Over the years I have experimented with Linux as a Windows XP replacement but there was always something that made it impractical. A few years have passed since my last attempt so I installed the latest version (11.04) of Ubuntu Linux expecting similar results.
This time the results were not similar at all.
It works so well that I have no plans to switch back to Windows at all. Software such as Skype, Google Earth, Google Talk, Firefox, Chrome, Flash, as well as printer, video, and audio all worked perfectly on three separate computers.
Not only is it faster and better looking than Windows, it is open source and free.
They even have a Windows installer that automatically sets up a dual boot option so you can try it without giving up Windows completely.
From their site:
The launcher
(http://www.ubuntu.com/sites/www.ubuntu.com/files/active/natty-consumer-pages/whatsnew-launcher.jpg)
It’s pretty hard to miss the new launcher that sits on the left-hand side of your screen. It’s designed to make getting to your favourite tools and applications quick and easy. You can hide and reveal it in the top-left corner of your screen, add and remove applications and bookmarks, and keep track of your open windows.
The dash
(http://www.ubuntu.com/sites/www.ubuntu.com/files/active/natty-consumer-pages/whatsnew-dash.jpg)
When you click on the Ubuntu logo in the top-left corner of your screen, the new dash will appear. It’s another simple way to get to your shortcuts and search for other applications and programs. So you can get fast access to your email, music, pictures and much more.
Workspaces
(http://www.ubuntu.com/sites/www.ubuntu.com/files/active/natty-consumer-pages/whatsnew-workspaces.jpg)
Ubuntu 11.04 gives you a really easy way to manage multiple windows and applications. Simply click on the Workspaces icon in the launcher and all your active spaces will pop up. You can move between your different windows easily so there’ll be no more cramping multiple apps into a small space.
http://www.ubuntu.com
I played with Linux quite a few years ago. How does it perform when it must interact with MS programs such as Word, and Excel? Example: I send you a word doc to edit and you have to send it back to me. Back in the day... it didnt do very well.
I have opened a few pretty complicated Excel spreadsheets and Word documents and they worked. Sending back to Windows seems to work, but I think you may have trouble if you aren't careful to select fonts that Windows systems have installed.
I still don't believe that Linux is ready for prime-time (even Ubuntu, which is arguably the easiest to use distro). Driver support is horrid in most cases, and if you have to do anything that requires any sort of manual changes to conf files, your average user is going to be completely lost. Even simple things like printing and scanning can quickly turn into nightmare scenarios leaving the user frustrated and angry.
Open Office works well, but ODF documents do not play well with Office 2010 and in most cases, DOCX files from office don't work at all in Open Office. And any sort of "corporate" email and collaboration (a la Outlook) is an impossibility at this point. Getting newer versions of Office to work on WINE stably is next to impossible.
Ubuntu is now using LibreOffice which seems to be able to read Office 2010 docx just fine.
Also, I plugged in a printer, an iPod, a video camera, a still camera, and a cell phone and it detected each one right away.
When we went for a long driving trip last year I was afraid to take the laptop which has our life on it. So bought an old Acer laptop for $100. It wheezed when trying to run XP and the battery was cooked. $35 for a new battery. Downloaded and installed Ubuntu. Install included OpenOffice, Firefox, disc burning software, Thunderbird, etc.
We uploaded images of all of our important documents, credit cards, contact numbers, bank numbers, insurance cards, licenses to the storage area provided by our ISP to have them available if wallets were lost or stolen. Accessed email through browser interface provided by the ISP so never had anything on the computer that was personal data.
With Ubuntu, laptop ran fast and clean; much better than with XP. Ubuntu also requires a password for logon so one more security step.
Sounds like the new version of Ubuntu is even better than what I have installed. Time to update my little antique.
I'd be sad if "Traveler" was stolen, but it wouldn't be a catastrophe.
Ehhhh... I admire Linux and the hobbyists who persist with it. But I've long ago replaced Windows with Mac OSX and couldn't be happier...
But Jimmy, Ubuntu is FREE! So are all the other software programs that come with it. Apples are beautiful and functional, but EXPENSIVE.
DW, most likely your laptop won't be able to run the new interface because it requires a decent graphics card, but it will fall back to a simpler interface if it can't handle it.
Also, for storing account information and credit card numbers you should check out a program called KeePass. It can store all of your info and saves it to an encrypted file which you can then store online. It runs on Windows and Linux. http://keepass.info
Quote from: Jimmy on August 10, 2011, 03:25:29 PM
Ehhhh... I admire Linux and the hobbyists who persist with it. But I've long ago replaced Windows with Mac OSX and couldn't be happier...
MAC OS X is partly based upon Linux, so we still have you. It is based upon FreeBSD Linux.
I am a Linux Administrator, and I have been Using, Administering and Supporting Linux for about 12 years now.
Ubuntu Desktop is ready for the world, it is pretty good. Microsoft Word incompatibility problems, are not going to hamper many people from switching over. Their are converters and utilities that will help you view this documents if you need them.
Ubuntu has really come a long way. It is based upon my favorite Linux Distribution - Debian.
I currently Dual Boot Windows 7 and Ubuntu.
I cannot say it is ready to replace windows as of yet. I look at IT as a provider of solutions, if Microsoft has a product that does that great, if Linux does even better. Some environments are more suited for Ubuntu and others are better suited for Microsoft.
I don't think it is going to unseat Microsoft in the corporate desktop world for various reasons, but for home use and small businesses it is ready. I think it is especially helpful for small businesses that can save a lot of money forgoing the costs of Windows and Office.
Quote from: Lunican on August 10, 2011, 03:55:10 PM
I don't think it is going to unseat Microsoft in the corporate desktop world for various reasons, but for home use and small businesses it is ready. I think it is especially helpful for small businesses that can save a lot of money forgoing the costs of Windows and Office.
Yea Home and Small Businesses, and Non-Profits in my opinion can benefit from open source technologies.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 10, 2011, 03:28:59 PM
But Jimmy, Ubuntu is FREE! So are all the other software programs that come with it. Apples are beautiful and functional, but EXPENSIVE.
In my experience, you get what you pay for. When it comes to something as mission-critical to my work as my computing platform, I'm not going to put much assurance in the hands of hobbyists. As a hobbyist myself, I've enjoyed tinkering with various Linux distros over the years. But there comes a point when you're tired of tinkering with the Hyundai in your backyard and buy the BMW or Benz. ;)
Quote from: Jimmy on August 10, 2011, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 10, 2011, 03:28:59 PM
But Jimmy, Ubuntu is FREE! So are all the other software programs that come with it. Apples are beautiful and functional, but EXPENSIVE.
In my experience, you get what you pay for. When it comes to something as mission-critical to my work as my computing platform, I'm not going to put much assurance in the hands of hobbyists. As a hobbyist myself, I've enjoyed tinkering with various Linux distros over the years. But there comes a point when you're tired of tinkering with the Hyundai in your backyard and buy the BMW or Benz. ;)
Jimmy Linux is used at major companies, I run it with several mission critical servers here at my own company. It is all in what you are doing.
The best web server in the world Apache, is ran by those hobbyists you are talking about.
Their are Linux professional's who implement open source solutions for companies like myself. I would not have implemented them had they not worked properly, and better than their paid counterparts.
It is all about the implementation, and the required solution. Their are open source products that work better than their paid counterparts, IIS and Apache are a great example.
Jimmy, Linux runs actual mission critical servers. OSX is the toy.
Jimmy here is one example of a Mission Critical Linux Implementation
http://www.novell.com/news/press/2011/4/walgreens-improves-server-uptime-by-more-than-5-percent-and-saves-millions-in-it-costs-with-suse-linux-enterprise-serve.html (http://www.novell.com/news/press/2011/4/walgreens-improves-server-uptime-by-more-than-5-percent-and-saves-millions-in-it-costs-with-suse-linux-enterprise-serve.html)
Quote from: Lunican on August 10, 2011, 04:10:49 PM
Jimmy, Linux runs actual mission critical servers. OSX is the toy.
That's pretty funny.
Do air traffic controllers use OSX with apps from the app store? lol.
Regardless, the whole point of the initial post was that I found the latest version of Ubuntu to trouble free, unlike in the past. Then everyone tells me how they used it in the past and it was troublesome.
Quote from: Jimmy on August 10, 2011, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 10, 2011, 03:28:59 PM
But Jimmy, Ubuntu is FREE! So are all the other software programs that come with it. Apples are beautiful and functional, but EXPENSIVE.
In my experience, you get what you pay for. When it comes to something as mission-critical to my work as my computing platform, I'm not going to put much assurance in the hands of hobbyists. As a hobbyist myself, I've enjoyed tinkering with various Linux distros over the years. But there comes a point when you're tired of tinkering with the Hyundai in your backyard and buy the BMW or Benz. ;)
Good analogy, Jimmy, but you've got it backwards. Hyundai actually has better reliability than M-B's. I was a M-B exclusive driver for nearly thirty years but got rid of my last one a couple of years ago after it dropped me on the side of the road for the third time. Friend with an S class had his in the shop for four months out of the six months he owned it. Drives the big, long Lexus now.
Interesting line from the end user license agreement of OSX:
QuoteTHE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/MacOSX.htm
Gotta love the lawyers.
Quote from: Lunican on August 10, 2011, 03:55:10 PM
I don't think it is going to unseat Microsoft in the corporate desktop world for various reasons, but for home use and small businesses it is ready. I think it is especially helpful for small businesses that can save a lot of money forgoing the costs of Windows and Office.
Why is that Dan? You mention various reasons. I think those reasons are very important. Home users and small business users will use what they are used to... what they are familiar with... what "everyone" interacts with. There are many reasons that much of the world uses MS products despite the price. If the linux product is nearly equal to MS... then free ought to bring a much greater share of the market... yet it does not.
So... those various reasons are important.
The various reasons are all related to corporate politics. The guy that decides to change to Linux desktops is exposing his career to risk if anything should go wrong. Sticking with Windows is the safest career move.
Hmm... wasnt expecting that! I just assumed some kind of compatability/use ability issues.
Quote from: Lunican on August 11, 2011, 08:42:13 AM
The various reasons are all related to corporate politics. The guy that decides to change to Linux desktops is exposing his career to risk if anything should go wrong. Sticking with Windows is the safest career move.
That is defintely a good reason, but in defense of the corporation. Do you know how time consuming it would be to actually try to retrain users on a new operating system, depending upon the company size. Their is a long term ROI risk, with the usability, and productivity pitfalls, that could come with such a drastic change.
I think the way to implement, is to slowly do a migration from department to department, prioritizing, by usability and productivity. But before doing so gathering the proper business requirements of users, so that you can tailor the Open Source Desktop Migration to their needs.
It can be done, just with a lil work.
Yep. It is a lot of effort that most corporations can't justify. It's not that Linux isn't ready, its that change is difficult, expensive, and risky.
Years ago there was a saying in IT departments, "You can never be fired for recommending IBM." Changing a huge installed base takes a lot of time.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 11, 2011, 09:53:35 AM
Years ago there was a saying in IT departments, "You can never be fired for recommending IBM." Changing a huge installed base takes a lot of time.
Indeed.
I just stumbled across this article on Business Insider.
Microsoft apparently doesn't think Linux is much of a threat anymore in the desktop world. In it's latest annual filings it removed the wording that says it faces competition from Linux in the desktop arena. It still mentions them when speaking of servers and embedded software though.
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-downgrades-linux-to-threat-level-green-2011-8
Quote from: Lucasjj on August 11, 2011, 04:39:45 PM
I just stumbled across this article on Business Insider.
Microsoft apparently doesn't think Linux is much of a threat anymore in the desktop world. In it's latest annual filings it removed the wording that says it faces competition from Linux in the desktop arena. It still mentions them when speaking of servers and embedded software though.
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-downgrades-linux-to-threat-level-green-2011-8
Not Surprising more FUD on the loose.
I have ubuntu on one of my laptops. Here's my ubuntu experience- boot up, sign in. Type in password to access keyring. Verify network password. Update manager tells me there's another 160 megs of updates this week. While all that's downloading, I play a few games that are more or less windows 3.1 level stuff. It's honestly okay for surfing the internet, doing minor office work and that kind of thing but I view it more as a toy. I put it on my wife's netbook and it runs really nicely on it. I got tired of my dad clicking dumb porn links and getting malware so I put it on his laptop and he's okay with it. People whine and moan about Windows' updates but I honestly have never booted up ubuntu where there's not at least 100mb of updates needed. On a fresh windows install there are a lot of updates, especially if there's a service pack or something but I have honestly never had a real problem with windows. 95 was a bit of a mess but especially with XP, Vista and 7, I have never had any kind of stability issues and the only problems I have are the ones I create by trying to write game trainers and things like that. Come to think of it, I don't think I had any BSOD's with 7 or Vista.
Quote from: thekillingwax on August 11, 2011, 07:10:49 PM
I have ubuntu on one of my laptops. Here's my ubuntu experience- boot up, sign in. Type in password to access keyring. Verify network password. Update manager tells me there's another 160 megs of updates this week. While all that's downloading, I play a few games that are more or less windows 3.1 level stuff. It's honestly okay for surfing the internet, doing minor office work and that kind of thing but I view it more as a toy. I put it on my wife's netbook and it runs really nicely on it. I got tired of my dad clicking dumb porn links and getting malware so I put it on his laptop and he's okay with it. People whine and moan about Windows' updates but I honestly have never booted up ubuntu where there's not at least 100mb of updates needed. On a fresh windows install there are a lot of updates, especially if there's a service pack or something but I have honestly never had a real problem with windows. 95 was a bit of a mess but especially with XP, Vista and 7, I have never had any kind of stability issues and the only problems I have are the ones I create by trying to write game trainers and things like that. Come to think of it, I don't think I had any BSOD's with 7 or Vista.
Those updates are the reasons why I prefer CENTOS Or RedHat, take a look at one of our production servers. This server was setup by the old Linux admin, who really was not too much of an admin at all. When in production, one should never use Ubuntu Linux in my opinion:
Ubuntu 10.04.2 LTS
Welcome to the Ubuntu Server!
* Documentation: http://www.ubuntu.com/server/doc
System information disabled due to load higher than 1
94 packages can be updated.
68 updates are security updates.The sad part about this, is that this is a DNS server. DNS servers, should never have this many security updates.
Quote from: Lunican on August 10, 2011, 04:10:49 PM
Jimmy, Linux runs actual mission critical servers. OSX is the toy.
I think he's just talking about macs, not necessarily OSX specifically. I'm a longtime mac user, and for awhile now you've been able to run however many different OS's you feel like running. At one point I had Ubuntu, OSX, and Windows 7 Ultimate on my MBP simultaneously, you just push the option key after you hit the power button and choose what OS to run, and they all run natively it's not an emulator or anything. You just make a separate drive partition for each (never any conflicts, the other OSes don't see the other partitions) and assuming you have the drive space to do it, you could run any OS, or however many, that you wanted.
Unfortunately, when I put an SSD in it I lost some storage space so I eliminated the Ubuntu install, but it was well worth it for the speed increase. It's ridonkulous, bootup is 10 seconds, shut down is 1-2 seconds, Adobe CS programs open in a single bounce after a restart (e.g., not cached in RAM). Whoever doesn't have an SSD yet, get one NOW. They're still pretty small, so you'll probably need an external drive for big files, but it's so worth it.
Anyway, this process with multiple OSs is clean and easy on macs, and they've been doing this for what? 5 years now? PCs only lately caught up with this, especially on laptops where most don't have multiple drive bays and Windows was a b!tch about letting you format several different file systems onto the same drive, which macs have done in 2 seconds for years. I think his point is that with macs you are paying for R&D. I have a 4 almost 5 year old MBP from late 2006 that still has good specs compared to most of the newer PC laptops, and runs any current program without much stress.
Back in 2006 Apple was already using multicore processeors and 64 bit architecture, and the ca. 2005-2006 MacPros already had the ability to run multiple graphics cards back then, before Xfire was a wet dream in PC designers' minds. PCs of that era were mostly 32 bit, single core, maxxed out at 1-2 gigs of ram, many of them still used crappy IDE interfaces instead of SATA, etc. In 2011 going into 2012 now, those machines can't run anything you need them to, unless you just like playing solitaire.
So I would say he is right on that, you do get what you pay for if you go in for a high-end mac, they are generally far enough ahead of the curve that they have a longer lifespan than PCs. No need to replace it when it's still working perfectly and still has modern specs. I have never had a PC I didn't have to replace in 4 years because it became hopelessly obsolete (who can get by with a motherboard limited to 1Gig of RAM?) or because it broke and wasn't worth fixing.
And FWIW, everybody knows this, check out Craigslist or eBay, 5-6 year old MBPs and MacPros are still $500-$800 in good condition, and they go for $200-$300 DOA just for parts value. I can't remember the last time I saw 6 year old PC that someone would pay more than $50 for, because everybody knows by that age they can't run anything. And if you do put together a PC that will avoid becoming obsolete for that long, you'd be in the same price range anyway. It's not about the headline numbers everybody looks at when they're picking a computer in BestBuy. Maybe 1% of people ask about the max RAM the motherboard can recognize, what speed the FSB runs at, how big the power supply is for when you want to change graphics cards, etc. The upper-end macs take care of you on that stuff, even though most people really don't know the difference anyway. It translates to being able to use the machine for much longer than a comparable PC.
Anybody know how to put a SSD on an old laptop configured for ATA drive? The only ones I can find are SATA only. Chris is right about the performance boost and forgot to mention that it will double you battery life.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 12, 2011, 02:35:43 PM
Anybody know how to put a SSD on an old laptop configured for ATA drive? The only ones I can find are SATA only. Chris is right about the performance boost and forgot to mention that it will double you battery life.
You need to look for a 2.5" SATA to IDE adapter, they do make them, they should be on Amazon or eBay relatively inexpensively. Like this;
http://www.amazon.com/SATA-Drive-Adapter-Laptop-Drives/dp/tech-data/B004ETGOCG
Just make sure you look in the hard drive bay on your laptop and see how much room is in there. Some of these things don't leave enough room to accomodate even the extra millimeter an adapter takes up at the head of the drive, while others have plenty of extra room and it doesn't matter. It just depends on the machine. It will probably work fine, though. Also, depending on the age of your machine, if it doesn't recognize the drive on startup then you may need to update the bios and load SATA drivers, or change it from IDE to SATA mode if it is new enough to have that option. Also, with an SSD you should upgrade to Windows 7 if you haven't already, the older versions lack TRIM support.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 12, 2011, 11:29:42 AM
Quote from: Lunican on August 10, 2011, 04:10:49 PM
Jimmy, Linux runs actual mission critical servers. OSX is the toy.
I think he's just talking about macs, not necessarily OSX specifically. I'm a longtime mac user, and for awhile now you've been able to run however many different OS's you feel like running. At one point I had Ubuntu, OSX, and Windows 7 Ultimate on my MBP simultaneously, you just push the option key after you hit the power button and choose what OS to run, and they all run natively it's not an emulator or anything. You just make a separate drive partition for each (never any conflicts, the other OSes don't see the other partitions) and assuming you have the drive space to do it, you could run any OS, or however many, that you wanted.
Unfortunately, when I put an SSD in it I lost some storage space so I eliminated the Ubuntu install, but it was well worth it for the speed increase. It's ridonkulous, bootup is 10 seconds, shut down is 1-2 seconds, Adobe CS programs open in a single bounce after a restart (e.g., not cached in RAM). Whoever doesn't have an SSD yet, get one NOW. They're still pretty small, so you'll probably need an external drive for big files, but it's so worth it.
Anyway, this process with multiple OSs is clean and easy on macs, and they've been doing this for what? 5 years now? PCs only lately caught up with this, especially on laptops where most don't have multiple drive bays and Windows was a b!tch about letting you format several different file systems onto the same drive, which macs have done in 2 seconds for years. I think his point is that with macs you are paying for R&D. I have a 4 almost 5 year old MBP from late 2006 that still has good specs compared to most of the newer PC laptops, and runs any current program without much stress.
Back in 2006 Apple was already using multicore processeors and 64 bit architecture, and the ca. 2005-2006 MacPros already had the ability to run multiple graphics cards back then, before Xfire was a wet dream in PC designers' minds. PCs of that era were mostly 32 bit, single core, maxxed out at 1-2 gigs of ram, many of them still used crappy IDE interfaces instead of SATA, etc. In 2011 going into 2012 now, those machines can't run anything you need them to, unless you just like playing solitaire.
So I would say he is right on that, you do get what you pay for if you go in for a high-end mac, they are generally far enough ahead of the curve that they have a longer lifespan than PCs. No need to replace it when it's still working perfectly and still has modern specs. I have never had a PC I didn't have to replace in 4 years because it became hopelessly obsolete (who can get by with a motherboard limited to 1Gig of RAM?) or because it broke and wasn't worth fixing.
And FWIW, everybody knows this, check out Craigslist or eBay, 5-6 year old MBPs and MacPros are still $500-$800 in good condition, and they go for $200-$300 DOA just for parts value. I can't remember the last time I saw 6 year old PC that someone would pay more than $50 for, because everybody knows by that age they can't run anything. And if you do put together a PC that will avoid becoming obsolete for that long, you'd be in the same price range anyway. It's not about the headline numbers everybody looks at when they're picking a computer in BestBuy. Maybe 1% of people ask about the max RAM the motherboard can recognize, what speed the FSB runs at, how big the power supply is for when you want to change graphics cards, etc. The upper-end macs take care of you on that stuff, even though most people really don't know the difference anyway. It translates to being able to use the machine for much longer than a comparable PC.
Chris I think he is talking about Servers. MAC OS X Server has very little market share, for servers in my opinion.
MAX OS X, is a very nice desktop, I enjoy using it when I am doing Video Editing.
Quote from: manasia on August 12, 2011, 04:10:59 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 12, 2011, 11:29:42 AM
Quote from: Lunican on August 10, 2011, 04:10:49 PM
Jimmy, Linux runs actual mission critical servers. OSX is the toy.
I think he's just talking about macs, not necessarily OSX specifically. I'm a longtime mac user, and for awhile now you've been able to run however many different OS's you feel like running. At one point I had Ubuntu, OSX, and Windows 7 Ultimate on my MBP simultaneously, you just push the option key after you hit the power button and choose what OS to run, and they all run natively it's not an emulator or anything. You just make a separate drive partition for each (never any conflicts, the other OSes don't see the other partitions) and assuming you have the drive space to do it, you could run any OS, or however many, that you wanted.
Unfortunately, when I put an SSD in it I lost some storage space so I eliminated the Ubuntu install, but it was well worth it for the speed increase. It's ridonkulous, bootup is 10 seconds, shut down is 1-2 seconds, Adobe CS programs open in a single bounce after a restart (e.g., not cached in RAM). Whoever doesn't have an SSD yet, get one NOW. They're still pretty small, so you'll probably need an external drive for big files, but it's so worth it.
Anyway, this process with multiple OSs is clean and easy on macs, and they've been doing this for what? 5 years now? PCs only lately caught up with this, especially on laptops where most don't have multiple drive bays and Windows was a b!tch about letting you format several different file systems onto the same drive, which macs have done in 2 seconds for years. I think his point is that with macs you are paying for R&D. I have a 4 almost 5 year old MBP from late 2006 that still has good specs compared to most of the newer PC laptops, and runs any current program without much stress.
Back in 2006 Apple was already using multicore processeors and 64 bit architecture, and the ca. 2005-2006 MacPros already had the ability to run multiple graphics cards back then, before Xfire was a wet dream in PC designers' minds. PCs of that era were mostly 32 bit, single core, maxxed out at 1-2 gigs of ram, many of them still used crappy IDE interfaces instead of SATA, etc. In 2011 going into 2012 now, those machines can't run anything you need them to, unless you just like playing solitaire.
So I would say he is right on that, you do get what you pay for if you go in for a high-end mac, they are generally far enough ahead of the curve that they have a longer lifespan than PCs. No need to replace it when it's still working perfectly and still has modern specs. I have never had a PC I didn't have to replace in 4 years because it became hopelessly obsolete (who can get by with a motherboard limited to 1Gig of RAM?) or because it broke and wasn't worth fixing.
And FWIW, everybody knows this, check out Craigslist or eBay, 5-6 year old MBPs and MacPros are still $500-$800 in good condition, and they go for $200-$300 DOA just for parts value. I can't remember the last time I saw 6 year old PC that someone would pay more than $50 for, because everybody knows by that age they can't run anything. And if you do put together a PC that will avoid becoming obsolete for that long, you'd be in the same price range anyway. It's not about the headline numbers everybody looks at when they're picking a computer in BestBuy. Maybe 1% of people ask about the max RAM the motherboard can recognize, what speed the FSB runs at, how big the power supply is for when you want to change graphics cards, etc. The upper-end macs take care of you on that stuff, even though most people really don't know the difference anyway. It translates to being able to use the machine for much longer than a comparable PC.
Chris I think he is talking about Servers. MAC OS X Server has very little market share, for servers in my opinion.
MAX OS X, is a very nice desktop, I enjoy using it when I am doing Video Editing.
Oh, I misunderstood then. Gotcha. Yeah, nobody uses mac servers.
And my old laptop doesn't have enough CPU horsepower to run Windows 7, even with an SSD. Time to stop trying to put a V-8 engine in a riding lawnmower. Be satisfied or quit being cheap and buy a new laptop. ;D