[geeks] HD/IDE question

[velociraptor]

On 9/27/06, Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm at mendelson.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 08:00:55PM -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> > Linux is an *EXCELLENT* gaming platform, better than Windows.
> >
> > Publishers simply don't support it.
> >
> > Every game that has been ported runs better under Linux.
>
> That certainly is a nit. Games ported to it run better, but no one
> ports games. From a user's point of view, not much, if any, difference.

The same argument can be made about OS X to some extent, but the
reality of my situation these days is that I'd rather just have a
gaming platform that "works" instead of one that drives on-going
computer hardware upgrades.  If console publishers would be more
flexible about compiling in support for alternative controllers (e.g.
always include mouse, keyboard, joystick, and add gaming-specific
peripherals like the Nostromo), I could easily convert the serious
gamer (i.e. the hubby) in my household to console only.  He absolutely
hates the stock controller on consoles (it's not the size/shape, it's
the control interface--he's a keyboard/mouse guy).  A new console once
every 3-4 years at ~$300 that includes backwards compatibility for the
"favorites" would be a better option than fighting with video upgrades
every 12-18 months at $150-200 a pop and the inherent fight to keep
Windows working.

I am hoping that the uniqueness of the controller for the Wii will
encourage console developers to start being more innovative about the
user interface on the hardware side of other consoles.

If all else fails, I just play Nethack.

> Personaly, I find Window's GUI tolerable, KDE incomprehensible, and GNOME
> anoying. I do use several KDE based programs, such as K3b, but I start
> them from the command line.
>
> I use FireFox because I like the security add ons, but it's as anoying
> and bloated on Linux as it is on Windows. Maybe that's just the web sites :-)

The only GUIs I find intolerable are CDE and Gnome.  I've used Windows
long enough that I am used to it--you can't really escape knowing the
basics if you are in IT.  My biggest complaint is the obfuscatory
nature of Windows.  With OS X I can get to the guts if I need to so I
can figure out what the hell is going on when things aren't working.
With Windows, I have to start up another tool to look at the logs?
Not useful if Windows won't start from anything but a boot CD.  I also
hate the fact that I have to crawl the web to find out if some running
process is part of the base OS, something slapped into the startup
services by a new application, or some malware/virii/worm/bot that has
invaded the system.

> For the home user, cost matters, for commerical users it does not.
> If it mattered, no one would buy RHEL.

People don't buy RHEL because of the perceived "value", people buy
RHEL because up2date makes patching easy, and everyone hates patching.
 Sun really should be marketing the Solaris patch management tools a
lot more (the Solaris SA's at $ork didn't even know it existed).

> MacOS is cheaper, $150 for a single user license, $200 for a family
> (but not an office) 5 system license. How much is RHEL, MacOSX server?

I paid $99 for my 5-license copy of OS X after rebate from an Amazon
promotion; the Apple store runs $199.  Mac OS X server runs $999 out
of the gate for an unlimited license, $499 for a 10-client license.
That's pretty beefy, but not nearly the cost of Microsoft server
products as far as I am aware.

> I happen to use sendmail, procmail, spamassain, demime, and mutt. Except
> for mutt they all run very nicely under Windows, MacOS, Solaris, xBSD,
> and a lot other operating systems. If I wanted/needed to run an exchange
> server, I have one choice, Windows.

If you wanted to run an Exchange server, yes.  If you wanted to run a
MAPI server, no.

> There are many features of Microsoft Word for Windows that are not supported by
> any other platform. Not Word for MacOS, not OpenOffice, not any of the other
> Word processors. If I want those features, Windows is the better choice
> for me.

I'd like to hear what you think is in Word for Windows that is not
covered by OS X Word.  From what I know from my own use, and what I
found here about the latest versions:
<http://word.mvps.org/mac/Differences.html>
the differences between the two are negligible at best unless you are
relying on Word to generate HTML and/or use VBA.

=Nadine=