| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
7 reasons why Linux won't succeed on the desktop | |
|
||
| Time: 19:40 EST/00:40 GMT | News Source: EETimes | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
I know that, in years past, whenever I was ordered by my bosses to do a "state of Linux" article, I'd call the usual suspects and ask them if "this'll be the year." They always told me it would be. Twelve months later, I'd repeat the whole process. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 602 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
11:24:07 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/24/2007 10:27:15 AM |
|
New PC with Vista: $0.40 per day
Old PC with XP : $0.09 per day Which is the better cost value? |
| #27 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at 9/24/2007 10:38:36 AM |
|
Google's hard drive analysis : "The data also suggest that the highest failure rates occur in drives that are three years old".
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/11872 You are being irresponsible if you suggest people keep running old PC's and expect their data to survive. 40 cents a day for a new PC every three years is being both prudent and cost conscious. Its a good balance. |
| #28 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/24/2007 10:50:17 AM |
|
#27: Okay, so add other $0.09 per day for a new hard drive. You can get a pretty decent hard drive for $100.
|
| #29 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/24/2007 10:52:13 AM |
| It should also be mentioned that the average home user does not put the same wear and tear on a hard drive as the Google server farm does. Not even close. |
| #30 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/24/2007 10:53:44 AM |
|
#27: You are being irresponsible if you suggest people keep running old PC's and expect their data to survive.
You mean you ensured that the $400 PC had proper means of data backup built in? What was the3 backup method used in this $400 PC? |
| #31 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at 9/24/2007 11:20:01 AM |
|
#28 Sure. He could. But the extra money (of the 400$) also got him better video, a DVD burner, dual core, 2GB of ram etc etc.
All in all, a much better computing experience. Ancient hardware just isn't much fun. #29 "Google's data suggest that high drive temperatures and high utilization don't necessarily translate to higher failure rates". Drives fail after three years. Higher utilization doesn't speed it up. There isn't any evidence lower utilization slows it down (within reason). #30 DVD burner. |
| #32 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/24/2007 11:33:49 AM |
|
#31: Ancient hardware just isn't much fun
I guess that depends on what the computer is used for. If it is for writing a few emails to the grand-kids and a little bit of web surfing, then the old hardware would do just fine. In this case, the extra horsepower of the CPU and the more powerful video card are simply there as requirements for Vista, not as anything that will actually make one more productive in a particular task. I don't know too many people who would need Vista on a dual core 3 GHz CPU with a high end video card just to send and receive email and do some web surfing. However, I guess everyone you know is as rich as you are, and can afford to go and purchase a new PC, just because the OS you recommend requires it as a minimal requirement. Must be all that Microsoft kickback money that is subsidizing you. When I get a new computer next year, it will run either Mac OS X, or XP, depending on what actual hardware I decide to get. I am still undecided, but Vista is not on the radar at this point. Vista will likely get on my radar when a) XP reaches end of life, b) software I need to use requires Vista to run. So far, fortunately, I see no signs of either of these happening soon. |
| #33 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 9/24/2007 12:12:39 PM |
|
#32 "then the old hardware would do just fine"
Have I said what the old hardware was? How would you know? "In this case, the extra horsepower of the CPU and the more powerful video card are simply there as requirements for Vista" Did I say he bought Vista on it? |
| #34 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/24/2007 12:24:11 PM |
|
#33: "I pointed out to him that Vista Home Premuim (sic) costs about 50$ when you buy a new PC from a large OEM like Dell."
"He spent 400$ for a dual core PC. (No monitor)." This post was edited by MysticSentinel on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 18:37. |
| #35 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at 9/24/2007 1:11:16 PM |
| #34 But did I say he bought Vista on the dual core PC? |
| #36 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/24/2007 1:48:13 PM |
| It was implied when you said you told him it was cheaper to get Vista for $50 with a new PC, and then you indicated he got a new PC. The implication is pretty strong. |
| #37 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at 9/24/2007 3:41:06 PM |
| #36 You are always ready to trash Vista for needing "more hardware", when in fact I told him to get the cheapest dual core PC he could afford (for longevity). I didn't specify OS. |
| #38 By 37047 (74.101.157.125) at 9/24/2007 6:36:31 PM |
|
"I pointed out to him that Vista Home Premuim (sic) costs about 50$ when you buy a new PC from a large OEM like Dell."
"He spent 400$ for a dual core PC. (No monitor)." These are your words, not mine. |
| #39 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at 9/24/2007 7:40:32 PM |
|
It's funny watching parkkker dance as fast as he can, all the while trying to dislodge his foot from his mouth.
Give it up! |
| #40 By 32132 (64.180.206.166) at 9/24/2007 8:01:59 PM |
|
#38 Pointing out how much something costs to someone is not the same as them having bought it.
In fact I sent him a coupon code for a dual core X2 Dell with 2GB of ram and XP Pro for 400$. Thats what he bought. The knee-jerk off-topic trashing of Vista is the usual load of moronic bull I expected from the 2 stooges. But I have enjoyed watching you two make fools of yourselves. |
| #41 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/25/2007 2:02:22 PM |
| So, you pointed out how cheap and wonderful Vista is, and then he bought XP? After YOU gave him a certificate for it with a PC? Priceless!! |
| #42 By 821588 (120.32.147.69) at 9/6/2012 9:39:27 PM |
|
http://www.montblancpens-sales.org/ mont blanc pens
http://www.prada-australia.org/ prada australia http://www.lisseurstyler-france.com/ lisseur ghd http://www.drdrebeats-singapore.org/ beats by dr dre http://www.prada-outlet.net/ prada handbags http://www.straightenersaustralia-ivstyler.com/ ghd straighteners australia http://www.ergobabycarrier-australia.com/ ergo baby carriers http://www.chihair.ca/ CHI Hair |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 602 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
11:24:07 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
