|
I totally disagree,
it's a big waste of money waiting for compiler/debugger etc. pp.
If you develop a mass product, the intention might be true a little bit, because lower specs for the target machine might give a few customers more, but in any other case, buying a new machine is often the cheapest method to 'fix' performance issues.
This should not be an excuse for writing ugly and low performance code, either.
Improving performance should be done with help of adequate tools like TrueTime etc., not by working on a C64....
|
|
|
|
|
Surely a better solution would be to have two machines no? One to develop on, and one to test on?
|
|
|
|
|
I have change workplace, hence pc more often than I (or my employer) have acctually upgraded.
Java
C#
Gupta Team Developer 3.1
VC++ 2003
Oracle 8i79i
W2K-XP
|
|
|
|
|
I recently bought a new laptop. I consider it the ultimate upgrade: I bought a MacBook Pro! 
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me to, not because of the OS but because of the hardware/price ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
exactly! Pure guy!
You have the thought that modern physics just relay on assumptions, that somehow depends on a smile of a cat, which isn’t there.( Albert Einstein)
|
|
|
|
|
PedroMC wrote: Me to, not because of the OS but because of the hardware/price ratio.
That argument has been proven false time and time again. Your information is about five years out of date. Here are a couple of reviews from typically pro-PC web sites:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html[^]
http://www.pcworld.com/article/148032/mac_vs_windows_laptops.html[^]
You can't consider just the hardware. A lot of the PC manufacturers take a loss on the hardware and make it up on the software side, e.g. including copies of Windows Ultimate, Photoshop Elements, anti-virus software, etc. to match the functionality that comes with every Mac in the form of OS X + iLife. Apple's price includes those; the PC vendors have to add $400 or so to the cost of the hardware alone.
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
I can buy a Tsunami laptop similar to a MacBook Pro 17" (~2000€) and save about 20%. I can buy it without Vista and instead buy Mac OS X and still save a bit more. Probably, I would install GNU/LInux Mandriva on it, since that is what I prefer, and increasing the saving even more. One thing that I usually do is install as much RAM as the machine allows and the Tsunami would still be cheaper than the Mac.
http://www.tsunami.pt/catalogue/index.php?action=searchfo&cat_id=94
|
|
|
|
|
I never said that you can't find a computer that is cheaper than a Mac; you always will. Also remember that not everyone wants to be a geek and install Linux.
Another huge factor to consider: What kind of support do you get from the manufacturer or vendor? That costs a significant amount of money and is built into the cost of the hardware and software.
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
My point was not about getting a cheaper laptop/computer. My point was about getting a cheaper laptop with equivalent or better hardware. I was not referring GNU/Linux as a way to save money but just pointed out my preferred OS. You can have Vista Ultimate, or Mac OS X, or GNU/Linux, or all of them together. The savings in the hardware would easily cover the extra cost of one Mac OS X license plus one year Mandriva support and maybe some extra RAM or a external 1T disk.
Paul A. Howes wrote: What kind of support do you get from the manufacturer or vendor?
By Portugal law, hardware has a minimum of two years warranty (with a few exceptions) and all vendors are required to provide support for the hardware they sell. The warranty does not cover software problems. If the hardware fails you only have to take it to where you bought it and they take care of the rest. The difference in support comes from the speed and quality of repair.
Tsunami takes from one to two weeks and never had hardware return unfixed. Asus support is bad, usually taking more than a month but once it took 4 months and several returns to get it completely fixed. MSI support runs at around three weeks, maybe a few days less. My MSI personal laptop, last year, took 2 returns to get it fixed but that was the only "problem" I had with MSI support. Overall, I have had the best experience with Tsunami.
As for software support, most computer shops and vendors provide a variety of services but I have no experience with that. I'm the one that keeps the software running and takes the hardware for repairs when it fails.
I don't have experience with Apple support so I can't compare.
|
|
|
|
|
PedroMC wrote: You can have Vista Ultimate, or Mac OS X, or GNU/Linux, or all of them together.
No you can't. OS X doesn't run out of the box on any hardware other than Apple hardware. So if running OSX is a priority or desire you need to get Apple hardware. While it's technically possible to get OS X to run on non-Apple PC's it's
a) a violation of the EULA
b) a PITA in the long term (and short term for that matter)
PedroMC wrote: As for software support, most computer shops and vendors provide a variety of services but I have no experience with that.
And most tend to be pretty poor. Apple has a really good overall reputation in regards to customer service and support. There have been a number of articles where year after year Apple consistently rates significantly higher in customer satisfaction over other vendors like HP, Gateway, or Dell.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: No you can't. OS X doesn't run out of the box on any hardware other than Apple hardware.
It's amazing how people think they are Mac authorities when they don't even know something as common as that (I'm dissing the other dude, not you should it not be obvious). That being said, I wish Apple would drop this restriction.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I wish Apple would drop this restriction.
I actually don't, because then they'd have to support all sorts of crazy hardware combinations, just like windows does, and we've all seen the stability problems this causes Microsoft.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: I actually don't
Yeah, but I'm in a whiny mood, so work with me here.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, fair enough!!
Let's go nuts here and make the freetards happy, let's start an online petition (because we all now what a powerful impact they have) to have Apple GPL OS X! Woot!
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: Apple GPL OS X! Woot!
Now we're talking. 
|
|
|
|
|
Right, and since we're at it, and we all know that hardware, like information, just wants to be free, let's petition to get Apple to just give away their computers, after all, why should we have to pay them for it? They're clearly just a bunch of leftist-pinko-commie-anti-jeffersonian-socialist-euro-thugs that want to take advantage of us all.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: They're clearly just a bunch of leftist-pinko-commie-anti-jeffersonian-socialist-euro-thugs that want to take advantage of us all.
Well, if they gave it away, how would Steve Jobs fund his evil satanic empire? I mean, we gotta look at the big picture here.
|
|
|
|
|
Please, don't interrupt my stream of consciousness babbling with logic! Big picture? Is that free yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: Big picture? Is that free yet?
I just got back from Wal-Mart because you know how I can't resist evil empires. Anyway, I can confirm they are still charging for Big Picture. Sorry man.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: No you can't. OS X doesn't run out of the box on any hardware other than Apple hardware.
True but easily solved.
Jim Crafton wrote: So if running OSX is a priority or desire you need to get Apple hardware.
It is not my priority but I have it on one of my machines, not a Mac, for the learning experience. Apple hardware is not needed but you need to be careful when choosing the hardware for compatibility.
Jim Crafton wrote: a) a violation of the EULA
Don't care much about the EULA, I buy one license and can use it for one install. I have even had it run on a virtual machine but it was too slow so I installed it on the hardware on one of my machines that was compatible.
Jim Crafton wrote: b) a PITA in the long term (and short term for that matter)
No problems here.
Jim Crafton wrote: And most tend to be pretty poor.
Maybe so, but like I said, I do all my software support so it is irrelevant for me. If hardware support is better then it may be worth the extra hardware cost.
|
|
|
|
|
PedroMC wrote: The savings in the hardware would easily cover the extra cost of one Mac OS X license plus one year Mandriva support and maybe some extra RAM or a external 1T disk.
Only if you steal your software for that Windows installation. Go look at total cost of ownership and come back when you actually price the software Apple makes (ie, office software) compared to Microsoft. Sure, if you use Linux no sweat, free is always the cheapest. But the Apple is expensive debate is always against Microsoft. But, nobody looks at the whole picture when being biased.
Oh, and one vote is from me because I'm not a fan of the FUD people like you spread. But, then again, who has time to bother with real research when it's religion speaking.
The only time Apple gets insanely expensive is if you go extremely high end or if you steal/only use free software. And lets not forget when you install Mac OS X it comes with software you can use forever and not 30 trials like your typical PC OEM.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Only if you steal your software for that Windows installation. Go look at total cost of ownership and come back when you actually price the software Apple makes (ie, office software) compared to Microsoft.
Your statement is illogical since you can get Mac OS X and any Mac OS X software you want running on better and equally priced hardware or lower priced and equivalent hardware. In the end, not using Apple hardware to run Mac OS X software will give you a lower cost.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: But the Apple is expensive debate is always against Microsoft.
Not true! Proof, the case in point. 
Jeremy Falcon wrote: But, nobody looks at the whole picture when being biased.
I'm being biased to my needs and requirements and I would expect you to do the same. I don't participate in these debates to "spread the truth" or "discover the truth". I participate to learn about different view point and maybe improve my own view point.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Oh, and one vote is from me because I'm not a fan of the FUD people like you spread. But, then again, who has time to bother with real research when it's religion speaking.
I, the FUD spreader, have done my work. LOL
|
|
|
|
|
PedroMC wrote: Your statement is illogical since you can get Mac OS X and any Mac OS X software you want running on better and equally priced hardware or lower priced and equivalent hardware. In the end, not using Apple hardware to run Mac OS X software will give you a lower cost.
Your statement is uneducated and proves you can't read a whole thread. For one, you must run OSX on Mac hardware so your scenario couldn't happen LEGALLY. For two the hardware isn't more expensive every time. For three you can get away with paying less OVER ALL for a Mac than a PC so this whole argument that you propose is illogical.
If you combine the cost of going the Apple route vs the PC route with Windows you can pay LESS a lot of times for Apple. Not say you'll always pay less, but that's the whole point. People like you that just blindly assume without learning spread the FUD. And that's religious. Too bad most people are zealots instead of a real professionals, but I digress.
PedroMC wrote:
I'm being biased to my needs and requirements and I would expect you to do the same. I don't participate in these debates to "spread the truth" or "discover the truth". I participate to learn about different view point and maybe improve my own view point.
Then learn already and stop pretending you're learning when you're not.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
