If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On 8/24/14 12:22 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer writes: [] article is spot on. If over the life of PC1, let's say 5 years, you spend $3500 in keeping it going, but over the same amount of time Mac1 only cost you $1000, which computer has cost you less money at the end of that 5 year period after you add in the $300 for the PC and the $1000 for the Mac? And if you want to keep your operating costs down, which one would you buy in the future? Unfortunately, to paraphrase the line anyone selling a financial product in the UK is obliged to say, "past performance is not necessarily an indication of future". I didn't mean to sound like it's an exact science. Just a means of tracking costs of X, Y, and Z over a period of time to determine if there's the possibility of a lowering of costs, improvement in work habits, etc. Say you oversee a couple thousand of computers, and over the last 5 years you buy 10 different models of Brand A, and 10 different models of Brand B. Data shows you have recurring issues with 7 of the Brand A models, and just 2 of the Brand B models. For your next purchase, would you choose something from Brand A or B? Based on history/experience, you'll choose Brand B. That's no guaranteed the next model you buy from Brand B won't be a lemon, but the odds are better. The idea really works good with labor costs. I once had an employee that changed the alternator on a vehicle. I asked him if he made a wiring diagram so he could get the wires back in the right place. "I don't need one, I'll remember." New alternator came, didn't work. That eliminated the alternator as the problem, and we went into changing the regulator, checking wiring, etc. I finally came to the conclusion it had to be the alternator. Got permission from the supplier to take it apart to look for a problem. I was just taking the alternator apart when I looked at the back, and the number of possible points of wiring connections. 4 possible points, but only 3 wires. Asked my employee where he'd put the wires, he showed me. One wire on the wrong post. I told him to put the alternator back in, and where to put the wires. Worked fine. When the timecards were entered into the software, we had $1,000 more or less involved in just labor. Showed that to the employee, and he was all but crushed. Always made wiring diagrams afterword. Another plays where this can be useful is when Tom does a particular job in just 2 hours, but it takes Dick 5 hours. You now have to go ask why. The difference could be legitimate, or Dick may just be goofing off. [] What I do think is, many find Apple products easier to use, especially if they are not tech savvy. They just want to use the device, not have to have a degree before it's functional for them. So much depends on That's a _little_ harsh: I've known people who don't find Apple OSs at all intuitive: I'm one of them. I think having got used to Windows' way of doing things doesn't help. I've noticed a lot of people who are tech savvy or logical thinkers have problems with OS X. I did. LOL And still do to some extent. Once in a while, I find myself trying to treat OS X as if it was Windows, and generally it doesn't work. the type of human brain the individual has, and their needs/desires. I've one friend who could never figure out how to use Windows, but has no problem using her Mac. (Just wish she was interested in solving some software issues, but that's another story.) And I have another friend who has a truly upscale Win8 laptop that hates Macs. But they are two different types of people, with differing wants/needs/desires, which is a factor usually left unaccounted for when you get into the Mac vs. Windows arguments. Yes, that's a fair description: the two different ways of working do appeal, to rather a simplification but to some extent, to different kinds of brain - with neither (kind of brain) being _better_. Relating back to my previous paragraph above, the friend that had no problem using her new Mac knew right away what "Airport" was. Took me two weeks to finally figure it out! LOL As I've posted many times, I've a Win 7/8 computer I assembled that will run circles around this 5.5 year old Mac I'm writing this on. But... I have absolutely no desire to move to Windows for my primary Some of that's probably familiarity, in the same way that some of us have no desire/intention/whatever of leaving XP/7 for 8, let alone Mac. Not that at all. My first window based computers were Ataris. Very much the same philosophy of operation as MS. First MS computer I used after DOS was WFWG 3.x, then 95, 98. First Windows computer I owned was Win 98, then XP Home. When XP Home blew up (hardware issues), I looked at this Mac. Two things sold me on it. The reputation of no viruses, and the display. So using Win 7/8 doesn't bother me at all, once I've figured out the nuances of the newer versions. But, OS X just feels "smoother", for lack of a better word. Where Windows now feels rather "klunky", also for lack of a better word. G computer usage. No Patch Tuesday issues, rare concerns about Malware, etc. I can be relatively sure I can turn it on and use it, and not wait for it to finish updating. Well, I've been using this (XP) machine for some years, and don't remember any Patch Tuesday issues, and haven't had any malware. I usually get update delays when I shut down, rather than start up, but I usually leave it to shut itself down then. No issues here, either. But, you still have to deal with it. And I don't. AV software sometimes caught something, but I don't remember being infected. Some questionable "Possibly Unwanted Programs" would get installed, etc. Nothing that destroyed everything. For what it's worth, my tablet is Android. LOL Ditto. The Apple ones did look a _little_ nicer on the UI front, but not enough to me to be worth three to six times the price (-:. I was seriously looking at the iPad Mini, again because of the quality of the display. I had no interest in a full sized tablet. Then I saw the Nexus 7, and the rest is history. [] For me it's not really an issue. I don't mind dealing with security and privacy online. I don't enable risky browser behaviors. I avoid shopping online, and I would never do anything like banking online. In short, I don't have any juicy data on my PC for malware to steal, even if I got an infection. And this is where you are in the vast minority of computer users. I'm I guess you'd say me too. There was a time when I didn't mind dealing with these things, but no more. I want to use the computer, not have to do anything more than necessary first. not quite this conservative, but I do practice a version of "safe hex" that fits what I want to do. The downside of your level of conservatism is you are being left behind (that's an observation, not a judgement) and you are possibly losing out on things that may be of interest to you. Indeed. In my case that'd have to be things that would save me time on things I do already, which I'm willing to concede might be the case: in other words, I don't have enough time in my life to do the things I already want to, so new things ... Ditto, for the most part. But take online banking... It used to take me over 30 minutes to sit down and write all those checks. Now, I'm done in 10 minutes or less. And I can keep all my money in a savings account, and move what I need to into checking for bill paying. I could shorten that if I wanted, by paying from savings directly. Just don't want to, as I still have a couple of bills that I can't pay online. So everything is paid from the checking account. Also, if your financial institutions allow transferring between institutions, piece of cake. An example of this for me is delving into local history. Because of the internet I've access to books and information I'd never even known about otherwise. It's been very interesting to see how facts of 100+ years ago have morphed into things that never happened. :-) (Is your access to such matters easier with Mac? Not a loaded question - I can see they might be. Or, of course, you're more familiar with how to do them on the Mac.) Not any easier to access the information, but many times the software to accomplish my goal doesn't exist for the Mac. That's one place where the Windows platform is better, more specialty types of software, and where both platforms have the same type of software, there are more choices for Windows. And Windows is more user customizable, but I'm left unimpressed with Win8 in this regard. Windows is easier for me to change things to fit how I work, where Apple wants everyone to more closely do things their way. The Win 7/8 computer started out as a challenge to see if I could assemble what I wanted, not what Dell, HP, etc., wanted to sell me. Yes, there was no computer I found that had what I wanted hardware wise from the factory. Then, I set it up to basically be a "learning" computer, to learn about 7 and then 8. But I also left space to try out Linux some day. Then came the history research. I started to tweak 7, then decided to move to 8. Now that I've found a couple of things that I prefer in 7 over 8, I'm considering regressing and doing the history project in 7. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 25.0 Thunderbird 24.6.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
Ads |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On 8/22/14, 8:47 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| http://www.tuaw.com/2010/03/15/it-pr...nage-than-pcs/ | "The Enterprise Desktop Alliance (an association of several Mac-centric | IT vendors) recently surveyed 260 IT administrators in the US to find | out which computing environment is cheaper to manage: PCs or Macs. It | turns out Macs cost less to manage than PCs for 65% of the IT admins | surveyed. 19% of survey respondents said the two platforms cost the same | to manage, while 16% said PCs cost less to manage than Macs." You started out saying that we/I would be better off with Macs. Now you're talking about corporations. Corporations rarely even use Macs. But I'm talking about me. For me a Mac would be far more expensive, not to mention the software lacking. To tell me I'd be better off with a Mac because some corporate admin thinks they're easier to manage is not making a case for Macs. Sure it is. | Also, if you replace the motherboard you're supposed to get a different | license for Windows. The installation key is married to the mainboard. That's only partially accurate. If the license is OEM it's married to the motherboard. A full Pro license, which I have, can be moved to any number of computers so long as it's only on one at a time. You're imagining all kinds of problems and expenses that just don't exist. There are four lights. |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On 8/22/14, 6:13 PM, Mike Barnes wrote:
Justin wrote: On 8/22/14, 5:29 PM, Mayayana wrote: | I don't understand. My PC doesn't cost anything to own. | | I stopped reading here. This is why techies shouldn't run businesses. | Everything from maintenance to depreciation is lower on a Mac. It's a | fact, look it up. I'm still waiting for an explanation of maintenance. I don't do any maintenance. http://www.tuaw.com/2010/03/15/it-pr...nage-than-pcs/ "The Enterprise Desktop Alliance (an association of several Mac-centric IT vendors) recently surveyed 260 IT administrators in the US to find out which computing environment is cheaper to manage: PCs or Macs. It turns out Macs cost less to manage than PCs for 65% of the IT admins surveyed. 19% of survey respondents said the two platforms cost the same to manage, while 16% said PCs cost less to manage than Macs." But what criteria do they use when deciding whether to buy a PC or a Mac for a particular job? Read the article. |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 02:29:44 +0100, John wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:44:58 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch" wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:43:40 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 18:54:18 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Darth_Hideous writes: [] But, my son needed a Windows laptop to run a type of automotive diagnostic software, so he has that too. And, he has a Windows gaming PC. His interest in Linux makes me think he looks like the milkman. I'm afraid that reference completely passes me by! D_H's son's interests are different from his father's, but might be similar to those of the neighborhood milkman. Sorry for the ambiguity. I'll rephrase it: D_H's son's interests are different from D_H's, but might be similar to those of the neighborhood milkman. Actually, in many jurisdictions the first version was perfectly clear as all spawn born inside a marriage are considered legitimate scions of the two partners and therefore able to inherit from either and both. That the scion of a milkman would be able, in some jurisdictions, to claim inheritance from the milkman, too, is an example of the law being slightly nuts. It is legally valid to have more than two totally legitimate parents even without surrogacy or other technologies. "Father" would apply to the one who fed, clothed and educated the child more than to the wandering gene-donor, as a certain Kryptonian shows on occasion. J. Nonetheless, physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics, inter alia, are inherited from the actual biological parents, not the legal parents. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:26:28 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote: Another plays where this can be useful is when Tom does a particular job in just 2 hours, but it takes Dick 5 hours. You now have to go ask why. The difference could be legitimate, or Dick may just be goofing off. I've always disliked that kind of analysis. There always seems to be at least one joker in every workplace who doesn't understand that rushing through a job just means the next job starts that much sooner, and even worse, you screw up the metrics for everyone else. -- Char Jackson |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On 8/25/14 8:18 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:26:28 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: Another plays where this can be useful is when Tom does a particular job in just 2 hours, but it takes Dick 5 hours. You now have to go ask why. The difference could be legitimate, or Dick may just be goofing off. I've always disliked that kind of analysis. There always seems to be at least one joker in every workplace who doesn't understand that rushing through a job just means the next job starts that much sooner, and even worse, you screw up the metrics for everyone else. That is one of many things you can find out. Tom may be the guy that rushes through the job, doing everyone a disservice. But, you may find out that Tom has access to a number of special tools that Dick does not, and thus gets the same quality of work done as Dick but in less time. Now, you have justification for spending the money to get those same tools to Dick, as the increase in Dick's efficiency eventually pays for the tools. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 25.0 Thunderbird 24.6.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:30:17 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote: On 8/25/14 8:18 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:26:28 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: Another plays where this can be useful is when Tom does a particular job in just 2 hours, but it takes Dick 5 hours. You now have to go ask why. The difference could be legitimate, or Dick may just be goofing off. I've always disliked that kind of analysis. There always seems to be at least one joker in every workplace who doesn't understand that rushing through a job just means the next job starts that much sooner, and even worse, you screw up the metrics for everyone else. That is one of many things you can find out. Tom may be the guy that rushes through the job, doing everyone a disservice. But, you may find out that Tom has access to a number of special tools that Dick does not, and thus gets the same quality of work done as Dick but in less time. Now, you have justification for spending the money to get those same tools to Dick, as the increase in Dick's efficiency eventually pays for the tools. Or as, in my case, the boss simply asked me to stop screwing around and get some work done. :-) Just kidding, I wasn't that bad. -- Char Jackson |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On 8/25/14 8:36 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:30:17 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: On 8/25/14 8:18 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:26:28 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: Another plays where this can be useful is when Tom does a particular job in just 2 hours, but it takes Dick 5 hours. You now have to go ask why. The difference could be legitimate, or Dick may just be goofing off. I've always disliked that kind of analysis. There always seems to be at least one joker in every workplace who doesn't understand that rushing through a job just means the next job starts that much sooner, and even worse, you screw up the metrics for everyone else. That is one of many things you can find out. Tom may be the guy that rushes through the job, doing everyone a disservice. But, you may find out that Tom has access to a number of special tools that Dick does not, and thus gets the same quality of work done as Dick but in less time. Now, you have justification for spending the money to get those same tools to Dick, as the increase in Dick's efficiency eventually pays for the tools. Or as, in my case, the boss simply asked me to stop screwing around and get some work done. :-) Just kidding, I wasn't that bad. LOL -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 25.0 Thunderbird 24.6.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:30:17 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote: On 8/25/14 8:18 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:26:28 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: Another plays where this can be useful is when Tom does a particular job in just 2 hours, but it takes Dick 5 hours. You now have to go ask why. The difference could be legitimate, or Dick may just be goofing off. I've always disliked that kind of analysis. There always seems to be at least one joker in every workplace who doesn't understand that rushing through a job just means the next job starts that much sooner, and even worse, you screw up the metrics for everyone else. That is one of many things you can find out. Tom may be the guy that rushes through the job, doing everyone a disservice. But, you may find out that Tom has access to a number of special tools that Dick does not, and thus gets the same quality of work done as Dick but in less time. Now, you have justification for spending the money to get those same tools to Dick, as the increase in Dick's efficiency eventually pays for the tools. Or Dick may be the real expert and gets all of the really tough jobs. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On 8/26/14 11:59 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:30:17 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: On 8/25/14 8:18 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:26:28 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: Another plays where this can be useful is when Tom does a particular job in just 2 hours, but it takes Dick 5 hours. You now have to go ask why. The difference could be legitimate, or Dick may just be goofing off. I've always disliked that kind of analysis. There always seems to be at least one joker in every workplace who doesn't understand that rushing through a job just means the next job starts that much sooner, and even worse, you screw up the metrics for everyone else. That is one of many things you can find out. Tom may be the guy that rushes through the job, doing everyone a disservice. But, you may find out that Tom has access to a number of special tools that Dick does not, and thus gets the same quality of work done as Dick but in less time. Now, you have justification for spending the money to get those same tools to Dick, as the increase in Dick's efficiency eventually pays for the tools. Or Dick may be the real expert and gets all of the really tough jobs. That's always possible, but I was thinking more along the lines they were both doing the same thing when I wrote the post. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 25.0 Thunderbird 24.6.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:33:46 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote: On 8/26/14 11:59 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: [snip] Or Dick may be the real expert and gets all of the really tough jobs. That's always possible, but I was thinking more along the lines they were both doing the same thing when I wrote the post. But that could be an unwarranted assumption. Tom and Dick may even have arranged such a job split without anyone else knowing. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On 8/27/14 3:06 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:33:46 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: On 8/26/14 11:59 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: [snip] Or Dick may be the real expert and gets all of the really tough jobs. That's always possible, but I was thinking more along the lines they were both doing the same thing when I wrote the post. But that could be an unwarranted assumption. Tom and Dick may even have arranged such a job split without anyone else knowing. Only if they knowingly cheat the system. You would have a work order, and it would probably be assigned to one or the other. In fact, Tom and Dick could be working at different facilities, a couple hundred miles apart. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 25.0 Thunderbird 24.6.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
In message , Ken Springer
writes: [] There was a time when I didn't mind dealing with these things, but no more. I want to use the computer, not have to do anything more than necessary first. Me too. And that "do anything" includes learning the wrinkles of how another OS does things - not just Mac, but W7 (let alone W8). I've got used to how XP does things - and I freely admit that may not be the best or even logical; I just know it without thinking. [] Ditto, for the most part. But take online banking... It used to take me over 30 minutes to sit down and write all those checks. Now, I'm done in 10 minutes or less. And I can keep all my money in a savings account, and move what I need to into checking for bill paying. I could shorten that if I wanted, by paying from savings directly. Just don't want to, as I still have a couple of bills that I can't pay online. So everything is paid from the checking account. Also, if your financial institutions allow transferring between institutions, piece of cake. Ah. I telephone bank - never done any online at all. But my needs are simple: I write one cheque every 28 days, so don't find it onerous. [] Not any easier to access the information, but many times the software to accomplish my goal doesn't exist for the Mac. That's one place where the Windows platform is better, more specialty types of software, and where both platforms have the same type of software, there are more choices for Windows. Yes, there does often seem to be "the Mac prog. to do that is ...", or sometimes a choice of two. (Conversely the Mac one may do it better.) [] 3 -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf When you do not know what you are doing, do it neatly. |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
In message , Gene Wirchenko
writes: [] Or Dick may be the real expert and gets all of the really tough jobs. [] Yes; that's why comparing hospitals (or doctors) on survival rates is such a silly thing to do. (But sadly plenty of people seem to do it.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf When you do not know what you are doing, do it neatly. |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
MS's support logic
On 8/27/14 5:11 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer writes: [] There was a time when I didn't mind dealing with these things, but no more. I want to use the computer, not have to do anything more than necessary first. Me too. And that "do anything" includes learning the wrinkles of how another OS does things - not just Mac, but W7 (let alone W8). I've got used to how XP does things - and I freely admit that may not be the best or even logical; I just know it without thinking. [] Ditto, for the most part. But take online banking... It used to take me over 30 minutes to sit down and write all those checks. Now, I'm done in 10 minutes or less. And I can keep all my money in a savings account, and move what I need to into checking for bill paying. I could shorten that if I wanted, by paying from savings directly. Just don't want to, as I still have a couple of bills that I can't pay online. So everything is paid from the checking account. Also, if your financial institutions allow transferring between institutions, piece of cake. Ah. I telephone bank - never done any online at all. But my needs are simple: I write one cheque every 28 days, so don't find it onerous. [] Not any easier to access the information, but many times the software to accomplish my goal doesn't exist for the Mac. That's one place where the Windows platform is better, more specialty types of software, and where both platforms have the same type of software, there are more choices for Windows. Yes, there does often seem to be "the Mac prog. to do that is ...", or sometimes a choice of two. (Conversely the Mac one may do it better.) I try to avoid the "Mac does it better" or "Windows does it better" as there are just too many variables to consider. Most of them being the human operator. LOL And unless you have both systems, it's pretty much a pointless discussion/argument, you'll use the software available for the OS you have. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 25.0 Thunderbird 24.6.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|