cio.com— Sometimes, IT leaders are told that the company runs Windows, period. But that doesn't stop them from wishing for the forbidden fruit: One CIO explains why he'd like to bring Apple to his enterprise.
Apr 10, 2008View in Crawl 4
I am an amateur musician, so I am currently trying to build a software recording studio. I'm familiar enough with Mac, Linux or Windows to use any one of the three. However, I immediately discounted Windows because if you are going to do multi-track recording, you need as much performance from your machine as you can get. By the time you add the anti-virus and anti-spyware software on your Windows machine, you have just impacted your performance. Yeah, you probably can disable your network interfaces and do without your A/V software while recording, but considering the recent stories of USB devices that have been shipped with viruses pre-installed (for free -- woohoo!!!), I really don't want to run a Windows machine without A/V...ever.I won't even mention comparing Vista to other machines in terms of speed. You need a moderately high-end machine just to run Vista; why start the race 100 yards behind everyone else???
LOL, IT school eh. They apparently teach you really simple and reasonable solutions to things. PS I like how you try to complicate "use outlook" with "run windows XP with full functional Microsoft Exchange and working with MS Server 2003".
I don't believe you could have made a bolder statement that missed the point so completely.The point of my statement was that all of those functions can be performed on a PC, so why purchase a machine that is significantly more expensive to do the same thing? I'm claiming the reason is because of "how the machine looks" or, more precisely, "how you think the machine makes you look to others."As an analogy, consider the difference between Timex and Rolex watches. Clearly Rolex watches may be used to tell the time, so they are functional, but the same function can be equally performed with a Timex. Rolex watches are a status symbol, with significant manufacturing resources put into its form, not only its function. If you're a function over form person and simply want to know the time, you buy a Timex. If you feel the need to impress your friends, buy a Rolex.There's nothing wrong with wanting to do that (well, as long as you don't go overboard), but at least be honest.I guess I needed to be more explicit in my original message. Next time I won't assume the point is so obvious.
elementopApr 11, 2008
I am an amateur musician, so I am currently trying to build a software recording studio. I'm familiar enough with Mac, Linux or Windows to use any one of the three. However, I immediately discounted Windows because if you are going to do multi-track recording, you need as much performance from your machine as you can get. By the time you add the anti-virus and anti-spyware software on your Windows machine, you have just impacted your performance. Yeah, you probably can disable your network interfaces and do without your A/V software while recording, but considering the recent stories of USB devices that have been shipped with viruses pre-installed (for free -- woohoo!!!), I really don't want to run a Windows machine without A/V...ever.I won't even mention comparing Vista to other machines in terms of speed. You need a moderately high-end machine just to run Vista; why start the race 100 yards behind everyone else???
mrtrevinApr 14, 2008
LOL, IT school eh. They apparently teach you really simple and reasonable solutions to things. PS I like how you try to complicate "use outlook" with "run windows XP with full functional Microsoft Exchange and working with MS Server 2003".
controlguyApr 14, 2008
I don't believe you could have made a bolder statement that missed the point so completely.The point of my statement was that all of those functions can be performed on a PC, so why purchase a machine that is significantly more expensive to do the same thing? I'm claiming the reason is because of "how the machine looks" or, more precisely, "how you think the machine makes you look to others."As an analogy, consider the difference between Timex and Rolex watches. Clearly Rolex watches may be used to tell the time, so they are functional, but the same function can be equally performed with a Timex. Rolex watches are a status symbol, with significant manufacturing resources put into its form, not only its function. If you're a function over form person and simply want to know the time, you buy a Timex. If you feel the need to impress your friends, buy a Rolex.There's nothing wrong with wanting to do that (well, as long as you don't go overboard), but at least be honest.I guess I needed to be more explicit in my original message. Next time I won't assume the point is so obvious.
jexieApr 18, 2008
Actually....I think I better concede there, this mac is my first dual core. I hadn't thought of that.