure it out for yourself. Or don't; it's your choice. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Trevor de Clercq wrote:
When I say "application" I don't mean software application, I mean a situation where it matters. Like a real world "application". For example, are you going to be doing a full orchestra 96 tracks to disk at 192kHz all while slaved to two 3348 machines and locked to a DoReMi video machine? Because for most people's real world "applications" on a modern computer, the platform doesn't make a difference as long as the operator is familiar enough with the OS and software. Ok, I got ya... missed the train of thought. Yes I see what your saying. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
But I do know that PCs can be 100% reliable when deployed by
people who know what they are doing. There are many, many major banks and other institutions running on the Windows/Intel platform providing services far more financially important get the machine for the job. audio data is different from financial data plus they have IT departments (there is more job security and larger workforce when running windows) dale |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Frank Vuotto wrote: Last week I had a MAC ONLY client (has never touched a PC) tell me that 'Mac isn't just a computer, it's a way of life'. I believe him. It's a tool to perform tasks. I bet the power drill people are really partial to their tool, too. That, said, I have four Macs, and I'll be buying my fifth soon. |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jonny Durango wrote: "Mac people" are the religious fundamentalist whackos for the computer world.....won't be long til they start bombing intel factories heh I doubt it. The way I look at it, I'll buy what I want, with my money. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Karl Winkler wrote: Apple cultivates a cult-like following. So does VW, Porche, BMW, Corvette, Coca Cola, and thousands of other brands. Karl Winkler Lectrosonics, Inc. Neumann, Lectrosonics. ; ) |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jay Kadis wrote: In article . com, wrote: [snip] I know nothing about Macs and I don't conjecture about how reliable they are. But I do know that PCs can be 100% reliable when deployed by people who know what they are doing. And Macs can be 100% reliable in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing. Maybe that's the difference? Maybe so, though I doubt that any tool can be 100% reliable in the hands of an idiot. This would, in any event, be consistent with Apple's marketing strategy, which is aimed at the category of people who describe themselves as "creative" and are described by IT folk as "technically incompetent". -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
dale wrote: But I do know that PCs can be 100% reliable when deployed by people who know what they are doing. There are many, many major banks and other institutions running on the Windows/Intel platform providing services far more financially important get the machine for the job. audio data is different from financial data It's all 1's and 0's. plus they have IT departments (there is more job security and larger workforce when running windows) dale So you're saying that: (1) if we used Apple Mac's as servers for financial applications we would save on personnel costs; and (2) the people running the financial institutions are not interested in saving money (1) is simply wrong (Apple doesn't make a server and isn't even in this market) (2) is risible. In any case, a Unix box is more reliable than a PC or a Mac. But PC's are used for applications that the world considers far more important than anything that a Mac is used for. This isn't to say that a PC is better than a Mac for recording music. My own advice, when asked, is: (1) If you have the budget for full-blown ProTools, and music is your full-time profession, then get it, because you'll get more work by being compatible with the major studios (2) If you don't have this amount of investment, then buy the computer you know how to use, and buy software that will run on it. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Geoff Wood wrote:
I think they look contrived and wanky. You think a G4 laptop looks like that? I think it's about the most minimalist, uncontrived, cleanly presented laptop I've seen, even sweeter thatn the Sony and Dell copycat-looking models that quickly followed the TiBooks. -- ha |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dale" writes:
yeah sometimes sharing a firewire bus is not happening for audio/video. metric halo says if you want to run an external harddrive firewire with their MIO, you need to do just that. seems all firewire ports are on the same buss, by adding a new card for firewire, you have a new buss. Has nothing to do with sharing; all of my firewire is running off the new card now. The built-in bus was just broken. Twice. mac is not perfect..... it is just another computer, but a better built one. Have you got reliability stats? I love Macs, but I also believe there's a great deal of mythology flying around here. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jay Kadis wrote:
huwgareth [snip] I know nothing about Macs and I don't conjecture about how reliable they are. But I do know that PCs can be 100% reliable when deployed by people who know what they are doing. And Macs can be 100% reliable in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing. Maybe that's the difference? That certainly can be a difference. A gal hereabouts ran the local arts commission for almost _seven years_ on an SE30 with a grpahics card in it. It started to slow down while printing and such and all her potential "IT" folks told her it was because Macs were crap. Mind you, not a one of them had ever _used_ a Mac. I asked her how long it had been since she'd rebuilt the desktop directories. She replied, "What's that?" Once done the SE30 went back to working as if it was new again. -- ha |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Apple doesn't make a server? What? Let me introduce to you to X-Serve:
http://www.apple.com/xserve/ If you want a RAID array, they make that, too: http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/ Cheers, Trevor de Clercq wrote: dale wrote: But I do know that PCs can be 100% reliable when deployed by people who know what they are doing. There are many, many major banks and other institutions running on the Windows/Intel platform providing services far more financially important get the machine for the job. audio data is different from financial data It's all 1's and 0's. plus they have IT departments (there is more job security and larger workforce when running windows) dale So you're saying that: (1) if we used Apple Mac's as servers for financial applications we would save on personnel costs; and (2) the people running the financial institutions are not interested in saving money (1) is simply wrong (Apple doesn't make a server and isn't even in this market) (2) is risible. In any case, a Unix box is more reliable than a PC or a Mac. But PC's are used for applications that the world considers far more important than anything that a Mac is used for. This isn't to say that a PC is better than a Mac for recording music. My own advice, when asked, is: (1) If you have the budget for full-blown ProTools, and music is your full-time profession, then get it, because you'll get more work by being compatible with the major studios (2) If you don't have this amount of investment, then buy the computer you know how to use, and buy software that will run on it. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:46:36 +0000, wrote
(in article . com): So you're saying that: (1) if we used Apple Mac's as servers for financial applications we would save on personnel costs; and (2) the people running the financial institutions are not interested in saving money (1) is simply wrong (Apple doesn't make a server and isn't even in this market) Apple does make a server * the XServe * and has done since 2002. http://www.apple.com/xserve/ John -- yorkio65 at yahoo dot co dot uk |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
huwgar
In any case, a Unix box is more reliable than a PC or a Mac. But PC's are used for applications that the world considers far more important than anything that a Mac is used for. the current mac OS from X on is unix based Panther is unix based apple gui (2) If you don't have this amount of investment, then buy the computer you know how to use, and buy software that will run on it. if you are going to invest money do the research and find a high quality product. your chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. if you are being "cost effective" buy comparing startup cost, ie how much it cost per unit... me, I buy the tool that will give me a long life, buy one good tool and treat it right. buy the cheapest tool and you will be replacing it every few years. (2) the people running the financial institutions are not interested in saving money that is why they buy windows, pc's cost less per unit and then they need IT departments and all you know is windows because that is all your job requires and it is keeping you too busy to play with anything else. and are you going to lay off your buddies if you want to be on the phone with tech support for ... how long were you on the phone trying to solve that dell firewire thing, mr rivers? apple stock just split. hp pc is being sold to china and our universities are built buy the lowest bidder dale |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
dale wrote:
huwgar In any case, a Unix box is more reliable than a PC or a Mac. But PC's are used for applications that the world considers far more important than anything that a Mac is used for. the current mac OS from X on is unix based Panther is unix based apple gui Well, it's really Mach-based. It does have a Unix shell available and most of the Unix system calls, but the actual kernal is Mach and much smaller than the standard Unix kernals. I think this is a very good thing, personally, and I am surprised at how well the apple GUI has been integrated. (2) If you don't have this amount of investment, then buy the computer you know how to use, and buy software that will run on it. if you are going to invest money do the research and find a high quality product. your chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. My personal feeling is that you should buy software that you like, and then get whatever hardware will run it. The whole thing has to do with getting applications that do what you want and then getting an infrastructure that can run those applications reliably. apple stock just split. hp pc is being sold to china and our universities are built buy the lowest bidder That's okay, I still have enough parts to keep the vax running for a while. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Trevor de Clercq wrote: Apple doesn't make a server? What? Let me introduce to you to X-Serve: http://www.apple.com/xserve/ I never even knew that. Do they sell a lot of them? I've never heard of anyone using them. If you want a RAID array, they make that, too: http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/ Cheers, Trevor de Clercq wrote: dale wrote: But I do know that PCs can be 100% reliable when deployed by people who know what they are doing. There are many, many major banks and other institutions running on the Windows/Intel platform providing services far more financially important get the machine for the job. audio data is different from financial data It's all 1's and 0's. plus they have IT departments (there is more job security and larger workforce when running windows) dale So you're saying that: (1) if we used Apple Mac's as servers for financial applications we would save on personnel costs; and (2) the people running the financial institutions are not interested in saving money (1) is simply wrong (Apple doesn't make a server and isn't even in this market) (2) is risible. In any case, a Unix box is more reliable than a PC or a Mac. But PC's are used for applications that the world considers far more important than anything that a Mac is used for. This isn't to say that a PC is better than a Mac for recording music. My own advice, when asked, is: (1) If you have the budget for full-blown ProTools, and music is your full-time profession, then get it, because you'll get more work by being compatible with the major studios (2) If you don't have this amount of investment, then buy the computer you know how to use, and buy software that will run on it. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
"S O'Neill" wrote in message
... wrote: You obviously don't know as much about Windows as you do about Macs. I wish that were true, I wouldn't be nearly as gray. Hey! No gray bashing! -- Dave Martin DMA, Inc Nashville, TN |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . com,
wrote: So you're saying that: (1) if we used Apple Mac's as servers for financial applications we would save on personnel costs; and (2) the people running the financial institutions are not interested in saving money (1) is simply wrong (Apple doesn't make a server and isn't even in this market) (2) is risible. There are banks runnning on Macs, BTW. There are reports of a fraction of the support staff needed compared to Windows companies. Oracle runs very well on Xserve. Many Xserves http://www.apple.com/xserve/ make very powerful supercomputers at a fraction of other solutions. http://www.apple.com/science/ There is Xsan, a storage device allowing concurrent access to large amounts of data. http://www.apple.com/xsan/ In any case, a Unix box is more reliable than a PC or a Mac. But PC's are used for applications that the world considers far more important than anything that a Mac is used for. Apple's Mac OS X is Unix with a nice user interface. And it runs on my Powerbook :-) http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/ For starters it has the open source apache web server built in in every installation. Apache is running as the web server at the majority of websites. Uptime is better at these servers than the ones running MS products. etc Have a look at Apple's website and compare. Nice technology can be nicely packaged :-) HTH Marc |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
-- Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot. wrote in message ups.com... dale wrote: But I do know that PCs can be 100% reliable when deployed by people who know what they are doing. There are many, many major banks and other institutions running on the Windows/Intel platform providing services far more financially important get the machine for the job. audio data is different from financial data It's all 1's and 0's. plus they have IT departments (there is more job security and larger workforce when running windows) dale So you're saying that: (1) if we used Apple Mac's as servers for financial applications we would save on personnel costs; and (2) the people running the financial institutions are not interested in saving money (1) is simply wrong (Apple doesn't make a server and isn't even in this market) (2) is risible. You've never heard of the Xserve I guess. http://www.apple.com/xserve/ http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/ In any case, a Unix box is more reliable than a PC or a Mac. But PC's are used for applications that the world considers far more important than anything that a Mac is used for. Unix box? What do you think a Mac IS these days? This isn't to say that a PC is better than a Mac for recording music. My own advice, when asked, is: (1) If you have the budget for full-blown ProTools, and music is your full-time profession, then get it, because you'll get more work by being compatible with the major studios (2) If you don't have this amount of investment, then buy the computer you know how to use, and buy software that will run on it. You might want to update your info on Macs to this millenium before posting and advising people. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote:
walkinay writes: Not even if you could run Firewire and a LAN at the same time? g Get Mackie to send Kurt A a FW card for his Onyx and we'll meet and test (and eat, and the rest). Oh, I'm sure it works. Or maybe it doesn't. Mac users are so confident that their stuff works that even if it didn't, they wouldn't say so. g I'll take _that_ bet. g I don't bother to fool myself when something doesn't work with my Mac. That'd lead to professional disaster. -- ha |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
huwgarethwrote:
I know a lot about Windows, and therefore never have to reinstall it I know quite a few IT folks who are beyond just Windows saavy, but I have never heard one claim that! -- ha |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article znr1108584738k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
In article . com writes: You obviously don't know as much about Windows as you do about Macs. I know a lot about Windows, and therefore never have to reinstall it, let alone eight times. I don't know much about Windows, but I know that several times when I've run into a little problem, the suggestion has been "reinstall Windows." I've never done it, and I hope I never really have to. I think this "remedy" is prescribed far too often. The problem, to be honest, is that nobody really knows very much about Windows. Everything is a black box. If an application isn't working, you can't single-step through it. You can't truss it and watch all the system calls it makes. You can't do anything, really. You can't look inside the operating system, you can't really see what is going on, you just have to hope for the best, and, when in doubt, reinstall. This means that diagnosis of Windows machines is basically done by having a mapping in one's head between problems and solutions. You can't do careful troubleshooting, so you have to rely on knowing what worked the last time this happened. For some people, this can be extremely effective, though. I watch my wife working on Windows systems and I just boggle at the amount of stuff she carries around in her head. Classic MacOS was about as bad in this regard, but with the Mach-based OS X, it's become a lot better. It's still got a lot of hidden stuff that you can't look inside, but it's much better than it once was. And just about anything out there is better than Windows in that regard. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Exactly....what I said in post #2.
later, m |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
hank alrich wrote:
Kurt Albershardt wrote: Pick the software that suits your needs and workflow pattern best. Pick the OS that runs that SW. Pick the hardware that runs that OS. And that's the totality of the story. Almost. First, decide exactly what it is that you're trying to do. You may need a trombone instead of a computer. |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hans van Dongen wrote:
flown in. The microsoft consultant concluded that for this specific application, ms exchange server was probably not the best option. Management decided to go with Microsoft anyway. I think that the decision-making people may be in awe of MSs business practices and succes ( the area where MS obviously blows away Apple), and equate that with good product. Plus the "everybody uses it, so it must be okay" factor Well, I used to work at a startup with a guy who quit his job at a very respectable consulting firm to work there. He made the decision to move our web server to Windows. We complained, and he told us that he knew we didn't like his decision, and he agreed that Linux (which we had been using) might even be a superior solution from a technical point of view, but since he was in charge, he wanted the server on a platform that he was personally familiar with. Executives have to make plans, and they don't want to be put in a position where they have to make big decisions about things they don't understand. They go with the familiar because the technology doesn't matter to them very much (they see that people out there have made working solutions with either platform, therefore either technology must be adequate) and they don't want to be stuck in a situation where they need to add (say) a tape backup server and they don't even know what their *options* are. With Microsoft products, they can go, "oh, at my last job, we used XYZ as a backup server, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a disaster". Management people don't want excellence; they want some solution that they are familiar with that appears to be low risk. If one solution offers a 90% chance of a stupid but barely adequate solution and a 10% chance of failure, and another solution offers an 80% chance of a beautiful solution that everyone loves and 20% chance of failure, most managers will chose the first. And the trouble is, the second solution (the one they're unfamiliar with) may actually have a 95% chance of working out beautifully, but if they hear 95% from 3 different people, they're still going to round it down to 75% chance of success since they've never seen it work firsthand. So, as long as management only has firsthand knowledge of Microsoft solutions, and as long as they aren't willing to almost implicitly trust the opinions of the technical people that work for them, they are going to choose MS products. - Logan |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
hank alrich wrote:
huwgarethwrote: I know a lot about Windows, and therefore never have to reinstall it I know quite a few IT folks who are beyond just Windows saavy, but I have never heard one claim that! I could claim that until one day a few years ago when my laptop decided to just spontaneously eat the registry for dinner and leave no trace of it behind. I didn't do anything, install any software, etc., etc., but one day I booted up and FWOOOM, no registry. I ran regedit (just to view it, not to change anything), and it was gone. Now, if I'd been smart, I would've set up some kind of thing to run once a day and automatically dump the registry to a plain file, then back up that file. If I had done that, I probably could've recovered it. But without it, I had no choice but to reinstall. (I did eventually try some registry repair tool, but it didn't repair all my apps' registry entries, so I would've had to reinstall all the apps anyway. At which point, with the state of the Windows install very questionable, there was no point in not reinstalling the OS, since it was basically no extra effort.) For what it's worth, I've seen people who have Linux or Mac OS or Solaris or whatever that don't know much about the OS and have had to reinstall to solve their problem. In virtually all the cases, there was a simple way to fix it, but they didn't know what it was, so they reinstalled. - Logan |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Geoff Wood wrote: And they come in so many different colours. Back in 1999 they did, but I don't think they do that any more. |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
In article znr1108584738k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote: In article . com writes: You obviously don't know as much about Windows as you do about Macs. I know a lot about Windows, and therefore never have to reinstall it, let alone eight times. I've probably installed and reinstalled windows about as often as most here - I've personally and manually installed XP 100-200 times, more or less. Reinstalls for a given machine are rare - the profile of a PC that I've reinstalled XP on would be something like a personal machine belonging to a teenaged girl who has already caught a few viruses (despite up-to-date anti-virus software) and maybe 1000 or pieces of spyware. The system just fatiques out from being attacked too many times. I don't want to hear about the exceptional inherent viral exposures in Windows - its biggest exposure is that three are so many more copies of it. This is more than enough to attract the brightest and best virus/trajan/spyware developers in the world. I don't know much about Windows, but I know that several times when I've run into a little problem, the suggestion has been "reinstall Windows." I've never done it, and I hope I never really have to. I think this "remedy" is prescribed far too often. Agreed. The problem, to be honest, is that nobody really knows very much about Windows. Everything is a black box. If an application isn't working, you can't single-step through it. You can't truss it and watch all the system calls it makes. You can't do anything, really. You can't look inside the operating system, you can't really see what is going on, you just have to hope for the best, and, when in doubt, reinstall. If you want to do stuff like that, it is reasonble to presume that you are a programmer. The tool of choice would then be a programmer's debugger. Some are application language-specific. Others work at the assembly language level. I haven't done any program development lately, but last time I did, all the usual debugger stuff was available and worked well enough. |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 01:34:28 GMT, Logan Shaw
wrote: spontaneously eat the registry for dinner and leave no trace of it behind. Now, if I'd been smart, I would've set up some kind of thing to run once a day and automatically dump the registry to a plain file, then back up that file. For what it's worth, I've seen people who have Linux or Mac OS or Solaris or whatever that don't know much about the OS and have had to reinstall to solve their problem. In virtually all the cases, there was a simple way to fix it, but they didn't know what it was, so they reinstalled. The original Windows 95 install disc included *two* different registry backup programs, including one that could keep nine different versions and one that included a self-booting floppy auto-install. These were buried a zillion layers down in the "other" directories and were essentially invisible to users. Windows 98SE does some automagic registry backup, but I haven't a clue how to save a copy of the registry or manually restore it. Windows runs perfectly fine for my modest requirements and antique machinery, but it's easy to cop an attitude about their view of users' competence. Maybe justifiable in my case, but still.. Chris Hornbeck |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... In article znr1108584738k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote: In article . com writes: You obviously don't know as much about Windows as you do about Macs. I know a lot about Windows, and therefore never have to reinstall it, let alone eight times. I don't know much about Windows, but I know that several times when I've run into a little problem, the suggestion has been "reinstall Windows." I've never done it, and I hope I never really have to. I think this "remedy" is prescribed far too often. The problem, to be honest, is that nobody really knows very much about Windows. Everything is a black box. If an application isn't working, you can't single-step through it. You can't truss it and watch all the system calls it makes. You can't do anything, really. You can't look inside the operating system, you can't really see what is going on, you just have to hope for the best, and, when in doubt, reinstall. This means that diagnosis of Windows machines is basically done by having a mapping in one's head between problems and solutions. You can't do careful troubleshooting, so you have to rely on knowing what worked the last time this happened. For some people, this can be extremely effective, though. I watch my wife working on Windows systems and I just boggle at the amount of stuff she carries around in her head. Classic MacOS was about as bad in this regard, but with the Mach-based OS X, it's become a lot better. It's still got a lot of hidden stuff that you can't look inside, but it's much better than it once was. And just about anything out there is better than Windows in that regard. --scott Scott. I really value your opinion on a wide array of topics on r.a.p. But I have to say with the latest versions of XP (ie XP Home and Pro) I have run into few problems with the OS even after years of running the same installation. For me the solution has been: 1) Norton Anti-Virus (Just let that thing self update as much as it wants). 2) Zone Alarm Firewall 3) Ad-Aware Spyware removal software. With regular defrags and updating all drivers and firmware I have kept the system running EXTREMELY smoothly. I have used the Aardvark Q10 with onboard NVIDIA soundboard (for non audio stuff) for recording with great success in Nuendo and Cubase. Having grown up a PC user and seeing what little market share MAC has it seems like a waste of time to have two systems rubbing against eachother. Why not throw up the white flag and work together at this point? -- -Hev remove your opinion to find me he www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013 |
Linear Mode
