For a few dollars more...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jimf Dec 08, 2006 7:55 PM EDT |
So, I'm assuming that Apple has now paid a pretty penny for this latest and greatest 'independent report' from the infamous Gartner ;-)... |
| tuxchick Dec 08, 2006 8:28 PM EDT |
With independent pennies. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 09, 2006 1:38 AM EDT |
>With independent pennies. Indepennies? Folks like my PHBs, however, read stuff like this and (somewhat) take it to heart. When the criticisms comes from me, it's often written off as "that Linux guy" harping again. Perhaps we should pool are indepennies together and make Gartner say that Linux "Helped me lose 10 lbs. in a week, and I kept it off!" Maybe then people will listen. Oy. |
| dinotrac Dec 09, 2006 4:37 AM EDT |
Maybe so, but Macs really are very nice. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 09, 2006 5:21 AM EDT |
>Maybe so, but Macs really are very nice. Not too much argument with that, although I haven't found them to be my cup of tea. I much prefer them to Windows, however, and they don't have mysterious "breakages" that seem to find their way into Windows so often. I have difficulty justifying the price to my wallet, but to a lot of people it's cheaper in the long run because they have to depend on others to take care of their machine, and having a better machine lessens the financial burden to take care of it. As more and more organizations return to the terminal/server approach, Macs lose some appeal because of the price. If you're not in need of Mac programs and a powerful stand alone computer, you're not in need of a Mac. I have encouraged a client of mine to get a Mac, however, just to bring something different into the environment to break the Windows stranglehold. If you need a computer than can stand on its own, and you're not in need of Windows-specific programs, a Mac is a good choice. A Mac running Linux is a better choice, but.... At that client I mentioned, my point of contact there didn't know that there were choices beyond Windows and what she worked with daily. I informed her that I was a Linux user as we were talking about buying a Mac, and she didn't know what that was. It was a nice thing to educate someone to the idea that there are choices available, which is what I typically use Mac-talk for. |
| dinotrac Dec 09, 2006 6:22 AM EDT |
rijel - Yup. I have looked longingly at Macs several times, especially for video editing. Price point really hurts, though, with 3 kids and a wife struggling to establish her business. Maybe some day. Or.... Maybe Linux will get close enough that I never have to be wistful. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 09, 2006 6:36 AM EDT |
>especially for video editing It depends on what's meant by "video editing." Home movies? Indie films? Motion pics? Linux is great for all of those, and may or may not fit the bill depending on the situation, but it's nowhere near as "fluid" as a Mac. The best tools on Linux, like Cinelerra or Blender, are far from intuitive. I give Mac major points for being user friendly, and I take twice that away for not being Free like what the OS is based on. |
| dinotrac Dec 09, 2006 6:45 AM EDT |
>Home movies? Indie films? Motion pics? Linux is great for all of those, Linux works for those. Great is a definite overstatement. The Mac is the current definition of "great", specifically because it is so fluid. Fluid, however, costs an arm and a let. A nice Mac system with Final Cut Pro and assorted other neat doo-dads can bring out the defibrillator when you check the price tag. Linux, with Cinelerra, Kino, and audacity, can do some pretty powerful stuff, though I would kill for a good tutorial on Cinelerra's video denoiser. My efforts and trial and error learning seem to be completely misdirected. Other than a few things here and there, Cinelerra is actually one of the better documented free software programs and is quite powerful. OK...regression testing is NOT the devloper's passion (grrrr), and the interface is unique to CInelerra and boldly apart from the rest of your desktop, but, then, you really shouldn't be running a desktop with Cinelerra anyway. Grab all that memory, etc for the editing! These are the sort of things that might send me to the Mac if I did video editing for a living because time is money. I do it for a hobby, so I can muddle happily (if wistfully) through. |
| bigg Dec 09, 2006 7:53 AM EDT |
Didn't even bother to read the article given that it's a Gartner study. I'd be more inclined to read it if it had been an internal study at Apple. |
| tuxchick Dec 09, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
Oh, but you should read the article, because it's full of amusing contradictions, like " Apple does not licence its operating system to third party manufacturers, which is a disadvantage because large companies do not like depending on a single hardware supplier: "Many companies dislike procuring PC hardware when there is only a single provider." Huh? But a single vendor for the (worst of all) operating systems, Windows, is OK? I guess everyone but Gartner and PHBs know that it's because of limited hardware support that Macs work so well. " because Apple has a consumer focus, it provides OS X with various applications that could raise legal issues and reduce worker productivity." What legal issues?? I swear either Gartner or PHBs are getting stupider by the minute. Worker productivity is a management problem, not a computer problem. The article is right about one thing- "in some departments, such as graphics and media production, the loyalty of Mac users to their chosen platform is so strong that a corporate migration to Windows could lead employees to seek work elsewhere." Any company that tries to force inferior tools on its graphics and media departments deserves to lose them. Whatever hot air is blowing forth from Gartner, I think it's price and unfamiliarity, as well as no nice mass-deployment tools, that keeps OSX out of the enterprise. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!